Nobodies unemployment rate has a 1.2 trillion dollar failed stimulus in it, but 1

[JRK]

Then why is it the liberals and the media have blamed this on GWB?

liberals blame GWB for the same reason Conservatives blame Obama and the Dems. It's politics.



Nobody "gave" GM and Chrysler to the UAW. Shareholders weren't made whole - which is what's supposed to happen when you hold shares in a failing company. That's risk.

You have been respect full, this is what is wrong with this entire admin and the level of un true information that the media and this admin along with Pelosi and Reid
putting this country in the level of debt that congress and he has is wrong, period
And to try and compare the GDP and UE rates with any other president without stating that first is wrong
lets not forget GWB had a recession, 9-11, Enron as well as the stock market crash of 2002
in his first 24 months in office

There is no meaningful comparison between the economy faced by President Bush and the one faced by Obama. and didn't we just get done establishing that neither of them is responsible for the economy?

I agree
But
There was reason, it had to do with trying to understand why one took the path to recovery with a tax break, across the board and 2 small tax rebates that in the first 4 years cost us about 7-900 billion in debt total, with 9-11, 2 wars, market crash, recession etc...
The other took the path that has cost us 4-5 trillion in debt in 2, with a market crash, recession and 1 war
With respect

I did not see your response to the UAW
The UAW had no legal right to any of GM nor Chrysler
I must admit they some-how got it, bit scary to many of us
to be honest, that one event to me over shadows everything BHO has done as president by 1000 times
to take money from the US treasury with no permission and intervene in that event like he did is
I will not say anything else

May 6, 2009

Obama's Illegal Chrysler Plan

Topics: Political News and commentaries
Although Barack Obama ran on a promise to respect the constitutional role of the legislature, he applauded the Bush administration's unauthorized loans to Chrysler and General Motors. And since taking office he has not sought congressional approval for a bailout that is still operating outside the law - proving that he is no more committed to the rule of law in this area than his predecessor

In his piece at Reason, Jacob Sullum addresses the Chrysler deal and the extent of its confirmation of President Obama's disregard for the law:

The last time the federal government bailed out Chrysler, the Carter administration reached a deal with the carmaker in August 1979, but Congress did not approve the legislation implementing it until December. This time around, the Bush administration dispensed with the legal niceties, loaning billions of taxpayer dollars to Chrysler (and General Motors) without statutory authority.
Although he ran on a promise to respect the legislative branch's constitutional role, Barack Obama applauded the Bush administration's illegal loans, and since taking office he has not sought congressional approval for a bailout that is still operating outside the law. President Obama's high-handed engineering of the pending merger between Chrysler and Fiat, a deal that flouts well-established bankruptcy principles, confirms he is no more committed to the rule of law in this area than his predecessor.

Obama's Illegal Chrysler Plan :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

 

[8537]

liberals blame GWB for the same reason Conservatives blame Obama and the Dems. It's politics.



Nobody "gave" GM and Chrysler to the UAW. Shareholders weren't made whole - which is what's supposed to happen when you hold shares in a failing company. That's risk.



There is no meaningful comparison between the economy faced by President Bush and the one faced by Obama. and didn't we just get done establishing that neither of them is responsible for the economy?

I agree
But
There was reason, it had to do with trying to understand why one took the path to recovery with a tax break, across the board and 2 small tax rebates that in the first 4 years cost us about 7-900 billion in debt total, with 9-11, 2 wars, market crash, recession etc...
The other took the path that has cost us 4-5 trillion in debt in 2, with a market crash, recession and 1 war
With respect

I did not see your response to the UAW
The UAW had no legal right to any of GM nor Chrysler

HUH!? Only Reason could come up with such a scenario.

The union employees of GM had a stake in the company. Ditto, Chrysler. Why shouldn't they retain a stake?

 

[8537]

Then why is it the liberals and the media have blamed this on GWB?

liberals blame GWB for the same reason Conservatives blame Obama and the Dems. It's politics.



Nobody "gave" GM and Chrysler to the UAW. Shareholders weren't made whole - which is what's supposed to happen when you hold shares in a failing company. That's risk.

You have been respect full, this is what is wrong with this entire admin and the level of un true information that the media and this admin along with Pelosi and Reid
putting this country in the level of debt that congress and he has is wrong, period
And to try and compare the GDP and UE rates with any other president without stating that first is wrong
lets not forget GWB had a recession, 9-11, Enron as well as the stock market crash of 2002
in his first 24 months in office

There is no meaningful comparison between the economy faced by President Bush and the one faced by Obama. and didn't we just get done establishing that neither of them is responsible for the economy?

I agree
But
There was reason, it had to do with trying to understand why one took the path to recovery with a tax break, across the board and 2 small tax rebates that in the first 4 years cost us about 7-900 billion in debt total, with 9-11, 2 wars, market crash, recession etc...
The other took the path that has cost us 4-5 trillion in debt in 2, with a market crash, recession and 1 war
With respect

Again, you are attempting to directly compare the scale of the lightest recession on record since WW2 with the deepest recession on record since WW2.

The two are in no way comparable in scale, and therefore the responses are no way comparable in scale.

 

[JRK]

liberals blame GWB for the same reason Conservatives blame Obama and the Dems. It's politics.



Nobody "gave" GM and Chrysler to the UAW. Shareholders weren't made whole - which is what's supposed to happen when you hold shares in a failing company. That's risk.



There is no meaningful comparison between the economy faced by President Bush and the one faced by Obama. and didn't we just get done establishing that neither of them is responsible for the economy?

I agree
But
There was reason, it had to do with trying to understand why one took the path to recovery with a tax break, across the board and 2 small tax rebates that in the first 4 years cost us about 7-900 billion in debt total, with 9-11, 2 wars, market crash, recession etc...
The other took the path that has cost us 4-5 trillion in debt in 2, with a market crash, recession and 1 war
With respect

Again, you are attempting to directly compare the scale of the lightest recession on record since WW2 with the deepest recession on record since WW2.

The two are in no way comparable in scale, and therefore the responses are no way comparable in scale.

hmmmmm
So your point is that a light recession, with 9-11, and the stock market5 crash of 02, Enron with a deficit adding stimulus of about 110 billion with the tax payer getting most of that debt in a rebate is in no comparison of the post tarp world Obama walked into? and that his 1.2 trillion dollar deficit stimulus to fix, well what was all of that money suppose to fix?
Jobs?
we are , well this is the latest I can find, it is the labor dept, lets just say Obama is down millions and W created about 6 million
Scale?
In all due respect what is the diff? I mean tarp stopped the plunge, Bush did tarp
W was down 2 million jobs by 03
the market plunged
The stock market downturn of 2002 (some say "stock market crash" or "the Internet bubble bursting") is the sharp drop in stock prices during 2002 in stock exchanges across the United States, Canada, Asia, and Europe. After recovering from lows reached following the September 11 attacks, indices slid steadily starting in March 2002, with dramatic declines in July and September leading to lows last reached in 1997 and 1998. The dollar declined steadily against the euro, reaching a 1-to-1 valuation not seen since the euro's introduction.
Contents [hide]
1 Context
2 Seeking a bottom
3 Scale
4 Index levels
5 See also
6 References and external links
[edit]Context

This downturn can be viewed as part of a larger bear market or correction, after a decade-long bull market had led to unusually high stock valuations. In fact, some Internet companies (Webvan, Exodus Communications, and Pets.com) went bankrupt. Others (Amazon.com, eBay, and Yahoo!) went down dramatically in value, but remain in business to this day and have generally good long-term growth prospects. An outbreak of accounting scandals (Enron, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, and WorldCom) was also a factor in the speed of the fall, as numerous large corporations were forced to restate earnings (or lack thereof) and investor confidence suffered. The September 11 attacks also contributed heavily to the stock market downturn, as investors became unsure about the prospect of terrorism affecting the United States economy.
The International Monetary Fund had expressed concern about instability in United States stock markets in the months leading up to the sharp downturn. The technology-heavy NASDAQ stock market peaked on March 10, 2000, hitting an intra-day high of 5,132.52 and closing at 5,048.62. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, a price-weighted average (adjusted for splits and dividends) of 30 large companies on the New York Stock Exchange, peaked on January 14, 2000 with an intra-day high of 11,750.28 and a closing price of 11,722.98. In 2001, the DJIA was largely unchanged overall but had reached a secondary peak of 11,337.92 (11,350.05 intra-day) on May 21.
The downturn may be viewed as a reversion to average stock market performance in a longer-term context. From 1987 to 1995, the Dow rose each year by about 10%, but from 1995 to 2000, the Dow rose 15% a year. While the bear market began in 2000, by July and August 2002, the index had only dropped to the same level it would have achieved if the 10% annual growth rate followed during 1987-1995 had continued up to 2002.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

 

[jillian]

Obama got 1/2 of tarp also
people keep trying to compare Obama to Reagan and Jr
You cannot

GWB had a stimulus also, he gave it back to the tax payer and for close to 100% of his 8 years UE was below 6%, some below 5
Reagan's did get over 10, but he created close to 20 million jobs before it was over and did it with a deficit that had 2 recessions and re building the military, that was also about the same in 8 years BHO is for1
The Reagan Information Page:Job Creation
One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was the job creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just seven years. And contrary to popular mythology, most of those jobs paid at least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service sector jobs equal low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are now admitting. In fact, the overall job statistics show the Reagan expansion to be one of the best ever.
tarp:
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion
Michael J. Boskin: Why the Spending Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

1. TARP was done by Bush
2. What would the rate of unemployment be if you didn't have the stimulus?
3. There probably should have been more money poured into infrastructure, but the rightwingnuts wouldn't allow it.
4. you're a hack.

 

[JRK]

Obama got 1/2 of tarp also
people keep trying to compare Obama to Reagan and Jr
You cannot

GWB had a stimulus also, he gave it back to the tax payer and for close to 100% of his 8 years UE was below 6%, some below 5
Reagan's did get over 10, but he created close to 20 million jobs before it was over and did it with a deficit that had 2 recessions and re building the military, that was also about the same in 8 years BHO is for1
The Reagan Information Page:Job Creation
One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was the job creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just seven years. And contrary to popular mythology, most of those jobs paid at least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service sector jobs equal low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are now admitting. In fact, the overall job statistics show the Reagan expansion to be one of the best ever.
tarp:
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion
Michael J. Boskin: Why the Spending Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

1. TARP was done by Bush
2. What would the rate of unemployment be if you didn't have the stimulus?
3. There probably should have been more money poured into infrastructure, but the rightwingnuts wouldn't allow it.
4. you're a hack.

1 I agree, BHO got 1/2 of the money, he also voted for it
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion
Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The Senate action -- or lack of it -- paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any action taken by the House of Representatives.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators -- seven Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders -- voted to block the money.

In practical terms, Obama only needed enough votes to sustain a veto of the resolution, which Obama had promised when he met with Democrats on Tuesday. The vote today frees Obama of the politically costly task of vetoing a disapproval resolution, allowing him to spend that political capital elsewhere.
2) We do not know, all we know is it is so far short of what he promised I do not think he will ever get there
3) It would have nice
4) I hate you feel that way about some-one who is just supplying accurate inforamtion
3)

 

[8537]

hmmmmm
So your point is that a light recession, with 9-11, and the stock market5 crash of 02, Enron with a deficit adding stimulus of about 110 billion with the tax payer getting most of that debt in a rebate is in no comparison of the post tarp world Obama walked into?

Not even in the same economic ballpark. in 2001, we didn't even experience a decline in nominal GDP.

we are , well this is the latest I can find, it is the labor dept, lets just say Obama is down millions and W created about 6 million
Scale?

indeed - during Bush's first term there was a net loss in jobs despite the lightest recession on record. During his second term, there was anemic but measurable job growth - comparable, actually, to our current levels.

In all due respect what is the diff?

I already stated that: One was the lightest downturn since WW2, with not even a decline in nominal GDP while the other was the deepest recession since WW2, costing us 700,000 jobs per month before Obama took office and shedding almost 7% of our real production and income.

 

[Dr Grump]

Let me try this again
Obama had 1.2 trillion dollars he borrowed to create jobs in 9 weeks of him taking office
That somehow gets compared to people who did have a deficit over 8 years of about twice that, with the creation, thats net creation of about 25 million jobs

Obama has a net loss of millions, thats jobs and has added about 3 trillion dollars to that debt sense then

Now you tell me what is good and what is bad

And Bush sent people checks in the amount of $250 or $500 each. How did he fund those checks, and exactly WHAT did it stimulate?

My Bank account, Its my money to start with, it was not Bushes or Obamas
Thats what you Liberals who do not pay taxes miss in all of this

Don't want to pay taxes? Go live in Greece, they're great at not paying tazes....and look at their economy....

 

[jeffrockit]

When you look at the economic crash of 2007-2009 you can see how Bush throwing money at the problem did nothing to slow the crash or the economic panic. Within a month of Obama passing his TARP and Stimulus, the recession reversed

Obama showed leadership and prevented a Depression. Bush looked on like a deer in the headlights

HA!

What exactly did Obama do and when again? We've been through this before. None of Obama's policies took effect before the recession ended. Nice try though.

You also forget what precipitated this collapse, the straw that broke the Camel's back. It was an expected major increase in business operating costs, the Democrat agenda. And when did it start? When they had clear majorities in the House and Senate and the only viable options for the Oval Office were varying degrees of fiscal liberals.

Bush and the Republicans were bad enough, but even a McCain Presidency with a Democrat Legislature was going to vastly increase business costs. The hedge funds started to cash out and the whole thing unraveled from there.

Bush made it worse and Obama has only made it more than worse. Much much moreso. Any improvements from there are nothing but aberrations. There has been no recovery, just sucking to lesser extent, getting more detrimental at a slower rate.

That's not a recovery.

Both the Economic Stimulus and the Obama TARP payouts took effect. They demonstrated that the US government was willing to stand behind the financial and automotive sectors and reversed the panic that prevailed under Bush

Nice try but the stimulus for the big 3 completely left the bond holders out and only served to help the unions. They got paid and the people who invested all the $$ received pennies on the dollar. It was nothing more than payback for the Obama election.

Here is the truth to the "payback" from the automobile companies:
GM's Phony Bailout Payback - Reason Magazine

Here is some smart spending for the stimulus dollars:
Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program
Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program | CNSnews.com
That really put Americans back to work!

 

[JRK]

I agree
But
There was reason, it had to do with trying to understand why one took the path to recovery with a tax break, across the board and 2 small tax rebates that in the first 4 years cost us about 7-900 billion in debt total, with 9-11, 2 wars, market crash, recession etc...
The other took the path that has cost us 4-5 trillion in debt in 2, with a market crash, recession and 1 war
With respect

I did not see your response to the UAW
The UAW had no legal right to any of GM nor Chrysler

HUH!? Only Reason could come up with such a scenario.

The union employees of GM had a stake in the company. Ditto, Chrysler. Why shouldn't they retain a stake?

They had less much stake in it as those who had bought stock and worked for Enron. No matter the why as to why they went broke
It is not different
What your missing here is GM and Chrysler is broke, still are broke. We are and have been paying there wages
what makes them any better than those who worked for Enron and owned stock in that company?
In our system when you reach chapter 7 status thats it.

 

[JRK]

hmmmmm
So your point is that a light recession, with 9-11, and the stock market5 crash of 02, Enron with a deficit adding stimulus of about 110 billion with the tax payer getting most of that debt in a rebate is in no comparison of the post tarp world Obama walked into?

Not even in the same economic ballpark. in 2001, we didn't even experience a decline in nominal GDP.

we are , well this is the latest I can find, it is the labor dept, lets just say Obama is down millions and W created about 6 million
Scale?

indeed - during Bush's first term there was a net loss in jobs despite the lightest recession on record. During his second term, there was anemic but measurable job growth - comparable, actually, to our current levels.

In all due respect what is the diff?

I already stated that: One was the lightest downturn since WW2, with not even a decline in nominal GDP while the other was the deepest recession since WW2, costing us 700,000 jobs per month before Obama took office and shedding almost 7% of our real production and income.

2001 Recession

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%). Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees.
that should take care of the -GDP
This should take care of jobs lost, never did we hit 700k a month until after BHO was elected
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

 

[editec]

Who compares Obama's economy to Reagan's?

The different problems they are/were facing are vast.

 

[JRK]

And Bush sent people checks in the amount of $250 or $500 each. How did he fund those checks, and exactly WHAT did it stimulate?

My Bank account, Its my money to start with, it was not Bushes or Obamas
Thats what you Liberals who do not pay taxes miss in all of this

Don't want to pay taxes? Go live in Greece, they're great at not paying tazes....and look at their economy....

who said anything about not paying taxes?
99% of us do not have an issue paying taxes
Its the amount along with whats being done with them
The Liberal has run out of options here
you got congress 100% in 2007
all of it 2009
and you failed

 

[JRK]

HA!

What exactly did Obama do and when again? We've been through this before. None of Obama's policies took effect before the recession ended. Nice try though.

You also forget what precipitated this collapse, the straw that broke the Camel's back. It was an expected major increase in business operating costs, the Democrat agenda. And when did it start? When they had clear majorities in the House and Senate and the only viable options for the Oval Office were varying degrees of fiscal liberals.

Bush and the Republicans were bad enough, but even a McCain Presidency with a Democrat Legislature was going to vastly increase business costs. The hedge funds started to cash out and the whole thing unraveled from there.

Bush made it worse and Obama has only made it more than worse. Much much moreso. Any improvements from there are nothing but aberrations. There has been no recovery, just sucking to lesser extent, getting more detrimental at a slower rate.

That's not a recovery.

Both the Economic Stimulus and the Obama TARP payouts took effect. They demonstrated that the US government was willing to stand behind the financial and automotive sectors and reversed the panic that prevailed under Bush

Nice try but the stimulus for the big 3 completely left the bond holders out and only served to help the unions. They got paid and the people who invested all the $$ received pennies on the dollar. It was nothing more than payback for the Obama election.

Here is the truth to the "payback" from the automobile companies:
GM's Phony Bailout Payback - Reason Magazine

Here is some smart spending for the stimulus dollars:
Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program
Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program | CNSnews.com
That really put Americans back to work!

I stated earlier that the most crooked event i have ever seen was this
to go into our treasury
grab 100 billion dollars
and give it to 2 private companies that have competition. How much harm has this done to Toyota and Fords stock?

 

[8537]

hmmmmm
So your point is that a light recession, with 9-11, and the stock market5 crash of 02, Enron with a deficit adding stimulus of about 110 billion with the tax payer getting most of that debt in a rebate is in no comparison of the post tarp world Obama walked into?

Not even in the same economic ballpark. in 2001, we didn't even experience a decline in nominal GDP.



indeed - during Bush's first term there was a net loss in jobs despite the lightest recession on record. During his second term, there was anemic but measurable job growth - comparable, actually, to our current levels.

In all due respect what is the diff?

I already stated that: One was the lightest downturn since WW2, with not even a decline in nominal GDP while the other was the deepest recession since WW2, costing us 700,000 jobs per month before Obama took office and shedding almost 7% of our real production and income.

2001 Recession

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%). Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees.

You once again turn to unrelated numbers to disprove simple facts. I said Nominal GDP. you quoted real GDP. I can't be held accountable if you don't know the difference.

This should take care of jobs lost, never did we hit 700k a month until after BHO was elected
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

I said before he took office. Once again, you qoute unrelated facts to disprove a simple fact. The economy lost 802,000 jobs in November of 2008. It lost 820,000 the month he took office (Jan, 2009).

By march, the losses had stabilized and begun to improve - and by march of the following year we were creating 192,000 jobs.

Of course, for a guy who claims the president isn't responsible you're sure working awfully hard to claim the president is responsible.

 

[JRK]

Not even in the same economic ballpark. in 2001, we didn't even experience a decline in nominal GDP.



indeed - during Bush's first term there was a net loss in jobs despite the lightest recession on record. During his second term, there was anemic but measurable job growth - comparable, actually, to our current levels.




I already stated that: One was the lightest downturn since WW2, with not even a decline in nominal GDP while the other was the deepest recession since WW2, costing us 700,000 jobs per month before Obama took office and shedding almost 7% of our real production and income.

2001 Recession

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%). Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees.

You once again turn to unrelated numbers to disprove simple facts. I said Nominal GDP. you quoted real GDP. I can't be held accountable if you don't know the difference.

This should take care of jobs lost, never did we hit 700k a month until after BHO was elected
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

I said before he took office. Once again, you qoute unrelated facts to disprove a simple fact. The economy lost 802,000 jobs in November of 2008. It lost 820,000 the month he took office (Jan, 2009).

By march, the losses had stabilized and begun to improve - and by march of the following year we were creating 192,000 jobs.

Of course, for a guy who claims the president isn't responsible you're sure working awfully hard to claim the president is responsible.

Not at all
My point here is 100% about the debt we have taken on in 24 months
we compare presidents
we talk about policy
and the media put ol W in a place that Obama and history will correct
This massive job loss would be in the same place without all of this debt
Tarp with the exception of The items Obama used it for as as well as maybe AIG is going to be paid back
The bleeding was stopped when congress and W put there 350 billion dollar fire wall up, November 2008
Thats it
"Never let a good crises go to waste"
People cannot grasp what these events have done to this country. Job creation comes from the housing market
it collapsed
we have nothing in our economy to replace like Canada does with there shale oil and crude oil
its that simple
we allowed everyone form the consumer to the lender to the hedge funds to chase that one bubble
it effected about 6% in simple terms,
simply put for 100 houses for sale, 12 months later there was 106 with 6 of those homes defaulted, the banks left holding the mortgage
that trickles down to effect more as that 6% created a glut
that 6% stopped adding to the economy
this now has the price of houses upside down from 48 months ago
no credit now for the consumer to build that pool, add the barn, etc... etc...

His equity went from up to upside down

Its not rocket science, and yet the media and Obama blamed the GOP and made it look as though we would lose millions of jobs if we did not give GM and Chrysler to the UAW, pay teachers there salaries for the next 2 years, etc...
spend 5 trillion dollars we did not have
and instead of doing the right things they took advantage of it
by the way we did lose millions of jobs as you know any way
Your claim is the money stopped the job loss, but in fact the sector of jobs as they related to the housing market, directly and in directly run out of people to lose there jobs

Simply put the housing market collapse had about 7 million jobs effected by its collapse

Look at the UE rate of texas, La, Okl, N.D.
I am 700 miles from home building a refinery inside an operating refinery
on this project alone there has been 20,000 jobs created here and in this area twice that
Thats 5% of 1 million jobs that the govt had nothing to do wit and probably closer to 7-8% as that wealth creates more wealth/jobs

N.D has that huge oil find on private land and its U.E. rate is 3%
been in the 6s around here


Its not rocket science and yet Obama and the media has made it to be just that
"never let a good crises go to waste"

 

[AmericanFirst]

Reagan tripled the existing debt to get his employment numbers up. That was quite a stimulus

Its amazing that a thread that is about Obama takes on this kind of face
by the way
Obama's debt for one year is about the same Reagan was for 8
Obama's did not put much of the 1.2 trillion back into the tax payers hand
Reagan did

30 years difference?

Reagan spent his money on escalating the Defense industry. Obama on infrastructure. Both used deficit spending to emerge from a recession, Reagan just did more of it

Reagan did it better and quicker. Obama has been a disaster all around, even carter was better, somewhat.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So.....defecit spending is only bad when Obama does it. Got it!

Let me try this again
Obama had 1.2 trillion dollars he borrowed to create jobs in 9 weeks of him taking office
That somehow gets compared to people who did have a deficit over 8 years of about twice that, with the creation, thats net creation of about 25 million jobs

Obama has a net loss of millions, thats jobs and has added about 3 trillion dollars to that debt sense then

Now you tell me what is good and what is bad

Obamas TARP loans are being paid back....the Bush loans were gifts

Obama added more jobs since the Stimulus (3 million) than Bush did in eight years (1 million)

Big lie. Bush created allot more jobs, obamaturd can't create a good speech without writers and a prompter.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Difference between Bush TARP and OBama TARP?

Bush money was a gift with no strings attached

Obama demanded collateral and a change in the way they did business. Obama TARP is being paid back while the Bush TSRP is long gone

Thats the difference between Dems and Repubs. Dems demand accountability from big business while Repubs are firmly in their pocket

Dimwits are in the pocket of socialists.

 

[AmericanFirst]

When you look at the economic crash of 2007-2009 you can see how Bush throwing money at the problem did nothing to slow the crash or the economic panic. Within a month of Obama passing his TARP and Stimulus, the recession reversed

Obama showed leadership and prevented a Depression. Bush looked on like a deer in the headlights

Idiot, dimwits were the cause of the housing collapse which caused the economic meltdown. Obamaturd did nothing more than spend our money.