Which US President had the most months of below 6% unemployment?

[LoneLaugher]

W left office with a total of negative 636,000 jobs and we were losing over 1/2 a million a month. Thanks W!

But that was just the last few months, for the most part, on average, workers had it better under Bush, month after month, than most other Presidents.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Fucking perfect.

 

[Black_Label]

The democrat party gained the majority in Congress in the 2nd half of Bush's 2nd term. That means that the chairmanships of all the critical committees are now the responsibility of the democrat party. Fannie Mae was the responsibility of the House Banking Committee chaired by Barney Frank. The last thing Americans heard from chairman Frank was that "Fannie was solvent" just before the election. It turns out that Fannie wasn't solvent and maybe, just maybe, chairman Frank nudged Fannie over the edge just before the election as the biggest October surprise in history. Nobody in the media was curious enough to ask Frank the important questions and he went on to fame and fortune and marriage to some guy and retired without ever being called before a congressional committee. The collapse of Fannie was never investigated by the democrat controlled congress. Things like that happen when democrats are in charge. .

The whole "It's all Frank's fault!" is downright laughable and one of the biggest jokes of an excuse from those on the far right.

W and the GOP implemented their "less regulation!" policies on the big bankers, allowing them to run wild giving out predatory loans.

The same thing happened with big oil when W and the GOP approved the deep sea drilling that caused the Gulf oil spill disaster.

How did Nancy and Reid do on their oversight of the economy, employment, purse strings and what turned out to be the "housing bubble" after they took over the House and Senate the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency in your opinion?

Do you really believe Bush wanted the Gulf oil disaster?

They did excellent to stop W and the GOP garbage in their tracks from their out of control spending and destruction of the county. If they didn't take over when they did, the nation would likely be in complete shambles.

Also yes, W ignored warnings about the dangers of deep sea drilling, but didn't care and let his big oil cronies run wild just like the bankers.

The housing market crash and the gulf oil spill are two perfect examples of what happens when the GOP gets their way with letting the big corporations do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

 

[idb]

I bet I could go out and have the flashest house in town for a few months.

 

[LilOlLady]

What difference does it make to what and why should I care??????

 

[idb]

What difference does it make to what and why should I care??????

Pardon?

 

[Lumpy 1]

The whole "It's all Frank's fault!" is downright laughable and one of the biggest jokes of an excuse from those on the far right.

W and the GOP implemented their "less regulation!" policies on the big bankers, allowing them to run wild giving out predatory loans.

The same thing happened with big oil when W and the GOP approved the deep sea drilling that caused the Gulf oil spill disaster.

How did Nancy and Reid do on their oversight of the economy, employment, purse strings and what turned out to be the "housing bubble" after they took over the House and Senate the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency in your opinion?

Do you really believe Bush wanted the Gulf oil disaster?

They did excellent to stop W and the GOP garbage in their tracks from their out of control spending and destruction of the county. If they didn't take over when they did, the nation would likely be in complete shambles.

Also yes, W ignored warnings about the dangers of deep sea drilling, but didn't care and let his big oil cronies run wild just like the bankers.

The housing market crash and the gulf oil spill are two perfect examples of what happens when the GOP gets their way with letting the big corporations do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

I find you quite delusional and happy to be so...I'll just move along.

 

[Black_Label]

How did Nancy and Reid do on their oversight of the economy, employment, purse strings and what turned out to be the "housing bubble" after they took over the House and Senate the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency in your opinion?

Do you really believe Bush wanted the Gulf oil disaster?

They did excellent to stop W and the GOP garbage in their tracks from their out of control spending and destruction of the county. If they didn't take over when they did, the nation would likely be in complete shambles.

Also yes, W ignored warnings about the dangers of deep sea drilling, but didn't care and let his big oil cronies run wild just like the bankers.

The housing market crash and the gulf oil spill are two perfect examples of what happens when the GOP gets their way with letting the big corporations do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

I find you quite delusional and happy to be so...I'll just move along.

Please do, it was fun to put you in your place

 

[Seawytch]

W left office with a total of negative 636,000 jobs and we were losing over 1/2 a million a month. Thanks W!

But that was just the last few months, for the most part, on average, workers had it better under Bush, month after month, than most other Presidents.

When you average out the trip...the Titanic had a great voyage.

 

[depotoo]

W and the GOP created it, by letting their big banker cronies run wild.

That is absolutely not true. Had Barnie Frank listened to Bush and reigned in Freddie and Fannie we may have avoided or pushed back this crisis. Anyway, all of Congress, especially Democrats, love the big bankers with their big donations. Just ask Obama.

The democrat party gained the majority in Congress in the 2nd half of Bush's 2nd term. That means that the chairmanships of all the critical committees are now the responsibility of the democrat party. Fannie Mae was the responsibility of the House Banking Committee chaired by Barney Frank. The last thing Americans heard from chairman Frank was that "Fannie was solvent" just before the election. It turns out that Fannie wasn't solvent and maybe, just maybe, chairman Frank nudged Fannie over the edge just before the election as the biggest October surprise in history. Nobody in the media was curious enough to ask Frank the important questions and he went on to fame and fortune and marriage to some guy and retired without ever being called before a congressional committee. The collapse of Fannie was never investigated by the democrat controlled congress. Things like that happen when democrats are in charge. .

and here was the Democratic response when it was brought to their attention -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg]Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[depotoo]

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
The Washington Times Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac



White House News


Setting the Record Straight
In Focus: Economy


Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)

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

2001

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

•May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003

•February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.



•September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.



•September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)



•October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)



•November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004

•February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)



•February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)



•April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)



•June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005

•April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)



•July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007

•August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)



•August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)



•December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008

•February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)



•March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)



•April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)



•May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.


◦"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)



◦"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)



◦"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)


•June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)



•July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.



•September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
# # #

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

 

[depotoo]

By the way,
Bush
January 2001 employed 135,999,000
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
added jobs in 8 years 6,100,000
average of jobs per year 762,500
Obama
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
May 2013 employed 143,898,000
added jobs in 4.41 yrs 1,799,000
average of jobs per year 407,936

 

[LoneLaugher]

By the way,
Bush
January 2001 employed 135,999,000
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
added jobs in 8 years 6,100,000
average of jobs per year 762,500
Obama
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
May 2013 employed 143,898,000
added jobs in 4.41 yrs 1,799,000
average of jobs per year 407,936

Exactly! Ask anyone and they will tell you.....George Bush has a far better record regarding the economy than Barack Obama does. Everyone knows that George Bush's administration oversaw great gains in employment.

You nailed it!

 

[Seawytch]

On average, which voyage had a better trip....Apollo 13 or the Titanic?

 

[depotoo]

By the way,
Bush
January 2001 employed 135,999,000
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
added jobs in 8 years 6,100,000
average of jobs per year 762,500
Obama
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
May 2013 employed 143,898,000
added jobs in 4.41 yrs 1,799,000
average of jobs per year 407,936

Exactly! Ask anyone and they will tell you.....George Bush has a far better record regarding the economy than Barack Obama does. Everyone knows that George Bush's administration oversaw great gains in employment.

You nailed it!

well, let's see, Bush did come into a recession from the dot com bust, had the job losses from 9/11 and then the ultimate failure of fannie and freddie, which the Dems swore up and down had no problems. Yet, his average of job creation was almost double Obama's.

Obama came into a recession and Obama has dealt with hurricane Sandy job losees. And his yearly average is almost half of Bush's.

So glad we can see eye to eye on this.

 

[depotoo]

W left office with a total of negative 636,000 jobs and we were losing over 1/2 a million a month. Thanks W!

But that was just the last few months, for the most part, on average, workers had it better under Bush, month after month, than most other Presidents.

When you average out the trip...the Titanic had a great voyage.

About the same as fannie and freddie...

 

[Black_Label]

By the way,
Bush
January 2001 employed 135,999,000
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
added jobs in 8 years 6,100,000
average of jobs per year 762,500
Obama
January 2009 employed 142,099,000
May 2013 employed 143,898,000
added jobs in 4.41 yrs 1,799,000
average of jobs per year 407,936

By the way, you are spreading outright lies.

Bush, total jobs created in 8 years: Negative 673,000

Obama created more private sector jobs in his first 6 months, than bush did during his entire presidency.

 

[rightwinger]

To me, it's kind of like a poker player bragging about how much ahead he was for most of the night and neglecting to tell you he lost his shirt before he left the table

 

[Black_Label]

Also forgot the may job's report was just released, and it was yet another month of positive job growth, making it now 39 straight months

Thanks Obama!

 

[rightwinger]

On average, which voyage had a better trip....Apollo 13 or the Titanic?

Titanic was on a record pace before it hit that iceberg

Too bad they didn't have Obama to come in and take over as Captain. Then they would have someone to blame

 

[Agit8r]

sure. conservative policies "work" for about 8 or 9 years before the bubble pops (which really is just when the wealthy pull their portion out of the ponzi scheme and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces).

Just ask George H.W. Bush or Herbert Hoover--following a neoliberal president will leave you with terrible employment numbers 100% of the time.