• 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. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

Employment Situation July 1985You'll note that Discouraged is listed as a subset of "Not in the Labor Force," you'll note that the data was only collected quarterly, and you'll note that the definition is a little different in that there was no time limit and it included some that would now be considered Marginally Attached and not discouraged.

And of course the definiton is stated as:
Since it has the work search requirement, discouraged are excluded.

Before 1967, the definition was a little different Employment and Earnings, July 1966 states So (c) is similar to what we now call Discouraged, but note that discrimination was not included as it is now, and the qualification of "usually residents of a community etc" meant that the defintion was not uniformly applied.

Nice find! :applaud

Turns out, Reagan had as many as 1.9 million discouraged workers! Obama's worst was 1.3 million. Of course, the population was also about 1/3 smaller then, making Reagan's 1.9 million more like 2.5 million by today's population.

Not only that, turns out Reagan had over a million discouraged workers for his first 7 years in office.

Those were the results Con voted for.
:lamo
 
Last edited:
Nice find! :applaud

Turns out, Reagan had as many as 1.9 million discouraged workers! Obama's worst was 1.3 million. Of course, the population was also about 1/3 smaller then, making Reagan's 1.9 million more like 2.5 million by today's population.


You really can't compare the two...the definitions are too different. The current definition doesn't include anyone who stopped looking more than a year ago, while the definition under Reagan had no time limit. The old definition might have contained some that would be in the broader Marginally Attached, rather than Discouraged.
 
Don't be so sure Joe. Crappy economy, is crappy economy. I can't be positive that I wouldn't defend a republican more than I do this liar n chief, but in the overall analysis I'd like to think that the conclusion would be the same. But, that's just it, I don't believe that a republican like Romney would be putting in place policies that are actively pushed by this President that are tamping down productivity.

But, you never know, for instance, if you remember, I was against TARP from Bush. In any case, I know that your usual meme during Obama is to say that no President has any effect on economic activity, if that is truly the case with you, or others, then you must in kind drop the meme that Obama inherited a mess from Bush.

I could be wrong, but I think you have. I seem to remember when it was going bad under Bush hearing these very same arguments, only in reverse. I was consistent then, saying presidents don't control the economy.

Being against TARP is one thing. Calling him a socialist communist Muslim for doing it is quite another. ;)
 
Based on staying informed.


The government has admitted that it has changed the 'seasonal adjustments'...but they refuse to say exactly how they have changed them.
You didn't look very hard: Intervention Analysis in Seasonal Adjustment

And where were you - the government recently approved changing the CPI model to the C-CPI-U model...which they admit will make the CPI numbers lower then they are now. And they have changed the CPI models many times over the years. Especially since the mid-90's...al designed to lower the CPI numbers.
No, the C-CPI has been published for many years. Obama has proposed changing the basis of Social Security COLA from teh CPI-W to the C-CPI-U.
AND the GDP tabulation process was changed recently (to much media attention) - again, to make the numbers seem better (in this case higher - freely admitted by the government).
Because it's well known that a Laspeyres type index will overstate the change in cost of living.
 
If you use ObamaCare to reduce employees hours by over 25% to avoid ObamaCare, then them additional part-time employees for those hours constitutes "new jobs."

So let's cheer millions of Americans being made part=time employees and losing all benefits!!!! Yahoo! :roll:
 
If you use ObamaCare to reduce employees hours by over 25% to avoid ObamaCare, then them additional part-time employees for those hours constitutes "new jobs."

So let's cheer millions of Americans being made part=time employees and losing all benefits!!!! Yahoo! :roll:

I was wondering if those were going to be called new jobs. There is no way around not calling them that.

I think you are right though.
 
You didn't look very hard: Intervention Analysis in Seasonal Adjustment

No, the C-CPI has been published for many years. Obama has proposed changing the basis of Social Security COLA from teh CPI-W to the C-CPI-U.
Because it's well known that a Laspeyres type index will overstate the change in cost of living.
Look, if you are not going to bother to even read my posts, then please do not waste my time by answering them (so I have to read it).

1) Your link is for the CPI...I was referring to the employment numbers in that part.

2) What in Earth are you talking about...I said that the CPI model was going to be changed to the C-CPI-U right in the part you quoted.

3) And again. I was talking about the GDP...NOT the CPI there. It stated it right in the portion you quoted...'GDP'.

More reading, less typing.


Have a more attentive day.
 
Last edited:
1) Your link is for the CPI...I was referring to the GDP in that part.
There was no way to infer that from your post. You wrote "The government has admitted that it has changed the 'seasonal adjustments'...but they refuse to say exactly how they have changed them." and then you immediately talked about the CPI.

2) Duh...I said that the CPI model was going to be changed to the C-CPI-U.
Please be more precise in your terms. You didn't specify which CPI model or changed for what purpose. The C-CPI-U is already a seperate model, so noting needs to be changed to it. It is unclear if you were referring to the headline CPI-U, or the CPI-W used for SS COLA, or what.
 
There was no way to infer that from your post. You wrote "The government has admitted that it has changed the 'seasonal adjustments'...but they refuse to say exactly how they have changed them." and then you immediately talked about the CPI.

Please be more precise in your terms. You didn't specify which CPI model or changed for what purpose. The C-CPI-U is already a seperate model, so noting needs to be changed to it. It is unclear if you were referring to the headline CPI-U, or the CPI-W used for SS COLA, or what.
The post you quoted was in response to e351 - and it started as the following 'Fudging the CPI, GDP, and Jobs figures? Who can you trust nowadays??'

So I was answering these three points - not in exact order.


The first part was in reference to the previous post to e351.

The second part was clear (imo)...I was referring to the new model the government used for the CPI.

And the third part?

Are you going to admit that you flat out missed that one? It said right in the first sentence 'GDP'?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
The post you quoted was in response to e351 - and it started as the following 'Fudging the CPI, GDP, and Jobs figures? Who can you trust nowadays??'

So I was answering these three points - not in exact order.
And you didn't specify which part you were addressing when.


The first part was in reference to the previous post to e351.
No idea which one that was.

The second part was clear (imo)...I was referring to the new model the government used for the CPI.
Which new model? A cite would be helpful. The C-CPI is not a new model, and I am not aware of any proposed changes to the CPI. The Consumer Expenditure Survey is being revamped, but that's not the same thing.

And the third part?

Are you going to admit that you flat out missed that one? It said right in the first sentence 'GDP'?.
I hadn't meant to address that at all...it was an editing error
 
I could be wrong, but I think you have. I seem to remember when it was going bad under Bush hearing these very same arguments, only in reverse. I was consistent then, saying presidents don't control the economy.

Being against TARP is one thing. Calling him a socialist communist Muslim for doing it is quite another. ;)

Ok, please show me where I called him a "socialist communist Muslim"..... You can't. Saying that Obama's thinking, or vision of America comports more readily with that of socialist thought models, is not calling him anything.

Also, if you think that I have said something in my posting that is untrue as to my line of thought in the past, then post it, otherwise your innuendo is just bull, and you know it.
 
And you didn't specify which part you were addressing when.


No idea which one that was.

Which new model? A cite would be helpful. The C-CPI is not a new model, and I am not aware of any proposed changes to the CPI. The Consumer Expenditure Survey is being revamped, but that's not the same thing.


I hadn't meant to address that at all...it was an editing error

I never typed ANYTHING about ANY particular CPI model except the C-CPI-U. You saw something that did not exist. And instead of just being mature and admitting your mistake - I know everyone makes mistakes - you are making excuses.

As for the rest, whatever - I already wasted time on this nonsense.


Next time you quote a post of mine - please read it more carefully. If you do not - your posts will be ignored after that.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
 
I never typed ANYTHING about ANY particular CPI model except the C-CPI-U.

You wrote: "I said that the CPI model was going to be changed to the C-CPI-U." I do not know where you got that idea and if you were referring to the CPI-U, the CPI-W or both. I am not aware of any such proposal.

You tried to clarify by saying: "I was referring to the new model the government used for the CPI."
I have no idea what you're referring to. When?

A link to the BLS announcement or a news report would be useful. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're referring to, because to the best of my knowledge, which includes talking to the CPI folks at BLS, there is no such proposed change.
 
Ok, please show me where I called him a "socialist communist Muslim"..... You can't. Saying that Obama's thinking, or vision of America comports more readily with that of socialist thought models, is not calling him anything.

Also, if you think that I have said something in my posting that is untrue as to my line of thought in the past, then post it, otherwise your innuendo is just bull, and you know it.

Oh, I'm sure you've wet the socialist route, but this isn't just about you. Just as do above. His thinking is no more socialist than Bush's was. There is really no major difference between the parties. This tactic by your side of the isle is nothing more that an outdated, weak attempt to marginalize without having to actually engage in the larger and more accurate debate.
 
Did the Reagan recession involve corrupt
securities which were rated AAA circulated throughout the financial industry? because of this credit markets frozen?

BWHAHAHAHAHA !! That the corrupt Democrat Franklin Raines packaged and distributed ?

You DO realize Fannie was the first to package and distribute MBSs and started in 1997 right ?

You DO realize by 2004 Fannie Mae owned 40% of ALL private MBSs right ?

Unbelievable you Democrats are so lacking of fundamental pertinent infomation.

Without the Democrats mandating of lower lending standards for banks and the GSEs there would not have been a bubble and without a bubble those securities would have been worthless.

You should do a little research and find out WHO asked for those securities to be Tripple AAA rated.

You need a hint ? It wasnt GW Bush
 
Obama didn't exaggerate the threat Iraq was and put use in a war which cost 4500+ of our troops lives and thousands of life altering injuries.

Obama did oversee the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

LOL ! Swing and a miss ....

You guys don't care about dead troops unless you can use them for your political purposes. Notice all of the current activism against the war in Afghanistan ?

And Obama oversaw a recession and then extended it and made it worse.
 
BWHAHAHAHAHA !! That the corrupt Democrat Franklin Raines packaged and distributed ?

You DO realize Fannie was the first to package and distribute MBSs and started in 1997 right ?

You DO realize by 2004 Fannie Mae owned 40% of ALL private MBSs right ?

Unbelievable you Democrats are so lacking of fundamental pertinent infomation.
Sources please.

Without the Democrats mandating of lower lending standards for banks and the GSEs there would not have been a bubble and without a bubble those securities would have been worthless.

The bubble was created by low interest rates that created high demand raising home prices. It wasn't low income people purchasing homes they couldn't afford. It was middle income people using the equity to purchase a better home or using it for other things.

The Democrats didn't have control of the House between 1995 and 2007 so there is no way they could have mandated anything.

You should do a little research and find out WHO asked for those securities to be Tripple AAA rated.

You need a hint ? It wasnt GW Bush


WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Read more here: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy
 

Attachments

  • 791-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
    791-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 63
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

LOL ! Swing and a miss ....

You guys don't care about dead troops unless you can use them for your political purposes. Notice all of the current activism against the war in Afghanistan ?
Why didn't President Bush allow UN weapons inspector Hans Blix to complete his task?

And Obama oversaw a recession and then extended it and made it worse.
Bull
 
Sources please.



The bubble was created by low interest rates that created high demand raising home prices. It wasn't low income people purchasing homes they couldn't afford. It was middle income people using the equity to purchase a better home or using it for other things.

The Democrats didn't have control of the House between 1995 and 2007 so there is no way they could have mandated anything.




WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Read more here: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

LOL !!!

McClatchy...????? Wow....his one dimensional retarded analysis of the Sub-Prime collapse ignores the fact that by 2008 Fannie and Freddie held 5 trillion in loans or TOXIC MBS's that were backed by sub-prime loans.

1.7 TRILLION in CRA alone. Where do you think Bernake's buying all of those MBS from ? You know he's spending 43 billion a month buying up MBS.

In short, because I just got through posting 5 pages of information on another thread regarding this exact subject, Clinton through executive order changed the standards of banks and Fannie and Freddie via threats from his AG, installed a bunch of corrupt Democrats to run both of those GSE's into the ground and rip off the American People, and then signed laws like the Grahm-Leachey Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act to remove oversight from CDO's.

He also signed the Riegle- Neal Act that tied a banks CRA score to their ability to acquire new properties or move into new areas.

So he had a seller, and a guaranteed buyer ( Fannie and Freddie ) lowered the Capital Requirements on mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie to 3% and a bubble was created.

McClatchky fails to understand the simple concept of how bubbles work, and how securities associated with that bubble increase in value.

I mean, I assumed you knew that Fannie and Freddie INVENTED the MBS's. There is no accounting for the low information voter.
 
Oh, I'm sure you've wet the socialist route, but this isn't just about you.

What an odd claim. You accuse me of calling Obama a socialist, yet you elect not to back up your claim with any proof of this. So, I guess we can dismiss your silliness here.

