US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

"Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."

LOL...I don't even know what that gibberish means, Georgie! When you get rattled you make even less sense than normal...

Please, your ignorance is getting embarrassing
It is simple. Even a rational third grader would understand. What it is saying is that oldstyle (that is you, dipshit) and someone who could outsmart anyone but himself, are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Please. Give it up. Way to complex for you, ass hole.

Dude, it's gibberish. Whenever you try and post something that's not cut and paste from someone else...you come across as a blathering idiot!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You are the con. and cons are stupid.

if you think our Founders were stupid for supporting freedom and limited govt please say why.

 

[Oldstyle]

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

!

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post. As usual. No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement. Period. Oh, except you. Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you. I had more important things to do. Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you.

You still can't grasp that the two deals were exclusive of each other...can you, Georgie? That's the problem with being an idiot and trying to pretend that you know something about a topic by Googling it...sometimes you need a little knowledge to grasp what it is that you're reading...something which you obviously don't have.

Yes, me boy. I know, and everyone knows, that the two agreements were mutually exclusive. Jesus, you are stupid.
And yes, being ignorant is a big problem. As you continue to prove.

When I made the following comment:
Stopping climate change? Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change? We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now! That's idiotic even for a progressive!

You responded with this:
"Wrong question me boy. Do you have any idea of the cost of doing nothing as you suggest? You are such a simpleton when you morph into your con troll persona. First you call a sitting president with high approval ratings insulting names, proving that you have no class or integrity at all. Then, you suggest that Obama went out and negotiated an agreement with one nation. Which is a complete lie. There were a large number of nations involved, and a large number of people negotiating the deal. And, me boy, it was based on what a large number of climate scientists believed needed to be done.

Yeah, everyone knows there were two agreements but YOU, Rshermr! But now you're claiming that you knew all along? Explain your above post...

One more example of you trying to lie your way out of another corner you've painted yourself into!

 

[Rshermr]

Jesus, you are stupid.

actually you are the liberal here!!! If you have anything intelligent to say in defense of liberalism please do or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject you lack the IQ for it and are here just wasting everyone's time.

Rshermr didn't know that the Paris Accord and the deal brokered a year earlier between the US and China were two separate things. I swear...every time he tries to act like he knows something about what's going on in the world around him...he ends up revealing that he's actually totally oblivious.

[/QUOTE]

Oldstyle didn't know that the Paris Accord and the deal brokered a year earlier between the US and China were two separate things. I swear...every time he tries to act like he knows something about what's going on in the world around him...he ends up revealing that he's actually totally oblivious.
But what is really funny is that he actually thinks that the Nov 2014 agreement is still relevant. That the two did not become one after the Paris agreement.
And equally funny, Oldstyle apparently thinks that the Nov 2014 agreement was negotiated by Obama, saying that it was Obama's agreement.
And also funny is that he thinks the Nov 2014 agreement was unknown by anyone at all. Poor guy. Being a congenital idiot, as he is, proves his ignorance is not his fault. Just bad luck.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again! God but you're pathetic...

 

[Rshermr]

!

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post. As usual. No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement. Period. Oh, except you. Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you. I had more important things to do. Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you.

You still can't grasp that the two deals were exclusive of each other...can you, Georgie? That's the problem with being an idiot and trying to pretend that you know something about a topic by Googling it...sometimes you need a little knowledge to grasp what it is that you're reading...something which you obviously don't have.

Yes, me boy. I know, and everyone knows, that the two agreements were mutually exclusive. Jesus, you are stupid.
And yes, being ignorant is a big problem. As you continue to prove.

When I made the following comment:
Stopping climate change? Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change? We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now! That's idiotic even for a progressive!

You responded with this:
"Wrong question me boy. Do you have any idea of the cost of doing nothing as you suggest? You are such a simpleton when you morph into your con troll persona. First you call a sitting president with high approval ratings insulting names, proving that you have no class or integrity at all. Then, you suggest that Obama went out and negotiated an agreement with one nation. Which is a complete lie. There were a large number of nations involved, and a large number of people negotiating the deal. And, me boy, it was based on what a large number of climate scientists believed needed to be done.

Yeah, everyone knows there were two agreements but YOU, Rshermr! But now you're claiming that you knew all along? Explain your above post...

Yeah, everyone knows there was, at the time of my comment, only one agreement on the books. Except YOU, Oldstyle. you thought there were still two. You missed the fact that the Nov 2014 agreement was now part of the Paris agreement. Everyone knew but you.
Or are you simply lying, oldstyle. It is hard to know with a liar like you.

 

[Rshermr]

And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again! God but you're pathetic...

That, in and of itself, is a lie. Because I never, ever lie. Poor oldstyle has a life ambition of getting people to believe I lie. But he fails each time. Because I never, ever lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again! God but you're pathetic...

That, in and of itself, is a lie. Because I never, ever lie. Poor oldstyle has a life ambition of getting people to believe I lie. But he fails each time. Because I never, ever lie.

Gee for a guy that "never ever" lies, Georgie...you sure get caught telling a lot of lies!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China? Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways! If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China. So which is it?

 

[AntonToo]

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

I see...and what does Bush "own" if Obama owns Great Recession?

And further, what is TARP and Stimulus if not "initiatives to grow the economy". Economists tell us ARRA made millions of jobs in recessionary economy and there is good reason to think recession could've been much deeper without bails, but hey it's not like economists have a clue about economics...right?

 

[Rshermr]

I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China? Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways! If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China. So which is it?

[/QUOTE]
So, have you always been that stupid, or have you been really working at it lately.
Obama never negotiated an agreement with China in any situation. Not in 2014. not in the France agreement. Because it was never his job. Others negotiated for the US. All that we know obama did was to sign the agreements.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you are arguing the point. My guess is that it is because you are a con, which is synonymous with saying you are stupid.
Jesus, but you are ignorant.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

I see...and what does Bush "own" if Obama owns Great Recession?

And further, what is TARP and Stimulus if not "initiatives to grow the economy". Economists tell us ARRA made millions of jobs in recessionary economy and there is good reason to think recession could've been much deeper without bails, but hey it's not like economists have a clue about economics...right?

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China? Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways! If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China. So which is it?

So, have you always been that stupid, or have you been really working at it lately.
Obama never negotiated an agreement with China in any situation. Not in 2014. not in the France agreement. Because it was never his job. Others negotiated for the US. All that we know obama did was to sign the agreements.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you are arguing the point. My guess is that it is because you are a con, which is synonymous with saying you are stupid.
Jesus, but you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? That's what you're going with? That Obama didn't do the deal with China...that it was his "negotiators" that did it? That's pathetic even for you, Georgie!

 

[AntonToo]

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy. There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When

 

[Rshermr]

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

I see...and what does Bush "own" if Obama owns Great Recession?

And further, what is TARP and Stimulus if not "initiatives to grow the economy". Economists tell us ARRA made millions of jobs in recessionary economy and there is good reason to think recession could've been much deeper without bails, but hey it's not like economists have a clue about economics...right?

[/QUOTE]
Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.
As you may have noticed, Oldstyle is a congenital liar. I offered him the equation IF he would provide me with a bill that republicans used to help mitigate the damage from the Great Republican Recession of 2008. And, oldstyle has failed to do so. So he did not meet the condition I required and that Oldstyle agreed to. So, no bill identified, then no formula. Simply trying to keep things honorable. But then oldstyle lies and states I did not provide a condition, and he did not agree to one. Because, oldstyle lies and has no integrity at all. H states I ducked it. I can prove i never, ever ducked it. If os would meet the condition, I would provide him with the Formula. Problem is, as I knew and he now knows, republicans provided no help of any kind in reducing the problems their recession had caused.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy. There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

When

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
  
  
• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
  
  
• November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
  
  
• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  
  
• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
  
  
• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  
  
• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  
  
• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    
    
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
    
    
  • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
• June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
  
  
• July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
  
  
• September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

 

[boedicca]

Once we get to the point where everyone has dropped out of the Labor Force, unemployment claims will be ZERO!

Winning!

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed. Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented. I call him Georgie after George Costanza. Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank. Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.

As for the ARRA? With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question. Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula. They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.

You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy. There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.

The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When

My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place. As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed. Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented. I call him Georgie after George Costanza. Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed. Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented. I call him Georgie after George Costanza. Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.

Just more of your worthless juvenile "humor", os. Waste of everyone's time. Oldstyle works to end threads. By posting nothing but lies and drivel, and mostly conservative talking points, complete with no links of any kind. And no, the condition was put with the statement of what it would take to get the formula the first time I offered him the formula. Just another lie by os. Funny thing is, it does not bother OS to lie at all. AND, he does not think people notice he lies.