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

[grunt11b]

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

Reagans was over 10 because that is what jimmy carter left for him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Reagans was over 10 because that is what jimmy carter left for him.

That's a lie. Read a book or something.

 

[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

Reagans was over 10 because that is what jimmy carter left for him.

That's a lie. Read a book or something.

As a Typical liberal maneuver you call the information a lie, yet supply none of your own

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagans was over 10 because that is what jimmy carter left for him.

That's a lie. Read a book or something.

As a Typical liberal maneuver you call the information a lie, yet supply none of your own

Did the poster I responded to supply any information of his own? Why aren't you challenging him?

Do you want to agree with him? Go ahead. I'll prove you stupid too.

 

[kaz]

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

Please, there are 2 to blame, you can't let Bush off the hook for that fiasco. Stimulus is a non-starter because no matter how it's done it props up those who made poor market decisions. Bush sucked, the stimulous was stupid and he knows NOTHING about business or economics. He just went from his parents sliver spoon to the public dole and never learned a damned thing about respecting money earned by others or won in a free marketplace.

 

[8537]

what information have I supplied to you that is in accurate?

"20% of this country is un employed or under employed"
Even the broadest measures of labor underutilization put the figure at 15.7%.

"a 4 trillion dollar deficit in a matter of months"
There have been no 4T deficits. The largest deficit was Bush's last budget year at around 1.5T.

"Obama in a matter of weeks transformed 30 years of work into a third world country that depends on the UN to feed it,"
We are still the richest nation on earth, and we don't depend on the UN to feed us.

"The bleeding was stopped when congress and W put there 350 billion dollar fire wall up, November 2008"

The bleeding did not stop in November 2008. In fact, the most severe job losses came in the two months that followed and GDP bottomed out well after that.

That's just looking back 30 posts, which is as far as I have time for right now.

I never blamed Obama for anything

You're kidding, right? Have you read your own posts?

Blame?
thats just information sir

No, sir - you blamed Obama in several places throughout this thread. Your obtuseness is not worth my time to find it....again.

Underemployment Rises to 20.3% in March
that takes care of the 20%

You're using a Gallup poll? That's hilarious.

You keep talking about tarp like it was suppose to stop the job loss, we were losing trillions in the stock market and the bleeding I am talking about is having $10,000 in a bank that has lost it, and that the US govt who backs it does not enough to cover it
Tarp was not about jobs

TARP was not about protecting deposits in banks. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand TARP. Deposits in banks were already protected. TARP provided zero protection for zero depositors at zero banks.

And TARP was very much about jobs. A continued freeze in the credit markets, with money market funds breaking the buck, would have led to a dramatic increase in unemployment - i.e. loss of jobs.

 

[8537]

Reagans was over 10 because that is what jimmy carter left for him.

That's a lie. Read a book or something.

As a Typical liberal maneuver you call the information a lie, yet supply none of your own

The unemployment rate was 7.5% when Carter took office.

It was 7.5% when he left office.

Typical con maneuver - do none of your own most basic research before spouting stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


what information have I supplied to you that is in accurate?
I never blamed Obama for anything
Facts prove that GWB did improve the economy until 2008. The events of 2008 had nothing to do with GWB nor his policies
I ask again
what have I lied to anyone about

What facts?

So Bush gets credit for the expansion during his presidency, but is exempt from blame for the crash of his economy.

lol

 

[JRK]

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

Please, there are 2 to blame, you can't let Bush off the hook for that fiasco. Stimulus is a non-starter because no matter how it's done it props up those who made poor market decisions. Bush sucked, the stimulous was stupid and he knows NOTHING about business or economics. He just went from his parents sliver spoon to the public dole and never learned a damned thing about respecting money earned by others or won in a free marketplace.

I have blamed no one
whats stupid about allowing me to keep more of my money?
GWB did 4 stimuluses, and those where allowing me either keep more of my wealth or was a rebate of the wealth I had paid in
allowing a tax payer to keep more of his wealth is stupid?
This fiasco as you call it was a free market fiasco that both the consumer and the lender caused
no-one else
you flipped homes for profit, shame on you
you lied to get a 100,000 loan on a 60,000 home, shame on you
your to lazy to check out the lies, or to inept, goto prison

My issue is with Obama's so called job creation/saved the worlds economy/inherited from GWB bull shit
He took a crises and took advantage of it and now we are done
1.6 trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see
It went from 150 billion in 2007 to this in 2009


WE HAVE NOTHING TO REPLACE THE HOUSING MARKET, LIKE THE OIL MARKET THE WAY CANADA IS DOING IT

Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma UE rates are below the national with Mid Texas below 5% and N.D. below 4%
Midland's unemployment rate falls below 5 percent - Mywesttexas.com: Top Stories

 

[JRK]

[


what information have I supplied to you that is in accurate?
I never blamed Obama for anything
Facts prove that GWB did improve the economy until 2008. The events of 2008 had nothing to do with GWB nor his policies
I ask again
what have I lied to anyone about

What facts?

So Bush gets credit for the expansion during his presidency, but is exempt from blame for the crash of his economy.

lol

what facts?
you cannot jump on this thread at the end and ask that question
Job Creation?
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt

My issue here is people are trying to compare Obama with anyone
How?
why?
no other president has printed money in 8 years like he has in 2

 

[kaz]

whats stupid about allowing me to keep more of my money?
GWB did 4 stimuluses, and those where allowing me either keep more of my wealth or was a rebate of the wealth I had paid in
allowing a tax payer to keep more of his wealth is stupid?

What the hell are you talking about? The stimulous was an attrocity to free markets and punished those who didn't do the following

This fiasco as you call it was a free market fiasco that both the consumer and the lender caused
no-one else

Actually government had a major role in it. But the consumers and lenders you are referring to should have paid the price for it and sliver spoon born W took money from people who didn't do that and gave it to the ones who did. You criticize them, then support rewarding them. Where is the logic in that? Free markets are the answer my friend, not the big government you and your boy W love so dearly.

 

[8537]

Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma UE rates are below the national with Mid Texas below 5% and N.D. below 4%
Midland's unemployment rate falls below 5 percent - Mywesttexas.com: Top Stories

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts are also below the national average - with Vermont at 5.6 and NH at 5.4...

and I assure you, it's not because New England has oil.

 

[kaz]

My issue here is people are trying to compare Obama with anyone
How?

W, they are the same government loving animal. Just because Obama does even more of it then Bush doesn't make them different, it just becomes a scale of gray.

 

[JRK]

"20% of this country is un employed or under employed"
Even the broadest measures of labor underutilization put the figure at 15.7%.

"a 4 trillion dollar deficit in a matter of months"
There have been no 4T deficits. The largest deficit was Bush's last budget year at around 1.5T.

"Obama in a matter of weeks transformed 30 years of work into a third world country that depends on the UN to feed it,"
We are still the richest nation on earth, and we don't depend on the UN to feed us.

"The bleeding was stopped when congress and W put there 350 billion dollar fire wall up, November 2008"

The bleeding did not stop in November 2008. In fact, the most severe job losses came in the two months that followed and GDP bottomed out well after that.

That's just looking back 30 posts, which is as far as I have time for right now.



You're kidding, right? Have you read your own posts?

Blame?
thats just information sir

No, sir - you blamed Obama in several places throughout this thread. Your obtuseness is not worth my time to find it....again.

Underemployment Rises to 20.3% in March
that takes care of the 20%

You're using a Gallup poll? That's hilarious.

You keep talking about tarp like it was suppose to stop the job loss, we were losing trillions in the stock market and the bleeding I am talking about is having $10,000 in a bank that has lost it, and that the US govt who backs it does not enough to cover it
Tarp was not about jobs

TARP was not about protecting deposits in banks. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand TARP. Deposits in banks were already protected. TARP provided zero protection for zero depositors at zero banks.

And TARP was very much about jobs. A continued freeze in the credit markets, with money market funds breaking the buck, would have led to a dramatic increase in unemployment - i.e. loss of jobs.

Funny?
why is the opinion of the every day american funny to you?
they count every one
and your defending this with an 16% rate, now thats funny
Tarp was about jobs? well thank Bush and the tax payer then because Obama used it for the UAW and GMAC
I never said it was to protect the deposits
your being a liberal now
The banks failing would have broke the FDIC
Preventing the banks from failing prevented the FDIC failing
you obviously have no idea as to what was going on here, and thats just a fact, not personal

 

[JRK]

My issue here is people are trying to compare Obama with anyone
How?

W, they are the same government loving animal. Just because Obama does even more of it then Bush doesn't make them different, it just becomes a scale of gray.

KAZ GWB with 2 wars
7 major hurricanes
9-11
2 market crashes had a 8 year deficit of 2.5 trillion

BHO blew by that in 2 years
with 1 war

 

[8537]

Blame?
thats just information sir

No, sir - you blamed Obama in several places throughout this thread. Your obtuseness is not worth my time to find it....again.



You're using a Gallup poll? That's hilarious.

You keep talking about tarp like it was suppose to stop the job loss, we were losing trillions in the stock market and the bleeding I am talking about is having $10,000 in a bank that has lost it, and that the US govt who backs it does not enough to cover it
Tarp was not about jobs

TARP was not about protecting deposits in banks. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand TARP. Deposits in banks were already protected. TARP provided zero protection for zero depositors at zero banks.

And TARP was very much about jobs. A continued freeze in the credit markets, with money market funds breaking the buck, would have led to a dramatic increase in unemployment - i.e. loss of jobs.

Funny?
why is the opinion of the every day american funny to you?
they count every one

Huh?! They count every one? That's not a poll, it's a census. And that's not what Gallup does.

and what's hilarious is that you are relying on a gallup poll. That's funny.

and your defending this with an 16% rate, now thats funny

I'm saying the rates not 20%.

Tarp was about jobs? well thank Bush and the tax payer then because Obama used it for the UAW and GMAC

Yes, it was about jobs.

I never said it was to protect the deposits
your being a liberal now
The banks failing would have broke the FDIC
Preventing the banks from failing prevented the FDIC failing

The banks? Let's read what you wrote:

"having $10,000 in a bank that has lost it, and that the US govt who backs it does not enough to cover it"

That sure sounds like protecting deposits.

Now let's go down the list of the biggest TARP recipients and see how many are FDIC-insured institutions:

1. Fannie Mae
2. AIG
3. Freddie Mac
4. General Motors
5. BoA.

In the top five, exactly one is a depository institution, and only a small portion of its business is FDIC-insured.

The banks failing and breaking the FDIC would have been fixed by refunding the FDIC, no TARP required. TARP wasn't about recapitalizing banks, it was about recapitalizing the financial sector.

you obviously have no idea as to what was going on here, and thats just a fact, not personal

Yes, the problem here is my ignorance. Right.

 

[sinister59]

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

what failure thousands of jobs saved in the auto industry and they are paying it back , banks as well ,
your a dumb ass , the repigs said it had to be done , the Demks said it , and did something about it .

your boy bush had his man come out and say he needed 900billion with "no oversight boards,no accountability at all and will come back for more .
the Dems want 800 but the repigs cut that down to 7 , and are fighting infrastructure repairs that need getting done but your fighting that , saying it wont create permanent jobs , screw the people needing jobs now that will take us through this mess the REPUBLICANS got us into .

so really your just a whines repig

 

[JRK]

No, sir - you blamed Obama in several places throughout this thread. Your obtuseness is not worth my time to find it....again.



You're using a Gallup poll? That's hilarious.




TARP was not about protecting deposits in banks. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand TARP. Deposits in banks were already protected. TARP provided zero protection for zero depositors at zero banks.

And TARP was very much about jobs. A continued freeze in the credit markets, with money market funds breaking the buck, would have led to a dramatic increase in unemployment - i.e. loss of jobs.

Funny?
why is the opinion of the every day american funny to you?
they count every one

Huh?! They count every one? That's not a poll, it's a census. And that's not what Gallup does.

and what's hilarious is that you are relying on a gallup poll. That's funny.




I'm saying the rates not 20%.




Yes, it was about jobs.



The banks? Let's read what you wrote:

"having $10,000 in a bank that has lost it, and that the US govt who backs it does not enough to cover it"

That sure sounds like protecting deposits.

Now let's go down the list of the biggest TARP recipients and see how many are FDIC-insured institutions:

1. Fannie Mae
2. AIG
3. Freddie Mac
4. General Motors
5. BoA.

In the top five, exactly one is a depository institution, and only a small portion of its business is FDIC-insured.

The banks failing and breaking the FDIC would have been fixed by refunding the FDIC, no TARP required. TARP wasn't about recapitalizing banks, it was about recapitalizing the financial sector.

you obviously have no idea as to what was going on here, and thats just a fact, not personal

Yes, the problem here is my ignorance. Right.

Bailout List: Banks, Car Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
you might want to look at this list
And yes you talk about saving jobs, not creating, but saving jobs tarp did 100 times what the Obama's stimulus did
I never said you was ignorant, in fact up until now you have been spot on
I said you was being a liberal
1/4 truths
at times 1/2 truths
and when you do that its not about what you do or do not support, you start trying to find reasons you support the people you support that has everything to do with someone else
What Does Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP Mean?
A government program created for the establishment and management of a Treasury fund, in an attempt to curb the ongoing financial crisis of 2007-2008. The TARP gives the U.S. Treasury purchasing power of $700 billion to buy up mortgage backed securities (MBS) from institutions across the country, in an attempt to create liquidity and un-seize the money markets. The fund was created by a bill that was made law on October 3, 2008 with the passage of H.R. 1424 enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Treasury will be given $250 billion immediately, and the President must certify additional funds as they are needed. The additional funds will be distributed as $100 billion, and then as the final $350 billion is given, Congress has the right to not approve the additional amounts.
Investopedia explains Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP
Global credit markets came to a near stand still in September 2008, as several major financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group, went under. In a few surprising moves, heavyweights Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even changed their charter to become commercial banks, in an attempt to stabilize their capital situation. The bailout will attempt to increase the liquidity of the secondary mortgage markets by purchasing the illiquid MBS, and through that, reducing the potential losses that could be felt by the institutions who currently own them.

In October of 2008, revisions to the program were announced by Treasury Secretary Paulson and President Bush; allowing for the first $250 billion to be used to buy equity stakes in nine major U.S. banks, and many smaller banks. This program demands that companies involved lose some tax benefits, and in many cases incur limits on executive compensation.

 

[8537]

Bailout List: Banks, Car Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
you might want to look at this list

Notice how most aren't FDIC-insured depository institutions? It's almost like I said that already...

And yes you talk about saving jobs, not creating, but saving jobs tarp did 100 times what the Obama's stimulus did

Well that's interesting. First you say TARP wasn't about jobs, now you say TARP is about jobs.

You should pick a claim and stick to it.

What Does Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP Mean?
A government program created for the establishment and management of a Treasury fund, in an attempt to curb the ongoing financial crisis of 2007-2008. The TARP gives the U.S. Treasury purchasing power of $700 billion to buy up mortgage backed securities (MBS) from institutions across the country, in an attempt to create liquidity and un-seize the money markets. The fund was created by a bill that was made law on October 3, 2008 with the passage of H.R. 1424 enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Treasury will be given $250 billion immediately, and the President must certify additional funds as they are needed. The additional funds will be distributed as $100 billion, and then as the final $350 billion is given, Congress has the right to not approve the additional amounts.
Investopedia explains Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP
Global credit markets came to a near stand still in September 2008, as several major financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group, went under. In a few surprising moves, heavyweights Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even changed their charter to become commercial banks, in an attempt to stabilize their capital situation. The bailout will attempt to increase the liquidity of the secondary mortgage markets by purchasing the illiquid MBS, and through that, reducing the potential losses that could be felt by the institutions who currently own them.

In October of 2008, revisions to the program were announced by Treasury Secretary Paulson and President Bush; allowing for the first $250 billion to be used to buy equity stakes in nine major U.S. banks, and many smaller banks. This program demands that companies involved lose some tax benefits, and in many cases incur limits on executive compensation.

Are you of the opinion that any of the above supports the notion that TARP was set up to protect depository institutions?

 

[JRK]

Bailout List: Banks, Car Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
you might want to look at this list

Notice how most aren't FDIC-insured depository institutions? It's almost like I said that already...

And yes you talk about saving jobs, not creating, but saving jobs tarp did 100 times what the Obama's stimulus did

Well that's interesting. First you say TARP wasn't about jobs, now you say TARP is about jobs.

You should pick a claim and stick to it.

What Does Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP Mean?
A government program created for the establishment and management of a Treasury fund, in an attempt to curb the ongoing financial crisis of 2007-2008. The TARP gives the U.S. Treasury purchasing power of $700 billion to buy up mortgage backed securities (MBS) from institutions across the country, in an attempt to create liquidity and un-seize the money markets. The fund was created by a bill that was made law on October 3, 2008 with the passage of H.R. 1424 enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Treasury will be given $250 billion immediately, and the President must certify additional funds as they are needed. The additional funds will be distributed as $100 billion, and then as the final $350 billion is given, Congress has the right to not approve the additional amounts.
Investopedia explains Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP
Global credit markets came to a near stand still in September 2008, as several major financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group, went under. In a few surprising moves, heavyweights Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even changed their charter to become commercial banks, in an attempt to stabilize their capital situation. The bailout will attempt to increase the liquidity of the secondary mortgage markets by purchasing the illiquid MBS, and through that, reducing the potential losses that could be felt by the institutions who currently own them.

In October of 2008, revisions to the program were announced by Treasury Secretary Paulson and President Bush; allowing for the first $250 billion to be used to buy equity stakes in nine major U.S. banks, and many smaller banks. This program demands that companies involved lose some tax benefits, and in many cases incur limits on executive compensation.

Are you of the opinion that any of the above supports the notion that TARP was set up to protect depository institutions?

I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS
WHAT I STATED WAS THAT THE FDIC COULD NOT SUPPORT ALL OF THOSE BANKS THAT TOOK TARP IF THEY FAILED
Please do your DD
If Enough Banks Fail, The FDIC Could Run Out Of Money - The Consumerist
It was a what if, this will stop this what if and all the other what ifs that we could not chance
>Everyone knows that your money is safe in an FDIC insured bank because if the bank fails (Hello, IndyMac!) the FDIC will step in and repay your money (generally, up to $100,000.) But what if the FDIC runs out of money? It doesn't have an unlimited supply and enough bank failures could completely drain its fund, says ABCNews:

“
Thanks to a collapsing housing market and a weak economy, a growing number of banks are struggling to stay afloat, with not enough cash on hand to cover losses from bad loans.

At the beginning of the year, 90 banks were on the FDIC watch list. There are now 117, FDIC chairwoman Sheila C. Bair announced at a news conference this afternoon. That is the highest number in five years, but some analysts expect the list to grow even more in coming months.

"I think there's going to be a steady drip, drip, drip of bad news," said Sean Ryan, a banking analyst with Sterne Agee. "We've only seen the very tip of the iceberg in terms of bank failures."

...
"I fully expect the FDIC insurance fund to be depleted," Ryan added. "The FDIC is going to be one of what is going to be an increasing string of government bailouts."

”