• 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!

U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

pbrauer said:
President Bush was not in favor of S.190 either. Nice try though. :lol:

Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snip
President Bush recommended a significant regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry in 2003, but many Democrats opposed his plan, fearing that tighter regulation could greatly reduce financing for low-income housing, both low- and high-risk.[29] Bush opposed two other acts of legislation:[30][31] Senate Bill S. 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2005, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu. S. 190 was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005, but never voted on by the full Senate.


​
Click to expand...

Fail

As was stated previously President Bush shoulders some blame, but Democrats still share the majority of the blame. Your quoted text even proves my point :lol:

Bush repeatedly tried to push for GSE reform and the Democrats (their campaign coffers filled with GSE campaign donations) claimed there wasn't a problem. Democrats are primarily responsible for the Housing Crash.

Nice try though :2wave:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
And yet workforce participation among those aged 65+ has increased. So that excuse isn't available. It must be tiring to eternally search for excuses.:cool:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so sorry, but excuses are not needed, it seems as though the American people put their trust in Obama, not Romney. The job picture and the economy are looking up despite what you say. You've said Bush's record on jobs was near to capacity, which is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. The WSJ disagrees however.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pbrauer said:
Hmmm, so sorry, but excuses are not needed, it seems as though the American people put their trust in Obama, not Romney. The job picture and the economy are looking up despite what you say. You've said Bush's record on jobs was near to capacity, which is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. The WSJ disagrees however.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...

Just a shallow hit piece published when it was fashionable to pile on GWB. I doubt you give as much credence to the WSJ's more recent assessments of BHO's performance. I'm no GWB advocate; as I've posted repeatedly his fiscal irresponsibility made me an ex-Repub. Nonetheless, the numbers on unemployment are clear. Economists generally define "full employment" as unemployment of 4%. GWB averaged 5.3%, including the very poor final months. Thus, he averaged about a point or so off full employment, leaving little slack (or need) to create jobs.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pbrauer said:
Hmmm, so sorry, but excuses are not needed, it seems as though the American people put their trust in Obama, not Romney. The job picture and the economy are looking up despite what you say. You've said Bush's record on jobs was near to capacity, which is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. The WSJ disagrees however.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...

Oh yea, we can compare Obama's disappointing jobs report to Bush jobs report, back when we actually had a economy.

As to The Wall Street Journal.....
Peter Wallison: Government-Sponsored Meltdown - WSJ.com
 
Bronson said:
Fail

As was stated previously President Bush shoulders some blame, but Democrats still share the majority of the blame. Your quoted text even proves my point :lol:

Bush repeatedly tried to push for GSE reform and the Democrats (their campaign coffers filled with GSE campaign donations) claimed there wasn't a problem. Democrats are primarily responsible for the Housing Crash.

Nice try though :2wave:
Click to expand...

LOL your logic is something else. Because the Democrats opposed Bush's plan they are guilty of something? Here is what Bush's plan encompasses: LOL

 
pbrauer said:
LOL your logic is something else. Because the Democrats opposed Bush's plan they are guilty of something? Here is what Bush's plan encompasses: LOL

Click to expand...


Did you even watch the video? Where did Bush promote sub prime loans? Did you hear Bush talk about QUALIFIED buyers? Did you hear about the partnership to promote home ownership for QUALIFIED buyers? You seem to have a problem with a goal to get QUALIFIED buyers into homes. Maybe you don't understand the term QUALIFIED. Maybe you don't understand the term goal? Maybe you don't understand that the housing bubble wasn't created by loaning money to QUALIFIED buyers. I suggest you watch the video and then tell me how this built the housing bubble and created loans to UNQUALIFIED individuals or sub prime interest VARIABLE Rates?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pbrauer said:
You mean a housing bubble economy, don't you? LMMFAO
Click to expand...



Actually watch the video instead of making wild ass claims. Your obsession with Bush and offering of distorted information says a lot about you.
 
Conservative said:
Did you even watch the video? Where did Bush promote sub prime loans? Did you hear Bush talk about QUALIFIED buyers? Did you hear about the partnership to promote home ownership for QUALIFIED buyers? You seem to have a problem with a goal to get QUALIFIED buyers into homes. Maybe you don't understand the term QUALIFIED. Maybe you don't understand the term goal? Maybe you don't understand that the housing bubble wasn't created by loaning money to QUALIFIED buyers. I suggest you watch the video and then tell me how this built the housing bubble and created loans to UNQUALIFIED individuals or sub prime interest VARIABLE Rates?
Click to expand...
What does Bush mean when he says QUALIFIED buyers?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Does it matter, the number dropping out of the labor force and the labor participation rate shows the Obama economic policies to be failures.
Click to expand...

Sure it matters. At least it should matter to those of us that have a couple of active braincells. Take for instance the start of the unnamed PREZZ, fifth year, BO’s predecessor, whom you hate to talk about the seasonally adjusted employment level was 143150.

let’s take peek at what it is now, on the tail end of the GREAT BUSH RECESSION.GASP:shock:…its 143322.And you say “Does it matter “?Do the math. The economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month when BO’s first term began. The number on inauguration day, of his second term was 143322.Yes, it matters to those that are now employed.:2wave:
 
pbrauer said:
What does Bush mean when he says QUALIFIED buyers?
Click to expand...

I am sure you can come up with a good definition of qualified buyer but rather than consider it being someone who cannot afford a home and making this all about Bush, you refuse to do any research. Didn't hear Bush mention sub prime interest rates at all, nor predatory lending, nor selling to people more than they can afford, nor variable interest rates. Keep trying to tie Bush to this which does nothing more than divert from the Obama record. Don't blame you as I wouldn't talk about it either.
 
Conservative said:
I am sure you can come up with a good definition of qualified buyer but rather than consider it being someone who cannot afford a home and making this all about Bush, you refuse to do any research. Didn't hear Bush mention sub prime interest rates at all, nor predatory lending, nor selling to people more than they can afford, nor variable interest rates. Keep trying to tie Bush to this which does nothing more than divert from the Obama record. Don't blame you as I wouldn't talk about it either.
Click to expand...


​
Qualified buyers:​

​
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Link​
 
pbrauer said:
LOL your logic is something else. Because the Democrats opposed Bush's plan they are guilty of something? Here is what Bush's plan encompasses: LOL

Click to expand...


You're all over the map in this thread flailing around. It's embarrassing. First you link the wrong bill, now you're back to blaming Bush.

Democrats opposed and blocked GSE Reform. The CRA is what lead to risky lending. It was the Clinton Administration who pressured banks to engage in riskier lending after they injected the CRA with steroids.

Bush shoulders some blame, but he also did try to clamp down on the GSEs UNLIKE DEMOCRATS who did nothing but oppose any regulation of the GSEs. On the contrary when Obama and the Democrats weren't suing banks to engage in riskier lending and pocketing massive GSE campaign contributions, they were claiming there was no housing bubble and the GSEs "were sound"

Democrats share most of the blame for the Financial Crisis of 2008. It is irrefutable. It's not my problem you are too blinded by partisanship to understand this. :2wave:
 
pbrauer said:

​
Qualified buyers:​

​
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Link​
Click to expand...

So what? Where are the sub prime rates and orders to provide homes for people who cannot afford the payments? The WH doesn't make loans, the WH's position is that people who don't have a downpayment but are qualified to buy a home will get that downpayment. You want badly to believe Bush did something wrong, but he didn't create the sub prime loans, variable rate homes, or force people to sign on the line for variable rate loans. You apparently have no concept of personal responsibility and ignore that it should be the goal of every President to create a home buying atmosphere where qualified people can get a home even if they don't have the downpayment.

I don't support that position however there is nothing Bush did or proposed that led to the housing bubble bursting. Further I didn't support TARP but your attempt to make this all about Bush and all Bush's fault is misguided and a typical leftwing ploy to demonize Bush and divert from Obama and his terrible record.
 
Bronson said:
You're all over the map in this thread flailing around. It's embarrassing. First you link the wrong bill, now you're back to blaming Bush.

Democrats opposed and blocked GSE Reform. The CRA is what lead to risky lending. It was the Clinton Administration who pressured banks to engage in riskier lending after they injected the CRA with steroids.

Bush shoulders some blame, but he also did try to clamp down on the GSEs UNLIKE DEMOCRATS who did nothing but oppose any regulation of the GSEs. On the contrary when Obama and the Democrats weren't suing banks to engage in riskier lending and pocketing massive GSE campaign contributions, they were claiming there was no housing bubble and the GSEs "were sound"

Democrats share most of the blame for the Financial Crisis of 2008. It is irrefutable. It's not my problem you are too blinded by partisanship to understand this. :2wave:
Click to expand...

LOL I don't think you have any idea what the financial crisis was all about, you're the flailing around
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
What I'm saying is that you've done nothing but proclaim that "It's not Obama's fault!" over and over. You are apparently impervious to reason.:cool:
Click to expand...
You have done nothing to show how "Obama is responsible (the primary cause of) for the low participation rate".

If you make a claim, back it up with something, not nothing.
 
Conservative said:
So what? Where are the sub prime rates and orders to provide homes for people who cannot afford the payments? The WH doesn't make loans, the WH's position is that people who don't have a downpayment but are qualified to buy a home will get that downpayment. You want badly to believe Bush did something wrong, but he didn't create the sub prime loans, variable rate homes, or force people to sign on the line for variable rate loans. You apparently have no concept of personal responsibility and ignore that it should be the goal of every President to create a home buying atmosphere where qualified people can get a home even if they don't have the downpayment.

I don't support that position however there is nothing Bush did or proposed that led to the housing bubble bursting. Further I didn't support TARP but your attempt to make this all about Bush and all Bush's fault is misguided and a typical leftwing ploy to demonize Bush and divert from Obama and his terrible record.
Click to expand...

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.


Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.


What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.


Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.


​

​
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

MMC said:
Yeah, maybe Obama should quit talking about guns and get back to thinking about jobs. Some economists are saying Unemployment will rise to 7.8% and others are saying it will stay the same.

They never really agree on anything and yet counting numbers there really shouldn't be any excuses for mistakes.
Click to expand...

You mean like the time he proposed a bill that would stop tax breaks for outsourcing and give tax breaks for people who hired IN THE USA?

The one turned down by Congress in 2010?

Maybe it's time you admit no matter what Obama presents, it will be turned down...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Q: "WTF does a job performance poll have to do with a handling of the economy poll??"

OpportunityCost said:
You brought up polling. So look in a mirror when you ask that.
Click to expand...

A: "Nothing"
 
OpportunityCost said:
So the solution to $400 billion in deficit spending is $1 trillion in deficit spending? Recession related? Thats baseline spending. Im not sure how you push that level of spending onto Bush and ignore that Obama wanted and continue to want even more spending. Its not at all that Obama wanted to spend less. He wanted to spend much, much more, up to and including a 2nd stimulus and he took attempts to pass other larger spending bills that didnt go through.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta just love righties' attempts to make Bush look better than the complete incompetent he was, I tell ya. :roll:

...............

Bush didn't hand Obama a $400b deficit, he handed him a $1200b deficit, 3x the size of the deficit you're pretending it was. That $400b deficit was the CBO's esitimate of expected shortfall from Bush's FY2009 budget proposal in April, 2008. However, near the end of Bush's term, the CBO revised their estimate based on the Continuing Resolution Bush signed in September, 2008 and based on the downturn in the economy and based on TARP.

CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion

~ The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Anti-Party said:
You mean like the time he proposed a bill that would stop tax breaks for outsourcing and give tax breaks for people who hired IN THE USA?

The one turned down by Congress in 2010?

Maybe it's time you admit no matter what Obama presents, it will be turned down...
Click to expand...

Lets see about that.....especially if he was to offer Up his resignation. I think he can get most of the Country to side with him on that. :2razz:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
Okay...first

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Not sure why the link does not work - just type in 'LFPR' in the 'Search' box.

The month GWB (who I think was a lousy POTUS btw) took over - the LFPR was 66.7%

For January 2007, it was 66.4%.

5 years later it had only dropped 0.3%.

By the time he left office - with a full blown major recession in progress - it had dropped to 65.8%. Obviously the recession affected the numbers greatly - just as the Fed suggested.

Now - since Obama took over, the rate has fallen to 63.3% - the lowest it has been since June, 1979 (!).

That is a drop of 2.5% in just over 4 years.

In GWB's first 5 years it had only dropped 0.3% (and then the housing slowdown began and things started to spiral downwards).

So, you are saying that the LFPR is primarily falling because of factors other then the lousy economy - despite the fact that it has dropped over 8 (EIGHT!!!) times faster during Obama's first four years then it did during GWB's first 5?

That is (imo) clearly ridiculous - no offense.
Click to expand...
I love how you make up **** I didn't say, and then call that **** nonsense. :lamo

Hysterical!

I never said the recession wasn't a factor in it dropping. What I did say, but for some reason you can't understand, is that you have little idea how much of it dropping has to do with the recession. The article doesn't even consider other factors for why people left the workforce voluntarily other than retirees.

And again, I repeat, all you can do is guess at how many people were forced out of the LFPR as opposed to how many people opted out. And again, I repeat, that the article you posted only goes up to 2011. The economy has improved since then. The stock market has improved since then. The job market has improved since then. So even factors that are discussed in that article have changed since then.

