The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on P A R A D E . . . ​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

There is such a thing as retiring debt.

You and your New York state of mind.

Which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Barack Obama has little or no power to simply stop government spending.

What he has "NONE OF" in terms of even reducing government spending, let alone stopping it, is INTENTION!

 

[NYcarbineer]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

There is such a thing as retiring debt.

You and your New York state of mind.

Which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Barack Obama has little or no power to simply stop government spending.

What he has "NONE OF" in terms of even reducing government spending, let alone stopping it, is INTENTION!

What president in memory has reduced government spending?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What president in memory has reduced government spending?

dear, that's because the president does not control the govt or the electorate.

Do you lack the IQ to understand that??

 

[edthecynic]

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie.

It is so typical of CON$ to just keep lying even after their lies have been thoroughly debunked. CON$ keep lying in hopes that they will wear out the honest people so they stop calling out their lies.

Now you were challenged many times to back up your lies and name even ONE reform bill that was blocked by the Dems, and rather than name even ONE bill you just parrot your lies over and over again. The fact that you have failed to name any bills proves YOU KNOW YOU ARE LYING!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie.

It is so typical of CON$ to just keep lying even after their lies have been thoroughly debunked. CON$ keep lying in hopes that they will wear out the honest people so they stop calling out their lies.

Now you were challenged many times to back up your lies and name even ONE reform bill that was blocked by the Dems, and rather than name even ONE bill you just parrot your lies over and over again. The fact that you have failed to name any bills proves YOU KNOW YOU ARE LYING!!!!!

dear, liberals supported GSE intervention far more than conservatives. If you don't know that you don't know anything.

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work).

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's an excellent, detailed article on how Freddie and Fannie caused the financial crisis, complete with a step-by-step chronology of the policy actions and charts to visualize the numbers involved:

How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis

Come on, Heritage is hardly a credible source for anything but lies, and you know it. Heritage pays scholars to find the most deceptive and misleading way to present half truths to gullible fools to lazy to research or think for themselves. The proof that you won't research or think for yourself is the fact that you have failed to produce one bill blocked by the Dems!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's an excellent, detailed article on how Freddie and Fannie caused the financial crisis, complete with a step-by-step chronology of the policy actions and charts to visualize the numbers involved:

How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis

Come on, Heritage is hardly a credible source for anything but lies, and you know it. Heritage pays scholars to find the most deceptive and misleading way to present half truths to gullible fools to lazy to research or think for themselves. The proof that you won't research or think for yourself is the fact that you have failed to produce one bill blocked by the Dems!!!!!

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

see why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[edthecynic]

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing

BULLSHIT!
The GOP held the majority of the committee seats, 10, as the majority party plus the chairmanship giving the GOP 11 votes on the committee to 9 Democratic votes. If all the GOP voted for the bill in committee then it would have gone to the floor for a vote, but the bill died in committee blocked by the GOP.

All the CON$ ever do is lie on top of lie on top of lie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing

BULLSHIT!
The GOP held the majority of the committee seats, 10, as the majority party plus the chairmanship giving the GOP 11 votes on the committee to 9 Democratic votes. If all the GOP voted for the bill in committee then it would have gone to the floor for a vote, but the bill died in committee blocked by the GOP.

All the CON$ ever do is lie on top of lie on top of lie.

Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"




"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank


Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.



What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett.

 

[Faun]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

 

[Faun]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

While some may refer to the U-6 rate as an unemployment rate, it's not. It can't be. It includes employed folks. The BLS, the official department which tracks un/employment stats, does not call it an unemployment rate since it's not one.

Also, there are 6.7 million people who work part time but want full time work. That's less than when Obama became president.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And lastly, the LFPR is not an indicator of the health of the job market. You should know that since it was lower in the 50's and yet, unemployment was low and the economy was strong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's.?

dear, what is your point anyway? Do you think liberals are more conservative than conservatives? You debate trivia because as a typical liberal you know you're too stupid for substance

 

[Faun]

The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett.

So what do you think of that bill? Think it should have become law? Think it would have helped? And why didn't the Republican leadership in the Senate refuse to add it to the legislative calendar so the full Senate could have voted on it?

 

[Faun]

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's.?

dear, what is your point anyway? Do you think liberals are more conservative than conservatives? You debate trivia because as a typical liberal you know you're too stupid for substance

My point is crystal clear. I can't help that you're not capable of understanding it.

 

[Faun]

Here's an excellent, detailed article on how Freddie and Fannie caused the financial crisis, complete with a step-by-step chronology of the policy actions and charts to visualize the numbers involved:

How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis

The nonsense from that rightwing think tank has already been debunked.

Next.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While some may refer to the U-6 rate as an unemployment rate, it's not. It can't be. It includes employed folks.

true enough if a Ph.D is employed 10 hours a week flipping burgers he is not technically unemployed but he sure is indicating that something is wrong with Barry's socialist economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's an excellent, detailed article on how Freddie and Fannie caused the financial crisis, complete with a step-by-step chronology of the policy actions and charts to visualize the numbers involved:

How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis

The nonsense from that rightwing think tank has already been debunked.

Next.

are you saying that even though the GSE's ended up owning 76% of the subprime and Alt.mortgages, many of which defaulted, they had nothing to do with the housing collapse and subsequent financial crisis??

Are you saying Barney Frannk was wrong and that soviet liberalism really would work in America??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My point is crystal clear.

yes but most importantly its uber trivial: Republicans did not try hard enough to kill GSE's. So what? The issue is always, does soviet liberalism make sense after the collapse of the USSR and Red China( with 120 million starved to death) and now the collapse of our soviet housing, health care, PO, and train markets? What the libsoviets touch they destroy!