The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Dad2three]

.....and about that growth in GDP.............

LOL

You mean when Ronnie allowed the credit bubble to happen (that Dubya later pushed on steroids) and SPENT like crazy and Poppy Bush inherited his S&L crisis that Ronnie was warned about in 1984?

 

[Dad2three]

The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.

Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!

You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.

An AVERAGE hides the DIRECTION the economy went over that period. Bush took a great economy and destroyed it. The fact that the Clinton economy was so strong that it took Bush 8 years to destroy it does not mean that Bush had a good economic policy.

Over a 96 month period, economies don't go one direction or the other. There is constant change on an annual basis. Unemployment going down, then up, then down again. Unemployment went up slightly in Bush's first term to 6.3%, but then was brought down to 4.4% in the second year of the second term. In February of 2008, with less than a year to go in office, the unemployment rate was 4.8%. The unemployment rate during this time, first 7 years averaged 5% with a high of 6.3% at one point and a low of 4.4%. That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

Remember, Bush was re-elected President by the American people in 2004 partly because the economy while he was in office his first term generally remained very good! If you are going to accurately assess a Presidency you must look at everything the President succeeded at or failed at every month while they were in office. Looking at just the first month and the last month of a Presidency that is 96 months long tells you VERY LITTLE!

"But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!"

I guess cheering on a credit bubble AS you fight all 50 states who tried to regulate the subprime lenders who fueled your economy AS you ignore regulator warnings and push Fannie/Freddie to "do more" for low income borrowers AS the US economy was less than 1% growth when you take out the Mortgage Equity Withdrawals (MEW) of existing homeowners that fueled your false economy, worked for almost 8 years? ALMOST?

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

 

[Dad2three]

That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

The 7 year stretch was only because of a bubble created by Bush, which he burst his last year.

Bush's bubble was a liberal bubble brought on by liberal housing policies that featured 132 liberal programs to get people into houses that the free market said they could not afford. When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages.

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank

"When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages."

LIAR

F/F performed better by 450%-600% than the private sector

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis


Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis McClatchy DC

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Unrestrained capitalism and speculation crashed the economy

The only ones who ended up paying the price?
Americas workers

 

[Faun]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

 

[Dad2three]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Reagan's GDP growth numbers were in the stratosphere compared to Obama's

You mean when Ronnie tripled US debt after Carter handed him nearly 20% of GDP tax revenues?

Jan 31, 2013 - In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.


Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post


AS the GOP worked to make Obama a 1 termer for the first 6 years of his Prez..

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP spent on government.

Here are some numbers you can't argue with:

lol

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009.

In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase

Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021 Congressional Budget Office

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama has cut infrastructure, science, and education....At the same time as the super rich have just gotten richer. If he did otherwise, the republicans would screamed bloody murder.

Bush spent more on infrastructure, science and education.

 

[bripat9643]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Reagan's GDP growth numbers were in the stratosphere compared to Obama's

You mean when Ronnie tripled US debt after Carter handed him nearly 20% of GDP tax revenues?

Jan 31, 2013 - In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.


Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post


AS the GOP worked to make Obama a 1 termer for the first 6 years of his Prez..

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP spent on government.

Here are some numbers you can't argue with:

lol

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009.

In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase

Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021 Congressional Budget Office

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

As you can see from the chart, spending started out high during the Reagan administration and declined over time. Your claim is cherry picked horseshit, in other words.

Notice the sharp spike at the beginning of the Obama administration.

 

[bripat9643]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

 

[bripat9643]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Unrestrained capitalism and speculation crashed the economy

The only ones who ended up paying the price?
Americas workers

There was no deregulation, numskull. You're right about one thing, Americans always pay the price for Democrat incompetence and thievery.

 

[bripat9643]

That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

The 7 year stretch was only because of a bubble created by Bush, which he burst his last year.

Bush's bubble was a liberal bubble brought on by liberal housing policies that featured 132 liberal programs to get people into houses that the free market said they could not afford. When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages.

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank

"When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages."

LIAR

F/F performed better by 450%-600% than the private sector

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis


Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis McClatchy DC

Is that why the federal government spent hundreds of billions bailing them out?

 

[Faun]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

 

[bripat9643]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

 

[Dad2three]

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?

Reagan's GDP growth numbers were in the stratosphere compared to Obama's

You mean when Ronnie tripled US debt after Carter handed him nearly 20% of GDP tax revenues?

Jan 31, 2013 - In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.


Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post


AS the GOP worked to make Obama a 1 termer for the first 6 years of his Prez..

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP spent on government.

Here are some numbers you can't argue with:

lol

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009.

In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase

Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021 Congressional Budget Office

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

As you can see from the chart, spending started out high during the Reagan administration and declined over time. Your claim is cherry picked horseshit, in other words.

Notice the sharp spike at the beginning of the Obama administration.

Sure Bubba, sure, don't use logic OR HONESTY, just stick with the right wing talking points, lol

Don't remember WHO AND WHY the spending went up under Dubya/Obama? Why was it that way for Ronnie? Oh right


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Sure Bubba, sure


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

The 7 year stretch was only because of a bubble created by Bush, which he burst his last year.

Bush's bubble was a liberal bubble brought on by liberal housing policies that featured 132 liberal programs to get people into houses that the free market said they could not afford. When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages.

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank

"When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages."

LIAR

F/F performed better by 450%-600% than the private sector

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis


Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis McClatchy DC

Is that why the federal government spent hundreds of billions bailing them out?

Nah, that was thanks to Dubya and his "belief" in the private markets Bubba, you know the ones that had to pay tens of billions in fines for DEFRAUDING F/F?

How much did we spend to rescue the "Banksters" again Bubba?

Bush&'s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance



...Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance Bank Think

 

[Faun]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

 

[Dad2three]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Right, a law around for 30+ years caused the market to create the subprime bubble (world wide), 2004-2007, lol

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

 

[bripat9643]

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton.

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.

The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.

 

[Dad2three]

The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008

100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?

Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You know .... Liberal Republicans.

wrong. They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.

Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)

Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there.

EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBLE AND BUST 2000-2007? lol

Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."

Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." (NOT THAT THEY WERE EVEN MADE FOR THOSE GOALS!!!!)