• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

And the recovery much quicker. That can just be ignored? That's convenient.

Not ignoring anything; that would be your neck of the woods. In the early 20th century, U.S. population, immigration (both legal and illegal), etc... were growing at rates that are not comparable to today's economy. The fact that you even attempted to compare such distinct time periods of the U.S. economy is truly telling.
 
And why is employment at risk?

Companies were protecting their valuations and cash flows. Is there a reason why you are continuously responding with questions (some of which are entirely loaded) rather than engaging in proper dialog?
 
Not ignoring anything; that would be your neck of the woods. In the early 20th century, U.S. population, immigration (both legal and illegal), etc... were growing at rates that are not comparable to today's economy. The fact that you even attempted to compare such distinct time periods of the U.S. economy is truly telling.

So the laws of economics change because of a growing population? I'm just saying, you're the one who's trying to ignore any historical lessons from the time.
 
Companies were protecting their valuations and cash flows. Is there a reason why you are continuously responding with questions (some of which are entirely loaded) rather than engaging in proper dialog?

And that happened all of sudden why exactly? One day people just decided all at the same time that their money was at risk?
 
So the laws of economics change because of a growing population?

When did i say that? You have a poor habit of putting words in people's mouths. Population growth must necessarily feed economic growth.

I'm just saying, you're the one who's trying to ignore any historical lessons from the time.

It is ridiculous to compare the early 20th century economy to that of our own. It is akin to comparing the U.S. to Greece.
 
When did i say that? You have a poor habit of putting words in people's mouths. Population growth must necessarily feed economic growth.

It's a little tough to say which causes the other, isn't it. Did lack of population growth cause the Great Depression, or did the Great Depression slow population growth?

It is ridiculous to compare the early 20th century economy to that of our own. It is akin to comparing the U.S. to Greece.

So there is nothing that can be learned by studying it? That's pretty dismissive.
 
And that happened all of sudden why exactly?

Sales began to fall, credit began to constrict. That causes corporations to begin getting defensive in regards to their cash flows and stock prices.
 
Sales began to fall, credit began to constrict. That causes corporations to begin getting defensive in regards to their cash flows and stock prices.

And why did spending fall? You can't say increasing spending fixes the problem if don't know why spending fell in the first place. What prompted the response?
 
If he was on MARS you had your head up URANUS....

The sub-prime debacle started in the early 90s as Clinton and Liberal Democrats forced lending by regulatory control given to them under CRA and HUD.

You didnt mention the NY Times article in 2003 that showed Bush trying to reign in the GSEs but unsuccessfully with a Democrat Congress.

I swear to be a liberal you have to be purposely ignorant and corrupt.

The housing bubble was mandated by the Democrats.


And bought and paid for by the GOP and GW Bush. You are so deluded that you think the Dems had control of Congress in 2003? You need serious help. Republicans had full control of Congress AND the Whitehouse during the entire subprime housing bubble, how else would the banks have gotten away with it? Congressional Republicans wrote the bills that enabled the scam and GW Bush kickstarted the bubble with his $440 BILLION "investment" in the banks subprime garbage. Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002

And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't "800K jobs per month". Stop pushing lies.

With all recessions there is an initial high loss of jobs as toxic investments are flushed out of the market and corrections are made. There wasn't 800K lost month after month after month. Stop lying.
There were two months that had over 800K jobs lost when Bush was president. (Nov 2008 and Jan 2009) From BLS:

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change
Series Id:CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:Total nonfarm
Industry:Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:-
Data Type:ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years:2001 to 2012

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
2001-1563-28-282-44-128-125-155-243-331-295-178-1761
2002-129-146-24-84-947-100-11-551218-163-545
200395-159-213-49-9025-451091971411984
2004162443372493108146122161348631342057
200513724014136017024337419366803341602498
20062833162831811476209183157-92041712068
2007236931907213975-40-187379112891100
200841-84-95-208-190-198-210-274-432-489-803-661-3603
2009-818-724-799-692-361-482-339-231-199-202-42-171-5060
2010-40-35189239516-167-58-51-272201211201027
2011110220246251548496852021121572231840
20122752591436887451811921321371611551835


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
And that just came out of the sky one day?

