The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[rightwinger]

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

You are not given a failing grade point average in your Freshman year....Obama was

Oh you can be which is why students have to repeat that grade if its High School or drop out of University if were talking about college. Obama gets to remain all four years no matter how bad he does.

So because his predecessor flunked out, he gets to start with his predecessors failing grades

 

[healthmyths]

Maybe it had something to do with inheriting a godam crash next to the worst one in the nation's history. Have you conveniently forgotten Bush and the absolute crash he had a few weeks before he left office in January?

Well, any President can blame all their problems on the previous President. Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office which means on average he was close to full employment nearly every month of his time in office and also with an average above 66% in the labor force participation rate. On average it was much easier to get a job or hold job while Bush was in office then it was while Obama was in office. Obama averaged 7.48% Unemployment throughout his time in office(one month left so the figure is not complete).

And the average unemployment rate is so meaningless, that Obama's average is lower than Reagan's; and many on the right consider Reagan a deity when it comes to creating jobs. Even worse, by averaging out the unemployment rate, you can't tell the difference between one president who starts with an unemployment rate of 12% and lowers it 1 point every year and leaves office 8 years later with an unemployment rate of 4% -- with a president who starts with an unemployment rate of 4% and leaves office 4 years later with an unemployment rate of 12%, increasing it by 2 points every year.

Statistically, they would have identical unemployment rate averages; only the former would be considered a jobs czar while the latter would be thrown out of office after 1 term.

8 years is a long time during which unemployment will rise and fall many times. Its a mistake to cherry pick two points in time so far away from each other and declare success or failure just based on that. Are the only important months of your life over the last 96 months, last November and that December from 8 years ago. Are you saying that your success's or failures in anything from 2015 don't matter?

No one cherry picks a students grades his first month in High School and his last month in High School to evaluate how they did. Every month in school or on the job matters and only fool would completely ignore 94 months out of a 96 month Presidency. A 96 month Presidency is enough time for both many economic success's and failures which heavily impact peoples lives but could totally be left out if you only look at month one and month 96.

Would you evaluate Lincolns performance as Commander and Chief or that of his Generals simply by the first month of the war and the last. You would actually completely ignore a battle like Gettysburg. Not a single mention of it, not even a footnote. I suppose World War II should be just about Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan. The fact that the United States fought and defeated Germany in between those two points is not relevant right?

The fact is, if you want to accurately look and evaluate anything, you have to consider ALL THE DATA. Simply looking at the first month of an administration and the last month of an administration does not do that!

No, it's not a mistake. As has been brought to your attention numerous times, a president starting with a high unemployment rate and ending with a low unemployment rate has done a better job than one doing the reverse, going from a low unemployment rate to a high unemployment rate. Even though thet could have the same average.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush's average unemployment rate is due to him starting at a low 4.2% and the housing bubble (which led to the collapse). Bush never got the unemployment rate lower than what he was given.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 1 million (and they were all government jobs); yet Bush's average is only slightly higher than Clinton's.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Reagan created 16 million jobs. Obama created 11 million (15 million since the recovery). Bush created 1 million. Yet Bush's average is significantly lower than both Reagan and Obama.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush has the second worst record on job growth recorded in our country's history. He's only the second president (Hoover is the first) recorded to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Averaging it out conceals that.

So yeah, if your goal is to make Bush's record appear better than it actually was by concealing all of the above since his policies did nothing but hurt the economy, then yes, I can see why it's so important to you to average out the unemployment rate.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Its easy to create jobs after a sudden economic downturn. Keeping the economy in full employment indefinitely is much more difficult and so far in history has proved impossible. Bush kept the labor market at full employment or near full employment for most of the 8 years he was in office. You see that with the average that is taken! Using only two months of data, the first month in office and the last won't tell you that.

WHEN YOU USE ONLY THE FIRST MONTH AND THE LAST MONTH OUT OF A 96 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, YOU ARE CONCEALING 98% OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT PERSON WAS PRESIDENT! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT!

