Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again...It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...
Well, me poor ignorant paid con tool, lets looked at that jobs saved statement. Do the expert understand the concept of "created or saved"?
"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.
Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:
• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.
• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.
• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.
• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created."
Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created
Yup, they all know what it is. Only the bat shit crazy con world has been saying saved does not count. Which simply proves: They, and you, are liars, and they and you are apparently incapable of understanding that a saved job is the same as a created job in terms of unemployment.
Jesus, you are a waste of space, dipshit. If we wanted someone to parrot dogma, we could get a coppy machine.
What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?Again...It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...
Again....
Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.
As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...
This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.
... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?
Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?
Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....
[cue the Barney song...]
That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.Again...It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.
I have no integrity? I'm not the person hanging out on an internet chat site pretending to be something I'm not. That would be you. You claimed to have a degree in economics but didn't know what the Chicago School was. My advice to you is that if you're going to pose as something you're not...at least study up on the subject a little so you don't embarrass yourself like you have here.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.
You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?
Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....
[cue the Barney song...]
So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.
ummm, "jobs saved" is not part of any official statistics.Really, Faun? Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?
Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics. You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.
Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.
Time for you to run away? Typical...
If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.
Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!
You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.
So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.
According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?
Too funny. I show you how Bush used the term, "save jobs," to push CAFTA just like Obama used that term to push ARRA; and to a con tool like you, that doesn't meet your standards to show the Obama administration is not even the first administration to use that term to measure jobs saved.What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?Again...It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.
Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...
Again....
Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.
As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...
This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.
... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?
Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.
Really, Faun? Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?
Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics. You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?
Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....
[cue the Barney song...]
So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.
Again...It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.
Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...
Well, me poor ignorant paid con tool, lets looked at that jobs saved statement. Do the expert understand the concept of "created or saved"?
"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.
Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:
• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.
• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.
• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.
• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created."
Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created
Yup, they all know what it is. Only the bat shit crazy con world has been saying saved does not count. Which simply proves: They, and you, are liars, and they and you are apparently incapable of understanding that a saved job is the same as a created job in terms of unemployment.
Jesus, you are a waste of space, dipshit. If we wanted someone to parrot dogma, we could get a coppy machine.
Look at what you've posted, idiot child! You've got a CBO estimate of between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs "created or saved" and you can't see that there's a problem? You've got variances of over one and a half MILLION but you think those numbers should be taken as meaningful?
I don't know what's more amusing...that the Obama Administration thought they could fool anyone with the bullshit they put out...or that you FELL for the bullshit they put out!
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.
According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.
You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.
Time for you to run away? Typical...
If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.
Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!
You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.
So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.
According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.
Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.
You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?
Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....
[cue the Barney song...]
So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.
I never denied Bush warned Congress.
Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....
Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.
"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp? It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.
Too funny. I show you how Bush used the term, "save jobs," to push CAFTA just like Obama used that term to push ARRA; and to a con tool like you, that doesn't meet your standards to show the Obama administration is not even the first administration to use that term to measure jobs saved.What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?Again...Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!
That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?
Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...
Again....
Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.
As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...
This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.
... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?
Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.
Really, Faun? Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?
Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics. You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.
Regardless of your lack of integrity, you challenged me to show you a prior administration using the term, "saved jobs," as a measurement to push legislation; and I did. I certainly do not require your approval now because you're not happy I met your challenge.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.
"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp? It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.
I may call them faggots but I want them to be able to get married, share social security with their spouses, adopt, not get fired for being gay.
We may make an occasional jew or gay joke but that doesn't make us as bad as you not even close.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and fuck off.
You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.
It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.
That's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.
"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp? It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.
I may call them faggots but I want them to be able to get married, share social security with their spouses, adopt, not get fired for being gay.
We may make an occasional jew or gay joke but that doesn't make us as bad as you not even close.
Since I also want them to be able to get married and have the same rights as everyone else...but I don't tell "jew or gay" jokes or refer to them as "faggots"...you'll have to explain how it is that I'm worse than you!
To steal a line from Love Story...it seems that being a Progressive means never having to say you're sorry even when you're a homophobic anti Semite.
