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

[Dad2three]

HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."

LINK? lol

too stupid the idiot liberal doesn't know how to use Google . Want to bet $10,000 the press release is real and quoted accurately???

So TWICE I'VE ASKED FOR LINKS AND NONE THERE HUH? lol

so the perfect idiot liberal does not want to bet that Bank of America said on legal document that 17% of its non performing loans in 2009 were CRA loans??

3RD TIME, NO LINK? lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble

Mish said so.



Mish's blog is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at Mish's.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.

5th time: Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?

 

[Dad2three]

HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."

LINK? lol

too stupid the idiot liberal doesn't know how to use Google . Want to bet $10,000 the press release is real and quoted accurately???

So TWICE I'VE ASKED FOR LINKS AND NONE THERE HUH? lol

so the perfect idiot liberal does not want to bet that Bank of America said on legal document that 17% of its non performing loans in 2009 were CRA loans??

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/71/71595/reports/2009_AR.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble

Mish said so.



Mish's blog is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at Mish's.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.

Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?

NO LINK HUH? lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble

Mish said so.



Mish's blog is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at Mish's.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.

Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?

NO LINK HUH? lol

6th time Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand? Want to bet $10,000???

 

[Faun]

MORE right wing nonsense that you CAN'T show how the FIVE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS GOT INVOLVED IN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME

1) Fanny Freddie CRA started long before the liberal Bush

2) IBanks got involved because govt was begging them for mortgages


Does the liberal understand now??

For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis

The housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share of high-risk mortgages dropped.

For the Last Time Fannie and Freddie Didn t Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic


No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

100% stupid of course. CRA alone was responsible for 20% of Bank of America's non performing loans.

That was one bank and it was 17%, not 20%. You do know there were other lenders, right? You do know that most lenders didn't write any CRA loans, right? You do know that CRA loans do not cover commercial real-estate loans at all, right?

 

[Dad2three]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble

Mish said so.



Mish's blog is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at Mish's.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.

Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?

NO LINK HUH? lol

6th time Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand? Want to bet $10,000???

BOFA 2009_

Residential mortgage portfolio.

The 2006 and 2007 vintage loans, which represented 42 percent of our residential mortgage portfolio at December 31, 2009, continued to season and have higher refreshed LTVs and accounted for 69 percent of nonperforming residential mortgage loans at December 31, 2009 and approximately 75 percent of residential mortgage net charge-off OF 2009!

WEIRD, WHY DID CRA REQUIRE THEM TO LOWER STANDARDS IN 2006-2007 BUBBA? lol


http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/71/71595/reports/2009_AR.pdf


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

 

[Faun]

. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,

perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble

Mish said so.



Mish's blog is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at Mish's.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.

Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?

NO LINK HUH? lol

6th time Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand? Want to bet $10,000???

Who would bet with you, Crazy Eddie? Last time I saw you make such a bet, you lost but refused to pay up. You're a welsh, a liar, and crazy. Your bets are as worthless as your posts.

 

[Dad2three]

MORE right wing nonsense that you CAN'T show how the FIVE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS GOT INVOLVED IN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME

1) Fanny Freddie CRA started long before the liberal Bush

2) IBanks got involved because govt was begging them for mortgages


Does the liberal understand now??

For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis

The housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share of high-risk mortgages dropped.

For the Last Time Fannie and Freddie Didn t Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic


No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

100% stupid of course. CRA alone was responsible for 20% of Bank of America's non performing loans.

That was one bank and it was 17%, not 20%. You do know there were other lenders, right? You do know that most lenders didn't write any CRA loans, right? You do know that CRA loans do not cover commercial real-estate loans at all, right?

They bought Countrywide, BTW, a biggie in CRA...

 

[Faun]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

 

[frigidweirdo]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Which, to any intelligent person, means not very much at all.

 

[Faun]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Which, to any intelligent person, means not very much at all.

That's besides the point. Notice how not a single rightie wants to talk about this subject anymore now that Obama is tied with Reagan.

 

[healthmyths]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index

 

[Faun]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47

 

[healthmyths]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47

Right no question Reagan had a misery index that compared to Obama was "miserly"!!
The problem is Obama has had very little issues to fix as Reagan did.

The two components in case you don't remember of the Misery Index are inflation and unemployment.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/US_Misery_Index_July_2015.jpg

Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”
Wall Street adviser Actual unemployment is 37.2 misery index worst in 40 years Washington Examiner

 

[Faun]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 77 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47

Right no question Reagan had a misery index that compared to Obama was "miserly"!!
The problem is Obama has had very little issues to fix as Reagan did.

The two components in case you don't remember of the Misery Index are inflation and unemployment.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/US_Misery_Index_July_2015.jpg

View attachment 47605


Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”
Wall Street adviser Actual unemployment is 37.2 misery index worst in 40 years Washington Examiner

The misery index after 77 months in office.

Ronald Reagan ... 9.85
Barack Obama .....5.42

 

[pinqy]

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

This is old, so let's see...the official UE rate was 6.7% in December 2013. The funny thing is that his 37.2% is actually those Not in the Labor Force as a percent of the population. That ignores the unemployed (those looking for work. The percent of the adult civilian non-institutional not working in Dec 2013 was 41.4%

So I think we can disregard anything that idiot has to say about the numbers.

But let's look as these allegedly scary numbers and use the current one.

The Population age 16+ who are not in the military, prison, or an institution in July 2015: 250,876,000
Employed: 148,840,000 (59.3%) Oh, no...this means 102,036,000 people aren't working!
But wait.....87,635,000 don't want a job.
So 59.3% are working,
34.9% don't want a job....leaving 5.7% of the population who wants to work and isn't. Huh...Why did Marotta think that people not willing or able to work were really unemployed.

But wait....14,401,000 say they want a job, but only 8,266,000 actually looked for work in July. The rest weren't trying.

But the definition of unemployed has always been those not working who are trying to work.

So where's the fraud?

 

[Dad2three]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

Misery ndex? LFPR? U6? The crap the right wing has when it goes against their BS

Hint Reagan's recession was created AFTER he cut taxes ( the opposite of what was supposed to happen) and unemployment shot up to 10.8%, highest post WW2

 

[Dad2three]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47

Right no question Reagan had a misery index that compared to Obama was "miserly"!!
The problem is Obama has had very little issues to fix as Reagan did.

The two components in case you don't remember of the Misery Index are inflation and unemployment.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/US_Misery_Index_July_2015.jpg

View attachment 47605


Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”
Wall Street adviser Actual unemployment is 37.2 misery index worst in 40 years Washington Examiner

You mean don't measure Obama like we do Ronnie? lol

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a HUGE hole for US!

 

[healthmyths]

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%

Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index
View attachment 47589

First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47

Right no question Reagan had a misery index that compared to Obama was "miserly"!!
The problem is Obama has had very little issues to fix as Reagan did.

The two components in case you don't remember of the Misery Index are inflation and unemployment.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/US_Misery_Index_July_2015.jpg

View attachment 47605


Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”
Wall Street adviser Actual unemployment is 37.2 misery index worst in 40 years Washington Examiner

You mean don't measure Obama like we do Ronnie? lol

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a HUGE hole for US!

ONCE AGAIN UNTIL YOU IDIOTS that make those STUPID, IGNORANT totally absent of any perspective comments about GWB "digging a hole"
REMEMBER these EVENTS... I'm POSTING THEM EVERY TIME YOU IDIOTS seem to forget THESE EVENTS HAPPENED!!@!
NOT ONE president has every had this accumulated cataclysmic events occur in one Presidency!

I will continue to POST THESE EVENTS until you dummies recognize THEY HAPPENED!
THEY had an affect on the economy! But you dumb sh...ts don't remember or are ignoring for what reason I don't understand!
THESE ARE THE FACTS! THE REALITIES!!!


Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year! $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets. Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected. GDP grew!

But IDIOTS like you FFOs and LIPs ..............
WHY is it so hard for idiots like you to RECOGNIZE that these EVENTS cost jobs and in spite of the economy GREW!!!

FACTS... NOT hyperbole! REALITY!!!