So I crown you the KING OF CONCEALMENT since you believe its appropriate to not look at NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of a Presidents time in office. The only thing that matters according to you is the first month and the last month. To hell with the other 94 months.

I take you think students should not have their performance in school judged by Grade Point Average either, right?

Plus not one of GWB critics seem to be aware of these EVENTS that had a DIRECT affect on the economy, taxes and above all JOBS!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency!
NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!

1) Recession that started with Clinton..
2) Dot.com bust cost $8 Trillion in losses..
3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember??
4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
5) The 9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market
accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could
not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119619-how-the-world-almost-came-to-an-end-on-september-18-2008

IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%
Obama's??? with NO EVENTS???
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

And Obama FACED none of these events and even profited from TARP payback of all the $621 billion plus $70 billion profit.
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
Yet not one critic acknowledges these FACTS!

 

[Faun]

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

 

[Faun]

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

Name the person whose GPA was greatly weighted down by the person previously occupying their seat....

 

[Faun]

The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.

Bush also doubled the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million.

For most of Bush's time in office the monthly unemployment rate was below 5.5%. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% is GEORGE W. BUSH. He holds that record. #1.

Thanks to the 4.2% rate Clinton handed him and the real estate bubble.

 

[Faun]

Maybe it had something to do with inheriting a godam crash next to the worst one in the nation's history. Have you conveniently forgotten Bush and the absolute crash he had a few weeks before he left office in January?

Well, any President can blame all their problems on the previous President. Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office which means on average he was close to full employment nearly every month of his time in office and also with an average above 66% in the labor force participation rate. On average it was much easier to get a job or hold job while Bush was in office then it was while Obama was in office. Obama averaged 7.48% Unemployment throughout his time in office(one month left so the figure is not complete).

And the average unemployment rate is so meaningless, that Obama's average is lower than Reagan's; and many on the right consider Reagan a deity when it comes to creating jobs. Even worse, by averaging out the unemployment rate, you can't tell the difference between one president who starts with an unemployment rate of 12% and lowers it 1 point every year and leaves office 8 years later with an unemployment rate of 4% -- with a president who starts with an unemployment rate of 4% and leaves office 4 years later with an unemployment rate of 12%, increasing it by 2 points every year.

Statistically, they would have identical unemployment rate averages; only the former would be considered a jobs czar while the latter would be thrown out of office after 1 term.

8 years is a long time during which unemployment will rise and fall many times. Its a mistake to cherry pick two points in time so far away from each other and declare success or failure just based on that. Are the only important months of your life over the last 96 months, last November and that December from 8 years ago. Are you saying that your success's or failures in anything from 2015 don't matter?

No one cherry picks a students grades his first month in High School and his last month in High School to evaluate how they did. Every month in school or on the job matters and only fool would completely ignore 94 months out of a 96 month Presidency. A 96 month Presidency is enough time for both many economic success's and failures which heavily impact peoples lives but could totally be left out if you only look at month one and month 96.

Would you evaluate Lincolns performance as Commander and Chief or that of his Generals simply by the first month of the war and the last. You would actually completely ignore a battle like Gettysburg. Not a single mention of it, not even a footnote. I suppose World War II should be just about Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan. The fact that the United States fought and defeated Germany in between those two points is not relevant right?

The fact is, if you want to accurately look and evaluate anything, you have to consider ALL THE DATA. Simply looking at the first month of an administration and the last month of an administration does not do that!

No, it's not a mistake. As has been brought to your attention numerous times, a president starting with a high unemployment rate and ending with a low unemployment rate has done a better job than one doing the reverse, going from a low unemployment rate to a high unemployment rate. Even though thet could have the same average.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush's average unemployment rate is due to him starting at a low 4.2% and the housing bubble (which led to the collapse). Bush never got the unemployment rate lower than what he was given.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 1 million (and they were all government jobs); yet Bush's average is only slightly higher than Clinton's.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Reagan created 16 million jobs. Obama created 11 million (15 million since the recovery). Bush created 1 million. Yet Bush's average is significantly lower than both Reagan and Obama.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush has the second worst record on job growth recorded in our country's history. He's only the second president (Hoover is the first) recorded to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Averaging it out conceals that.

So yeah, if your goal is to make Bush's record appear better than it actually was by concealing all of the above since his policies did nothing but hurt the economy, then yes, I can see why it's so important to you to average out the unemployment rate.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Its easy to create jobs after a sudden economic downturn. Keeping the economy in full employment indefinitely is much more difficult and so far in history has proved impossible. Bush kept the labor market at full employment or near full employment for most of the 8 years he was in office. You see that with the average that is taken! Using only two months of data, the first month in office and the last won't tell you that.

WHEN YOU USE ONLY THE FIRST MONTH AND THE LAST MONTH OUT OF A 96 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, YOU ARE CONCEALING 98% OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT PERSON WAS PRESIDENT! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT!

So I crown you the KING OF CONCEALMENT since you believe its appropriate to not look at NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of a Presidents time in office. The only thing that matters according to you is the first month and the last month. To hell with the other 94 months.

I take you think students should not have their performance in school judged by Grade Point Average either, right?

If it were easy to after a sudden downturn, Hoover would have done so instead of turning a market crash into the worst economy in U.S. history.

And as you've been informed but choose to bury your head in the sand instead ....

Clinton has the best record with jobs, creating 23 million, 21 million in the private sector.

Bush has the worst record except for Herbert Hoover, creating just 1 million, negative 400,000 in the private sector.

Clinton to the unemployment rate from 7.3% to 4.2%.

Bush took it in the opposite direction from 4.2% to 7.8%.

You think Bush did just as good a job as Clinton because their respective averages are 5.2% and 5.3%.



Needless to say, Clinton left office with a record high exit approval rating (despite being impeached) while Bush left with his tail tucked firmly betwixt his hind legs. Even worse for Bush, he owns the all-time low job approval rating of 19% (9/2008).

 

[Faun]

The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.

Hell, I bet if the unemployment rate had been below 5% in December 2008, you would say it was because of Clinton. LOL

You would lose that bet; I'm not a conservative. That was conservative logic of crediting Reagan with the great numbers under Clinton.

 

[Faun]

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.

I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas.

I don't give a shit about average

Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?

You are not given a failing grade point average in your Freshman year....Obama was

Oh you can be which is why students have to repeat that grade if its High School or drop out of University if were talking about college. Obama gets to remain all four years no matter how bad he does.

7.8% to 4.6% is your idea of how bad he did.

In reality, that 3.2 point drop is the biggest since WWII

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


average annualized job growth...

Clinton	2,861,000
Carter	2,586,000
Johnson	2,358,000
Reagan	2,016,000
Roosevelt	1,819,000
Nixon	1,644,000
Obama	1,413,830
Kennedy	1,261,000
Truman	1,123,000
Ford	861,000
GHW Bush	659,000
Eisenhower	442,000
Bush	160,000

 

[healthmyths]

No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

 

[Faun]

Well, any President can blame all their problems on the previous President. Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office which means on average he was close to full employment nearly every month of his time in office and also with an average above 66% in the labor force participation rate. On average it was much easier to get a job or hold job while Bush was in office then it was while Obama was in office. Obama averaged 7.48% Unemployment throughout his time in office(one month left so the figure is not complete).

And the average unemployment rate is so meaningless, that Obama's average is lower than Reagan's; and many on the right consider Reagan a deity when it comes to creating jobs. Even worse, by averaging out the unemployment rate, you can't tell the difference between one president who starts with an unemployment rate of 12% and lowers it 1 point every year and leaves office 8 years later with an unemployment rate of 4% -- with a president who starts with an unemployment rate of 4% and leaves office 4 years later with an unemployment rate of 12%, increasing it by 2 points every year.

Statistically, they would have identical unemployment rate averages; only the former would be considered a jobs czar while the latter would be thrown out of office after 1 term.

8 years is a long time during which unemployment will rise and fall many times. Its a mistake to cherry pick two points in time so far away from each other and declare success or failure just based on that. Are the only important months of your life over the last 96 months, last November and that December from 8 years ago. Are you saying that your success's or failures in anything from 2015 don't matter?

No one cherry picks a students grades his first month in High School and his last month in High School to evaluate how they did. Every month in school or on the job matters and only fool would completely ignore 94 months out of a 96 month Presidency. A 96 month Presidency is enough time for both many economic success's and failures which heavily impact peoples lives but could totally be left out if you only look at month one and month 96.

Would you evaluate Lincolns performance as Commander and Chief or that of his Generals simply by the first month of the war and the last. You would actually completely ignore a battle like Gettysburg. Not a single mention of it, not even a footnote. I suppose World War II should be just about Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan. The fact that the United States fought and defeated Germany in between those two points is not relevant right?

The fact is, if you want to accurately look and evaluate anything, you have to consider ALL THE DATA. Simply looking at the first month of an administration and the last month of an administration does not do that!

No, it's not a mistake. As has been brought to your attention numerous times, a president starting with a high unemployment rate and ending with a low unemployment rate has done a better job than one doing the reverse, going from a low unemployment rate to a high unemployment rate. Even though thet could have the same average.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush's average unemployment rate is due to him starting at a low 4.2% and the housing bubble (which led to the collapse). Bush never got the unemployment rate lower than what he was given.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 1 million (and they were all government jobs); yet Bush's average is only slightly higher than Clinton's.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Reagan created 16 million jobs. Obama created 11 million (15 million since the recovery). Bush created 1 million. Yet Bush's average is significantly lower than both Reagan and Obama.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush has the second worst record on job growth recorded in our country's history. He's only the second president (Hoover is the first) recorded to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Averaging it out conceals that.

So yeah, if your goal is to make Bush's record appear better than it actually was by concealing all of the above since his policies did nothing but hurt the economy, then yes, I can see why it's so important to you to average out the unemployment rate.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Its easy to create jobs after a sudden economic downturn. Keeping the economy in full employment indefinitely is much more difficult and so far in history has proved impossible. Bush kept the labor market at full employment or near full employment for most of the 8 years he was in office. You see that with the average that is taken! Using only two months of data, the first month in office and the last won't tell you that.

WHEN YOU USE ONLY THE FIRST MONTH AND THE LAST MONTH OUT OF A 96 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, YOU ARE CONCEALING 98% OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT PERSON WAS PRESIDENT! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT!

So I crown you the KING OF CONCEALMENT since you believe its appropriate to not look at NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of a Presidents time in office. The only thing that matters according to you is the first month and the last month. To hell with the other 94 months.

I take you think students should not have their performance in school judged by Grade Point Average either, right?

Plus not one of GWB critics seem to be aware of these EVENTS that had a DIRECT affect on the economy, taxes and above all JOBS!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency!
NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!

1) Recession that started with Clinton..
2) Dot.com bust cost $8 Trillion in losses..
3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember??
4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
5) The 9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market
accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could
not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119619-how-the-world-almost-came-to-an-end-on-september-18-2008

IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%
Obama's??? with NO EVENTS???
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

And Obama FACED none of these events and even profited from TARP payback of all the $621 billion plus $70 billion profit.
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
Yet not one critic acknowledges these FACTS!

The recession started under Bush, not Clinton. That will never change no matter how many times you tell that lie. As far as the hurricanes you mention -- hurricanes are not only a drain on the economy. There is a recovery period, which in some cases, can generate more growth than the loss from the storm.

Can Natural Disasters Help Stimulate the Economy? | Brookings Institution

 

[Faun]

It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

 

[healthmyths]

96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020.

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

 

[rightwinger]

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

You forgot to add that over $50 trillion in National wealth was added under Obama.

Far more than any President in history

 

[Faun]

For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Update on OP:

President Obama has moved up 2 places on the list. Now has a better record than

FORD and REAGAN.

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

LOL, OOPS.

 

[healthmyths]

But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.

And you don't seem to include ANY of the events that occurred that NO other president has ever faced.
I am open to blame Bush partially for the housing bubble because Bush like most people understood America was teetering after
recession, dot.com bust which account for $8 trillion you dummy...
which wasn't anything to do with Bush... but again you can't seem to understand
how events like those HURT millions of Americans... and not one of them caused by Bush!
Did you read my above...
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes! IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

 

[Faun]

Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're trying to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. Bush added one million in 8 years. And they were ALL public sector jobs.

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.

And you don't seem to include ANY of the events that occurred that NO other president has ever faced.
I am open to blame Bush partially for the housing bubble because Bush like most people understood America was teetering after
recession, dot.com bust which account for $8 trillion you dummy...
which wasn't anything to do with Bush... but again you can't seem to understand
how events like those HURT millions of Americans... and not one of them caused by Bush!
Did you read my above...
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes! IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

How nuts are you? Where did I discount those events under Bush?

I included them all. The cost of all of them combined doesn't even come close to the cost of Bush's Great Recession.

 

[healthmyths]

I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency! NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!
Thousands of people died!
Trillions of dollars lost!
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.

And you don't seem to include ANY of the events that occurred that NO other president has ever faced.
I am open to blame Bush partially for the housing bubble because Bush like most people understood America was teetering after
recession, dot.com bust which account for $8 trillion you dummy...
which wasn't anything to do with Bush... but again you can't seem to understand
how events like those HURT millions of Americans... and not one of them caused by Bush!
Did you read my above...
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes! IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

How nuts are you? Where did I discount those events under Bush?

I included them all. The cost of all of them combined doesn't even come close to the cost of Bush's Great Recession.

Doesn't come close to what????
You said $19.2 Trillion lost household wealth...
Well here is $8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust. GWB's fault???
America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
leaves $11.2 trillion.
WTC 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm
Leaves $9.2 trillion!
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp
leaves $8.2 Trillion!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions
Leaves $2.2 Trillion WAY WAY far from $19.2 Trillion...

NOW HOW MANY of the above that you supposedly accounted for were totally the fault of GWB?
NO WAY this $19.2 trillion figure is ALL GWB's fault!

 

[healthmyths]

Idiot faun....

You wrote: the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.
What factors dummy created the "$19 trillion" if
A) A recession B) dot.com bust cost: $8 trillion...C) 9/11 costs: $2 trillion...D) Worst hurricane SEASONS...cost $1 trillion...
E) Lost real estate value cost $6 trillion... Add them all up : total $17 trillion...leaving $2 trillion...
So WHERE did you come up with BLAMING Bush for $19 Trillion?
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

AND Frank admitted he was totally wrong.....2 years LATER!!!

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

SO again FAWN... I ask you how can you blame GWB for the housing bubble when the major defender Frank wants Fannie/Freddie abolished?

 

[Faun]

Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.

The above chart is wrong!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration.
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.
It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before.
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed.
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.

And you don't seem to include ANY of the events that occurred that NO other president has ever faced.
I am open to blame Bush partially for the housing bubble because Bush like most people understood America was teetering after
recession, dot.com bust which account for $8 trillion you dummy...
which wasn't anything to do with Bush... but again you can't seem to understand
how events like those HURT millions of Americans... and not one of them caused by Bush!
Did you read my above...
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA 9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes! IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%

How nuts are you? Where did I discount those events under Bush?

I included them all. The cost of all of them combined doesn't even come close to the cost of Bush's Great Recession.

Doesn't come close to what????
You said $19.2 Trillion lost household wealth...
Well here is $8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust. GWB's fault???
America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
leaves $11.2 trillion.
WTC 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm
Leaves $9.2 trillion!
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history. 2,215 lives lost
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp
leaves $8.2 Trillion!
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions
Leaves $2.2 Trillion WAY WAY far from $19.2 Trillion...

NOW HOW MANY of the above that you supposedly accounted for were totally the fault of GWB?

I didn't even include the cost of the market crash in 2008. That's another $10 trillion, taking us to $29 trillion

NO WAY this $19.2 trillion figure is ALL GWB's fault!

That's true. He had the help of Republicans...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​