How George W. Bush's Two Tax Cuts, 2001 and 2003 Screwed The Pooch

[Dad2three]

The binary thinking on display by some people in this thread is shocking.

Newsflash for partisan hacks- BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

Yep, but weird only ONE party has 98% of their members in Congress signing that Muslim American's tax pledge NOT to get a penny more in new tax revenues for US, yep "both the same"

 

[Dad2three]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back," Greenspan

 

[Dad2three]

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

You poor simpleton. Reagan turns things around after Carter and you're here all these years later trying to make Jimmy the victim. I remember the Carter and Reagan years, you stupid fuck. You don't get to rewrite history to satisfy your hate.

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back," Allan Greenspan writes. "I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

The 1993 deficit-fighting Clinton budget that kicked off the greatest economic boom in U.S. history, and passed the U.S. House of Representatives without a single G.O.P. vote in favour, was "an act of political courage," says Greenspan"


Greenspan excoriates Clinton's successor and the spendthrift Republican-controlled Congress of George W. Bush's first six years in office. In the Bush White House, "little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes."

 

[IcebergSlim]

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

Not Obama’s Idea: Some partisans on the right might forget that the TARP program was born under President George W. Bush and signed into law on Oct. 3, 2008 — a month before voters even went to the ballot box and more than two months before Barack Obama’s inauguration.
2008 TARP Funds -- Where Are They Now? | InvestorPlace

All of you bashers Blame Bush for TARP right????

Once and for all here are the FACTS!!!
A summary of below:
Revenue from Bush started from end of 2002 to end of 2009 because Revenue for 2001 due to Clinton policies.
So 2002 to 2009 revenues: $17.273 trillion
and outlays the same from end of 2002 to end of 2009
Outlays $20.820 trillion
Total shortfall $3.547 trillion

Obama:
From 2010 tax receipts he is responsible for to 2017 or $23.169 trillion.
Obama's administration responsible for outlay from 2010 to 2017 or $29.534 trillion
Total shortfall Obama responsible for: $6.365 trillion:
Total Obama shortfall is 179% of Bush Shortfall.
And remember Obama also benefitting from received BACK from TARP $672 Billion.
So either subtract the $616.6 Billion in TARP OUTLAYS that was part of the Bush OUTLAYS in 2009
Or Subtract $672.8 Billion TARP PAID BACK to day from Obama Receipts.
Either way will increase the percent of 179% more then Bush for Obama to nearly 200%.
So once again FACTS have a way of confusing people like you I'm sure!!!!


View attachment 50758

FY 2008 ENDS ON SEPT 30, 2008!

Damn, you people are stupid......

 

[IcebergSlim]

and yet the govt was collecting record revenue ......oooops

ONLY in the right wing bubble Bubba'


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

yes record revenue....and today you are taking in substantially more and still running huge deficits...ooooops

FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated:

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

Ifs and buts.....smoke and mirrors.........perhaps tax cuts fired the economy...........thus the extra revenue...

"..perhaps tax cuts fired the economy...........thus the extra revenue..."


IF YOU MEANT DID DUBYA'S INHERIT AN ECONOMY THAT HAD 209% OF GDP THEN PROMPTLY LOWERED IT O BELOW 15% OF GDP, THE WAY ECONOMIST LOOK AT IT, TRUE


October 17, 2008

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term. Now let's look at the update that James Kennedy posted last week to his numbers. While he does not have an update to the chart above, we do have the actual numbers for new mortgage equity withdrawals through the second quarter of this year. And what they show is MEWs simply withering on the vine. The engine of our GDP growth has essentially been turned off.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

Dude,

You're ruthless......

 

[tyroneweaver]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

 

[Dad2three]

This should blow your left brain...it is truly amazing how EASILY Big Ears can dupe his partisan worshipers.

The truth...can you accept it?

Obama has boasted about the shrinking of the budget deficit from the more than $1 trillion seen in the first four years of his presidency. But even with that reduction, budget deficits under Obama are on track to stay higher than the highest deficit seen under President George W. Bush.

President Bush was seen by many as a big spender who squandered a rare budget surplus. But according to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush’s highest annual budget deficit was $458 billion.

That’s still $25 billion less than Obama’s lowest deficit: $483 billion in the just-finished 2014 fiscal year, and several years into what Obama himself has called an economic recovery.

So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit.

" So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit."



EXCEPT HIS LAST RIGHT?

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office


CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

Which INCLUDED TARP...
CHECK THE FACTS though!!!

TARP has been paid BACK and in doing so REDUCED Obama's deficit!

Now.. WHAT HAPPENED to TARP the program that Bush has been blamed for?
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
$616.6 billion went out
$672.8 Billion came in...

ALL PAID BACK... PLUS A PROFIT of: $56.2 billion...

View attachment 50755

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

First of all I don't believe anything you write because you can't even pay attention
to the little red dotted line that would have underlined "fasioned"!!!
These are such simple things to do but idiots like you have no time for the little details and to follow just the helps that can at least add to your credibility!


Hey... YOU still ignored the FACTS those events Occurred! Why not admit they had an affect on HOUSING which had an affect on
the recession!
But you biased dishonest person is you have NOT recognize THESE FACTS!!!

-- Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

-- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

SO YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF SOCIALISM, AS LONG AS IT'S PAID BACK. GOT IT




Ah the OUT OF CONTEXT WORDS OF DEMS ABOUT THE 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS OF F/F? AND?

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again

Testimony from Dubya's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's" of the GSE's 2004

Mr.Barney Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.

October 26, 2005

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"


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



BUT NO, THOUGH BUSH CRUSHED F/F (AS REGULATOR), THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE BUSH SUBPRIME CRISIS


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


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

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

 

[Dad2three]

You have no idea what last year's deficit was, do you?

No idea at all.....

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

9/11? Dubya failure

Recession that WASN'T a REAL recession but a blip

Tech bubble WAS UNDER Clinton and WAS the recession

Hurricanes? lol

 

[IcebergSlim]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

Tell everyone where you see unemployment and 30 yr NOMINAL mortgage rates peaking, Hondo....

 

[Dad2three]

you ever thought you'd see the day they would wail and howl over TAX CUTS that gave YOUR money back to you? I'm just shocked that anyone, let alone our fellow countrymen is the one whining about it. what a government tool

Now that Reaganomics has increased debt by $17+ trillion and our kids/grandkids need to pay for Gov't we refused to fund the past 34 years AS WELL AS ADDED COSTS OF BABY BOOMER GENERATION, ON BEHALF OF MY 3 KIDS AND THEIR 6 KIDS, FUKK OFF YOU DEADBEAT CONS/GOPers!

 

[healthmyths]

This should blow your left brain...it is truly amazing how EASILY Big Ears can dupe his partisan worshipers.

The truth...can you accept it?

Obama has boasted about the shrinking of the budget deficit from the more than $1 trillion seen in the first four years of his presidency. But even with that reduction, budget deficits under Obama are on track to stay higher than the highest deficit seen under President George W. Bush.

President Bush was seen by many as a big spender who squandered a rare budget surplus. But according to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush’s highest annual budget deficit was $458 billion.

That’s still $25 billion less than Obama’s lowest deficit: $483 billion in the just-finished 2014 fiscal year, and several years into what Obama himself has called an economic recovery.

So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit.

" So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit."



EXCEPT HIS LAST RIGHT?

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office


CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

Which INCLUDED TARP...
CHECK THE FACTS though!!!

TARP has been paid BACK and in doing so REDUCED Obama's deficit!

Now.. WHAT HAPPENED to TARP the program that Bush has been blamed for?
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
$616.6 billion went out
$672.8 Billion came in...

ALL PAID BACK... PLUS A PROFIT of: $56.2 billion...

View attachment 50755

So...we are only allowed to discuss last year's deficit. Is that right?

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

First of all I don't believe anything you write because you can't even pay attention
to the little red dotted line that would have underlined "fasioned"!!!
These are such simple things to do but idiots like you have no time for the little details and to follow just the helps that can at least add to your credibility!


Hey... YOU still ignored the FACTS those events Occurred! Why not admit they had an affect on HOUSING which had an affect on
the recession!
But you biased dishonest person is you have NOT recognize THESE FACTS!!!

-- Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

-- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

SO YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF SOCIALISM, AS LONG AS IT'S PAID BACK. GOT IT




Ah the OUT OF CONTEXT WORDS OF DEMS ABOUT THE 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS OF F/F? AND?

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again

Testimony from Dubya's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's" of the GSE's 2004

Mr.Barney Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.

October 26, 2005

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"


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



BUT NO, THOUGH BUSH CRUSHED F/F (AS REGULATOR), THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE BUSH SUBPRIME CRISIS


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


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

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

Wow... that's it?

Considering GWB had to face events that NO other President has EVER FACED during their 8 years... I am not surprised
that the above dialogue didn't happen. After all Bush's administration had a pretty full plate with THESE EVENTS to respond to.
Recession/Dot.com Bust/911/Anthrax attacks/Worst hurricane Seasons in history ... I'd say his plate was plenty full and yet:
Bush deficits were a 55% Less then Obama's who had NO crisis, no events, NOTHING of the magnitude GWB faced.

So yea maybe GWB did not have his best results with the housing bubble that is true.

 

[Dad2three]

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

Not Obama’s Idea: Some partisans on the right might forget that the TARP program was born under President George W. Bush and signed into law on Oct. 3, 2008 — a month before voters even went to the ballot box and more than two months before Barack Obama’s inauguration.
2008 TARP Funds -- Where Are They Now? | InvestorPlace

All of you bashers Blame Bush for TARP right????

Once and for all here are the FACTS!!!
A summary of below:
Revenue from Bush started from end of 2002 to end of 2009 because Revenue for 2001 due to Clinton policies.
So 2002 to 2009 revenues: $17.273 trillion
and outlays the same from end of 2002 to end of 2009
Outlays $20.820 trillion
Total shortfall $3.547 trillion

Obama:
From 2010 tax receipts he is responsible for to 2017 or $23.169 trillion.
Obama's administration responsible for outlay from 2010 to 2017 or $29.534 trillion
Total shortfall Obama responsible for: $6.365 trillion:
Total Obama shortfall is 179% of Bush Shortfall.
And remember Obama also benefitting from received BACK from TARP $672 Billion.
So either subtract the $616.6 Billion in TARP OUTLAYS that was part of the Bush OUTLAYS in 2009
Or Subtract $672.8 Billion TARP PAID BACK to day from Obama Receipts.
Either way will increase the percent of 179% more then Bush for Obama to nearly 200%.
So once again FACTS have a way of confusing people like you I'm sure!!!!


View attachment 50758

AS HE SAID MORON:

"Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009....."



STARTED OCT 1, 2009 DUMMY!

 

[tyroneweaver]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

Tell everyone where you see unemployment and 30 yr NOMINAL mortgage rates peaking, Hondo....

If you'e interpretation were true jimmy carter would have been reelected wouldn't he
to bad the majority of americans didn't agree with you nor your graph
remember "sugartits" the election of Regan spoke volumes about your boy carter

 

[Dad2three]

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

ALSO you are showing a graph that covers from 1948 to 2007!
BUT the above events affected the GDP over 59 years!
AND more importantly you should singular events, Oil crisis 1980.. Arab oil 1973... JUST 4 events in that 59 years!
But the AFFECT on GDP from 2001 to 2008 WERE FROM 5 Events in 8 years!
So of course there was a later affect on GDP as thousands of jobs were lost due to 9/11, Recession, hurricanes, and the tech bubble!
In 8 years. So of course your graph shows an affect that was compounded by those events in those 8 years including homes destroyed!

You don't pay much attention, do you?

I showed you the trends in nominal GDP from 2000-2012......

If you want to grasp the economic effects of all the hysterical pap you spew, it will be evident in those numbers.....

If you want to discuss what happened BEFORE, I'm here for ya, dawg....

Why are you showing TRENDS from 1948 to 2007???

And you also agree then that the lower GDP WAS caused by the 2001 recession, the dot.com bust, 9/11, the worst hurricane SEASONS and with those events we had people losing JOBS which in turn caused mortgage payments of good employed people not to be paid and
therefore contributed to the collapse of housing which lead to the 2007 recession.
YOU agree then that by taking those people out of work due to
THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:
This is what the Federal government grossed and when you subtract TARP which has been paid back that $458 billion deficit
becomes a surplus!

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Uh...Moron?

FY 2008 didn't include any TARP spending.....You are "thinking" FY 2009.....

Not Obama’s Idea: Some partisans on the right might forget that the TARP program was born under President George W. Bush and signed into law on Oct. 3, 2008 — a month before voters even went to the ballot box and more than two months before Barack Obama’s inauguration.
2008 TARP Funds -- Where Are They Now? | InvestorPlace

All of you bashers Blame Bush for TARP right????

Once and for all here are the FACTS!!!
A summary of below:
Revenue from Bush started from end of 2002 to end of 2009 because Revenue for 2001 due to Clinton policies.
So 2002 to 2009 revenues: $17.273 trillion
and outlays the same from end of 2002 to end of 2009
Outlays $20.820 trillion
Total shortfall $3.547 trillion

Obama:
From 2010 tax receipts he is responsible for to 2017 or $23.169 trillion.
Obama's administration responsible for outlay from 2010 to 2017 or $29.534 trillion
Total shortfall Obama responsible for: $6.365 trillion:
Total Obama shortfall is 179% of Bush Shortfall.
And remember Obama also benefitting from received BACK from TARP $672 Billion.
So either subtract the $616.6 Billion in TARP OUTLAYS that was part of the Bush OUTLAYS in 2009
Or Subtract $672.8 Billion TARP PAID BACK to day from Obama Receipts.
Either way will increase the percent of 179% more then Bush for Obama to nearly 200%.
So once again FACTS have a way of confusing people like you I'm sure!!!!


View attachment 50758

 

[Dad2three]

Yes AFTER BJ Bill's FIRST surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more! GOP was fiscally responsible? How'd THAT work out with Dubya/GOP in full control??? lol

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 (PRE NEWTER) budget also contained some spending restraints

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

Tell everyone where you see unemployment and 30 yr NOMINAL mortgage rates peaking, Hondo....

If you'e interpretation were true jimmy carter would have been reelected wouldn't he
to bad the majority of americans didn't agree with you nor your graph
remember "sugartits" the election of Regan spoke volumes about your boy carter

The right wingers lack of critical thinking and honesty, is amazing to see every day!

 

[Dad2three]

This should blow your left brain...it is truly amazing how EASILY Big Ears can dupe his partisan worshipers.

The truth...can you accept it?

Obama has boasted about the shrinking of the budget deficit from the more than $1 trillion seen in the first four years of his presidency. But even with that reduction, budget deficits under Obama are on track to stay higher than the highest deficit seen under President George W. Bush.

President Bush was seen by many as a big spender who squandered a rare budget surplus. But according to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush’s highest annual budget deficit was $458 billion.

That’s still $25 billion less than Obama’s lowest deficit: $483 billion in the just-finished 2014 fiscal year, and several years into what Obama himself has called an economic recovery.

So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit.

" So for all of Obama’s boasting this week, Obama still hasn’t managed to preside over a deficit that’s lower than Bush’s highest deficit."



EXCEPT HIS LAST RIGHT?

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office


CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

Which INCLUDED TARP...
CHECK THE FACTS though!!!

TARP has been paid BACK and in doing so REDUCED Obama's deficit!

Now.. WHAT HAPPENED to TARP the program that Bush has been blamed for?
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
$616.6 billion went out
$672.8 Billion came in...

ALL PAID BACK... PLUS A PROFIT of: $56.2 billion...

View attachment 50755

Lower every year since FY 2009......Expected to be lower again for FY 2015

Any questions?

YUP!!! I have a question!
Did these events happen or NOT???
Just once I want you and your fellow ostrich to tell me where were you from 2000 to 2008 that you have NO memory
of these events occurring? Tell me they never happened OK? Tell the thousands that lost their jobs due to recession started
under Clinton... remember recession don't just start like turning a faucet on 03/2001! They had a decline starting in 2000!
Tell the thousands that died in 9/11 and the hurricanes.... tell them those events didn't happen OK??

Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Healthmyths -

Yea.....I got a narrative for that!

You can see the effects on nominal GDP of events from 2000-2012 here...

Here you can see the relative damage wrought by various recessions...

Be sure to file these in that bilge dump you have fasioned...

First of all I don't believe anything you write because you can't even pay attention
to the little red dotted line that would have underlined "fasioned"!!!
These are such simple things to do but idiots like you have no time for the little details and to follow just the helps that can at least add to your credibility!


Hey... YOU still ignored the FACTS those events Occurred! Why not admit they had an affect on HOUSING which had an affect on
the recession!
But you biased dishonest person is you have NOT recognize THESE FACTS!!!

-- Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

-- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

SO YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF SOCIALISM, AS LONG AS IT'S PAID BACK. GOT IT




Ah the OUT OF CONTEXT WORDS OF DEMS ABOUT THE 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS OF F/F? AND?

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again

Testimony from Dubya's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's" of the GSE's 2004

Mr.Barney Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.

October 26, 2005

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"


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



BUT NO, THOUGH BUSH CRUSHED F/F (AS REGULATOR), THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE BUSH SUBPRIME CRISIS


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


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

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

Wow... that's it?

Considering GWB had to face events that NO other President has EVER FACED during their 8 years... I am not surprised
that the above dialogue didn't happen. After all Bush's administration had a pretty full plate with THESE EVENTS to respond to.
Recession/Dot.com Bust/911/Anthrax attacks/Worst hurricane Seasons in history ... I'd say his plate was plenty full and yet:
Bush deficits were a 55% Less then Obama's who had NO crisis, no events, NOTHING of the magnitude GWB faced.

So yea maybe GWB did not have his best results with the housing bubble that is true.

You mean unlike Dubya

George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB

All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” to CIA briefer

Yep, inheriting an economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and dropping 9%+ the last quarter was "nothing" of the magnitude of Dubya's economy...lol

 

[tyroneweaver]

The binary thinking on display by some people in this thread is shocking.

Newsflash for partisan hacks- BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

Yep, but weird only ONE party has 98% of their members in Congress signing that Muslim American's tax pledge NOT to get a penny more in new tax revenues for US, yep "both the same"

ya, and on a local level the gop slash con's balance budgets and control most state houses.
California is model of democrat fiscal responsibility to be admired right.
as compared to Utah and Idaho the 2 most conservative states in the union
When you discuss local political the fiscal responsibility takes a 180
The 10 states with the biggest debt problems are almost all liberal

 

[healthmyths]

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

Tell everyone where you see unemployment and 30 yr NOMINAL mortgage rates peaking, Hondo....

If you'e interpretation were true jimmy carter would have been reelected wouldn't he
to bad the majority of americans didn't agree with you nor your graph
remember "sugartits" the election of Regan spoke volumes about your boy carter

The right wingers lack of critical thinking and honesty, is amazing to see every day!

AGAIN NOT ONE of the Presidents in HISTORY ever had these events occur and YOU totally dismiss them!
TALK about LACK of CRITICAL THINKING!

Obviously when YOU can't admit that these events occurred and that they had a very large affect on the American psyche, economy
and over all growth of America you are NOT being HONEST!
You are stating that these events HAD NO Affect on growth of the USA? NONE?

These events had NO AFFECT is what you are stating!

a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know
THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

These events HAD NO affect on people's lives, their income, their employment?

 

[tyroneweaver]

You're the 2nd poser that used knight jumping to jump to a different time then the one I posted.
You dems are mad for good reason, when bubba tried at the 2012 convention to take credit for his fiscally responsible administration, and you dems cheered to know end; yet in actuality he can't really take any credit.
As far as Reagan goes. He did what he had to from one of most inept presidents in American history
And as far as bush goes. The conservatives on this board have never defended bush. Maybe the hard core gop'rs have. But us conservatives on this forum have never defend anything bush did. At least I haven't . The guy spent like a drunken sailor and had a personal hard on against Saddam.

How does Clinton NOT get credit?

Before you haul out that Contract chestnut, go take a look at the trend in deficits between 1993 and late 1997 (when Gingrich and Clinton struck their deal)......90% of the deficit bequeathed by Supply Side Idiocy, Part One was gone...

and the state of the nation bequeathed by Carter?

Avg real GDP and avg annual employment growth were higher under Carter than under Reagan....

You may be too young to recall that it was "Rosey Scenario" which informed the ambitious program of the one whom Al Greenspan deemed "the most fiscally reckless steward of the nation's economy (until Scrub the Sruplus Vaporizer)".......

To say real gdp trumps double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates is assinine.

Tell everyone where you see unemployment and 30 yr NOMINAL mortgage rates peaking, Hondo....

If you'e interpretation were true jimmy carter would have been reelected wouldn't he
to bad the majority of americans didn't agree with you nor your graph
remember "sugartits" the election of Regan spoke volumes about your boy carter

The right wingers lack of critical thinking and honesty, is amazing to see every day!

ya generaizations, that always wins the argument.

 

[Dad2three]

The binary thinking on display by some people in this thread is shocking.

Newsflash for partisan hacks- BOTH PARTIES ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL INTERESTS

Yep, but weird only ONE party has 98% of their members in Congress signing that Muslim American's tax pledge NOT to get a penny more in new tax revenues for US, yep "both the same"

ya, and on a local level the gop slash con's balance budgets and control most state houses.
California is model of democrat fiscal responsibility to be admired right.
as compared to Utah and Idaho the 2 most conservative states in the union
When you discuss local political the fiscal responsibility takes a 180
The 10 states with the biggest debt problems are almost all liberal

Cali having a problem? Oh right we had a GOP Guv for 20 of 24 years until Brown got back on board and stopped their use of the credit card


Cali the largest state economy, by far?

Debt problem? Oh you must mean the right wings think tanks" that "project" issues that have SUCH a good record as saying if we got DUBYA'S TAX CUTS THROUGH, THEY'D HAVE SO MUCH EXTRA ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, THE DEB WOULD BE PAID OFF BY 2010? Heritage Foundation???? lol