There's simply no other way to put this other than to say you're guessing that the unemployment rate is 9%, which is a bullxit number you're making up based upon your guess.

DA60 said:
Two) If you wish to take a different starting date to figure in the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) - go ahead.

But I chose the day Obama took over as my guide because he (and his disciples - like you seem to be) are insisting that the unemployment rate is about the same today as when he took over.

Officially, it is.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one arbitrarily picking dates, you are. Who knows why you even consider Bush's first five years? The man served 8, not 5.

What I am saying, which I don't know why you can't understand this, is that you're factoring in the LFPR to the unemployment rate for March, 2013 -- but you're not doing that for January, 2009.

Do you understand the dishonesty of inflating the unemployment rate now, but not when Bush handed Obama a massive recession?

What I am saying is, if you are going to inflate the UR by factoring in the LFPR in March of 2013, than you also have to inflate the UR by factoring in the LFPR in January of 2009.

And when you inflate the unemployment rate by factoring in the LFPR in January of 2009, the 7.8% U3 rate in January, 2009, becomes 9.9%.

So if your argument is that the U3 unemployment rate is really 9% now (because of the LFPR dropping, which began to drop around 2001), then you also have to consider that it started at 9.9% when Obama became president.

Now stop trying to find a metric which makes it appear like unemployment is worse now than it was then because no such metrci exists. Like it or not, employment is getting better.

DA60 said:
But the actual unemployment rate if you included those that have left the work force simply because they cannot find work should (imo) be counted as still part of the work force since they left by force/technicality - not by choice.

And on that basis - the unemployment rate should be well over 9% (using the Fed's own report as a guidepost).

Those are facts.

Now if you wish to spin it so your guy's numbers look better - feel free.

It changes nothing...facts are facts.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one spinning. The one spinning is the one saying the BLS doesn't know how to calulate the U3 index. :roll:

I'm the one who's saying, if you're going to factor in the LFPR into the unemployment rate for March, 2013, then you also have to factor it in for January, 2009.

You're trying to say the UR went from 7.8% (with no LFPR factored in) to over 9% (with LFPR factored) in.

Can you be more dishonest??


DA60 said:
And three) the official unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama was inaugurated - not better as you stated above.

The day he took office (January 20, 2009) the rate officially was 7.3% - not 7.8%.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Type in 'Search' window - 'unemployment rate' and hit the first result.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're looking at. I did as you suggested and here's the link that came up....
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Note the unemployment rate for Jan/2009 ... 7.8%

DA60 said:
So by either standard I have listed here - the U.S. unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama took office.
Click to expand...
You may fool yourself into believing you have proved the impossible, but you haven't.

Sure, if you convince yourself that the unemployment rate was really 7.3% and not 7.8% when Obama became president,then sure, you will more easily be able to fool yourself.

Likewise, if you inflate the current employment rate by factoring in the LFPR but not do that for the unemployment rate when Obama became president, then again, you will more easily be able to fool yourself.

But be clear, you're fooling no one else.

DA60 said:


So, now I have a question for you.

Since the day Obama took office, the official unemployment rate is worse, average housing price is down, the national debt is up over 50% and food stamp usage is up over 40%.

National Debt by Year

On the basis of ONLY those guideposts - would you consider Obama's Presidency a success?

Yes or no, please?
Click to expand...

First of all, the unemployment rate is better than it was, not worse as you falsely claim. The housing prices I blame on the housing bubble crash, which is still hurting the economy. There are still 2 houses (that I know of, could be more) which are still in foreclosure since then. I still have no idea why you think food stamp usage defines Obama's success/failure?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
And where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that a significant number of that 1/2 left the work force voluntarily - that they did not leave primarily because they could not find work?

Once again, until then, I will take the Fed's numbers over yours.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Nice spin on my words, but I didn't say half of the work force left voluntarily. :roll:

I said the half who left for reasons other than retiring included people who left voluntarily. That includes (and is not limited to) people who chose disability over working and people who chose school over working.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Oh, btw ... no, it doesn't mean that either. That article is almost 16 months old. Since then, close to 3 million people have found work in the private sector.

DA60 said:
Either include sources for your numbers (as I generally do) or your numbers will be ignored.

I am not going to waste my time checking your 'numbers'.

'Close to' can mean almost anything.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Dec/2011: 110,548,000
Mar/2013: 113,330,000
Total: 2,782,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom