Page 118 of 215 FirstFirst ... 1868108116117118119120128168 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,180 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #1171
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Holy ****!

    Forget about comparing Reagan's numbers with Obama's. Your claim, as bizarre as it is, is that we should factor in inflation from 2009-2013, but not when looking at the numbers from between 1981-1988.

    Inflation affects ALL of the numbers, not just for Obama.

    But again, you like the nominal figures better between 1981-1988, just so you could make the fallacious claim that he doubled GDP, when in fact, he didn't.
    Right, I believe we ought to adjust the Reagan job creation for inflation as well. Wouldn't that be about 35 million jobs or so? You really are a joke, a true Obamabot.

  2. #1172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No I am not, if you are going to use inflation as an indicator then use inflation adjusted employment numbers. Just goes to show how stupid your argument is. It really is a shame how little you know about leadership and yet how you follow someone who lacks basic good leadership skills in that he says "do as I say not as I do" and like a good little soldier you follow. You have no concept of basic economics, no understanding of basic human nature including your own, and honestly think you are fooling anyone with the numbers you post that are totally irrelevant. Can you imagine what tripling the debt would do today but somehow 1.7 trillion increase or tripling of the debt is worse than 6.2 trillion in debt which is a 60% increase. A better percentage change in unemployment numbers are also irrelevant because they don't recognize the individuals involved in those numbers. When did Ford have 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers? Talk about cherrypicking numbers, you do that all the time with percentage change which means nothing.
    Holy ****!

    Now you're comparing 8 years of Reagan with 4˝ years of Obama. And you're ignoring the fact that Reagan did not inherit a recession while Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

  3. #1173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Right, I believe we ought to adjust the Reagan job creation for inflation as well. Wouldn't that be about 35 million jobs or so? You really are a joke, a true Obamabot.
    Seriously, you still think that is a proper substitute for you getting caught pulling a switcheroo on the GDP numbers between Reagan and Obama??

  4. #1174
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Holy ****!

    Now you're comparing 8 years of Reagan with 4˝ years of Obama. And you're ignoring the fact that Reagan did not inherit a recession while Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.
    Break it down to averages, go for it and if you believe Obama's economic numbers are going to get any better I have some swamp land for sale that I know would interest you. I am waiting for exactly what economic policies Reagan had in effect when the recession of 1981 began? You appear to be cherry picking the facts as well applying recession dates whenever you want regardless whose economic policies were in place. the 81-82 recession was a double dip but that is ok, something else you don't understand. Bye, Sheik, done with this bs from you. You and Obama deserve each other. Too bad the rest of the country doesn't. Have to take a break from dealing with liberal ignorance.

  5. #1175
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Holy ****!

    Forget about comparing Reagan's numbers with Obama's. Your claim, as bizarre as it is, is that we should factor in inflation from 2009-2013, but not when looking at the numbers from between 1981-1988.

    Inflation affects ALL of the numbers, not just for Obama.

    But again, you like the nominal figures better between 1981-1988, just so you could make the fallacious claim that he doubled GDP, when in fact, he didn't.



    I wonder what the debt "adjusted for inflation "during the gipper george the first presidency would be in today's dollars?
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  6. #1176
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,213

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Despite your hysterics, that all began before Obama became president.
    Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
    In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

    And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

    Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  7. #1177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Break it down to averages, go for it and if you believe Obama's economic numbers are going to get any better I have some swamp land for sale that I know would interest you. I am waiting for exactly what economic policies Reagan had in effect when the recession of 1981 began? You appear to be cherry picking the facts as well applying recession dates whenever you want regardless whose economic policies were in place. the 81-82 recession was a double dip but that is ok, something else you don't understand.
    Averages are meaningless and I'm not cherry-picking anything, but I do note your desperate attempt to project that onto me after you got caught cherry-picking GDP numbers. I am pointing out the fact that Obama inherited a recession where Reagan did not. And not only did he inherit a recession, he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. Far worse then Reagan's recession, which lost 1.5% GDP and 3.8 million jobs, compared to Bush's Great Recession which lost 4.7% GDP and 7.5% million jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Bye, Sheik, done with this bs from you. You and Obama deserve each other. Too bad the rest of the country doesn't. Have to take a break from dealing with liberal ignorance.
    Holy ****!! Another divorce????


  8. #1178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
    In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

    And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

    Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.
    Read it again, this time for clarity ...

    "Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

    Primary parties responsible were the Republicans who gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, Clinton for signing it, and Bush for heaping homeownership to those who could not afford their loans on top it.

    You can foolishly blame Democrats till you turn blue, they will always remain the minority party during the critical years leading up to the bubble's descent. They had no control of the Congress. It was Republicans who ran it and it was Republicans who neglected to pass additional oversight to avert the bubble.

  9. #1179
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,213

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Read it again, this time for clarity ...

    "Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

    Primary parties responsible were the Republicans who gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, Clinton for signing it, and Bush for heaping homeownership to those who could not afford their loans on top it.

    You can foolishly blame Democrats till you turn blue, they will always remain the minority party during the critical years leading up to the bubble's descent. They had no control of the Congress. It was Republicans who ran it and it was Republicans who neglected to pass additional oversight to avert the bubble.

    Bush's affordable home-ownership initiative was primarily done through FHA loans, that had substantially higher standards than the loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying, and bundling, and turning into securities. Can you tell me what percentage of total Sub-Prime loans purchased, bundled and turned into Securities by the GSE's were of FHA origin ? Because between them Fannie and Freddie by 2008 held over 5 TRILLION in low quality, sub-prime, Alt-A, NINA and just generally crap loans, not too mention through the corrupt leadership of the Clinton appointed CEO, Franklin Raines, had a close and corrupt relationship with Country-Wide and by 2004 bought up 70% of Country Wides crap loans. That plus sweet heart mortgage deals received by Democrats like Chris Dodd got Angelo Morillo, the CEO of Country Wide in deep sh**.

    He and Raines were fined tens of millions of dollars, but, since they were Democrats, received no jail time.

    You can foolishly ignore 99% of the data that counters your insipid empty narratives but your'e just embarrassing yourself.

    A September 1999 New York Times article describing the situation stated, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

    By June 2003, the Freddie accounting investigation had forced management to admit to having misstated $5 billion of earnings. Of course, many analysts and investors began to look very closely at Fannie’s accounting. That investigation was triggered by the Bush administration after he replaced Fannie Mae's Clinton appointed auditor, the Auditor that also was supposed to be watching over ENRON to " Price Waterhouse Cooper."

    I mean how ridiculous, you posted a quote out of context and then you posted ONE act signed by Clinton that on it's own wouldn't have caused a bubble. Clinton also signed the 1994 Reigle-Neal Act that tied a Banks ability to expand to it's CRA score. He also signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, but his 1995 Home-ownership initiative was just a long list of Executive orders that for one, lowered the Capital Requirements of loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie from 10% to 3%. In 1997 Fannie Mae turned it's first crap loan into a security and by 2000 held the market share on toxic MBSs that were bundled and sold off as AAA Securities to investment banks.


    Republicans in 2001 moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary. One way to counter the increased risk perception was to directly state that, while the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgage issues, the federal government would, in fact, step in to bail Fannie out if it got into serious financial trouble. During a Congressional hearing, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

    Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Mae’s mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.

    Democrats had appointed Fannie’s senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities – and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to re-frame the issue.

    Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannie’s repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
    The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.

    From 1993 to 1998 Clinton appointed his corrupt Democrat buddies to the executive positions at Fannie and Freddie and even managed to replace a majority of the board member's.





    What we got from them was predictable, comparable to what we see today. Democrats lying in front of committee's in an attempt to over their sorry asses.

    So to sum it all up, Fannie and Freddie, being run like ENRON, loaded with corrupt Democrats appointed by Clinton after their Capital Requirements were lowered from 10% to 3% were ultimately responsible for over 5 TRILLION in crap loans or MBS's backed by crap loans. They were defended by lying Democrats in committee's and in the end held the lions share of all sub-prime crap loans.

    Bush's FHA initiative was responsible for how much ?
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  10. #1180
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Yea, the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime collapse did do a massive amount of damage but my point was, Obama's election hasn't really helped things along has it ?
    In fact if you add in the FED's destructive perpetual pumping and Obama's 7 TRILLION in new structural debt with our latest revised GDP numbers of 1.8%, he's actually made the situation worse.

    And no, the dependency rates increased and continue to increase under Obama, not prior.

    Perhaps you should read something other than the back of Cereal Boxes and educate yourself.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •