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

[Faun]

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?

More demented conservative nonsense.

The problem started under Bush...

 

[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?

More demented conservative nonsense.

The problem started under Bush...

So the $19 trillion problem WASN"T all GWB's fault and you now have to settle for a unsupported argument that it ALL started under GWB???

READ below the efforts and keep in mind what Barney Frank said...after the debacle!!!
"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

The problem DIDN"T start with GWB! GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, 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," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls 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," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

 

[Faun]

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?

More demented conservative nonsense.

The problem started under Bush...

So the $19 trillion problem WASN"T all GWB's fault and you now have to settle for a unsupported argument that it ALL started under GWB???

READ below the efforts and keep in mind what Barney Frank said...after the debacle!!!
"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

The problem DIDN"T start with GWB! GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, 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," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls 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," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

LOL

Everything you posted occurred under Bush's regime.

Great Bush Recession.

But again, he had help... "Thanks to OUR policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high!" ~ George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

And blaming Barney Frank is beyond rightarded.

Though he was wrong on the issue, he was harmless as one member of the minority party in the House. Republicans were in charge. Sorry reality sucks for you conservatives.

 

[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?

More demented conservative nonsense.

The problem started under Bush...

So the $19 trillion problem WASN"T all GWB's fault and you now have to settle for a unsupported argument that it ALL started under GWB???

READ below the efforts and keep in mind what Barney Frank said...after the debacle!!!
"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

The problem DIDN"T start with GWB! GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, 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," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls 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," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

LOL

Everything you posted occurred under Bush's regime.

Great Bush Recession.

But again, he had help... "Thanks to OUR policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high!" ~ George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

And blaming Barney Frank is beyond rightarded.

Though he was wrong on the issue, he was harmless as one member of the minority party in the House. Republicans were in charge. Sorry reality sucks for you conservatives.

YES these EVENTS did occur under GWB. NO QUESTION.
But only Idiots like you put the entire blame for these events on GWB!

Well here is $8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust. Was that 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. How was that GWB's fault?
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
Unlike idiots like you and most of the MSM who like Evan Thomas EDITOR of NewsWeek who said of Obama:
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

GWB IS NO God and couldn't control the weather... but idiots like you and even Obama who thought himself to be deity when on his nomination he said:
This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

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

Now that leaves $2.2 Trillion. A LONG,LONG way from the $19.2 Trillion idiots like you say was all GWB's fault!

I at least will agree. $2.2 trillion of the loss of $19.2 trillion can be attributed to GWB's lack of attention to the housing bubble... EVEN
though he tried to reign in Fannie/Freddie (AS FRANK admits should have been!)
But dummies like you can't even admit you are off by 90% in that stupid $19 trillion blame on GWB!
Again recession admittedly by the NBER started way earlier then the official 3/1/01 date..
"It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[5]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
And the $8 trillion in dot.com bust...America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
And the $2 trillion in WTC 9/11 that 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
And the $1 trillion in hurricanes...http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

But of course idiots like you that believe Obama is a god...Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
blame GWB for these events? Of course you do. If you believe Obama is a God, then what was GWB if he was to blame for the above events?

 

[Faun]

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?

More demented conservative nonsense.

The problem started under Bush...

So the $19 trillion problem WASN"T all GWB's fault and you now have to settle for a unsupported argument that it ALL started under GWB???

READ below the efforts and keep in mind what Barney Frank said...after the debacle!!!
"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

The problem DIDN"T start with GWB! GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!
"Over six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, 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," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls 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," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

LOL

Everything you posted occurred under Bush's regime.

Great Bush Recession.

But again, he had help... "Thanks to OUR policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high!" ~ George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

And blaming Barney Frank is beyond rightarded.

Though he was wrong on the issue, he was harmless as one member of the minority party in the House. Republicans were in charge. Sorry reality sucks for you conservatives.

YES these EVENTS did occur under GWB. NO QUESTION.
But only Idiots like you put the entire blame for these events on GWB!

Well here is $8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust. Was that 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. How was that GWB's fault?
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
Unlike idiots like you and most of the MSM who like Evan Thomas EDITOR of NewsWeek who said of Obama:
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

GWB IS NO God and couldn't control the weather... but idiots like you and even Obama who thought himself to be deity when on his nomination he said:
This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

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

Now that leaves $2.2 Trillion. A LONG,LONG way from the $19.2 Trillion idiots like you say was all GWB's fault!

I at least will agree. $2.2 trillion of the loss of $19.2 trillion can be attributed to GWB's lack of attention to the housing bubble... EVEN
though he tried to reign in Fannie/Freddie (AS FRANK admits should have been!)
But dummies like you can't even admit you are off by 90% in that stupid $19 trillion blame on GWB!
Again recession admittedly by the NBER started way earlier then the official 3/1/01 date..
"It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[5]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
And the $8 trillion in dot.com bust...America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
And the $2 trillion in WTC 9/11 that 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
And the $1 trillion in hurricanes...http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

But of course idiots like you that believe Obama is a god...Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
blame GWB for these events? Of course you do. If you believe Obama is a God, then what was GWB if he was to blame for the above events?

Still not even close to the $29 trillion Bush's Great Recession cost us.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

 

[U2Edge]

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 ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bush spent most of his 96 months at or near full employment. Its harder to create new jobs when the economy is at full employment. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy is poor and unemployment is high. So this only shows once again how great things were for employment while Bush was in office. Most people had jobs or could easily get one if they wanted during most of Bush's 96 months in office. During most of Obama's 96 months in office, people struggled when it came to employment.

 

[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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

 

[Faun]

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 ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bush spent most of his 96 months at or near full employment. Its harder to create new jobs when the economy is at full employment. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy is poor and unemployment is high. So this only shows once again how great things were for employment while Bush was in office. Most people had jobs or could easily get one if they wanted during most of Bush's 96 months in office. During most of Obama's 96 months in office, people struggled when it came to employment.

LOLOL

Bush is the only president since Hoover to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

 

[Faun]

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

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Stats don't lie.

So you're saying Obama did a better job regarding employment than Reagan, huh?

 

[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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

To dispel your idiocy.

 

[Camp]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

To dispel your idiocy.

If its so dumb, you should not need to make any effort to dispel it. Yet, if we count up your post in this thread, you spend a lot of time here. Most informed and intelligent people don't waste their time with things they consider dumb or irrelevant.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?

Its now President Ford, as Obama in his last year was able to squeak out of the bottom spot.

 

[Faun]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?

It is Ford, Republican.

 

[jillian]

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

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

er....idiota..... he started with baby bush's crash.

amazing what you wingers putt out of your butts.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?

It is Ford, Republican.

With Reagan, another Republican, a close second

On the bright side......President Obama left office with unemployment at 4.7%

 

[jillian]

Should the president be given the power to control America's economy?

you think the president controls the economy on his own?

 

[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.

Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.

We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.

Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.

So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?

Its now President Ford, as Obama in his last year was able to squeak out of the bottom spot.

That would be Obama, who inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression from Bush. Bush and Hoover... gave us the worst economies since the 1800's and were the only two presidents since then to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when they started.