• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Jack Hays said:
An an answer based on a story of what Repubs did has nothing to do with Dems not keeping their word.:peace
Click to expand...


Got it, YOU deny FACTS and history

The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. IN THE END, LAWMAKERS apparently DID A BETTER JOB OF LIVING UP TO THE BARGAIN THAN THE ADMINISTRATION DID

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

Four Pinocchios


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post
 
dad2three2001 said:
Got it, YOU deny FACTS and history

The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. IN THE END, LAWMAKERS apparently DID A BETTER JOB OF LIVING UP TO THE BARGAIN THAN THE ADMINISTRATION DID

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

Four Pinocchios


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

I read it the first time. Since my point was about Dems and your post was entirely about Repubs your post is beside the point.:peace
 
dad2three2001 said:
I'LL DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU

BUSH ENTERS OFFICE JAN 2001 111,859,000 Total private
BUSH LEAVES OFFICE JAN 2009 111,397, LOSS of 673,000+Total private

OBAMA ENTERS OFFICE Jan 2009 111,397,000 Total private

May 2014 116,594,000 AND INCREASE OF OVER 5+ MILLION IN THE Total private (NON FARM)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing performance. I'm trying to get you to make sense by using the correct terminology. As it is, it's clear you don't actually understand what you're talking about. You're just spouting numbers and don't know what they mean.

In May, there were 116,594,000 non-farm stroll private sector jobs, 138,463,000 total non-farm jobs, 145,669,000 employed, and 155,421,00 in the labor force. And yet you're using jobs, employment, and workforce as if they were interchangeable.
 
Jack Hays said:
I read it the first time. Since my point was about Dems and your post was entirely about Repubs your post is beside the point.:peace
Click to expand...



Nonsense, THERE WAS NO DEAL THE DEMS NEEDED TO STEP UP TOO, IT WAS THE REAGAN ADMIN THAT FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THEIR AGREEMENT. CONservatives are NEVER honest on this forum, almost like everyone of you Klowns were Rushbo or Beck
 
pinqy said:
I'm not arguing performance. I'm trying to get you to make sense by using the correct terminology. As it is, it's clear you don't actually understand what you're talking about. You're just spouting numbers and don't know what they mean.

In May, there were 116,594,000 non-farm stroll private sector jobs, 138,463,000 total non-farm jobs, 145,669,000 employed, and 155,421,00 in the labor force. And yet you're using jobs, employment, and workforce as if they were interchangeable.
Click to expand...

TERMINOLOGY IS THERE HAS BEEN A NET (Gross 9+ million since March 2010) of over 5+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created under Obama, pretty simple. You can argue EVERYTHING else if you want
 
dad2three2001 said:
TERMINOLOGY IS THERE HAS BEEN A NET (Gross 9+ million since March 2010) of over 5+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created under Obama, pretty simple. You can argue EVERYTHING else if you want
Click to expand...
It his pretty simple, which makes it odd that it took you this long to figure out the right terms.
 
pinqy said:
It his pretty simple, which makes it odd that it took you this long to figure out the right terms.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Can't help it if you can't follow links or use your common sense!
 
dad2three2001 said:
Nonsense, THERE WAS NO DEAL THE DEMS NEEDED TO STEP UP TOO, IT WAS THE REAGAN ADMIN THAT FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THEIR AGREEMENT. CONservatives are NEVER honest on this forum, almost like everyone of you Klowns were Rushbo or Beck
Click to expand...

A string of insults is not an argument. :peace
 
Conservative said:
Weird, I cannot find the legislation that Bush authored or signed that did that, please post that legislation for me?
Click to expand...

He actually believes, get this, that the Subprime mortgage crisis started in 2004 and stopped in 2007.

He actually thinks the entire Subprime mortgage bubble started, grew and stopped in the span of 3 years.

LOL !

WTH ?

Friken low information Obama supporters.

His understanding of the Housing crisis is limited to left wing blogs and bits and pieces of data posted out of context.

He has no idea of what the hell it is he's talking about.
 
Conservative said:
Weird, I cannot find the legislation that Bush authored or signed that did that, please post that legislation for me?
Click to expand...

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."



From the 2000 GOP Platform:

“Implement the “American Dream Down Payment” program, which will allow a half million families who currently draw federal rental assistance to become homeowners, and allow families receiving federal rental payments to apply one year’s worth of their existing assistance money toward the purchase of their own first home, thus becoming independent of any further government housing assistance. This approach builds upon our long standing commitment to resident management of public housing and other initiatives.”

Passed: December 16, 2003 — American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


June 17, 2004

CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



In April (2004), HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES


"Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007. "

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...s update.pdf
 
Fenton said:
He actually believes, get this, that the Subprime mortgage crisis started in 2004 and stopped in 2007.

He actually thinks the entire Subprime mortgage bubble started, grew and stopped in the span of 3 years.

LOL !

WTH ?

Friken low information Obama supporters.

His understanding of the Housing crisis is limited to left wing blogs and bits and pieces of data posted out of context.

