Page 127 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127128 LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,270 of 1274

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

  1. #1261
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    A Lie ??

    Well then prove its a Lie.

    Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums.

    Back up your accusations.

    Hey you know what ? Fannie and Freddie were the only Financial entities put under SEC investigations over the Sub-Prime Collapse.

    Yep. In 2004 and 2011.

    2004 was because of Clinton appointee Franklin Raines corruption and Securities fraud and 2011 was because both of the GSEs hid all their worrhless debt.

    You have to be proud of that. That the democrats ran two American iconic institutions in to the ground.

    And Fannie Mae had been around since the 30s too.
    Temper tantrums are the mode of operation for most Obama supporters when challenged and proven wrong. They simply cannot believe that "their" President would lie to them and be so incompetent nor would other liberals with the hunger for power would distort, ignore, and even perpetuate lies to remain in power and grow that power. Rather than honest debate and admitting they are wrong Obama supporters will get mad, upset, and lash out at anyone who dares challenge them with facts, logic, and common sense. Many here seem to be just seeking attention though.

  2. #1262
    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
    Again, what expanded GDP
    The expanded GDP indicated in the chart I posted. Tell ya what, give me some quarterly US GDP figures under Obama that don't indicate the economy expanded.

    Here, let me help you. If you use real dollars, we did have a negative 2011 Q1 that you can legitimately "blame on Obama." But it seems you want to state flatly that the economy simply isn't growing. Sometimes I wonder if you post this nonsense just to see if I'll become annoyed. But no, you actually believe it.

    real_GDP_2009_2014_by_quarter.jpg

    >>Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s

    Hey, who can tell what ridiculous claim yer making?

    >>again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

    Becaaaause … the numbers can only be properly understood in relation to the size of the economy. E.g., between 1941 and 1945, the national debt increased from $49 billion to $259 billion, a total of $210 billion. You may agree that today we'd be very happy to run a one-year, much less a four-year, deficit of $210 billion. But notice that the increase was about 530%. That's a big number. Make any sense?

    >>Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

    Completely misleading. All the debt piled up under the last three Republican presidents pushed us closer and closer to a figure that exceeds the GDP. We got a break from that trend under the last Democratic president. Now we have another Democratic president who is working hard to clean up a God-awful mess that he had nothing to do with. And you people scream and holler that's it's his fault. Just makes me shake my head.

    >>Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

    The CBO "touts" it, for one. Who doesn't? Limpblow, Handjob, and Blech? Speaking of Gunk, I can't figure yer reference to "Obama's JAR.' Is it this?

    >>I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.

    You really have this routine down — you always close with a joke.

    Any trouble following along in my post this time?

  3. #1263
    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
    Temper tantrums … Obama supporters will get mad, upset, and lash out at anyone who dares challenge them with facts, logic, and common sense. Many here seem to be just seeking attention though.
    And where did I, even slightly, lose my temper? I do have one. But I'd have to take you clowns seriously before I could lose it.

  4. #1264
    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 eohrnberger View Post
    Yeah. OK. Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but just seems like a soapbox spiel. Is OK.
    I suppose I'm a frustrated politician. I tried, but I guess the community just wasn't able to discern my wisdom.

    How's business at Oohrnberger's Cheeburgers anyway? Mmm. Haven't had lunch yet; I could go for one right now. Do you guys deliver in my area? The special all the way, with grilled onions and a cold pop?

  5. #1265
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,948
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    I suppose I'm a frustrated politician. I tried, but I guess the community just wasn't able to discern my wisdom.

    How's business at Oohrnberger's Cheeburgers anyway? Mmm. Haven't had lunch yet; I could go for one right now. Do you guys deliver in my area? The special all the way, with grilled onions and a cold pop?
    Umm. No. I do leadership IT stuff, so sorry, no burgers here.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  6. #1266
    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
    A Lie ?? Well then prove its a Lie. Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums. Back up your accusations.
    Just because I called you a liar, does that mean I threw a temper tantrum? I was quite calm when I called you a liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.
    From #1: "The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so."

    From #2: "CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs."

    I'll give ya some more from that one, since you apparently didn't read it:

    However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending.

    The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995. This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

    When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

    The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.

    From #3: "Since the mid 1990's, federal bank examiners have relied upon a series of numerical measures to help evaluate compliance with the CRA. These measures include the share of loans originated (or purchased from other lenders) in LMI census tracts or made to LMI borrowers."

    #4 is a review of #3 by a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, so I assume you won't include him as a member of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

    #5 is a very short piece, and it's loaded with comments referring to the 1995 revisions. #6 is short as well — I didn't notice anything in that one.

    So in other words, five of the six links I put up do refer to what you say they "don't mention." I guess that means you are a liar. To be fair, the lie was the suggestion that you had read any of that material to begin with. And you can't refute one little bit of it. Not because some it can't be contested, I'm sure it can. Yer problem is that you have no clue what yer talking about.

  7. #1267
    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 eohrnberger View Post
    Umm. No. I do leadership IT stuff, so sorry, no burgers here.
    Yeah, yeah. But yer the off-site owner. I was hoping you might call the boys and have them send something over. Too late now. I must return to pillaging the US Treasury, not for fun, and for little profit.

  8. #1268
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,321

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Just because I called you a liar, does that mean I threw a temper tantrum? I was quite calm when I called you a liar.



    From #1: "The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so."

    From #2: "CRA performance evaluations have become more quantitative since 1995, when regulatory changes were enacted that stress actual performance rather than documented efforts to serve a community's credit needs."

    I'll give ya some more from that one, since you apparently didn't read it:

    However, the CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or even goals for the volume of loans, services, or investments banking institutions must provide. While it is fair to say that the primary focus of CRA evaluations is the number and dollar amount of loans to lower-income borrowers or areas, the agencies instruct examiners to judge banks' performance in light of 1) each institution's capacity to extend credit to lower-income groups and 2) the local economic and market conditions that might affect the income and geographic distribution of lending.

    The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995. This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.

    When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.)

    The CRA may directly affect nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates of banking institutions. Banking institutions can elect to have their subsidiary or affiliate lending activity counted in CRA performance evaluations. If the banking institution elects to include affiliate activity, it cannot be done selectively. For example, the institution cannot "cherry pick" loans that would be favorably considered under the law while ignoring loans to middle- or higher-income borrowers.

    From #3: "Since the mid 1990's, federal bank examiners have relied upon a series of numerical measures to help evaluate compliance with the CRA. These measures include the share of loans originated (or purchased from other lenders) in LMI census tracts or made to LMI borrowers."

    #4 is a review of #3 by a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, so I assume you won't include him as a member of the communist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

    #5 is a very short piece, and it's loaded with comments referring to the 1995 revisions. #6 is short as well — I didn't notice anything in that one.

    So in other words, five of the six links I put up do refer to what you say they "don't mention." I guess that means you are a liar. To be fair, the lie was the suggestion that you had read any of that material to begin with. And you can't refute one little bit of it. Not because some it can't be contested, I'm sure it can. Yer problem is that you have no clue what yer talking about.
    Not one mentioned Clinton's 1995 National Homeownership Strategy reducing the GSEs Capital requirement standards for Sub-Prime loans down to 3 percent.

    Not one mentioned HUDs threats of restricting a banks access to the secondary markets if they posted a low CRA score.


    Not one mentioned Clinton CRA changes that allowed the GSEs to count Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD affordable lending goals.

    None one mentioned Janet Renos all out attack on banks who wouldn't lower their standards and make risky loans.

    Not one mentioned COUNTRY WIDE, ( not a Bank but a Originating party ) which was one of the primary originators of Sub-Prime loans.

    Im guessing they didn't mention Country Wide by name because FANNIE MAE bought the vast majority of Country Wides crap loans.

    Oh and Country Wides habit of providing special "VIP" loans to Politicians like Chris Dodd.

    Not one mentioned the CRA changes that allowed a banks CRA scores to be publicized so they could be targeted by groups like ACORN, the DOJ, HUD and Plaintiffs attorneys like Barack Obama.

    And if there were minorities who didn't recieve mortgage loans prior to Clintons 1995 Changes its because they weren't credit worthy.

    Cmon, they're called Sub-Prime loans for a reason.

  9. #1269
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    The expanded GDP indicated in the chart I posted. Tell ya what, give me some quarterly US GDP figures under Obama that don't indicate the economy expanded.

    Here, let me help you. If you use real dollars, we did have a negative 2011 Q1 that you can legitimately "blame on Obama." But it seems you want to state flatly that the economy simply isn't growing. Sometimes I wonder if you post this nonsense just to see if I'll become annoyed. But no, you actually believe it.

    real_GDP_2009_2014_by_quarter.jpg

    >>Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s

    Hey, who can tell what ridiculous claim yer making?

    >>again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

    Becaaaause … the numbers can only be properly understood in relation to the size of the economy. E.g., between 1941 and 1945, the national debt increased from $49 billion to $259 billion, a total of $210 billion. You may agree that today we'd be very happy to run a one-year, much less a four-year, deficit of $210 billion. But notice that the increase was about 530%. That's a big number. Make any sense?

    >>Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

    Completely misleading. All the debt piled up under the last three Republican presidents pushed us closer and closer to a figure that exceeds the GDP. We got a break from that trend under the last Democratic president. Now we have another Democratic president who is working hard to clean up a God-awful mess that he had nothing to do with. And you people scream and holler that's it's his fault. Just makes me shake my head.

    >>Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

    The CBO "touts" it, for one. Who doesn't? Limpblow, Handjob, and Blech? Speaking of Gunk, I can't figure yer reference to "Obama's JAR.' Is it this?

    >>I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.

    You really have this routine down — you always close with a joke.

    Any trouble following along in my post this time?
    Fact, the economy is not growing fast enough or big enough to put the 20 million plus unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work and the reality is the debt today exceeds 100% of GDP and that comes from the Treasury Dept and is accurate data. CBO is a non partisan source that gets their assumptions from the Congress most of whom in both parties are partisan. Tell me a CBO estimate that has even been close to accurate? How many times has Obamacare numbers been changed?

    The debt from Previous Presidents totalled 10.6 trillion on a 14.5 trillion dollar GDP, that isn't 100%. Today the debt is 17.4 trillion on a 17 trillion dollar GDP. That exceeds 100%.

  10. #1270
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,948
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Yeah, yeah. But yer the off-site owner. I was hoping you might call the boys and have them send something over. Too late now. I must return to pillaging the US Treasury, not for fun, and for little profit.
    Clearly, you have me confused with someone else.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

Posting Permissions

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