US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[edthecynic]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As with most things in Washington...it's a progression of legislation that creates the biggest problems. My point was that for you on the left to claim that Bush and the GOP are solely responsible for the economic melt down that occurred ignores things that Democratic Presidents like Carter and Clinton signed into law on THEIR watch! That isn't "desperation"...that's "reality"!

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

As with most things in Washington...it's a progression of legislation that creates the biggest problems. My point was that for you on the left to claim that Bush and the GOP are solely responsible for the economic melt down that occurred ignores things that Democratic Presidents like Carter and Clinton signed into law on THEIR watch! That isn't "desperation"...that's "reality"!

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions.


.

 

[Rshermr]

And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case. So who was right?

That was in 2003, and at that time Frank was correct.
After that Bush appointed HIS man to head Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and the lending INCREASED!!!! Bush owns the housing crash.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

 

[Rshermr]

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..

Sorry, me boy. That would be pure bullshit. You need a link to support you. Because every impartial source I have seen says you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Rshermr]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

YUP. Here is a link:
onprime lenders now boasted they could offer borrowers the convenience of quicker decisions and not having to provide tons of paperwork. In return, they charged a higher interest rate. The idea caught on: from 2000 to 2007,
No doc loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not during the Clinton admin. Not during the Obama admin. Right smack in the middle of the W. Bush admin. WHAT A SURPRISE.

 

[American_Jihad]

Philosophy ...

 

[Oldstyle]

Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!

It would have been interesting if you did not pick a clip out of a bunch that were all pro conservative nonsense. You see, me boy, it is good if you see the full clip, not one ended before you get the full statement.
See yet why no one believes you. I provide impartial sources, you provide a source from a group of clips from an obvious anti democrat agenda. Nice.

So basically your thing is to DEMAND sources and then declare any that are given to be biased? Gee, think that's why you have a rating of +247 and I have one of +5,310? Who really believes who here, Georgie?

 

[Oldstyle]

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Proving you are a con tool, you make it sound like bush was trying to do something about his economic disaster. He was doing little. He saved a number of banks, made most richer than ever, but did little else. Nearly nothing. He was not part of the stimulus package, or any other economic effort to stop the disaster that was his. What saved us from a new Republican Depression was the Stimulus program, primarily And nothing else. There were exactly zero bills put forward by the republicans, but multiple efforts at stoping any bills put forward by the president.
There was, me boy, exactly one remaining effort to speed up the effects of the recession. And republicans voted against that effort every single time and with every single republican congressman voting to stop progress.

Bush did do something about the economic meltdown...he incurred the wrath of many conservatives by pushing TARP through.

Yes he did. And he did nothing the for mainstreet. And the american public by being unable to stop the worst recession since the great Republican Depression of 1929. So, yup, that is it. He did something AFTER the cow was out of the barn. Nice. So, are you just trying to say his heart was in the right place??

So first you declare that Bush did nothing to counter the economic downturn. I point out that Bush pushed TARP through...something that was crucial at stabilizing the economy at it's worst point and something that Obama continued during his Presidency...and you declare that Bush only did something "AFTER the cow was out of the barn"? TARP ended up having more of an influence on the recovery than the Obama Stimulus (Barry's STILL looking for those "shovel ready" jobs!) and TARP was all W. Can't give him credit for it though...can you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..

Sorry, me boy. That would be pure bullshit. You need a link to support you. Because every impartial source I have seen says you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What tool you need links that Chrysler was bought out by fiat , American airlines went through bankruptcy and is fine, GM pensions were in big trouble?


Hey tool pick up a fucking newspaper once and awhile.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

YUP. Here is a link:
onprime lenders now boasted they could offer borrowers the convenience of quicker decisions and not having to provide tons of paperwork. In return, they charged a higher interest rate. The idea caught on: from 2000 to 2007,
No doc loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not during the Clinton admin. Not during the Obama admin. Right smack in the middle of the W. Bush admin. WHAT A SURPRISE.

WTF? You do know obama turned around and did the same thing.


http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/


Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Obama set to force affordable housing into affluent communities


The Obama Administration Wants Another Housing Bubble

 

[Wyatt earp]

Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!

It would have been interesting if you did not pick a clip out of a bunch that were all pro conservative nonsense. You see, me boy, it is good if you see the full clip, not one ended before you get the full statement.
See yet why no one believes you. I provide impartial sources, you provide a source from a group of clips from an obvious anti democrat agenda. Nice.

So basically your thing is to DEMAND sources and then declare any that are given to be biased? Gee, think that's why you have a rating of +247 and I have one of +5,310? Who really believes who here, Georgie?

And the shit for brains last link is wiki


Lmao....


Fool.

 

[Rshermr]

Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..

You must have a source, eh???
Of course you do not. None that you want anyone to see that you use. Just bat shit crazy con web sites. So, you say GM was going nowhere. But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS. No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.
Chrysler? That ANYONE bought them was a win. Why a win, me boy. Because there were jobs, me boy. Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.

"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?

The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.

At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.

"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.

The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points. Which you, as a con tool are spouting. But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.

 

[Rshermr]

Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!

It would have been interesting if you did not pick a clip out of a bunch that were all pro conservative nonsense. You see, me boy, it is good if you see the full clip, not one ended before you get the full statement.
See yet why no one believes you. I provide impartial sources, you provide a source from a group of clips from an obvious anti democrat agenda. Nice.

So basically your thing is to DEMAND sources and then declare any that are given to be biased? Gee, think that's why you have a rating of +247 and I have one of +5,310? Who really believes who here, Georgie?

And the shit for brains last link is wiki
Lmao....Fool.

I demand nothing from you, me boy. You have proven that you can lie pretty much full time. I simply want, like any rational person, a link that I can believe posts TRUTH.
Yep, that would be your methodology To find a source that posts only PART of a speech, and pretend it is the entire speech. You see, me boy, we do not know what Clinton said overall. It is not good form to cut a clip out of a speech and call it complete. Is that too much for you to understand. Doing what you did is simply a form of lying. And you trying to defend it is pathetic.

 

[Rshermr]

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Proving you are a con tool, you make it sound like bush was trying to do something about his economic disaster. He was doing little. He saved a number of banks, made most richer than ever, but did little else. Nearly nothing. He was not part of the stimulus package, or any other economic effort to stop the disaster that was his. What saved us from a new Republican Depression was the Stimulus program, primarily And nothing else. There were exactly zero bills put forward by the republicans, but multiple efforts at stoping any bills put forward by the president.
There was, me boy, exactly one remaining effort to speed up the effects of the recession. And republicans voted against that effort every single time and with every single republican congressman voting to stop progress.

Bush did do something about the economic meltdown...he incurred the wrath of many conservatives by pushing TARP through.

Yes he did. And he did nothing the for mainstreet. And the american public by being unable to stop the worst recession since the great Republican Depression of 1929. So, yup, that is it. He did something AFTER the cow was out of the barn. Nice. So, are you just trying to say his heart was in the right place??

So first you declare that Bush did nothing to counter the economic downturn. I point out that Bush pushed TARP through...something that was crucial at stabilizing the economy at it's worst point and something that Obama continued during his Presidency...and you declare that Bush only did something "AFTER the cow was out of the barn"? TARP ended up having more of an influence on the recovery than the Obama Stimulus (Barry's STILL looking for those "shovel ready" jobs!) and TARP was all W. Can't give him credit for it though...can you?

Ah, but I did give him credit. It was october of 2008. He pushed through a bill worked over by congress to try and save the country from a disaster that was already underway. But, perhaps you can find an IMPARTIAL source that says TARP saved the economy, and that the Stimulus did not. You will not find it, me boy, because it is untrue. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites say that.

Here, me boy, is an impartial link (I know, you hate those) that scores the Stimulus:
Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.

“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.

Now I understand, Oldstyle, that this study, and many more, from an impartial source, does not match the conservative talking points and the millions of dollars that have been spent lying about the Stimulus, But that is the truth. And don't we all want to find the truth. Oldstyle?
Relative to TARP and W, it is absolutely true that W signed the bill into law. That was required, me boy, since we only had one President, and it was W. But the bill was put together by congress. Representatives and Senators. Like always. And the Republicans VOTED AGAINST TARP. HAD IT BEEN LEFT TO THEM, TARP WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. TARP was a bill crafted by congress, and signed by W. We all understand that simple fact, me boy. But where you get the idea that TARP was a great success and the Stimulus failed is nuts. Except, of course, that it lines up perfectly with the hundreds of adds and the talking points of over 100 nut case crazy con web sits. But it does NOT line up with the hundreds of impartial sites that have worked to score the Stimulus. So, we can believe you, or the CBO (and many others)! My money is on the CBO.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.


Obama's trail of victims are all those who were fully employed, but now need multiple jobs to earn the income lost due to the foolish policies of your little tin god.

Now, since that recession was handed over to the obama economic team, the rate of unemployment has gone from 10% to 5%, which is a REALLY< REALLY low rate. If your neighbor is having issues getting a job, it probably makes sense to not blame the person who has been making every effort to make unemployment better. But, it is a free world.
What is it that Republicans did to help the economy? They have owned congress for going on 6 years, so they could do something if they cared about people like your neighbor. The very wealthy, who they do indeed care about, have gotten much richer.

The economy didn't start to recover at all until the Republicans took the house. Looks like they did a great deal to help the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.


Obama's trail of victims are all those who were fully employed, but now need multiple jobs to earn the income lost due to the foolish policies of your little tin god.

Now, since that recession was handed over to the obama economic team, the rate of unemployment has gone from 10% to 5%, which is a REALLY< REALLY low rate. If your neighbor is having issues getting a job, it probably makes sense to not blame the person who has been making every effort to make unemployment better. But, it is a free world.
What is it that Republicans did to help the economy? They have owned congress for going on 6 years, so they could do something if they cared about people like your neighbor. The very wealthy, who they do indeed care about, have gotten much richer.

The economy didn't start to recover at all until the Republicans took the house. Looks like they did a great deal to help the economy.

Which of the many republican economic bills helped, me boy???
You must have an impartial link that will tell us.
Oh. No. Actually there were NONE.
Really, me boy, it is so simple to post conservative talking points that even you can do it. Imagine how hard it would be for you if you had to have a brain.

 

[Rshermr]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.


Obama's trail of victims are all those who were fully employed, but now need multiple jobs to earn the income lost due to the foolish policies of your little tin god.

Now, since that recession was handed over to the obama economic team, the rate of unemployment has gone from 10% to 5%, which is a REALLY< REALLY low rate. If your neighbor is having issues getting a job, it probably makes sense to not blame the person who has been making every effort to make unemployment better. But, it is a free world.
What is it that Republicans did to help the economy? They have owned congress for going on 6 years, so they could do something if they cared about people like your neighbor. The very wealthy, who they do indeed care about, have gotten much richer.

The economy didn't start to recover at all until the Republicans took the house. Looks like they did a great deal to help the economy.

Sorry, me boy. I know you would like the unemployment rate to have peaked in 2011. But it actually peaked in March - April 2010.
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948
If you can not even get that correct, I am afraid there is no hope for you, me poor dim witted con tool. Or a liar????
The truth of the great republican recession is out there, if you want to find it. But I know you simply prefer to post con talking points. Because cons NEVER take responsibility for their screw ups.

 

[pinqy]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.

Part time for Economic Reasons are those who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but are working <35 hrs/week due to slow business or inability to find full time work. If you are correct, then the graph below will show an increase in these workers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.

Part time for Economic Reasons are those who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but are working <35 hrs/week due to slow business or inability to find full time work. If you are correct, then the graph below will show an increase in these workers.

FRED is fun, isn't it?

I too can get it to say anything I want.

 

[Rshermr]

Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop."

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.

Part time for Economic Reasons are those who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but are working <35 hrs/week due to slow business or inability to find full time work. If you are correct, then the graph below will show an increase in these workers.
Thanks, Pinqi. It is always great to read your posts. Always correct and to the point. I think his issue was that he was looking for a downward pointed line, and knew instinctively that down is bad.