The Misinformation about the two major criticisms of Obama

[healthmyths]

just ignore the numbers and pretend claud, Inm sure that will win you an election

FIRST your blathering is total opinion... you didn't substantiate with research!

GEEZ.. nothing happened like these events... DO YOU REMEMBER THESE EVENTS???
1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in market loss "
The Stock Market Crash of 2000-2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of
companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[13]
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SOME minor event which geez.. didn't halt ALL airline traffic for 3 days..
CAUSED 100,000 job losses, and $2 trillion in lost taxable income..
2) The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers,
killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the
stock market drop; the NYSE suspended trading for four sessions.
The stock market lost 16% of its value on 9/11. The stock markets
themselves estimate the real costs to the market in lost value and
profits at close to $2 trillion over time.
Economic terrorism: Bin Laden was major contributor to budget deficit - National economic policy | Examiner.com

AND of course this WAS ALL BUSH's fault...
3) Worst hurricane SEASONS in history.. actual costs that were written off
Federal/State/Local income, sales, and property taxes over $1 trillion!

IN SPITE of these MAJOR traumatic EVENTS

From the Depart. of Labor... ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

jobs end number of
of year (000) new workers % increase
2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred
$5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses

2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26%
2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%

Obama takes over...
2009...... 130,807 -5,983 -4.37% absolute worst losses in in 28 years!
2010...... 129,818 -989 -0.76%

So a simple math task at the end of 2001 (Bush's first year..)
131,826,000 people working At the end of 2008 Bush last year...
136,790,000 working people.
4,964,000 more people working !

 

[California Girl]

just ignore the numbers and pretend claud, Inm sure that will win you an election

why do you ignore the most important number......there are 1.8 million LESS people employed now than there were before the stimulus passed.

To me that is not growth...that is contraction as it pertains to the employment market.

That's hardly surprising - considering that the 'stimulus' wasn't a 'stimulus', it was a money grab for special interest groups and kickbacks.

The idea was solid... but, as is so often the case when Government does it... the execution just completely sucked.

 

[Truthmatters]

So?

It is what it is TDM.

Yes it is.

Your team fucked EVERYTHING up.

Now we are trying to fix it while you stand in the way and throw rocks and scream at everyone that it should have been fixed in a week.

Your team took years to crash it, it takes time to fix it.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

Deficit and Spending Increase Under Obama - WSJ.com

Obama's major contribution to deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009 expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the overall spending increase was 22%.

In one year.

CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%, and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

The slight deficit improvement for 2010 isn't due to any spending restraint. The feds will get a $218 billion windfall from reduced spending on TARP bailout cash, plus $27 billion in reduced deposit insurance outlays. All of that money and more is going right out the door again in $112 billion more in so far unspent stimulus, a 7% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, 6% more for Medicare and 11% more for Medicaid.

CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prior to Collapse

Here is 2003 video testimony from the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, on the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank is quick to point out that he believes, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound, financially." Although the Believability Meter shows Frank to be sincere, the subsequent collapse of the two mortgage giants showed him to be sincerely dead wrong.

But perhaps the most surreal part of this video clip is the Believability Meter's reaction when Frank brazenly claims that, even if there were a problem, "the federal government doesn't bail [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] out." Except, of course, until the federal government did exactly that late last year.

The Believability Meter knew all along that Barney Frank was playing with a stacked deck. Now, he has successfully used the political leverage of "affordable housing" to shift blame for the crisis from himself to greedy bankers on Wall Street. Do you think politicians like Barney Frank are the exception or the rule on Capitol Hill?

 

[Oldstyle]

ECONOMIC WOES

We have had 22 months of private sector job growth. A factor for that is the success of Obama's stimulus plan. And while It may be true that the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama took office, we were losing 100,000's of more jobs per month under Bush than Obama.

There is also no proof that Obama's policies can be directly attributed to the current unemployment rate. Take regulations, for example:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica

Table 2. Reason for layoff: Extended mass layoff events, separations, and initial claimants for unemployment insurance, private nonfarm sector, selected quarters, 2010 and 2011

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The idea that Obama is responsible for massive government spending in his term thus far is simply not true:

The Mythical Obama Spending Binge | The New Republic

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit - Business Insider

Ah yes...the "22 months of private sector job growth" reason why Barack Obama should be given another four years! Would you care to elaborate on the size of that job growth, Billy? Have you noticed whenever Barry talks about that he always adds that it's not enough? That's because the growth is SO anemic that it's almost laughable to count it as a positive but Obama doesn't have much choice because all of his economic numbers are so lame.

And you "really" want to make the point that Obama and his various underlings haven't been hurting the economy with regulations either passed or proposed? He's backed off on things like Cap & Trade because he couldn't get the votes even when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate but that didn't mean that his attempts to pass what would have been a HUGE increase to the energy bills to businesses didn't stop people from pulling the trigger on expanding their operations. Businesses operate by making projections and Barry's love of things like Cap & Trade and the EPA greenhouse gas regulations would have had significant effect on their bottom line. You don't think that business executives aren't very aware that if Obama wins in November that he'll have no incentive to rein in the EPA?

Obama promised to half our national deficit by the end of his first term, Billy. How's that going so far? The truth is...he can't cut anything but national defense and never will. His only solution to lowering the deficit is by raising taxes on the wealthy while he continues to increase spending on entitlements.

 

[Truthmatters]

President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prior to Collapse

Here is 2003 video testimony from the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, on the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank is quick to point out that he believes, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound, financially." Although the Believability Meter shows Frank to be sincere, the subsequent collapse of the two mortgage giants showed him to be sincerely dead wrong.

But perhaps the most surreal part of this video clip is the Believability Meter's reaction when Frank brazenly claims that, even if there were a problem, "the federal government doesn't bail [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] out." Except, of course, until the federal government did exactly that late last year.

The Believability Meter knew all along that Barney Frank was playing with a stacked deck. Now, he has successfully used the political leverage of "affordable housing" to shift blame for the crisis from himself to greedy bankers on Wall Street. Do you think politicians like Barney Frank are the exception or the rule on Capitol Hill?

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

 

[Full-Auto]

ECONOMIC WOES

We have had 22 months of private sector job growth. A factor for that is the success of Obama's stimulus plan. And while It may be true that the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama took office, we were losing 100,000's of more jobs per month under Bush than Obama.

There is also no proof that Obama's policies can be directly attributed to the current unemployment rate. Take regulations, for example:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica

Table 2. Reason for layoff: Extended mass layoff events, separations, and initial claimants for unemployment insurance, private nonfarm sector, selected quarters, 2010 and 2011

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The idea that Obama is responsible for massive government spending in his term thus far is simply not true:

The Mythical Obama Spending Binge | The New Republic

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit - Business Insider

Oh shit, here we go again. More lying and crying.

Dumbass. Do you know what the term uncertainty means and what correlations runs with that? Shut up we know you dont.

 

[Conservative]

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

My God, you are stupid...
Bush Proposed Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Supervision In 2003 | Bucks Right
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

Bush and his people saw it coming, why couldn't Frank?

Seems the people who helped block oversight were the biggest recipients of contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Go fucking figure, huh.

 

[Jarhead]

President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prior to Collapse

Here is 2003 video testimony from the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, on the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank is quick to point out that he believes, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound, financially." Although the Believability Meter shows Frank to be sincere, the subsequent collapse of the two mortgage giants showed him to be sincerely dead wrong.

But perhaps the most surreal part of this video clip is the Believability Meter's reaction when Frank brazenly claims that, even if there were a problem, "the federal government doesn't bail [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] out." Except, of course, until the federal government did exactly that late last year.

The Believability Meter knew all along that Barney Frank was playing with a stacked deck. Now, he has successfully used the political leverage of "affordable housing" to shift blame for the crisis from himself to greedy bankers on Wall Street. Do you think politicians like Barney Frank are the exception or the rule on Capitol Hill?

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

uh....

Pay attention to his responsibilities as a congressperson and overseer of FM and FM?

Or was that asking too much of him.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prior to Collapse

Here is 2003 video testimony from the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, on the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank is quick to point out that he believes, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound, financially." Although the Believability Meter shows Frank to be sincere, the subsequent collapse of the two mortgage giants showed him to be sincerely dead wrong.

But perhaps the most surreal part of this video clip is the Believability Meter's reaction when Frank brazenly claims that, even if there were a problem, "the federal government doesn't bail [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] out." Except, of course, until the federal government did exactly that late last year.

The Believability Meter knew all along that Barney Frank was playing with a stacked deck. Now, he has successfully used the political leverage of "affordable housing" to shift blame for the crisis from himself to greedy bankers on Wall Street. Do you think politicians like Barney Frank are the exception or the rule on Capitol Hill?

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

Yea that's what Barney thought to ignoring the evidence too the contrary.

Damn you liberals are stupid.


Tell me what eventually happened with Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

ECONOMIC WOES

We have had 22 months of private sector job growth. A factor for that is the success of Obama's stimulus plan. And while It may be true that the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama took office, we were losing 100,000's of more jobs per month under Bush than Obama.

There is also no proof that Obama's policies can be directly attributed to the current unemployment rate. Take regulations, for example:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica

Table 2. Reason for layoff: Extended mass layoff events, separations, and initial claimants for unemployment insurance, private nonfarm sector, selected quarters, 2010 and 2011

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The idea that Obama is responsible for massive government spending in his term thus far is simply not true:

The Mythical Obama Spending Binge | The New Republic

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit - Business Insider

Are there more net jobs today then the day obama took office in the USA?

No there are less total jobs but more total citizens......its pretty obvious he hasn't done a good job SO FAR on the economy and jobs, the facts back it up.

Obama passed obamacare and the stimulus bill, both combining to add over a trillion to our national debt. Obama has added more to the national debt in 3 years than he claimed bush was unpatriotic for doing in 8.

Get out of here with your hogwash!

 

[Truthmatters]

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prior to Collapse

Here is 2003 video testimony from the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, on the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank is quick to point out that he believes, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound, financially." Although the Believability Meter shows Frank to be sincere, the subsequent collapse of the two mortgage giants showed him to be sincerely dead wrong.

But perhaps the most surreal part of this video clip is the Believability Meter's reaction when Frank brazenly claims that, even if there were a problem, "the federal government doesn't bail [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] out." Except, of course, until the federal government did exactly that late last year.

The Believability Meter knew all along that Barney Frank was playing with a stacked deck. Now, he has successfully used the political leverage of "affordable housing" to shift blame for the crisis from himself to greedy bankers on Wall Street. Do you think politicians like Barney Frank are the exception or the rule on Capitol Hill?

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

Yea that's what Barney thought to ignoring the evidence too the contrary.

Damn you liberals are stupid.


Tell me what eventually happened with Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

Your team turned the lenders into free wheeling unregulated moneygrubbers who didnt give a rats ass about what happened to this country.

 

[Claudette]

So?

It is what it is TDM.

Yes it is.

Your team fucked EVERYTHING up.

Now we are trying to fix it while you stand in the way and throw rocks and scream at everyone that it should have been fixed in a week.

Your team took years to crash it, it takes time to fix it.

My team??

Not a Rep there TDM and both "teams" crashed it.

As long as Barry's in the WH and using FDR's failed policies don't hold your breath for any "fix."

 

[naturegirl]

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

Yea that's what Barney thought to ignoring the evidence too the contrary.

Damn you liberals are stupid.


Tell me what eventually happened with Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

Your team turned the lenders into free wheeling unregulated moneygrubbers who didnt give a rats ass about what happened to this country.

Yea and YOUR Team stood around with their hands in their pockets, just like Claudette said. YOUR Team cared about themselves only while they were padding their bank accounts.

 

[Claudette]

ECONOMIC WOES

We have had 22 months of private sector job growth. A factor for that is the success of Obama's stimulus plan. And while It may be true that the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama took office, we were losing 100,000's of more jobs per month under Bush than Obama.

There is also no proof that Obama's policies can be directly attributed to the current unemployment rate. Take regulations, for example:

Do regulations curtail job growth? | Decisions Based on Evidence

the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica

Table 2. Reason for layoff: Extended mass layoff events, separations, and initial claimants for unemployment insurance, private nonfarm sector, selected quarters, 2010 and 2011

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The idea that Obama is responsible for massive government spending in his term thus far is simply not true:

The Mythical Obama Spending Binge | The New Republic

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit - Business Insider

Ah yes...the "22 months of private sector job growth" reason why Barack Obama should be given another four years! Would you care to elaborate on the size of that job growth, Billy? Have you noticed whenever Barry talks about that he always adds that it's not enough? That's because the growth is SO anemic that it's almost laughable to count it as a positive but Obama doesn't have much choice because all of his economic numbers are so lame.

And you "really" want to make the point that Obama and his various underlings haven't been hurting the economy with regulations either passed or proposed? He's backed off on things like Cap & Trade because he couldn't get the votes even when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate but that didn't mean that his attempts to pass what would have been a HUGE increase to the energy bills to businesses didn't stop people from pulling the trigger on expanding their operations. Businesses operate by making projections and Barry's love of things like Cap & Trade and the EPA greenhouse gas regulations would have had significant effect on their bottom line. You don't think that business executives aren't very aware that if Obama wins in November that he'll have no incentive to rein in the EPA?

Obama promised to half our national deficit by the end of his first term, Billy. How's that going so far? The truth is...he can't cut anything but national defense and never will. His only solution to lowering the deficit is by raising taxes on the wealthy while he continues to increase spending on entitlements.

Yup and his taxes on the rich won't accomplish much because there simply aren't enough rich to raise taxes

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dear idiot, they were sound in that year.


How was Franks to know what the right was going to allow to be done by the lenders in the coming years?

Yea that's what Barney thought to ignoring the evidence too the contrary.

Damn you liberals are stupid.


Tell me what eventually happened with Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

Your team turned the lenders into free wheeling unregulated moneygrubbers who didnt give a rats ass about what happened to this country.

History is your friend. You should not be afraid of it as you are with the facts and honesty.


Fact is this all began under Carter with the Community Reinvestment Act. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

Oh and Carter was on your team.

 

[Conservative]

Your team turned the lenders into free wheeling unregulated moneygrubbers who didnt give a rats ass about what happened to this country.

look at post 31, dick-spittle.

Bush and the Republicans wanted more oversight of Fannie and Freddie, and the Dems continually prevented it.

Facts are your friends. You should try using them sometime. It would be a pleasant change.