Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[g5000]

In my world people have money....but they also have guns. Understand?

Indeed I do. In fact, there's still a chance that the Keynsian bubble being built now through our big spending fiscal and monetary policies could be the biggest bubble we've seen yet in our history. And if it bursts, those guns are going to mean a lot.

I believe it will burst - just as all bubbles do. I just can't tell you exactly when.

Santelli agrees with you... What G 00000 didn't get was that people who have money are nervous...not confident...so must be ready when the liberals come knocking for what is left after the crash.

Hey dumbshit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/284479-the-fed-s-bond-bubble-doomsday-machine.html

 

[Dad2three]

Gentlemen, could I ask a favor. If you've read many of my posts, you'll see I like wallowing in the mud as much as anyone. Liberals give me the same visceral reaction because having been one in my youth, I know from where they pull many of their poor arguments.

Let's see if we can get back on track and try to stay relatively civil And I know it's asking a lot for both sides.

First, I am not a liberal. Just because I recognize Bush for the gigantic retard he is does not make me a liberal. I am, in fact, old school conservative. And I am more than happy to go toe to toe with you any day about the economic situation. I have probably written more words about it in the past six years than you have in your entire life. I am well aware of the root causes and who is to blame.

Basically, EVERYONE is to blame. But the hacks would like us to believe it was the negroes and the CRA. That's always a dead giveaway someone is an idiot, when they blame the CRA.

"Basically, EVERYONE is to blame. "

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional &440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[deltex1]

Indeed I do. In fact, there's still a chance that the Keynsian bubble being built now through our big spending fiscal and monetary policies could be the biggest bubble we've seen yet in our history. And if it bursts, those guns are going to mean a lot.

I believe it will burst - just as all bubbles do. I just can't tell you exactly when.

Santelli agrees with you... What G 00000 didn't get was that people who have money are nervous...not confident...so must be ready when the liberals come knocking for what is left after the crash.

Hey dumbshit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/284479-the-fed-s-bond-bubble-doomsday-machine.html

Yo moron...I never would have known that if you hadn't said it...GFY.

 

[g5000]

If the problem was just bad loans to bad borrowers, the crash would not have been anywhere near as severe.

The crash was greatly amplified by unregulated derivatives. In fact, most of those bad loans could not have been made without the miracle of derivatives.

Most of those derivatives are still unregulated.

 

[Dad2three]

If the problem was just bad loans to bad borrowers, the crash would not have been anywhere near as severe.

The crash was greatly amplified by unregulated derivatives. In fact, most of those bad loans could not have been made without the miracle of derivatives.

Most of those derivatives are still unregulated.

It was amplified by derivatives, but they created derivatives out of thin air when loan volumes stopped meeting their expectation in 2006, synthetic were then used.

BUT even those derivatives were bets on REAL loans, without the bad loans to begin with, Dubya's house of cards couldn't had been built!

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

 

[Dad2three]

If the problem was just bad loans to bad borrowers, the crash would not have been anywhere near as severe.

The crash was greatly amplified by unregulated derivatives. In fact, most of those bad loans could not have been made without the miracle of derivatives.

Most of those derivatives are still unregulated.

The loans would've been made, The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.


THIS WAS A REGULATOR FAILURE UNDER DUBYA

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American public knows economically the situation is getting better and better, and now realize just how bad the Bushies hurt the American worker and family.

 

[hazlnut]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

If you have a decent portfolio then the last 3 years have been great, we feel almost guilty making the money we're making in the market.

Even with the tea baggers threatening the debt ceiling vote, still making 8% ++...

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans love the poor. How else do you explain why they made so many of them?

Obama only knows how to spread wealth around, not create it. That is one of the key reasons we are still in this malaise.

But the biggest reason, by far, is our overhanging public and private debt. We crossed the red line in 2001. Until we seriously deleverage, we will have a sluggish economy always on the brink of disaster.

Financialization of the US economy, conservatives 'free trade', conservatives 'trickle down' ALL play a part of why the US has stagnated the past 30 years

 

[EconChick]

But the biggest reason, by far, is our overhanging public and private debt. We crossed the red line in 2001. Until we seriously deleverage, we will have a sluggish economy always on the brink of disaster.

I totally agree with you. And from your few posts here, I can see you're not even close to a big-spending liberal. And I agree that both parties contributed to the mortgage bubble.

Yet the big spending libs on here seem to be allied with you, even though they love the big overhanging public and private debt.

I will have to see more of your posts to figure out why, but for now I agree with your conservative economic sentiments.

 

[EconChick]

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

RIGHT WING CRAP. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you




Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair




The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


BOTH SIDES? LOL

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

 

[Dad2three]

But the biggest reason, by far, is our overhanging public and private debt. We crossed the red line in 2001. Until we seriously deleverage, we will have a sluggish economy always on the brink of disaster.

I totally agree with you. And from your few posts here, I can see you're not even close to a big-spending liberal. And I agree that both parties contributed to the mortgage bubble.

Yet the big spending libs on here seem to be allied with you, even though they love the big overhanging public and private debt.

I will have to see more of your posts to figure out why, but for now I agree with your conservative economic sentiments.

" And I agree that both parties contributed to the mortgage bubble. "

WEIRD, EVERY US PREZ SINCE FDR HAS HAD A HOMES PUSH

Only Reagan (1984, Mr Gray) ignored regulator warnings (S&L crisis) AND DUBYAS, Warnings starting in 2004 from the FBI that warned of an 'EPIDEMIC' of mortgage fraud that could rival Ronnie's, yet 'both parties' are at fault *shaking head*



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."




DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!



The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[EconChick]

What is the OP looking for? Personal anecdotes?

The OP's take on Bush's economy is funny. Clearly the work of an accomplished economist.

Deary, you've got to be the most useless, clueless member on the entire board. Do you ever post ANYTHING of substance? Maybe you should go spend more time at the Macy's sales racks. We're trying to have a real discussion here.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

RIGHT WING CRAP. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you




Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair




The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


BOTH SIDES? LOL

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

BARNEY? Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007, Barney?


June 17, 2004



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."


DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FBI, SEC, F/F, HUD, ETC?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[EconChick]

Dad2three's post[/B]

While I appreciate your correcting the left wing talking points that conservatives are just mean heartless machines, I'm afraid you've only got half the facts here.

Ya seeeee...I started out as a liberal so I know both sides of the arguments. Unlike you - you seem to give DNC talking points that everyone can see through.

 

[Siete]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

you're full of caca


The employment recovery during Mr. Bush's first term was very sluggish, and private employment was down 946,000 jobs at the end of his first term. At the end of Mr. Bush's second term, private employment was collapsing, and there were net 665,000 jobs lost during Mr. Bush's two terms.

The recovery has been sluggish under Mr. Obama's presidency too, and there were only 1,933,000 more private sector jobs at the end of Mr. Obama's first term. A couple of months into Mr. Obama's second term, there are now 2,282,000 more private sector jobs than when he took office
Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2...-sector-payroll-jobs.html#47HsSvhwX98AoLqp.99

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

RIGHT WING CRAP. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you




Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair




The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


BOTH SIDES? LOL

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp GOP Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

 

[bendog]

JFC, is this the best the gop can do? Bushii was .... Great. And, Mitt's 47% wasn't class warfare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Waiting for the facts to show the economy is not improving and is much better than in Bush's last months.

 

[Dad2three]

While I appreciate your correcting the left wing talking points that conservatives are just mean heartless machines, I'm afraid you've only got half the facts here.

Ya seeeee...I started out as a liberal so I know both sides of the arguments. Unlike you - you seem to give DNC talking points that everyone can see through.

LOL, And ALL you have is right wing talking points

Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years


Since hitting Bush's bottom 10,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs have been created

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Obama INHERITED an economy dumping 9%+ of GDP the last quarter of 2009, 3 years growth. Dubya inherited 4 surpluses and 4% unemployment!!!