Page 125 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 1274

Thread: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

  1. #1241
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What you are failing to understand is that there are a lot of people to blame and simply focusing on Bush is the problem when in reality there wouldn't have been any sub prime bubble had not Clinton created the sub primes in the early 90's and had not Democrats promoted home ownership just like Bush did. The blame solely on Bush is nothing more than partisan hackery
    This seems to be the way you perceive things:

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    First, I'm not really looking to argue that the CRA played no role in the crisis. I just think it belongs a ways down on the list, behind:

    • the criminal operations operating as private mortgage lenders that led to convictions, mostly out West
    • the Big Banks that are getting stuck with tens of billions of dollars in fines
    • Mr. Greenspan and associates, who worked to keep interest rates low when they should have been rising
    • politicians like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and some members of Congress who played important roles in loosening loan standards
    >>I would describe you as someone purely partisan who buys what they want to believe and ignores anything that contradicts it.

    Pretty much what I would say about you.

    >>You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help.

    Complete nonsense. What is that idiotic claim based on?

    >>There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term

    Private-sector employment up by 400K. And that's up from the top of a bubble that led to a very disruptive near-collapse. We are now poised for a continuation of the stable expansion we've had over the past four years, and at a higher rate.

    Let's look at some numbers on international trade. Under Bush, we ran larger trade deficits in his last five years than under any of Obama's, and they were larger in every year in real dollars.

    When measured as a percentage of GDP, the large deficits under Bush are even more pronounced.

    trade_deficit_to_GDP_1993_2013.jpg

    This chart makes the point even more clearly. Well, for me, at least, I like charts.

    trade_deficit_to_GDP_2004_2014.jpg

    >>You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.

    I'd say it's more complicated than that. As you know, the budget in the first year of a new president's term is traditionally ascribed to the previous administration. Even conservative opinion held to this conventional analysis for '09.

    The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. Dont Blame Obama for Bushs 2009 Deficit

    FY2009 was a very unusual year. (Let's hope we don't go through another one like it.) A significant amount of the increased spending that took place in that budget was indeed the responsibility of the Democrats. In fact, they had to work very hard to get it included. Only by securing Sen. Specter's vote were they able to avoid ANOTHER irresponsible filibuster. As I said earlier, "[a] fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year."

    (It looks like you do have trouble reading my posts, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with quote boxes.)

    Here's a PolitiFact article that discusses the issue at some length: Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

    In any event, I'd say the stimulus spending (and that's what we're talking about here there's no point examining the other appropriation bills because the differences in dollars are insignificant, and in fact in some cases, as that article points out, the Democrats reduced outlays in order to free up resources FOR the directed stimulus) was required to keep the economy afloat.

    >>You really could help yourself a lot by doing some independent research on what you are being told.

    Like I keep saying, yer often good for a laugh.

  2. #1242
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,567

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    We're only trying to help you.

    To educate you. To give you the advantage of information that hasn't been redacted or mischaracterized.

    The NBERs report on the CRAs effect on the Sub-Prime Bubble is just one aspect of how the CRA contributed to the Sub-Prime Collapse.

    Clintons 1995 CRA changes allowed what would have been a small and isolated bubble to grow into systemic proportions.

    By allowing the two largest GSEs to count their purchase of Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD " affordable lending " goals, Clinton set in motion a deluge of toxic securities that made their way out into the worlds Capital Markets via CDO tranches.

    The Banks weren't the first Financial entities to buy and package and securitize Sub-Prime loans.

    No, that would be Freddie and Fannie.

    Freddie Mac in 1998 Guaranteed 380 Million dollars of Sub-Prime securities.

    Those Securities were then distributed out to investment houses and then throughout the worlds Capital markets as "AAA" rated securities.

    They were of course worthless.

    Banks didn't start creating private Mortgae backed Securities backed by Sub-Prime debt until 2002.

    And when they did, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were their primary Consumers.

    Fannie Mae was put under SEC investigation in 2004 and eventually fined 400 Million dollars for what amounted to unprecedented Securities fraud.

    Freddie Mac AND Fannie Mae were put under investigation again in 2011 for hiding massive amounts of worthless debt from....well everyone.

    They manipulated the entire MBS market, manipulated demand of securities backed by Sub-Prime debt and lied their way to insolvency.

    And they were defended and run by Democrats.
    So you are suggesting that the root cause of a multi-trillion dollar crises that peaked in 2008 was caused by 380 million (not billion but million) worth of sub-prime securities guarantees back in 1998?
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  3. #1243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Seems to be little more than Black trying to attack personally the people that wrote the study I provided, and at the same time shill his own made up theory placing Banks solely at fault through criminal activity
    Well, first I have to admit I haven't had time to read either of those articles. And I can't say that my judgements on this matter will necessarily be enhanced much as a result.

    You may agree that the kind of academic cat-fighting you describe is fairly common. I'll do what I can to find some neutral assessments. Not that it matters, but this is a busy week in my agency — I'll have time to ponder all this stuff in a few days.

    >>a simple question to Mr. Black, "why if what you pose that the banks are committing "control fraud", did no one go to jail?"

    Bankers (I mean bankers at Big Banks) going to jail? Seems to me they go one of three places when they leave their institutions: lobbying firms, government regulatory agencies, or retirement. Prison is so … drab.

    >>They seem to prose more than a few "probably's" and "Likely" terminology in their dismissal that anything to do with forcing banks to make risky loans is speculation

    Hmm. Well, I write that way myself a lot of the time. I'd call it "prudent caution."

    >>Republicans were screaming about this crap in 2004

    I watched that video. I didn't hear any "screaming" from those committee members.

    I will acknowledge that some Republicans were voicing concern about F & F. I'm not at all, at least at this point, convinced that those agencies played a major role in the near-collapse. You saw my list of what I consider the blameworthy. I agree that regulations were inadvisedly, perhaps even dangerously, relaxed. But while you guys wanna focus on the federal guarantees provided to mortgage lenders, isn't it also true that the Republican party, for the past thirty years, has been advocating and, when they've been able, implementing a large pull-back on federal regulation of the financial industry?

    In the end, I may be left with the same view I've had all along (although I hope to at least refine it, and I believe I'm open to changing it): the leadership in both parties played a role in creating the awful mess we're discussing here. Private institutions did as well, even more so, imo. They committed the crimes when the police weren't looking.

    I will concede that it may be informative to note that the CRA and F & F put the idea of expanded opportunities to obtain mortgages into play, in all areas — financial, regulatory, political, social. But I'm convinced that the superficial, knee-jerk attitude, which I understand you do not share, that the whole thing is attributable to the Democrat party buying votes from blacks and campaign contributions from Wall Street is a very large slice of baloney.

    Finally, I think you should view anything put out by naked emperor news with a considerable degree of skepticism. This is the "Not-So-Bright Fart" "Gunk Blech" crowd. They make a good living off lies and deception. They're fairly competent at it, so you need to be careful. The context required to understand an issue is ALWAYS excluded. And that's the best thing I could say about 'em..

    Of course, I'm not saying "I'm right and yer wrong." But these people are part of a large industry. I was watching Fx Noise yesterday and they put up a graphic that said "140K killed in Syria since Obama drew his red line." An outright lie, of course. That total, horrible as it is, goes back to the beginning of the conflict.

    I know I'm getting off-topic, but I'm saying that from a non-partisan perspective, and I hope you'll allow that I can have one, these people are liars. Not just partisans; they know what they're doing. They say that Obama's foreign policy "doctrine" is Lead from Behind. In fact, of course, that approach was applied in a single setting: the revolution in Libya. And their argument that it failed? Mr. Stevens, a man they would have dumped all over as a terrorist-sympathizing, anti-Israel, America-hating, pinko … anytime before Sept 11, 2012. How many investigations would there have been if Gaddafi's loyalist troops had reached Benghazi and slaughtered thousands of civilians?

    My point: don't even bother eviewing material from these people when yer looking to understand an issue, especially a complex one. They don't deserve yer thoughtful and reasoned attention.

  4. #1244
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    This seems to be the way you perceive things:



    >>I would describe you as someone purely partisan who buys what they want to believe and ignores anything that contradicts it.

    Pretty much what I would say about you.

    >>You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help.

    Complete nonsense. What is that idiotic claim based on?

    >>There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term

    Private-sector employment up by 400K. And that's up from the top of a bubble that led to a very disruptive near-collapse. We are now poised for a continuation of the stable expansion we've had over the past four years, and at a higher rate.

    Let's look at some numbers on international trade. Under Bush, we ran larger trade deficits in his last five years than under any of Obama's, and they were larger in every year in real dollars.

    When measured as a percentage of GDP, the large deficits under Bush are even more pronounced.

    trade_deficit_to_GDP_1993_2013.jpg

    This chart makes the point even more clearly. Well, for me, at least, I like charts.

    trade_deficit_to_GDP_2004_2014.jpg

    >>You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.

    I'd say it's more complicated than that. As you know, the budget in the first year of a new president's term is traditionally ascribed to the previous administration. Even conservative opinion held to this conventional analysis for '09.

    The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. — Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

    FY2009 was a very unusual year. (Let's hope we don't go through another one like it.) A significant amount of the increased spending that took place in that budget was indeed the responsibility of the Democrats. In fact, they had to work very hard to get it included. Only by securing Sen. Specter's vote were they able to avoid ANOTHER irresponsible filibuster. As I said earlier, "[a] fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year."

    (It looks like you do have trouble reading my posts, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with quote boxes.)

    Here's a PolitiFact article that discusses the issue at some length: Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

    In any event, I'd say the stimulus spending (and that's what we're talking about here — there's no point examining the other appropriation bills because the differences in dollars are insignificant, and in fact in some cases, as that article points out, the Democrats reduced outlays in order to free up resources FOR the directed stimulus) was required to keep the economy afloat.

    >>You really could help yourself a lot by … doing some independent research on what you are being told.

    Like I keep saying, yer often good for a laugh.
    Apparently you don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare debt to GDP in a mostly private sector economy. My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different. The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

    By the way there are two aspects of deficits revenue and expenses. Maybe when those shovels for those shovel ready jobs created in February 2009 actually get to the intended locations more taxpayers will be created. Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.

  5. #1245
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,211

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    So you are suggesting that the root cause of a multi-trillion dollar crises that peaked in 2008 was caused by 380 million (not billion but million) worth of sub-prime securities guarantees back in 1998?
    No, Freddie Mac's poor decision to guarantee 380 million dollars in Securities backed by Sub Prime loans was just the first substantial guarantee of toxic MBS by the GSE's.

    People blame banks, but the GSEs had a 6 year head start on the banks which didn't start creating their own MBSs until 2002. Even then Fannie and Freddie were their primary consumers.

    Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

    The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  6. #1246
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    No, Freddie Mac's poor decision to guarantee 380 million dollars in Securities backed by Sub Prime loans was just the first substantial guarantee of toxic MBS by the GSE's.

    People blame banks, but the GSEs had a 6 year head start on the banks which didn't start creating their own MBSs until 2002. Even then Fannie and Freddie were their primary consumers.

    Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

    The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.
    All those things were certainly part of the mosaic which caused the systemic financial failure. But they aren't the only things. There are Republican things and even Bush things. Not any single one of them can be blamed for it all.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  7. #1247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".
    False narrative? Yeah, redlining never existed. And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

    >>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

    No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

    "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro " "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And Ive often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didnt get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

  8. #1248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Apparently you don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare debt to GDP in a mostly private sector economy.
    Well, at least I'm not alone a lot of other people don't understand how ridiculous it is.

    debt to GDP

    >>My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different.

    What? Do you mean added to the debt?

    >>The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

    And the reality is that the money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP.

    >>Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.

    In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation [the ARRA]. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. "Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure," CBO, Nov 17, 2010

  9. #1249
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    False narrative? Yeah, redlining never existed.
    Can you point to the post that asserts redlining never existed? I must have missed that one.

    Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make. But even so, the CRA isn't the sole thing, or person, or action that caused the housing bubble in it's entirety. Yes, it did have a part in a larger mosaic, but it's not the entire mosaic. Not by a long shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

    >>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

    No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

    "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
    The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  10. #1250
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Well, at least I'm not alone — a lot of other people don't understand how ridiculous it is.

    debt to GDP

    >>My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different.

    What? Do you mean added to the debt?

    >>The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

    And the reality is that the money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP.

    >>Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.

    In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation [the ARRA]. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. — "Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure," CBO, Nov 17, 2010
    Tell me how debt to GDP ratio affects the average American and the budget of the United States? It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing. Debt service is what matters and that costs the American taxpayers. you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

    Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

    Do you realize that you are defending the ARRA and ignoring the projections made when it was implemented? Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy? Why is it you have such low standards when it comes to Democrats in the WH and Congress?

Posting Permissions

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