Did you buy it? [W:218]

[code1211]

Sure, the numbers by themselves are fine and dandy, the way they were represented was quite simply dishonest. To use the date of Obama's election as his starting point in lieu of his actual inauguration is patently absurd. 2.2 million jobs were lost in that same time period by the way, pretty important detail to skim over.

Nope! Not rosy at all, but that's not what's actually up for debate here. Your use of the word "maintain" suggested that 7 percent was the baseline figure for the beginning of his term. It wasn't.

Obama immediately formed a council consisting of respected economists, wall street gurus and private industry leaders alike in order to construct policies that would benefit the country most on a macro scale and best tailor provisions that would rejuvenate individual sectors of the economy. The ARRA was a compilation of both sets of ideals, and by all indications was effective on a broad scale.

Nonsense. Not only did the ARRA put to work directly scores of individuals who would've otherwise been relegated to federal aid or the treacherous labor market at the time, it also provided small businesses specifically with a nice set of tax incentives, credits and outright cuts. Business Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). So much for that claim.

This relative success you speak of actually came out on the top end of losses totaling roughly 4.7 million in his first year in office. Your references happen to be factually incorrect.

Patently false, as demonstrated earlier. Straight line, A to B, black and white error.

I'd say just about everyone currently residing in the states would positively love an additional 8 million jobs. The desire isn't the clog in the pipes though. Also, discretionary spending has underwent a freeze for 3 years and running.

LOL! Alert the folks in charge already! This theorem of "Jobs=Good" could net you a Nobel!

The unemployment rate for the month of january 2009 according to the BLS was under 8%. That 's the way it is.

To maintain the unemployment rate at the level would require that a given number of jobs get created. They haven't been, that's a fact. You can make any excuse you would like, and apparently that is your plan, but the good of the country is NOT being accomplished.

If it was good, you and the rest of the cheerleaders would be jumping up and down and singing the praises. In view of the FACT that it is horrible, inexplicably, you are STILL singing the praises.

The guy is not repairing the economy. If he was repairing the economy, it would be repaired. Check the records of Reagan and Clinton. Reagan had Arguably a far worse situation than Obama and Clinton started out with a good situation, it became great and then withered at the end.

If you are unwilling to see reality, then you are unable to move to your goal. The first step in going anywhere is to know where you are.

You might want to start your examination of why the situation is worse now than 4 years ago, 4 YEARS IS WHY I PICKED THAT MONTH AS I ALWAYS DO, to find out if things are getting bettor or worse. As the months go on, things 4 years ago got worse and worse under this failure of a leader and they are still bad due to his unwitting or planned attacks on the business community.

The three Trillion or so dollars that are not being invested is a great meter of the confidence the business community has in the leadership of the Big 0. Use that as the measure to see how the policies are working.

Before you say it, I already am aware that he won re-election. I'm nearing retirement and I might start voting for him myself so you can support me in the style to which I hope to become accustomed. The gravy train is a comfortable ride.

 

[code1211]

Would help if you knew what an executive order actually does. An EO only allows the President to act within the existing authority of an existing law. An EO does not give the President the capacity to write new laws or spend new money. The President can only work within the existing framework.



Would help if you bothered to understand the context of what you are replying to. I was discussing the deficits under Bush. Not Obama. Your ignorance and laziness is getting annoying.

You have apparently never heard of Regulatory Powers. If the Constitution was being followed, the Federal Government as we know it would not exist. For every page of law passed by Congress, there are 10 to 100 pages of regulation to support and enforce it. The EPA has many examples of expansion of power under the Clean Water Act that were NEVER contemplated by the original writers of the law.

I apologize that I draw you into areas you are not comfortable to discuss. I follow lines of communication that involve presenting ideas. You apparently prefer to name call, insult and ridicule. The tactics are interesting if close minded.

 

[code1211]

No, but there's plenty of correlation to Republican policies tanking the economy. You'd have to be brain dead not to notice.

Please list the policies to which you refer that are completely free of Democrat influence or support.

 

[a351]

The unemployment rate for the month of january 2009 according to the BLS was under 8%. That 's the way it is.

To maintain the unemployment rate at the level would require that a given number of jobs get created. They haven't been, that's a fact. You can make any excuse you would like, and apparently that is your plan, but the good of the country is NOT being accomplished.

If it was good, you and the rest of the cheerleaders would be jumping up and down and singing the praises. In view of the FACT that it is horrible, inexplicably, you are STILL singing the praises.

The guy is not repairing the economy. If he was repairing the economy, it would be repaired.

Check the records of Reagan and Clinton. Reagan had Arguably a far worse situation than Obama

Clinton started out with a good situation, it became great and then withered at the end.

If you are unwilling to see reality, then you are unable to move to your goal. The first step in going anywhere is to know where you are.

You might want to start your examination of why the situation is worse now than 4 years ago, 4 YEARS IS WHY I PICKED THAT MONTH AS I ALWAYS DO, to find out if things are getting bettor or worse. As the months go on, things 4 years ago got worse and worse under this failure of a leader and they are still bad due to his unwitting or planned attacks on the business community.

The three Trillion or so dollars that are not being invested is a great meter of the confidence the business community has in the leadership of the Big 0. Use that as the measure to see how the policies are working.

7.8% to be precise. 8.3% when the numbers for January were released a few weeks later, and 10% by Oct. Hence the absurdity of your claim that "Maintaining" a 7% percent rate was feasible in any way, shape, or form.

In order to create jobs one first has to stem the rise in the "loss" category. When Obama took office, jobs had not seen a move in the positive direction in a full year, and were only accelerating in a snowball type fashion. To expect that trend to be wiped away and promptly reversed in a short period of time is nonsense.

If what was good?

Oversimplistic and useless jargon. Not only have the losses during his term been overcome, "repairing" the economy isn't a role doled out to the executive branch exclusively. A myriad of factors, from congressional ineptitude, to personal debt, will stand in the way of a magic wand type solution.

Nope! The situation inherited was simply not comparable. The personal finances of the average consumer were in far better order and far more apt to lead to a robust recovery. Also, the matter of roughly 20 trillion worth of lost wealth and structural collapses of multiple industries complicated matters further.

Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands

Jan 1988 6953

Dec 1992 9557

Consistently you've demonstrated that you struggle to grapple with black and white, historical, readily accessible data. Anointing yourself a guide to reality is somewhat comical at this point.

The situation isn't worse currently. As mentioned before, Obama wasn't in office 4 years ago, you simply attributed losses of over 2 million during the final months of the Bush era to Obama's column. Reality bites again.

The business community is far more interested in the goings on of the fiscal cliff negotiations than Obama's supposedly destructive policies at the moment. Notice the correlation between boneheaded, purely symbolic gestures from Congress and plunging stock prices lately? The market is starving for meaningful action by lawmakers, not for impeachment hearings.

 

[Born Free]

If you call actual statements by the candidates, assumptions.

During Obama's first campaign when did he say he would be out of Afghanistan?

Show me when in our history benefits were ever increased when the cap was increased.

Benefits have always increased and for that reason the cap was increased.

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers will receive 71 percent of all capital gains.) Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent of filers will receive only 10 percent of all capital gains."

If you have a 401k or are in a company or union pension you enjoy the benefits of capital gains. Like I said how rich do you have to be to have income from capital gains. You never answer the question.

"When President Bush took office, the wealthy could leave only $675,000 to heirs free of federal tax, while the rest was taxed at 55%.
His tax cuts gradually increased the amount exempt from estate taxes, while lowering the rate until 2011.

After a bitter battle, President Obama and the Republican-led House struck a deal in the waning days of 2010 to exempt $5 million from estate taxes and set the rate at 35% for two years.

The result? An estate worth $25 million would have been subject to about $13.2 million in federal taxes had Bush not changed the law. Now, it will fork over less than $7 million, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center."

This is already after tax dollars, and many of it is passed down from generation to generation. Growing up in a family that has money is not the fault of being rich. There should be no death tax. That money that was acquired was already taxed, now you want to punish them again by taxing it again.

"Some 96% of those making between $200,000 and $1 million itemized their deductions on their 2009 return, rather than taking the standard deduction of $5,700 for single taxpayers or $11,400 for married couples. Meanwhile, only 37% of those making between $40,000 and $50,000 itemized their deductions."

Yeah and 45% of Americans don't pay a dime in federal income tax. So it seems to me our tax laws penalize those that strive to better their lives to make enough to pay taxes. Further taking the standard deduction may not even be deserved, so you get a freebee.

"It doesn't make sense to buy muni bonds unless you are in a high tax bracket"
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Tax-free interest on municipal bonds (6) - CNNMoney

I ask again how rich do you have to be to buy a Muni bond?

Last I heard, Obama was reelected to a second term!

Yeah and the last I heard Obama got his ass handed to him in 2010, you do know we have three branches of government, Obama wants to be a dictator, but that's not how our constitution works

The hell I don't! I've been complaining since Reagan about excessive spending. Which party had members that opposed spending almost as much the rest of the world combined on military. And which party did a majority vote against the needless $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the GOP!

You can talk about the war until the cows come home, but Obama spending money invading Libya was a waste, and then he leaves our embassy without security, and people die, how stupid is that? Obama adds 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and is loosing the war along with the waste of lives and treasure. So don't preach to me about wars.

Obama borrowed 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, and will borrow over another 4 trillion for a grand total of 10+ trillion in just 8 yrs. That is more than all the presidents before him combined. Further it is liberal policy sense WWII to enact all the entitlements and freebees that is drowning this country in a mountain of debt. And guess who don't want to reform these monstrosities, but worse yet liberals want more entitlements and give more freebies and who pays for all this? Yep the rich. The same people that you despise.

 

[code1211]

7.8% to be precise. 8.3% when the numbers for January were released a few weeks later, and 10% by Oct. Hence the absurdity of your claim that "Maintaining" a 7% percent rate was feasible in any way, shape, or form.

In order to create jobs one first has to stem the rise in the "loss" category. When Obama took office, jobs had not seen a move in the positive direction in a full year, and were only accelerating in a snowball type fashion. To expect that trend to be wiped away and promptly reversed in a short period of time is nonsense.

If what was good?

Oversimplistic and useless jargon. Not only have the losses during his term been overcome, "repairing" the economy isn't a role doled out to the executive branch exclusively. A myriad of factors, from congressional ineptitude, to personal debt, will stand in the way of a magic wand type solution.

Nope! The situation inherited was simply not comparable. The personal finances of the average consumer were in far better order and far more apt to lead to a robust recovery. Also, the matter of roughly 20 trillion worth of lost wealth and structural collapses of multiple industries complicated matters further.

Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands

Jan 1988 6953

Dec 1992 9557

Consistently you've demonstrated that you struggle to grapple with black and white, historical, readily accessible data. Anointing yourself a guide to reality is somewhat comical at this point.

The situation isn't worse currently. As mentioned before, Obama wasn't in office 4 years ago, you simply attributed losses of over 2 million during the final months of the Bush era to Obama's column. Reality bites again.

The business community is far more interested in the goings on of the fiscal cliff negotiations than Obama's supposedly destructive policies at the moment. Notice the correlation between boneheaded, purely symbolic gestures from Congress and plunging stock prices lately? The market is starving for meaningful action by lawmakers, not for impeachment hearings.

7.8 is what the BLS lists as the figure in the compilation posted in August of 2012. Pleanty of time for whatever revisions they would have wanted to post.

Regardless of how much lipstick you paint on it, the result of the misguided and ineffective adminstration of the Big 0 is dismal failure.

What do the figures you have posted have to do with anything that I said?

 

[Fenton]

please shed some light on the sub prime collapse and how that was the result
of demo policies
i so look forward to that explanation

You wouldn't comprehend it. The last time I tried you just ripped off a ridiculous Paul Krugman article and tried to pass it off as a independent opinion.

Truth is you have to possess some measure of objectivity and integrity if you want to learn any thing from me.

 

[a351]

7.8 is what the BLS lists as the figure in the compilation posted in August of 2012. Pleanty of time for whatever revisions they would have wanted to post.

Regardless of how much lipstick you paint on it, the result of the misguided and ineffective adminstration of the Big 0 is dismal failure.

What do the figures you have posted have to do with anything that I said?

Yep, 7.8 percent was the figure, not 7.0 percent. Why it took a handful of posts for you to catch on is anyone's guess.

I'd disagree, as would many others with expertise well beyond either of our paygrades.

Clinton started out with a good situation

 

[Bronson]

Of course, all of these statistics are a result of Obama's policies rather than the '08 financial crisis and ensuing recession.

The 2008 Financial Crisis and Housing Crisis were 100% the fault of Democrats

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

You don't get to blame Bush anymore comrade. Those talking points = 100% debunked beyond refute. Blame squarely falls on the shoulders of Democrats. Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dodd all received the most money from Fannie/Freddie corrupt lobbyists in WA

:2wave:

 

[Moot]

Please list the policies to which you refer that are completely free of Democrat influence or support.

Plan B

 

[Bronson]

Plan B

Which was rejected by Conservatives and the Party as a whole

Try again

 

[Moot]

Which was rejected by Conservatives and the Party as a whole

Try again

It was a Republican's wet dream.

 

[Bronson]

It was a Republican's wet dream.

Dodge noted

 

[Moot]

Dodge noted

Okay, it was their supply side economics, free market, anti-government, pro-war, racist, self interest, corrupt policies that has led this country down the road to ruin.

 

[justabubba]

You wouldn't comprehend it. The last time I tried you just ripped off a ridiculous Paul Krugman article and tried to pass it off as a independent opinion.

Truth is you have to possess some measure of objectivity and integrity if you want to learn any thing from me.

so, you have quit trying
i accept your surrender

 

[Born Free]

please shed some light on the sub prime collapse and how that was the result of demo policies
i so look forward to that explanation

Lets see, Bush and McCain tried to reform Fanny and Freddie but that was a no go. Barney Frank was the one that lowered the lending requirements that started the buying by people that could never qualify for a loan. So yeah, ol Barney Frank and the liberal wisdom that everyone is entitled to own a home.

 

[Born Free]

Did Bush ever threaten a veto on a spending bill?

Oops.

Let's not forget that it was the Bush Administration that blackmailed Foster into lying about the true cost of Medicare D to the American people.

Oops.

Did Bush ever curtail spending for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Oops.

Don't play this game with me. You will lose. And you will lose badly.

And it doesn't matter if the Democrats did the same thing. The fundamental fact still remains that a President still has little influence and control over the domestic economy compared to Congress.

You could be on to something, the last two years of Bush's term was controlled by liberals in congress.

 

[code1211]

Plan B

Was this a policy of the Republicans that led to the meltdown of 2008?

 

[Moot]

Was this a policy of the Republicans that led to the meltdown of 2008?

Deregulation of financial institutions, Bush tax cuts, Federal fund 1% interest rate, hedgefunds, predator loans, increased military spending....all help to create a perfect storm. And yes, they were all Republican policies.

 

[code1211]

Deregulation of financial institutions, Bush tax cuts, Federal fund 1% interest rate, hedgefunds, predator loans, increased military spending....all help to create a perfect storm. And yes, they were all Republican policies.

You really must re-check history to find out how this whole thing evolved. There was plenty of blame to go around.

Start with the Glass Steagall Bill and the partial repeal which was a Clinton era signing. The Bush Tax Cuts? How did this program hurt the lending industry? What do you think will happen when they vanish is 6 days?

I think the programs Bush used to get over the recession following the .com bubble were needed, but went on too long. The free money policies of the FED under Bush's appointee Bernanke were unwise then and just plain stupid now.

Bush's problems did not rise from Conservative programs, but from Liberal ones. The defense of the Fannie and Freddie swindles by Dodd and Frank are hidden by the fact that they are Democrat thieves instead of Republican and therefore not to be attacked in the press, but those two got rich skimnming from the two central actors in the meltdown. The predatory loans you are citing are just another example of the sub prime lending that was going on. If the laws allow a lack of responsibility for actions, then actions will become increasingly irresponsible.

For this reason, institutions could write the loans, bundle the loans, sell the loans and not hold the risk. No responsibility and no nobody cared. This was not a partisan program. it involved everyone in the country who took a loan, took a second, borrowed on equity, took out an ARM or did any of those stupidly short sighted things that contributed toward inflating the Bubble.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

If you don't understand something, fixing the problem becomes difficult. Fixing the blame is always easy. Just find the guy you already hate and blame him.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
<snip>
But by the 1990s, the affiliation provision was widely viewed as unnecessary and even harmful to financial institutions. In 1999, President Clinton signed GLB into law. Although it left the bulk of Glass-Steagall in place, it ended the affiliation restrictions, freeing up holding companies to own both commercial and investment banks.
<snip>

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Another tiresome right-wing repetition of bad math, worse history, and the usual assortment of certified zombie lies. It really gets pathetic after a while.

The economic collapse was a product of thoroughly misguided right-wing actions and inactions. They didn't need any help with it and didn't have any. The Tax Cuts for the Rich were a horrible mistake and a miserable failure. The Invasion of Iraq was unjustified exceptionalist adventurism which was then disastrously mismanaged. There isn't another area of national endeavor -- from the environment, to education, to civil rights, to energy, to transportation, ti agriculture, to diplomacy, to immigration -- where failure was not either created or advanced by the Bush administration. What Bush gave us was eight years of miserable disgrace and failure. That's all.

 

[mr4anarchy]

The idea of obama making the economy better? Some stats for you:

*12/2008 31.6 million on food stamps, this year 47.6 million or more - an increase of 50%

*1,000,000 children in public schools are homeless, up 55% from 2006.

* Lower taxes thanks to obama; or thanks to $4,000 less income per household over the past 4 years

* For decades food stamps were given to 1 in 50 people, now 1 in 6 or so.

* America's interest in GDP was 31% in 2000 and is now 21%

Looks like a "recovery" only an iphone and xBox could cover. I know the left won't
like this but I think if a Republican were in office this would be called a "depression."

The Bush Tax cuts have been in place during the first four years of Obama's presidency. These tax cuts to the wealthy were, in theory, supposed to 'stimulate jobs and growth'. So if they've been in place, then specifically which Obama policies have prevented them from stimulating jobs and growth.

Also, since taking control of the HoR, which GOP bills have lead to jobs and growth?

 

[code1211]

The Bush Tax cuts have been in place during the first four years of Obama's presidency. These tax cuts to the wealthy were, in theory, supposed to 'stimulate jobs and growth'. So if they've been in place, then specifically which Obama policies have prevented them from stimulating jobs and growth.

Also, since taking control of the HoR, which GOP bills have lead to jobs and growth?

Harry Reid won't take any of them to the floor of the Senate. He won't even consider a budget.

Obama won't pressure him to consider or present a budget. Oh! Wait a minute! I think I just realized something! Reid is doing what Obama is telling him to do. Wow! Me and Reid and Obama are the only three in the country who know that this is the plan of the president.

Somehow this has slipped past the entire group of stenographers in the White house Press Corp.

 

[code1211]

Another tiresome right-wing repetition of bad math, worse history, and the usual assortment of certified zombie lies. It really gets pathetic after a while.

The economic collapse was a product of thoroughly misguided right-wing actions and inactions. They didn't need any help with it and didn't have any. The Tax Cuts for the Rich were a horrible mistake and a miserable failure. The Invasion of Iraq was unjustified exceptionalist adventurism which was then disastrously mismanaged. There isn't another area of national endeavor -- from the environment, to education, to civil rights, to energy, to transportation, ti agriculture, to diplomacy, to immigration -- where failure was not either created or advanced by the Bush administration. What Bush gave us was eight years of miserable disgrace and failure. That's all.

It's really too bad that our current President is an incompetent idiot who can't figure out how to fix this, isn't it.

I'm glad that you have finally seen the light.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Harry Reid won't take any of them to the floor of the Senate. He won't even consider a budget.

Congress doesn't pass budgets. They pass a set of 12 authorization and appropriations bills.

Obama won't pressure him to consider or present a budget.

Obama submitted his FY 2013 budget to Congress on February 13 of this year.