If you have a point, then make it. These lame responses in the form of questions are getting you nowhere.
 
If you have a point, then make it. These lame responses in the form of questions are getting you nowhere.

I'm pointing out your lack of an adequate explanation.
 
I'm pointing out your lack of an adequate explanation.

I was not aware this discussion required a recreation of the global financial crisis. It is obvious (given the nature of your response) that you have no intention of having constructive dialog.
 
And bought and paid for by the GOP and GW Bush. You are so deluded that you think the Dems had control of Congress in 2003? You need serious help. Republicans had full control of Congress AND the Whitehouse during the entire subprime housing bubble, how else would the banks have gotten away with it? Congressional Republicans wrote the bills that enabled the scam and GW Bush kickstarted the bubble with his $440 BILLION "investment" in the banks subprime garbage. Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002

And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode.

What Congressional Republicans ? In a Democrat Congress ?

You've proven nothing except how pathetic and desperate the Democrat agenda has become.

What sort of loser organisation blames Everything on the prior president 4 years into their disaster ?

If you think convincing fools and idiots is a winning strategy then good luck with that.

Those who know better realize that tje sub-prime debacle was mandated by Democrats and then blamed on banks and it STARTED 10 years prior to GW Bush's inaugeration.

You libs are such hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
What Congressional Republicans ? In a Democrat Congress ?

You've proven nothing except how pathetic and desperate the Democrat agenda has become.

What sort of loser organisation blames Everything on the prior president 4 years into their disaster ?

If you think convincing fools and idiots is a winning strategy then good luck with that.

Those who know better realize that tje sub-prime debacle was mandated by Democrats and then blamed on banks and it STARTED 10 years prior to GW Bush's inaugeration.

You libs are such hypocrites.

You are the one blaming Clinton for somethng that happeened entirely on GW Bush's and a GOP Congressional majority's watch.
GW Bush sold Fannie Mae $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage and you blame the Democrats? Too funny.
No Democrat could have pulled that off and you know it..
 
Last edited:
Here Pete, maybe you missed this:

View attachment 67140422

And you missed this.
0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg
 
I figured you would say retirees.



More kids are going to college than ever before.

Ok, I looked at Table A-16 of Employment and Earnings.
20-24 year olds not enrolled in school actually have a UE rate of 14.8%

Now, the breakdown of education isn't available for that particular age group, but looking at 16-24 year olds, we see that for those not in school but have no HS diploma, the UE rate is 31.2%. For HS grads, it's 18.7%, for some college/associate's degree, it's 11.6% and for Bachelor's or higher it's 8.2%.

That all fits in with my hypothesis of lack of education and lack of experience as the main reason for high unemployment for 20-24 year olds.

As for the original question, I'm having computer problems that won't let me access the BLS database for most historical data so I can't judge the past trends right now.
 
Democrats + CRA = 100% responsible

It's beyond refute. The CRA was the root cause of the problem that created a market that never would have existed otherwise.
 
And you missed this.
0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg

GDP growth last quarter was 1.3%

You're going to compare that as a success to the pathetic economy of the EU?

Laughable
 
Democrats + CRA = 100% responsible

It's beyond refute. The CRA was the root cause of the problem that created a market that never would have existed otherwise.

You display your lack of knowledge on your sleeve. CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans of similar risk. Try again.
 
You display your lack of knowledge on your sleeve. CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans of similar risk. Try again.

Nope

The GSEs bought up most of the bad loans and convinced investors any losses would covered by the Feds. You are bleeting a debunked talking point. A recent economic report has confirmed beyond all refute that the CRA was the root cause of the crisis.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122012-637924-faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults.htm?p=full

Facts > your propaganda
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom