Is Obama a liar?

[Faun]

So why didn't the Democrats remedy that immediately when they obtained power in January 2007? Please point to a single Democratic bill even offered to address the situation even as Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank were proclaiming in front of every microphone they could get in front of that the housing market was just fine - Freddie and Fannie were just fine - the banking regulations in place were just fine? Show me a single Democrat who voted for any of those Republican bills intended to address some of the problems.

Show me Senator's Barack Obama's vote to address some of the problem. (Clue: he either voted nay with the Democrats or, more typically, didn't vote.)

But of course he commissions his shills to blame it all on the Republicans. Yep those eeeeeeeeeevul Republicans did this all to us single handedly. Because they refused to fix the bad laws the Democrats put into place, the GOP is totally to blame and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

Just ask our fearless leader. Who even now won't admit that Obamacare is terrible law and is hurting people. And the Democrats who could TODAY agree to put this turkey back on the shelf will not consent to do that lest the GOP get some credit for wanting to do the right thing.

The President's 'apology' comes up really empty when he won't admit he didn't realize how bad it was going to be, that he didn't fully understand the consequences, and he is unwilling to back off what is obviously terrible law. And because we all know it resulting from that meeting with Democrats this week who no doubt demanded he do something because they are terrified that they are going to get the blame for this entire fiasco as no Republicans voted for it. And they should.

[emphasis added]

I see you're one of them low information voters .... Show you a bill offered by Democrats to address the problem after they took over in 2007?

Easy-peasy ....

In March, 2007, just 2 months after gaining control of the Congress .... sponsored by (are ya sitting down?) Barney Frank ... H.R.1427

A few months later, Nancy Pelosi sponsored H.R.3221, which was ultimately signed into law by Bush.

A few months after Pelosi's bill was introduced into the House, another Democrat introduced a third bill in an attempt to address the problem. H.R.3915.

So I gave you not one, but three bills offered up by Democrats after they took over.

except neither one addressed the problems

3221 was passed but it was just blah-blah-blah toothless and did nothing.
two others never passed the senate

The question asked was, "please point to a single Democratic bill even offered to address the situation..."

I answered that by pointing to 3 bills that were "offered."

And if the bill did nothing, why did Bush sign it? Bush had no problem dissing a bill years earlier that Republicans passed in the House which actually would have done nothing. So it's not like Bush would have just signed any bill given to him.

But I understand, in four years (and when it was needed most) Republicans passed zero bills to add oversight to the GSE's. Democrats get 1 such bill passed in their first two years. So what else can righties do but whine about it?

 

[Freewill]

So we have finally reached the number of job holders which we had in Jan 2009. Aren't you proud.

Could have happened years earlier if Obama had not squandered the stimulus and had not chosen to take the path of hyperregulation instead of allowing a healthy jobs environment to gain traction.

We are so far behind in job creation. Labor Force Participation is abyssmal, and we haven't even kept up with population growth.

Yes, labor force participation is way down. Did you happen to read the article posted by a fellow Conservative just before your post?

• One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

• But since 2000, the labor force rate has been declining steadily as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

Actually this makes the unemployment numbers all the worse. Assuming that that baby boomers were doing jobs that need to be done it seems that for each of them leaving someone would take their place. That apparently ain't happening. So the unemployment rate is even worse then we thought. Nothing good is happening in the country. No new jobs except in natural gas which the liberal left would love to stop.

 

[Faun]

We are so far behind in job creation. Labor Force Participation is abyssmal, and we haven't even kept up with population growth.

Yes, labor force participation is way down. Did you happen to read the article posted by a fellow Conservative just before your post?

• One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

• But since 2000, the labor force rate has been declining steadily as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

Actually this makes the unemployment numbers all the worse. Assuming that that baby boomers were doing jobs that need to be done it seems that for each of them leaving someone would take their place. That apparently ain't happening. So the unemployment rate is even worse then we thought. Nothing good is happening in the country. No new jobs except in natural gas which the liberal left would love to stop.

Ya gotta love Conservative logic. It's so ... illogical.

Who says the jobs they leave aren't getting filled? It's the participation rate that's down, not the number of jobs. That means their jobs are getting filled, we just have a larger segment of folks not working. And that's not all due to the economy.

Sure, there are some who want to work but can't find a job, but there are always folks like these. But also contributing to the drop in the participation rate are baby boomers retiring, students choosing school over work, and folks choosing to live off of government handouts (like disabilty) rather than work.

The reality about the participation rate is that it is a) not actually an indicator of the health of the job market. The ony reason it's on so many Conservatives' brains these days is b) because it's become a talking point of the right for them to use against Obama.

You want evidence of that? Of course you do.

The evidence of (a) is the 1950's. During almost all of the 1950's, the economy did well and unemployment ranged between 3% and 6% (i.e., generally full employment) and the participation rate was far lower than it is today. It measures how much of the population is working .... not how much of the wants to work.

The evidence of (b) is that the participation rate actually began to fall in 2001, long before Obama was even president. But there was a Republican in the White House, so Republicans and Conservatives never talked about the participation rate. Not once, from what I recall. And the rate fell between 2001 and 2004, leveled off as the housing boom generated a lot of enthusiasm in the job markets, and then began dropping again when the Great Recession hit, which coincided with baby boomers beginning to hit retirement age. Despite dropping almost 2% under Bush, it was never mentioned by righties. Only under Obama has it become a talking point.

 

[thanatos144]

There's something weird about liberals and delusions why is it that was during the right now face is impossible for them to understand increased taxes does not cause increased government revenue it causes less revenue

tapatalk post

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, labor force participation is way down. Did you happen to read the article posted by a fellow Conservative just before your post?

• One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have little to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

• But since 2000, the labor force rate has been declining steadily as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

Actually this makes the unemployment numbers all the worse. Assuming that that baby boomers were doing jobs that need to be done it seems that for each of them leaving someone would take their place. That apparently ain't happening. So the unemployment rate is even worse then we thought. Nothing good is happening in the country. No new jobs except in natural gas which the liberal left would love to stop.

Ya gotta love Conservative logic. It's so ... illogical.

Who says the jobs they leave aren't getting filled? It's the participation rate that's down, not the number of jobs. That means their jobs are getting filled, we just have a larger segment of folks not working. And that's not all due to the economy.

Sure, there are some who want to work but can't find a job, but there are always folks like these. But also contributing to the drop in the participation rate are baby boomers retiring, students choosing school over work, and folks choosing to live off of government handouts (like disabilty) rather than work.

The reality about the participation rate is that it is a) not actually an indicator of the health of the job market. The ony reason it's on so many Conservatives' brains these days is b) because it's become a talking point of the right for them to use against Obama.

You want evidence of that? Of course you do.

The evidence of (a) is the 1950's. During almost all of the 1950's, the economy did well and unemployment ranged between 3% and 6% (i.e., generally full employment) and the participation rate was far lower than it is today. It measures how much of the population is working .... not how much of the wants to work.

The evidence of (b) is that the participation rate actually began to fall in 2001, long before Obama was even president. But there was a Republican in the White House, so Republicans and Conservatives never talked about the participation rate. Not once, from what I recall. And the rate fell between 2001 and 2004, leveled off as the housing boom generated a lot of enthusiasm in the job markets, and then began dropping again when the Great Recession hit, which coincided with baby boomers beginning to hit retirement age. Despite dropping almost 2% under Bush, it was never mentioned by righties. Only under Obama has it become a talking point.

Gotta love libtard logic, for the irony. Whaah, cry, I can't find a job, why won't the evil republicans give me a job, whaahh cry...

 

[Ernie S.]

Great. Yet another low information voter who needs to be educated by a Liberal.

Employment Level:
Jan/2009: 142,153,000
Oct/2013: 143,568,000

So we have finally reached the number of job holders which we had in Jan 2009. Aren't you proud.

Could have happened years earlier if Obama had not squandered the stimulus and had not chosen to take the path of hyperregulation instead of allowing a healthy jobs environment to gain traction.

Not too shabby given there were 12.6 million people to fall to under/unemployment during the Great Recession. That quite a hole to have to dig out from.

You mean the hole that Reid/Pelosi dug?

 

[Foxfyre]

[emphasis added]

I see you're one of them low information voters .... Show you a bill offered by Democrats to address the problem after they took over in 2007?

Easy-peasy ....

In March, 2007, just 2 months after gaining control of the Congress .... sponsored by (are ya sitting down?) Barney Frank ... H.R.1427

A few months later, Nancy Pelosi sponsored H.R.3221, which was ultimately signed into law by Bush.

A few months after Pelosi's bill was introduced into the House, another Democrat introduced a third bill in an attempt to address the problem. H.R.3915.

So I gave you not one, but three bills offered up by Democrats after they took over.

except neither one addressed the problems

3221 was passed but it was just blah-blah-blah toothless and did nothing.
two others never passed the senate

The question asked was, "please point to a single Democratic bill even offered to address the situation..."

I answered that by pointing to 3 bills that were "offered."

And if the bill did nothing, why did Bush sign it? Bush had no problem dissing a bill years earlier that Republicans passed in the House which actually would have done nothing. So it's not like Bush would have just signed any bill given to him.

But I understand, in four years (and when it was needed most) Republicans passed zero bills to add oversight to the GSE's. Democrats get 1 such bill passed in their first two years. So what else can righties do but whine about it?

President Bush signed a LOT of bills that did nothing to fix Fannie and Freddie or address the dangerous misuse of GSE's. And that would include the bill that he did sign that you cite here. You didn't even read the bill did you.

But candidate and then President Obama and his adoring throng continue to repeat the same lies abut what "Bush did or didn't do" while doing nothing themselves to make sure that it doesn't happen again. While even defending the really bad practices before it all hit the fan in late 2008. Follow the link to the October 21 "Believers" essay in the OP here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

 

[S.J.]

Actually this makes the unemployment numbers all the worse. Assuming that that baby boomers were doing jobs that need to be done it seems that for each of them leaving someone would take their place. That apparently ain't happening. So the unemployment rate is even worse then we thought. Nothing good is happening in the country. No new jobs except in natural gas which the liberal left would love to stop.

Ya gotta love Conservative logic. It's so ... illogical.

Who says the jobs they leave aren't getting filled? It's the participation rate that's down, not the number of jobs. That means their jobs are getting filled, we just have a larger segment of folks not working. And that's not all due to the economy.

Sure, there are some who want to work but can't find a job, but there are always folks like these. But also contributing to the drop in the participation rate are baby boomers retiring, students choosing school over work, and folks choosing to live off of government handouts (like disabilty) rather than work.

The reality about the participation rate is that it is a) not actually an indicator of the health of the job market. The ony reason it's on so many Conservatives' brains these days is b) because it's become a talking point of the right for them to use against Obama.

You want evidence of that? Of course you do.

The evidence of (a) is the 1950's. During almost all of the 1950's, the economy did well and unemployment ranged between 3% and 6% (i.e., generally full employment) and the participation rate was far lower than it is today. It measures how much of the population is working .... not how much of the wants to work.

The evidence of (b) is that the participation rate actually began to fall in 2001, long before Obama was even president. But there was a Republican in the White House, so Republicans and Conservatives never talked about the participation rate. Not once, from what I recall. And the rate fell between 2001 and 2004, leveled off as the housing boom generated a lot of enthusiasm in the job markets, and then began dropping again when the Great Recession hit, which coincided with baby boomers beginning to hit retirement age. Despite dropping almost 2% under Bush, it was never mentioned by righties. Only under Obama has it become a talking point.

Gotta love libtard logic, for the irony. Whaah, cry, I can't find a job, why won't the evil republicans give me a job, whaahh cry...

But they only want a job long enough to qualify for unemployment.

 

[Faun]

So we have finally reached the number of job holders which we had in Jan 2009. Aren't you proud.

Could have happened years earlier if Obama had not squandered the stimulus and had not chosen to take the path of hyperregulation instead of allowing a healthy jobs environment to gain traction.

Not too shabby given there were 12.6 million people to fall to under/unemployment during the Great Recession. That quite a hole to have to dig out from.

You mean the hole that Reid/Pelosi dug?

Sorry, can't help your delusions. The problems which led to the Great Recession started before 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. And before 2007, Reid and Pelosi were nothing but two votes of the minority party.

 

[Faun]

except neither one addressed the problems

3221 was passed but it was just blah-blah-blah toothless and did nothing.
two others never passed the senate

The question asked was, "please point to a single Democratic bill even offered to address the situation..."

I answered that by pointing to 3 bills that were "offered."

And if the bill did nothing, why did Bush sign it? Bush had no problem dissing a bill years earlier that Republicans passed in the House which actually would have done nothing. So it's not like Bush would have just signed any bill given to him.

But I understand, in four years (and when it was needed most) Republicans passed zero bills to add oversight to the GSE's. Democrats get 1 such bill passed in their first two years. So what else can righties do but whine about it?

President Bush signed a LOT of bills that did nothing to fix Fannie and Freddie or address the dangerous misuse of GSE's. And that would include the bill that he did sign that you cite here. You didn't even read the bill did you.

But candidate and then President Obama and his adoring throng continue to repeat the same lies abut what "Bush did or didn't do" while doing nothing themselves to make sure that it doesn't happen again. While even defending the really bad practices before it all hit the fan in late 2008. Follow the link to the October 21 "Believers" essay in the OP here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It didn't help?? Then why hasn't there been a problem with the GSE's since?

 

[Foxfyre]

The question asked was, "please point to a single Democratic bill even offered to address the situation..."

I answered that by pointing to 3 bills that were "offered."

And if the bill did nothing, why did Bush sign it? Bush had no problem dissing a bill years earlier that Republicans passed in the House which actually would have done nothing. So it's not like Bush would have just signed any bill given to him.

But I understand, in four years (and when it was needed most) Republicans passed zero bills to add oversight to the GSE's. Democrats get 1 such bill passed in their first two years. So what else can righties do but whine about it?

President Bush signed a LOT of bills that did nothing to fix Fannie and Freddie or address the dangerous misuse of GSE's. And that would include the bill that he did sign that you cite here. You didn't even read the bill did you.

But candidate and then President Obama and his adoring throng continue to repeat the same lies abut what "Bush did or didn't do" while doing nothing themselves to make sure that it doesn't happen again. While even defending the really bad practices before it all hit the fan in late 2008. Follow the link to the October 21 "Believers" essay in the OP here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It didn't help?? Then why hasn't there been a problem with the GSE's since?

The Democrats, including Barack Obama, insisted tthere wasn't a problem before late 2008 until it all hit the fan when the housing bubble collapsed. Under Barack Obama's leadership the economy has generally sucked for the last five years, but at such time as it does begin to improve, the housing market will re-establish itself and there has been very little done to prevent a new bubble from occurring. In his typical fashion, Barack Obama just recently said this is something that needs to be addressed but is lukewarm re the Corker Warner bill that wouldn't fix it but would at least help, and he has offered absolutely no proposals or ideas of his own. We can add his follow through on banking reforms to the long list of campaign promises that so far appear to be mostly a lie.
finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/28/hank-paulson-fannie-freddie/

 

[Ernie S.]

Not too shabby given there were 12.6 million people to fall to under/unemployment during the Great Recession. That quite a hole to have to dig out from.

You mean the hole that Reid/Pelosi dug?

Sorry, can't help your delusions. The problems which led to the Great Recession started before 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. And before 2007, Reid and Pelosi were nothing but two votes of the minority party.

Yup. It started in 1977 with the passage of the CRA.

 

[Faun]

President Bush signed a LOT of bills that did nothing to fix Fannie and Freddie or address the dangerous misuse of GSE's. And that would include the bill that he did sign that you cite here. You didn't even read the bill did you.

But candidate and then President Obama and his adoring throng continue to repeat the same lies abut what "Bush did or didn't do" while doing nothing themselves to make sure that it doesn't happen again. While even defending the really bad practices before it all hit the fan in late 2008. Follow the link to the October 21 "Believers" essay in the OP here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It didn't help?? Then why hasn't there been a problem with the GSE's since?

The Democrats, including Barack Obama, insisted tthere wasn't a problem before late 2008 until it all hit the fan when the housing bubble collapsed. Under Barack Obama's leadership the economy has generally sucked for the last five years, but at such time as it does begin to improve, the housing market will re-establish itself and there has been very little done to prevent a new bubble from occurring. In his typical fashion, Barack Obama just recently said this is something that needs to be addressed but is lukewarm re the Corker Warner bill that wouldn't fix it but would at least help, and he has offered absolutely no proposals or ideas of his own. We can add his follow through on banking reforms to the long list of campaign promises that so far appear to be mostly a lie.
finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/28/hank-paulson-fannie-freddie/

That Democrats began passing bills aimed at adding oversight to the GSE's right after taking over the Congress in 2007 reveals you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Faun]

You mean the hole that Reid/Pelosi dug?

Sorry, can't help your delusions. The problems which led to the Great Recession started before 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. And before 2007, Reid and Pelosi were nothing but two votes of the minority party.

Yup. It started in 1977 with the passage of the CRA.

Do you ever spout anything but nonsense? CRA loans accounted for less than 6% of the toxic loans which caused the collapse. The crisis was not caused by CRA loans, which creditors were forced to write. It was caused by greedy creditors whowanted to write loans. Loans they no longer cared if they were good or not because they knew they could sell them anyway since the government was going to cover them.

are you armed with anything other than talking points which you aren't even capable of defending?

 

[ecinicola]

pre aca passage: If you like your health plan you can keep it.

Post aca: You will be getting a better plan.



The answer is obvious.


This is his bill so don't give me that he didn't know bs.

Wake the fuck up america. Vote republican or independent and insist that this disaster gets overturned.

And yes fake jake i know it's the law of the land for now

obama has committed more impeachable offenses then any president in our history, and still be remains. Personally i do not feel sorry for those who have lost their health insurance, since they were the ones who no doubt voted for this muslim in the first place. They have alot more surprises coming in the next year also, and i hope it hits them hard also, since they continue to thinik obama is the meshiah.

 

[ecinicola]

Yeah right......and now the dumb people who voted for obama are still going to listen to his every word which is a con job on them and they are going to think obamacare will be a better plan for them...........give me a break.!!!!!!! 6 hundred a month for insurance is not a better plan.... Obamacare is meant to control your lives and take everything you have........is that okay with these nuts who voted for him and still support the jerk,??

 

[thanatos144]

Sorry, can't help your delusions. The problems which led to the Great Recession started before 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. And before 2007, Reid and Pelosi were nothing but two votes of the minority party.

Yup. It started in 1977 with the passage of the CRA.

Do you ever spout anything but nonsense? CRA loans accounted for less than 6% of the toxic loans which caused the collapse. The crisis was not caused by CRA loans, which creditors were forced to write. It was caused by greedy creditors whowanted to write loans. Loans they no longer cared if they were good or not because they knew they could sell them anyway since the government was going to cover them.

are you armed with anything other than talking points which you aren't even capable of defending?

Learn what your talking about

tapatalk post

 

[Uncensored2008]

I read that it was started as a way to protect white jobs. Blacks were being hired at super cheap wages, so the minimum wage was adopted, and the new minimum was high enough that people might say blacks weren't worth paying that much and they might as well hire a white person for the job.

fwiw ... this is way off topic ... *sheepish*

Interesting.

I read that EXACT logic used by the ultra-leftist Los Angeles Times a couple of years ago in regard to illegal aliens. That raising the minimum would price illegals out of the market.

 

[RKMBrown]

I read that it was started as a way to protect white jobs. Blacks were being hired at super cheap wages, so the minimum wage was adopted, and the new minimum was high enough that people might say blacks weren't worth paying that much and they might as well hire a white person for the job.

fwiw ... this is way off topic ... *sheepish*

Interesting.

I read that EXACT logic used by the ultra-leftist Los Angeles Times a couple of years ago in regard to illegal aliens. That raising the minimum would price illegals out of the market.

Illegals get 12-15 an hour here in texas for labor.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sorry, can't help your delusions. The problems which led to the Great Recession started before 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. And before 2007, Reid and Pelosi were nothing but two votes of the minority party.

Yup. It started in 1977 with the passage of the CRA.

Do you ever spout anything but nonsense? CRA loans accounted for less than 6% of the toxic loans which caused the collapse. The crisis was not caused by CRA loans, which creditors were forced to write. It was caused by greedy creditors whowanted to write loans. Loans they no longer cared if they were good or not because they knew they could sell them anyway since the government was going to cover them.

are you armed with anything other than talking points which you aren't even capable of defending?

You're quite funny!