He has no idea of what the hell it is he's talking about.
Click to expand...

No I don't, the federal reserve AND Bush's working group said it was

"Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007. "
 
Conservative said:
Weird, I cannot find the legislation that Bush authored or signed that did that, please post that legislation for me?
Click to expand...

"(In 2000, Clinton) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (Bush) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf



We want more people owning their own home in America," Bush said. His goal is to have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade.

March 26, 2004

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership | Fox News



“By early 2004, these concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries.
Acting on a request from a national bank, the OCC in 2003 concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending.

……..
In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.”


http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/occ-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
 
Moderator's Warning:
The topic of this thread is not each other. Stick to debating the OP.
 
Demon of Light said:
Some of those fact thingies to rebut your claims that decline in labor force participation is just baby-boomers retiring.
Click to expand...
Which did nothing of the sort, so refer back to my original statement.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Which did nothing of the sort, so refer back to my original statement.
Click to expand...

Do you just not like facts that disagree with you or something? The working-age population has increased considerably, while employment levels are at the same level they were before the increase. Obviously, that translates to a lower labor-force participation rate among people below retirement age and thus points to the labor force participation figure not being affected merely by retirement of baby-boomers. What you are saying is completely at odds with what every single expert has said about the labor-force participation rate. It is a reflection of the economy that labor-force participation rates have declined so much, not demographics.
 
dad2three2001 said:
No I don't, the federal reserve AND Bush's working group said it was

"Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007. "
Click to expand...

LOL !!

The Presidents working group again ?

I want YOU to explain exactly how the Subprime mortgage crisis was born out of a change in standards that started in 2004.

Dont quote text out of context, dont post hack links to leftist sites like Salon.

No, I want everyone here to know how LITTLE you actually understand about the Subprime mortgage crisis.

I want you to quantity the Subprime loans made after 2004 and tie it to the apparent beginning, buildup and collapse of the Subprime mortgage market.

Lem'me guess, you won't because you CAN'T because you've NEVER truly educated yourself on this issue.

Googling to back up your Bush blame isn't going to get you there.

So you're going to repeat yourself, and post the same BS links and run away.

C'mon, its a direct challenge from a proud Conservative ( Me ) to a Liberal ( You ).

Should be no problem right ? You're smarter than a Conservative aren't you ?

Explain in DETAIL how the fraction of a percent of Subprime loans made after 2004 caused the largest Bubble in History.

I want YOUR explanation, not links or text in CAPS out of context.

I can offer up a detailed explanation gojng back to 1992 without links.

So Ill wait for your synopsis and if you cant do it, at least be man enough to admit you don't know what the hell it is you're talking about.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, if I was constantly being proven to not have any idea what I was talking about and constantly being proven wrong with actual statistics, I'd want to leave also. Have a good day, and I hope the next time you discuss this topic you remember what I and others have taught you.
Click to expand...

92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?

LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !!

The Presidents working group again ?

I want YOU to explain exactly how the Subprime mortgage crisis was born out of a change in standards that started in 2004.

Dont quote text out of context, dont post hack links to leftist sites like Salon.

No, I want everyone here to know how LITTLE you actually understand about the Subprime mortgage crisis.

I want you to quantity the Subprime loans made after 2004 and tie it to the apparent beginning, buildup and collapse of the Subprime mortgage market.

Lem'me guess, you won't because you CAN'T because you've NEVER truly educated yourself on this issue.

Googling to back up your Bush blame isn't going to get you there.

So you're going to repeat yourself, and post the same BS links and run away.

C'mon, its a direct challenge from a proud Conservative ( Me ) to a Liberal ( You ).

Should be no problem right ? You're smarter than a Conservative aren't you ?

Explain in DETAIL how the fraction of a percent of Subprime loans made after 2004 caused the largest Bubble in History.

I want YOUR explanation, not links or text in CAPS out of context.

I can offer up a detailed explanation gojng back to 1992 without links.

So Ill wait for your synopsis and if you cant do it, at least be man enough to admit you don't know what the hell it is you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Easy

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED UNDER BUSH

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.”

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


Jun 16, 2005

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs.

The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

2004:
Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf



In 2000 (BEFORE BUSH), securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The MOST EXPLOSIVE GROWTH occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years EXCEED 90%


http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf

“there is not enough AAA debt in the world to satisfy demand.”


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
 
Erod said:
92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?

LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
Click to expand...


Lowest sustained effective tax burden on the 'job creators' in 80+ years? Perhaps they don't have enough incentive to hire?
 
dad2three2001 said:
Lowest sustained effective tax burden on the 'job creators' in 80+ years? Perhaps they don't have enough incentive to hire?
Click to expand...

Right, and we all know that taxes to fund a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. are much more important than people keeping more of what they earn. Liberal logic and of course liberal desires to keep people dependent.

I understand this is hard for you to understand but economic growth is tied to a great extent to personal income and take home pay. Only in the liberal world does spending trump personal income and the govt. never needs to cut spending just collect more revenue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom