FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[Dad2three]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

EVERY serious economists says Obama had it MUCH worse AND an opposing party unwilling to work with him, unlike Ronnie....

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

Hey! Don't you know that all of those people on Unemployment and SS Disability due to Obamanomics are actually Stimulating The Economy?

Sheesh.

Weird you forget it was Bushonomics that did that. Obamanomics has created over 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

That's a lie, as anyone who can run a report on BLS.gov can tell you. The economy is always creating some jobs while others are destroyed. The problem with Obamanomics is that it is barely creating enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. If we'd had a proper recovery, job creation would have been double what it actually was.

And, a bunch of part time jobs (which a large part of the new jobs are), is cold comfort to people who'd rather have a full time job.

Oh...and you are a blithering idiot. SRSLY

Yes, in con worldview, the depth and width of the hole Dubya/GOP drove US into doesn't matter, just Obama hasn't fixed their fuck ups fast enough

The Republican Myth of Obama’s ‘Part-Time America’ Gets Destroyed With One Graph

Yes, you're a moron, BUSH AND HIS 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES LOST OVER 1+ MILLION JOBS IN 8 YEARS, AND 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009 THANKS TO HIS POLICIES, BUT OBAMA HAVING A NET (GROSS 10+ SINCE MARCH 2010) OF OVER 6+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IS BAD???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, you're a moron, BUSH AND HIS 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES LOST OVER 1+ MILLION JOBS IN 8 YEARS, AND 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009 THANKS TO HIS POLICIES, BUT OBAMA HAVING A NET (GROSS 10+ SINCE MARCH 2010) OF OVER 6+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IS BAD???

1) Bush was not conservative so it doesn't matter. Does anyone want to recreate Bush's policies?? Stupid??

2) Bushes U6 unemployment was 8% while barry's has averaged over 13%, the worst since Depression.

3)Liberalism is anti business so can only harm an economy.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, you're a moron, BUSH AND HIS 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES LOST OVER 1+ MILLION JOBS IN 8 YEARS, AND 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009 THANKS TO HIS POLICIES, BUT OBAMA HAVING A NET (GROSS 10+ SINCE MARCH 2010) OF OVER 6+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IS BAD???

1) Bush was not conservative so it doesn't matter. Does anyone want to recreate Bush's policies?? Stupid??

2) Bushes U6 unemployment was 8% while barry's has averaged over 13%, the worst since Depression.

3)Liberalism is anti business so can only harm an economy.

1) Yes, just was a conservative for 6 years, then you klowns turned your back on him

2) Yep, UNTIL Dubya lost 700,000+ jobs a month at the end, AGAIN, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP and wide hole

3) Sure RECORD US profits for Corps,lowest labor costs EVER recorded for them and 40+ year low EFFECTIVE taxes on them. Gaawddamn Dem policies...

 

[Listening]

That's a lie, as anyone who can run a report on BLS.gov can tell you. The economy is always creating some jobs while others are destroyed. The problem with Obamanomics is that it is barely creating enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. If we'd had a proper recovery, job creation would have been double what it actually was.

And, a bunch of part time jobs (which a large part of the new jobs are), is cold comfort to people who'd rather have a full time job.

Oh...and you are a blithering idiot. SRSLY

I've found having Dudpeepee on ignore has really allowed me more time to read non-spam.

You'll be hearing about the job creation pretty soon.

Not that the job loss ever gets included in those considerations.

The net is nowhere near as good.

Barack Obama says his administration has created 5 million jobs PolitiFact

 

[Dad2three]

That's a lie, as anyone who can run a report on BLS.gov can tell you. The economy is always creating some jobs while others are destroyed. The problem with Obamanomics is that it is barely creating enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. If we'd had a proper recovery, job creation would have been double what it actually was.

And, a bunch of part time jobs (which a large part of the new jobs are), is cold comfort to people who'd rather have a full time job.

Oh...and you are a blithering idiot. SRSLY

I've found having Dudpeepee on ignore has really allowed me more time to read non-spam.

You'll be hearing about the job creation pretty soon.

Not that the job loss ever gets included in those considerations.

The net is nowhere near as good.

Barack Obama says his administration has created 5 million jobs PolitiFact

"Not that the job loss ever gets included in those considerations.

The net is nowhere near as good."

SERIOUSLY? lol

October 16th, 2012??? WTF

HOW ABOUT GOING TO BLS

PRIVATE sector jobs Feb 2009 - 110,699,000


PRIVATE sector jobs July 2014 117,082, 000


ISN'T THAT NET NEARLY 6 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AFTER DUBYA LOST 1+ MILLION IN 8 YEARS

LOL

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Listening]

I guess one way to convince yourself you're winning an argument is just make shit up.

My mistake....

Carter was re-elected with 49 states while Reagan was defeated in his bid for re-election....

Oh...wait....

 

[Dad2three]

I guess one way to convince yourself you're winning an argument is just make shit up.

My mistake....

Carter was re-elected with 49 states while Reagan was defeated in his bid for re-election....

Oh...wait....

AND? Obama was first Prez in 50+ years to get 52% of the vote, TWICE. AND? Same relevance, lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ISN'T THAT NET NEARLY 6 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AFTER DUBYA LOST 1+ MILLION IN 8 YEARS

LOL

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

so you want to argue which liberal was worst?

 

[Faun]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Under Obama, it's 6.2%

yes while Obama is president but despite Obama being president. Remember, he's a liberal and so anti-business Marxist. That is why you can't name a liberal policy that would help rather than hurt employment.

 

[Dad2three]

What did Bush OR Obama have to do with the Federal Reserves Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)?

Oh yeah, nothing. Because it's Privately Owned Bank.

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist s View Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEIdeas



NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.


FRB Speech--Bernanke Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3 2010

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What did Bush OR Obama have to do with the Federal Reserves Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)?

Oh yeah, nothing. Because it's Privately Owned Bank.

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist s View Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEIdeas



NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.


FRB Speech--Bernanke Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3 2010

idiotic since all the money to buy and bid up homes prices in the bubble came from the Fed. They are the only ones who can print money. Not only did these regulators print the money for the bubble but the failed to recognize the bubble and stop printing!

What do you expect from soviet regulations?

 

[Dad2three]

What did Bush OR Obama have to do with the Federal Reserves Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)?

Oh yeah, nothing. Because it's Privately Owned Bank.

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist s View Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEIdeas



NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.


FRB Speech--Bernanke Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3 2010

idiotic since all the money to buy and bid up homes prices in the bubble came from the Fed. They are the only ones who can print money. Not only did these regulators print the money for the bubble but the failed to recognize the bubble and stop printing!

What do you expect from soviet regulations?

after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEIdeas


MORON

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

…

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

dear, Fed Fanny Fred FHA CRA SEC FDIC etc etc were soviet regulating all the time. What planet have you been on?

 

[Dad2three]

…

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

dear, Fed Fanny Fred FHA CRA SEC FDIC etc etc were soviet regulating all the time. What planet have you been on?

Weird you don't know the MAJORITY of loans during Dubya's bubble was in the SHADOW BANKING SECTOR (think wall street) and NOT regulated like traditional banks


YOU KNOW A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE THAT WASN'T BECAUSE OF BARNEY OR F/F?

 

[Listening]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

No it wasn't.

The economy suffered a meltdown, but has recovered. Obama notwithstanding.

If Obama had had Reagan's interest rates, it's not clear we would have survived.

Obama is fast becoming a pariah in his own party. Nobody seems to want him around when they campaign.

 

[Faun]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

No it wasn't.

The economy suffered a meltdown, but has recovered. Obama notwithstanding.

If Obama had had Reagan's interest rates, it's not clear we would have survived.

Obama is fast becoming a pariah in his own party. Nobody seems to want him around when they campaign.

Go sell stupid elsewhere.

The leading indicator of the economy is GDP

GDP:
Q4-1980: +7.6
Q4-2008: -8.3

The second leading indicator of the economy is unemployment
U3 UE:
01/1981: 7.5%
01/2009: 7.8% (and rising)

And lastly, the economy Bush handed Obama was in recession; the economy Carter handed Reagan was not.

 

[Dad2three]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

No it wasn't.

The economy suffered a meltdown, but has recovered. Obama notwithstanding.

If Obama had had Reagan's interest rates, it's not clear we would have survived.

Obama is fast becoming a pariah in his own party. Nobody seems to want him around when they campaign.

Weird, kinda like Clinton in 2000 and Dubya in 2008 and 2012?

Reagan CUT taxes and the opposite of what was supposed to happen sprang up, he went to 10.8% unemployment?

But yes, the GOP digs deep and wide holes, and then fights the Dems on helping US

 

[Listening]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

No it wasn't.

The economy suffered a meltdown, but has recovered. Obama notwithstanding.

If Obama had had Reagan's interest rates, it's not clear we would have survived.

Obama is fast becoming a pariah in his own party. Nobody seems to want him around when they campaign.

Go sell stupid elsewhere.

The leading indicator of the economy is GDP

GDP:
Q4-1980: +7.6
Q4-2008: -8.3

The second leading indicator of the economy is unemployment
U3 UE:
01/1981: 7.5%
01/2009: 7.8% (and rising)

And lastly, the economy Bush handed Obama was in recession; the economy Carter handed Reagan was not.

You bet.....

Things were rocking and rolling when Reagan took over for a first time Carter (IOW....we threw his ass out).

His own misery index was used to crush him.

Obama got handed a constipated credit system.

Reagan suffered from very high interest rates (which had to go higher to stem so many of the issues Carter had generated).

Sell stupid ?

You mean you buy stupid ?

Thought so.

BTW: If Dudpeepee reads this, I know you are posting based on the thread history, but you are on ignore....so I am sure you are posting your usual three pages of crap....keep it up. Maybe someone else will read it and care if you are still breathing tomorrow.

 

[Faun]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

And yet, the economy Obama inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited. Hell, we weren't even in a recession when Reagan became president.

No it wasn't.

The economy suffered a meltdown, but has recovered. Obama notwithstanding.

If Obama had had Reagan's interest rates, it's not clear we would have survived.

Obama is fast becoming a pariah in his own party. Nobody seems to want him around when they campaign.

Go sell stupid elsewhere.

The leading indicator of the economy is GDP

GDP:
Q4-1980: +7.6
Q4-2008: -8.3

The second leading indicator of the economy is unemployment
U3 UE:
01/1981: 7.5%
01/2009: 7.8% (and rising)

And lastly, the economy Bush handed Obama was in recession; the economy Carter handed Reagan was not.

You bet.....

Things were rocking and rolling when Reagan took over for a first time Carter (IOW....we threw his ass out).

His own misery index was used to crush him.

Obama got handed a constipated credit system.

Reagan suffered from very high interest rates (which had to go higher to stem so many of the issues Carter had generated).

Sell stupid ?

You mean you buy stupid ?

Thought so.

BTW: If Dudpeepee reads this, I know you are posting based on the thread history, but you are on ignore....so I am sure you are posting your usual three pages of crap....keep it up. Maybe someone else will read it and care if you are still breathing tomorrow.

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not. You lost this one, accept it.