Obama's Economic 'Lateral Pass' To Bill's Wife

[Faun]

Who gave us the Mortgage Meltdown?

George W Bush, as you well know.

And..you're a fool, as well.

Let's see if you're educable:
1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie, and his drones followed with Freddie, to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

It was Democrats and Democrat policies that caused the Mortgage Meltdown

That's the CliffNotes version.

I don't believe you can handle the details.

Dumbfuck,,,,

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

 

[Faun]

Well you're certainly not an intellectual.

Averaging out the unemployment rate is meaningless as it hides perfomance. For example, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% as fast as another president takes it from 11% to 4% will have comparable average rates even though the former is a failure. Even worse for this nonsense of your is the sad reality that Obama will leave office with a lower unemployment rate average than Ronald Reagan, who many on the right regard as a job creating dirty.

As far as the 95 million folks who are not in the labor force, in reality, only 6% of them want a job. 89 million of the 95 million who are not in the labor force don't want to work.

BLS: Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now

Hi, Uggg....

Sooo....you're here to provide some cover for Obama?

Really?

That makes you as astute as you are beautiful.


1. "20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama ...reflects how dismal the economy still is today. Today we have college grads — along with working moms and 60-somethings — flipping burgers at Wendy’s and stocking the aisles at Walmart. Left-wing groups and union leaders are now demanding “a living wage” for jobs that were never intended to be held by heads of households. Who’s against higher wages for American workers? But wasn’t this what Obamanomics was supposed to deliver?

Seven years ago, Barack Obama promised a progressive workers paradise — a recovery from recession that would leave no one behind. Hope and Change would deliver high employment and rising wages. No one bought into this idyllic vision more than college kids.

President Obama and his supporters proclaim that he has saved America from the second Great Depression — a message we will hear again over and over in the months ahead. But even his own voters don’t believe him anymore ..." 20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama | NewBostonPost




They must miss mommy and daddy soooooo much....they just can't bear to be separated from them, huh?




'How happy the man is, as anyone can see,who is born stupid and believes everything." Machiavelli, "Mandragola," (after the second act)

You must be the happiest pig in the poke, huh?

Thanks for acquiescing to my post, you make my job easy. Nothing you said counters a word of my post. You're posting articles that are years old which fail to refute the reality that You're posting articles that are years old Nothing in your post counters how Obama's average unemployment rate will be lower than Reagan's when he leaves office 3 months from now.

I refuted your idiocy and you whine in response.

C'mon, step up your game.

1. "You're posting articles that are years old..."

"20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama
BY STEPHEN MOORE | SEPTEMBER 19, 2015, 0:01 EST"

Moron -- that was based on a 2014 study. Do you not take the time to read your own links or do you simply not understand them?

<smh>

2. "....89 million of the 95 million who are not in the labor force don't want to work."

Just pointing out that those folks want to be on the dole as much as the 20 million college grads want to go back to live in their parent's homes.




3. "....Obama's average unemployment rate...."
Average unemployment rate under Bush: 5.31

Average unemployment rate under Obama: 8.46 United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016 (thru 2014)




4. Louis Woodhill shares some numbers that capture Obama’s real legacy [http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...as_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html].....

“America’s elites have largely given up on growth, and are now distracting themselves with academic musings about ‘secular stagnation.’ … assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth.

This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list..., above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%).”

What makes this final comparison so damning is that Obama had the comparative good fortune to enter office in the middle of a recession. Which means, all things equal, that his numbers should look very positive.

Instead, he’s managed to compile one of the worst track records."



5. White House Cuts Economic Growth Forecasts
Budget office sees 1.9% growth in 2016, 2.5% in 2017 White House Cuts Economic Growth Forecasts

LOLOL

George Bush has among the worst records in terms of employment. There were only 1.3 million jobs added while he was president and 1.7 million jobs were public government jobs.That's a pitiful 163,000 jobs a year. His presidency is only the second, along with Herbert Hoover, to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started. And he nearly doubled the unemployment rate.

You're so desperate to make him appear successful in that regard, you rely on a meaningless metric of averaging out the unemployment rate during his 2 terms, which would place him at 5.3% -- far better than Reagan who finished at 7.5%. You're such a nutty rightard, you're actually trying to establish a case that Bush was a better jobs president than Ronald Reagan.

I can't tell from the picture in your avi....but I bet you wear a pony tail to cover up the valve stem....

That's quite the fertile imagination you've got there.

OK, beastly......

....by what metric has Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) been other than the worst President in neigh on a century....



Oh...and keep this in mind (assuming you have one):

1. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



2. According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. Since early 2009:
• Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.
• The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
• The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
• Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation. America’s Economic Freedom Has Rapidly Declined Under Obama



When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

LOLOLOL

Took me only 3 posts to get you to abandon your idiocies about unemployment.

 

[Faun]

Oh......and did I mention this?

"Hillary Clinton promises to support and continue the policies of President Obama."
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-promises-to-support-and.html

What a win that move is for Hillary!

Obama's job approval is currently 56% according to Gallup.

Compared to this date on 11.6.1988 when Ronald Reagan, the demigod to the right, was only at 51%

Looks like Hillary, our next president of the United States, outsmarted you non-intellectual righties yet again.

 

[Faun]

Well you're certainly not an intellectual.

Averaging out the unemployment rate is meaningless as it hides perfomance. For example, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% as fast as another president takes it from 11% to 4% will have comparable average rates even though the former is a failure. Even worse for this nonsense of your is the sad reality that Obama will leave office with a lower unemployment rate average than Ronald Reagan, who many on the right regard as a job creating dirty.

As far as the 95 million folks who are not in the labor force, in reality, only 6% of them want a job. 89 million of the 95 million who are not in the labor force don't want to work.

BLS: Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now

Hi, Uggg....

Sooo....you're here to provide some cover for Obama?

Really?

That makes you as astute as you are beautiful.


1. "20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama ...reflects how dismal the economy still is today. Today we have college grads — along with working moms and 60-somethings — flipping burgers at Wendy’s and stocking the aisles at Walmart. Left-wing groups and union leaders are now demanding “a living wage” for jobs that were never intended to be held by heads of households. Who’s against higher wages for American workers? But wasn’t this what Obamanomics was supposed to deliver?

Seven years ago, Barack Obama promised a progressive workers paradise — a recovery from recession that would leave no one behind. Hope and Change would deliver high employment and rising wages. No one bought into this idyllic vision more than college kids.

President Obama and his supporters proclaim that he has saved America from the second Great Depression — a message we will hear again over and over in the months ahead. But even his own voters don’t believe him anymore ..." 20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama | NewBostonPost




They must miss mommy and daddy soooooo much....they just can't bear to be separated from them, huh?




'How happy the man is, as anyone can see,who is born stupid and believes everything." Machiavelli, "Mandragola," (after the second act)

You must be the happiest pig in the poke, huh?

Thanks for acquiescing to my post, you make my job easy. Nothing you said counters a word of my post. You're posting articles that are years old which fail to refute the reality that You're posting articles that are years old Nothing in your post counters how Obama's average unemployment rate will be lower than Reagan's when he leaves office 3 months from now.

I refuted your idiocy and you whine in response.

C'mon, step up your game.

1. "You're posting articles that are years old..."

"20 million college grads living with their parents, courtesy of Obama
BY STEPHEN MOORE | SEPTEMBER 19, 2015, 0:01 EST"

Moron -- that was based on a 2014 study. Do you not take the time to read your own links or do you simply not understand them?

<smh>

2. "....89 million of the 95 million who are not in the labor force don't want to work."

Just pointing out that those folks want to be on the dole as much as the 20 million college grads want to go back to live in their parent's homes.




3. "....Obama's average unemployment rate...."
Average unemployment rate under Bush: 5.31

Average unemployment rate under Obama: 8.46 United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016 (thru 2014)




4. Louis Woodhill shares some numbers that capture Obama’s real legacy [http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...as_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html].....

“America’s elites have largely given up on growth, and are now distracting themselves with academic musings about ‘secular stagnation.’ … assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth.

This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list..., above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%).”

What makes this final comparison so damning is that Obama had the comparative good fortune to enter office in the middle of a recession. Which means, all things equal, that his numbers should look very positive.

Instead, he’s managed to compile one of the worst track records."



5. White House Cuts Economic Growth Forecasts
Budget office sees 1.9% growth in 2016, 2.5% in 2017 White House Cuts Economic Growth Forecasts

LOLOL

George Bush has among the worst records in terms of employment. There were only 1.3 million jobs added while he was president and 1.7 million jobs were public government jobs.That's a pitiful 163,000 jobs a year. His presidency is only the second, along with Herbert Hoover, to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started. And he nearly doubled the unemployment rate.

You're so desperate to make him appear successful in that regard, you rely on a meaningless metric of averaging out the unemployment rate during his 2 terms, which would place him at 5.3% -- far better than Reagan who finished at 7.5%. You're such a nutty rightard, you're actually trying to establish a case that Bush was a better jobs president than Ronald Reagan.

I can't tell from the picture in your avi....but I bet you wear a pony tail to cover up the valve stem....

That's quite the fertile imagination you've got there.

So then they should have nominated jeb. Hes still young. Jeb 2020

George Bush was such a monumental failure of a pretzalant, no Bush will ever grace the Oval Office ever again, no matter how many generations pass.

Compared to the Clintons, where our next president is going to be elected in part due to the success of her husband. Just like the next president after Hillary will be Michelle Obama, should she decide to run.

 

[sealybobo]

What has the GOP Senate and house done other than try to deregulate and shift the tax burden more onto the middle class?

"....shift the tax burden more onto the middle class?"

What an imbecile....
...you must be a Democrat voter, huh?


"A new CBO report “found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.” Thus, since the original report came out, the system has been getting more progressive, with the “rich” paying more.
Myth – The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share « Constitutional ...
https://constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com/myth-the-rich-dont-pay-their-fair-share/

Talk about an "IMBECILE," how STUPID do you have to be to see the BOTTOM as the MIDDLE!!!!!

And by "richest 20%" you actually mean "richest 20% OF WAGE EARNERS." So thank you for proving that the middle class WAGE EARNERS pay the bulk of the taxes. Tycoons like Trump do not work for wages and pay NO taxes. Even your MessiahRushie admits that!
I'll let him explain it to you.

August 7, 2007

CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.


RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.

END TRANSCRIPT



The Truth About Taxes

August 6, 2007

RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...

But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

It takes a trump or rush to admit something before they'll admit

 

[sealybobo]

Oh......and did I mention this?

"Hillary Clinton promises to support and continue the policies of President Obama."
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-promises-to-support-and.html

What a win that move is for Hillary!

Obama's job approval is currently 56% according to Gallup.

Compared to this date on 11.6.1988 when Ronald Reagan, the demigod to the right, was only at 51%

Looks like Hillary, our next president of the United States, outsmarted you non-intellectual righties yet again.

How badly will we shit ourselves if trump wins today. Lol

 

[Faun]

Oh......and did I mention this?

"Hillary Clinton promises to support and continue the policies of President Obama."
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-promises-to-support-and.html

What a win that move is for Hillary!

Obama's job approval is currently 56% according to Gallup.

Compared to this date on 11.6.1988 when Ronald Reagan, the demigod to the right, was only at 51%

Looks like Hillary, our next president of the United States, outsmarted you non-intellectual righties yet again.

How badly will we shit ourselves if trump wins today. Lol

That will suck. I just don't see how that's possible given all the demographics he's pissed off. You can't insult women, Hispanics and blacks; and then win a national election.