His thinking is no more socialist than Bush's was.

When George W. Bush made the statement that "We have to abandon the free market principles, in order to save the free market" I called foul loudly. At the time I said that was a progressive idea, and wrong.

There is really no major difference between the parties.

Between the parties? Considering that both parties are replete with progressives these days, you may be right about that. Which is why Constitutional Conservatives have to stand up and fight against destructive progressive policies.

This tactic by your side of the isle is nothing more that an outdated, weak attempt to marginalize without having to actually engage in the larger and more accurate debate.

I have the feeling that your attempt to frame the debate, is just a ploy to deflect from what is the true, or should be the true debate here which is the phony numbers we are fed and told not to question.
 
LOL !!!

McClatchy...????? Wow....his one dimensional retarded analysis of the Sub-Prime collapse ignores the fact that by 2008 Fannie and Freddie held 5 trillion in loans or TOXIC MBS's that were backed by sub-prime loans.

1.7 TRILLION in CRA alone. Where do you think Bernake's buying all of those MBS from ? You know he's spending 43 billion a month buying up MBS.

In short, because I just got through posting 5 pages of information on another thread regarding this exact subject, Clinton through executive order changed the standards of banks and Fannie and Freddie via threats from his AG, installed a bunch of corrupt Democrats to run both of those GSE's into the ground and rip off the American People, and then signed laws like the Grahm-Leachey Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act to remove oversight from CDO's.

He also signed the Riegle- Neal Act that tied a banks CRA score to their ability to acquire new properties or move into new areas.

So he had a seller, and a guaranteed buyer ( Fannie and Freddie ) lowered the Capital Requirements on mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie to 3% and a bubble was created.

McClatchky fails to understand the simple concept of how bubbles work, and how securities associated with that bubble increase in value.

I mean, I assumed you knew that Fannie and Freddie INVENTED the MBS's. There is no accounting for the low information voter.

You call me a low information voter, yet you apparently don't know who wrote the Grahm-Leachey Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.
 
What an odd claim. You accuse me of calling Obama a socialist, yet you elect not to back up your claim with any proof of this. So, I guess we can dismiss your silliness here.

Just not limiting it to you, and I added more than you do. You do the socialist thing.

When George W. Bush made the statement that "We have to abandon the free market principles, in order to save the free market" I called foul loudly. At the time I said that was a progressive idea, and wrong.

Don't recall that, but even that doesn't match how you approach Obama. With Obama you go full hyperbolic mode.


Between the parties? Considering that both parties are replete with progressives these days, you may be right about that. Which is why Constitutional Conservatives have to stand up and fight against destructive progressive policies.

Nonsense. You merely making excuses. Such distinctions were never really made when republicans were in charge, and there was no difference then. None.

I have the feeling that your attempt to frame the debate, is just a ploy to deflect from what is the true, or should be the true debate here which is the phony numbers we are fed and told not to question.

The numbers are no more funny than they've ever been. You and others only see it when you want to. That's my point. Either address or don't. But I am correct about that.
 
You call me a low information voter, yet you
apparently don't know who wrote the Grahm-Leachey Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

Lol...who signed it ?

Not too mention with out the Home Owners Stategy and the placement of a Criminal as the head of Fannie Mae the passage of those two bills wouldn't have amounted to squat.

If Clinton thought those two Bills were a detriment to the Govts regatory Control over Banks maybe he should have just ignored them.
 
Lol...who signed it ?

Not too mention with out the Home Owners Stategy and the placement of a Criminal as the head of Fannie Mae the passage of those two bills wouldn't have amounted to squat.

If Clinton thought those two Bills were a detriment to the Govts regatory Control over Banks maybe he should have just ignored them.
In your opinion should he have signed the two bills? What do the do?
 
I have the feeling that your attempt to frame the debate, is just a ploy to deflect from what is the true, or should be the true debate here which is the phony numbers we are fed and told not to question.
What specifically are you claiming makes them phony, and are you claiming they're only phony under Obama or that they've always been phony?

Who's telling you not to question them? The problem is that most of the "questions" I've heard reveal a complete ignorance of the actual methodology and/or purpose of the numbers. For example, the UE rate is not a measurement of poverty or poor circumstances...a multi-millionaire can be unemployed and is counted just the same as anyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom