The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So what do you think of that bill? Think it should have become law? Think it would have helped? And why didn't the Republican leadership in the Senate refuse to add it to the legislative calendar so the full Senate could have voted on it?

too stupid the question is does lib soviet control of the housing market make sense? You want to play trivial pursuit because you know as a liberal you lack the IQ for substance.

 

[edthecynic]

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing

BULLSHIT!
The GOP held the majority of the committee seats, 10, as the majority party plus the chairmanship giving the GOP 11 votes on the committee to 9 Democratic votes. If all the GOP voted for the bill in committee then it would have gone to the floor for a vote, but the bill died in committee blocked by the GOP.

All the CON$ ever do is lie on top of lie on top of lie.

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.



What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Notice carefully how the CON$ construct their lies.

The Meeks quote is dated 2003 implying the bill below was from 2003, it wasn't.

In the unsourced C&P that follows the Meeks quote was written and if you google it you also find out it was a 2005 bill and it points out that there was an amendment added. It was that amendment inserted by Senator Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah, that sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment that favored the G.S.E.’s. (Bennett’s son worked for Fannie’s partnership office in Utah.) So the majority controlled Senate never brought it to a vote.

The fact is many powerful Republicans supported Fannie and broke ranks to vote with the Dems.

Fannie Mae s Last Stand Vanity Fair

But Johnson was also a political force, because the company he ran had a public mission—literally. It had been chartered by Congress to help homeownership. Johnson liked to paraphrase the old motto about General Motors: “What’s good for American housing is good for Fannie Mae,” he’d say. Accordingly, he built Fannie into what former congressman Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa and longtime Fannie gadfly, calls “the greatest, most sophisticated lobbying operation in the modern history of finance.”

He may be right. John McCain was embarrassed last summer by revelations that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, had served as the president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group for Fannie and Freddie Mac, Fannie’s smaller brother. The “revolving door,” as people call it, between the Hill and Fannie and Freddie spun so quickly that it’s actually more surprising when someone isn’t on the list than when they are. Rahm Emanuel served on Freddie’s board! Right-wing godfather Grover Norquist lobbied for Fannie! Newt Gingrich was a consultant for Freddie, and Ralph Reed was a consultant for Fannie!

Bill Summary Status - 109th Congress 2005 - 2006 - S.190 - Cosponsors - THOMAS Library of Congress

Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And lastly, the LFPR is not an indicator of the health of the job market. You should know that since it was lower in the 50's and yet, unemployment was low and the economy was strong.

too stupid and liberal as always. I suppose its just coincidence that the rate took a huge huge drop in 2007 and has kept dropping.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing

BULLSHIT!
The GOP held the majority of the committee seats, 10, as the majority party plus the chairmanship giving the GOP 11 votes on the committee to 9 Democratic votes. If all the GOP voted for the bill in committee then it would have gone to the floor for a vote, but the bill died in committee blocked by the GOP.

All the CON$ ever do is lie on top of lie on top of lie.

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.



What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Notice carefully how the CON$ construct their lies.

The Meeks quote is dated 2003 implying the bill below was from 2003, it wasn't.

In the earlier post by the liar he mentioned McCain was a cosponsor, but that bill was in 2005, which is also when the unsourced C&P that follows the Meeks quote was written and if you google it you also find out it points out that there was an amendment added. It was that amendment inserted by Senator Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah, that sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment that favored the G.S.E.’s. (Bennett’s son worked for Fannie’s partnership office in Utah.) So the majority controlled Senate never brought it to a vote.

The face is many powerful Republicans supported Fannie and broke ranks to vote with the Dems.

Fannie Mae s Last Stand Vanity Fair

But Johnson was also a political force, because the company he ran had a public mission—literally. It had been chartered by Congress to help homeownership. Johnson liked to paraphrase the old motto about General Motors: “What’s good for American housing is good for Fannie Mae,” he’d say. Accordingly, he built Fannie into what former congressman Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa and longtime Fannie gadfly, calls “the greatest, most sophisticated lobbying operation in the modern history of finance.”

He may be right. John McCain was embarrassed last summer by revelations that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, had served as the president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group for Fannie and Freddie Mac, Fannie’s smaller brother. The “revolving door,” as people call it, between the Hill and Fannie and Freddie spun so quickly that it’s actually more surprising when someone isn’t on the list than when they are. Rahm Emanuel served on Freddie’s board! Right-wing godfather Grover Norquist lobbied for Fannie! Newt Gingrich was a consultant for Freddie, and Ralph Reed was a consultant for Fannie!

so was Barney Frank wrong about the need to get rid of the GSE's as a great libcommie mistake???

 

[edthecynic]

The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett.

You just shot yourself in the foot. That bill, The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, designed "to create a stronger regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" passed in the full House by a vote of 331 to 90, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They took no action on the bill.

The Oxley bill is different from the Bill you mentioned that was cosponsored by McCain, but it too was blocked by the GOP.

On September 14, 2006, members of the House Financial Services Committee who had supported GSE reform, including Congressman Frank, sent a letter to then‐Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby urging the Senate to work with them to get a pill passed into law. The letter stated:

"Accounting violations by the GSEs have brought to light the fact that current GSE regulators lack many of the supervisory and enforcement powers bank regulators can wield. We must remedy this situation by consolidating GSE regulation and providing the tools needed to oversee these large, complex financial institutions. Both H.R. 1461 and S. 190 create a strong independent agency to ensure the GSEs operate in a safe and sound manner and comply with their statutory missions."

However, as Oxley told the Financial Times in September 2008, the White House gave House
Republicans “the one‐finger salute.”

 

[Faun]

While some may refer to the U-6 rate as an unemployment rate, it's not. It can't be. It includes employed folks.

true enough if a Ph.D is employed 10 hours a week flipping burgers he is not technically unemployed but he sure is indicating that something is wrong with Barry's socialist economy.

Umm, again .... the number of folks working part time for economic reasons is down under Obama.

 

[edthecynic]

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing

BULLSHIT!
The GOP held the majority of the committee seats, 10, as the majority party plus the chairmanship giving the GOP 11 votes on the committee to 9 Democratic votes. If all the GOP voted for the bill in committee then it would have gone to the floor for a vote, but the bill died in committee blocked by the GOP.

All the CON$ ever do is lie on top of lie on top of lie.

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.



What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Notice carefully how the CON$ construct their lies.

The Meeks quote is dated 2003 implying the bill below was from 2003, it wasn't.

In the earlier post by the liar he mentioned McCain was a cosponsor, but that bill was in 2005, which is also when the unsourced C&P that follows the Meeks quote was written and if you google it you also find out it points out that there was an amendment added. It was that amendment inserted by Senator Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah, that sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment that favored the G.S.E.’s. (Bennett’s son worked for Fannie’s partnership office in Utah.) So the majority controlled Senate never brought it to a vote.

The face is many powerful Republicans supported Fannie and broke ranks to vote with the Dems.

Fannie Mae s Last Stand Vanity Fair

But Johnson was also a political force, because the company he ran had a public mission—literally. It had been chartered by Congress to help homeownership. Johnson liked to paraphrase the old motto about General Motors: “What’s good for American housing is good for Fannie Mae,” he’d say. Accordingly, he built Fannie into what former congressman Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa and longtime Fannie gadfly, calls “the greatest, most sophisticated lobbying operation in the modern history of finance.”

He may be right. John McCain was embarrassed last summer by revelations that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, had served as the president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group for Fannie and Freddie Mac, Fannie’s smaller brother. The “revolving door,” as people call it, between the Hill and Fannie and Freddie spun so quickly that it’s actually more surprising when someone isn’t on the list than when they are. Rahm Emanuel served on Freddie’s board! Right-wing godfather Grover Norquist lobbied for Fannie! Newt Gingrich was a consultant for Freddie, and Ralph Reed was a consultant for Fannie!

so was Barney Frank wrong about the need to get rid of the GSE's as a great libcommie mistake???

You just can't admit you got caught lying again but instead try to deflect.
Typical of the dishonesty of the Right!

 

[Faun]

So what do you think of that bill? Think it should have become law? Think it would have helped? And why didn't the Republican leadership in the Senate refuse to add it to the legislative calendar so the full Senate could have voted on it?

too stupid the question is does lib soviet control of the housing market make sense? You want to play trivial pursuit because you know as a liberal you lack the IQ for substance.

So your only opinion is a demented one. Ok, thanks for playing.

 

[Faun]

And lastly, the LFPR is not an indicator of the health of the job market. You should know that since it was lower in the 50's and yet, unemployment was low and the economy was strong.

too stupid and liberal as always. I suppose its just coincidence that the rate took a huge huge drop in 2007 and has kept dropping.

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since depressions and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??



Table 15.Persons aged 18–64 receiving benefits on the basis of disability and their total and average monthly payments, by type of beneficiary, December 1996–2009
Year Total Social Security only SSI only Both Social Security and SSI
Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children
Number
1996 7,689,664 4,122,152 -- -- -- 2,559,750 1,007,762 -- -- --
1997 7,811,748 4,250,155 -- -- -- 2,550,105 1,011,488 -- -- --
1998 8,086,259 4,440,264 -- -- -- 2,618,615 1,027,380 -- -- --
1999 8,399,309 4,703,774 -- -- -- 2,650,586 1,044,949 -- -- --
2000 8,599,465 4,850,835 -- -- -- 2,690,446 1,058,184 -- -- --
2001 8,791,338 4,979,844 4,495,477 87,833 396,534 2,732,020 1,079,474 772,562 35,222 271,690
2002 9,106,014 5,228,262 4,738,246 87,900 402,116 2,768,782 1,108,970 801,351 34,671 272,948
2003 9,445,573 5,492,325 4,997,137 87,203 407,985 2,811,647 1,141,601 833,269 34,101 274,231
2004 9,773,201 5,756,093 5,257,314 89,874 408,905 2,850,815 1,166,293 858,850 33,072 274,371
2005 10,081,625 5,998,755 5,491,980 86,422 420,353 2,880,931 1,201,939 893,437 32,302 276,200
2006 10,362,419 6,210,289 5,698,494 85,259 426,536 2,928,034 1,224,096 915,832 31,443 276,821
2007 10,627,905 6,405,985 5,888,133 83,481 434,371 2,966,648 1,255,272 942,011 30,876 282,385
2008 10,974,914 6,641,818 6,115,214 82,100 444,504 3,040,764 1,292,332 971,455 30,608 290,269
2009 11,451,980 7,000,692 6,462,635

 

[Faun]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since depressions and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??



Table 15.Persons aged 18–64 receiving benefits on the basis of disability and their total and average monthly payments, by type of beneficiary, December 1996–2009
Year Total Social Security only SSI only Both Social Security and SSI
Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children
Number
1996 7,689,664 4,122,152 -- -- -- 2,559,750 1,007,762 -- -- --
1997 7,811,748 4,250,155 -- -- -- 2,550,105 1,011,488 -- -- --
1998 8,086,259 4,440,264 -- -- -- 2,618,615 1,027,380 -- -- --
1999 8,399,309 4,703,774 -- -- -- 2,650,586 1,044,949 -- -- --
2000 8,599,465 4,850,835 -- -- -- 2,690,446 1,058,184 -- -- --
2001 8,791,338 4,979,844 4,495,477 87,833 396,534 2,732,020 1,079,474 772,562 35,222 271,690
2002 9,106,014 5,228,262 4,738,246 87,900 402,116 2,768,782 1,108,970 801,351 34,671 272,948
2003 9,445,573 5,492,325 4,997,137 87,203 407,985 2,811,647 1,141,601 833,269 34,101 274,231
2004 9,773,201 5,756,093 5,257,314 89,874 408,905 2,850,815 1,166,293 858,850 33,072 274,371
2005 10,081,625 5,998,755 5,491,980 86,422 420,353 2,880,931 1,201,939 893,437 32,302 276,200
2006 10,362,419 6,210,289 5,698,494 85,259 426,536 2,928,034 1,224,096 915,832 31,443 276,821
2007 10,627,905 6,405,985 5,888,133 83,481 434,371 2,966,648 1,255,272 942,011 30,876 282,385
2008 10,974,914 6,641,818 6,115,214 82,100 444,504 3,040,764 1,292,332 971,455 30,608 290,269
2009 11,451,980 7,000,692 6,462,635

Holyfuckingshit!

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

We're talking about baby boomers, 62 and over -- and you post numbers from data of 18-64 year olds.



Not to mention, I point out how baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62 in 2008 -- what does a moron like you do? You compare 2000-2005 with 2005-2010. You ******* idiot, the latter includes a sample of both people who have and haven't turned 62 (which lowers the average). Seriously, Crazy Ed, just how fucked in the head are you?

Here's the chart a sane person would have posted ... Number of retired workers

Number of retired workers:

2002: 29,190,137
2007: 31,525,098
2008: 32,273,145
2013: 37,891,025

Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period up through 2007:

466,992
Increase during 2008, the year baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62:

748,047 -- an increase of 160% over pre-2008 levels
Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period starting in 2009:

1,123,576 -- an increase of 241% over pre-2008 levels

Do you understand now how baby boomers are dragging down the labor force participation rate or do you need further explanation?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since depressions and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??



Table 15.Persons aged 18–64 receiving benefits on the basis of disability and their total and average monthly payments, by type of beneficiary, December 1996–2009
Year Total Social Security only SSI only Both Social Security and SSI
Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children
Number
1996 7,689,664 4,122,152 -- -- -- 2,559,750 1,007,762 -- -- --
1997 7,811,748 4,250,155 -- -- -- 2,550,105 1,011,488 -- -- --
1998 8,086,259 4,440,264 -- -- -- 2,618,615 1,027,380 -- -- --
1999 8,399,309 4,703,774 -- -- -- 2,650,586 1,044,949 -- -- --
2000 8,599,465 4,850,835 -- -- -- 2,690,446 1,058,184 -- -- --
2001 8,791,338 4,979,844 4,495,477 87,833 396,534 2,732,020 1,079,474 772,562 35,222 271,690
2002 9,106,014 5,228,262 4,738,246 87,900 402,116 2,768,782 1,108,970 801,351 34,671 272,948
2003 9,445,573 5,492,325 4,997,137 87,203 407,985 2,811,647 1,141,601 833,269 34,101 274,231
2004 9,773,201 5,756,093 5,257,314 89,874 408,905 2,850,815 1,166,293 858,850 33,072 274,371
2005 10,081,625 5,998,755 5,491,980 86,422 420,353 2,880,931 1,201,939 893,437 32,302 276,200
2006 10,362,419 6,210,289 5,698,494 85,259 426,536 2,928,034 1,224,096 915,832 31,443 276,821
2007 10,627,905 6,405,985 5,888,133 83,481 434,371 2,966,648 1,255,272 942,011 30,876 282,385
2008 10,974,914 6,641,818 6,115,214 82,100 444,504 3,040,764 1,292,332 971,455 30,608 290,269
2009 11,451,980 7,000,692 6,462,635

Holyfuckingshit!

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

We're talking about baby boomers, 62 and over -- and you post numbers from data of 18-64 year olds.



Not to mention, I point out how baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62 in 2008 -- what does a moron like you do? You compare 2000-2005 with 2005-2010. You ******* idiot, the latter includes a sample of both people who have and haven't turned 62 (which lowers the average). Seriously, Crazy Ed, just how fucked in the head are you?

Here's the chart a sane person would have posted ... Number of retired workers

Number of retired workers:

2002: 29,190,137
2007: 31,525,098
2008: 32,273,145
2013: 37,891,025

Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period up through 2007:

466,992
Increase during 2008, the year baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62:

748,047 -- an increase of 160% over pre-2008 levels
Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period starting in 2009:

1,123,576 -- an increase of 241% over pre-2008 levels

Do you understand now how baby boomers are dragging down the labor force participation rate or do you need further explanation?

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not cause spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since Great Depression and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??

 

[HR Pufnstuf]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

Yes it is Obama's fault. Not only he did not provide a surplus budget through spending restraints that could have been used to pay down the debt, he could never build a consensus to pass a single budget. But hey let's just keep on blaming Bush and not make Obama responsible for anything.

 

[edthecynic]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Not so fast there Slick! you are dishonestly using total recipients which is the number of new recipients MINUS the number dying, which is deliberately misleading, of course.

The more honest number is the number of NEW retired workers alone. Using that number you can see that the number of new retired workers stayed pretty steady from 1975 until 2007 averaging about 1.6 million new retired workers per year. From 2008 to 2014 the number rose to 2.7 million per year

Beneficiary Data

To use this link, in the right side time series report, click on:
retired worker
set frequency to annual
click on ALL years
click on GO

 

[Faun]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since depressions and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??



Table 15.Persons aged 18–64 receiving benefits on the basis of disability and their total and average monthly payments, by type of beneficiary, December 1996–2009
Year Total Social Security only SSI only Both Social Security and SSI
Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children
Number
1996 7,689,664 4,122,152 -- -- -- 2,559,750 1,007,762 -- -- --
1997 7,811,748 4,250,155 -- -- -- 2,550,105 1,011,488 -- -- --
1998 8,086,259 4,440,264 -- -- -- 2,618,615 1,027,380 -- -- --
1999 8,399,309 4,703,774 -- -- -- 2,650,586 1,044,949 -- -- --
2000 8,599,465 4,850,835 -- -- -- 2,690,446 1,058,184 -- -- --
2001 8,791,338 4,979,844 4,495,477 87,833 396,534 2,732,020 1,079,474 772,562 35,222 271,690
2002 9,106,014 5,228,262 4,738,246 87,900 402,116 2,768,782 1,108,970 801,351 34,671 272,948
2003 9,445,573 5,492,325 4,997,137 87,203 407,985 2,811,647 1,141,601 833,269 34,101 274,231
2004 9,773,201 5,756,093 5,257,314 89,874 408,905 2,850,815 1,166,293 858,850 33,072 274,371
2005 10,081,625 5,998,755 5,491,980 86,422 420,353 2,880,931 1,201,939 893,437 32,302 276,200
2006 10,362,419 6,210,289 5,698,494 85,259 426,536 2,928,034 1,224,096 915,832 31,443 276,821
2007 10,627,905 6,405,985 5,888,133 83,481 434,371 2,966,648 1,255,272 942,011 30,876 282,385
2008 10,974,914 6,641,818 6,115,214 82,100 444,504 3,040,764 1,292,332 971,455 30,608 290,269
2009 11,451,980 7,000,692 6,462,635

Holyfuckingshit!

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

We're talking about baby boomers, 62 and over -- and you post numbers from data of 18-64 year olds.



Not to mention, I point out how baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62 in 2008 -- what does a moron like you do? You compare 2000-2005 with 2005-2010. You ******* idiot, the latter includes a sample of both people who have and haven't turned 62 (which lowers the average). Seriously, Crazy Ed, just how fucked in the head are you?

Here's the chart a sane person would have posted ... Number of retired workers

Number of retired workers:

2002: 29,190,137
2007: 31,525,098
2008: 32,273,145
2013: 37,891,025

Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period up through 2007:

466,992
Increase during 2008, the year baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62:

748,047 -- an increase of 160% over pre-2008 levels
Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period starting in 2009:

1,123,576 -- an increase of 241% over pre-2008 levels

Do you understand now how baby boomers are dragging down the labor force participation rate or do you need further explanation?

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not cause spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since Great Depression and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??

Holyfuckingshit!

Moron (my apologies to morons), the only way you can come up with 31 million in 2000 is to reference the total column which includes spouses and disabled children of retirees. You know, folks who were already not in the labor force. You have to be a special kind of stupid to make the claim you're making -- that people who were already not in the labor force contributed to lowering it.

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

Your senility aside, when counting only baby boomers who retired, the numbers are exactly as I posted:

2008 increased by 748,047 -- up 160% over pre five years
2009-2013 increased by an average of 1,123,576 -- up 241% over that same period.

Do you really think it matters if you're lucid enough to understand?

 

[edthecynic]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since depressions and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??



Table 15.Persons aged 18–64 receiving benefits on the basis of disability and their total and average monthly payments, by type of beneficiary, December 1996–2009
Year Total Social Security only SSI only Both Social Security and SSI
Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children Total Workers Widow(er)s Adult children
Number
1996 7,689,664 4,122,152 -- -- -- 2,559,750 1,007,762 -- -- --
1997 7,811,748 4,250,155 -- -- -- 2,550,105 1,011,488 -- -- --
1998 8,086,259 4,440,264 -- -- -- 2,618,615 1,027,380 -- -- --
1999 8,399,309 4,703,774 -- -- -- 2,650,586 1,044,949 -- -- --
2000 8,599,465 4,850,835 -- -- -- 2,690,446 1,058,184 -- -- --
2001 8,791,338 4,979,844 4,495,477 87,833 396,534 2,732,020 1,079,474 772,562 35,222 271,690
2002 9,106,014 5,228,262 4,738,246 87,900 402,116 2,768,782 1,108,970 801,351 34,671 272,948
2003 9,445,573 5,492,325 4,997,137 87,203 407,985 2,811,647 1,141,601 833,269 34,101 274,231
2004 9,773,201 5,756,093 5,257,314 89,874 408,905 2,850,815 1,166,293 858,850 33,072 274,371
2005 10,081,625 5,998,755 5,491,980 86,422 420,353 2,880,931 1,201,939 893,437 32,302 276,200
2006 10,362,419 6,210,289 5,698,494 85,259 426,536 2,928,034 1,224,096 915,832 31,443 276,821
2007 10,627,905 6,405,985 5,888,133 83,481 434,371 2,966,648 1,255,272 942,011 30,876 282,385
2008 10,974,914 6,641,818 6,115,214 82,100 444,504 3,040,764 1,292,332 971,455 30,608 290,269
2009 11,451,980 7,000,692 6,462,635

Holyfuckingshit!

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

We're talking about baby boomers, 62 and over -- and you post numbers from data of 18-64 year olds.



Not to mention, I point out how baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62 in 2008 -- what does a moron like you do? You compare 2000-2005 with 2005-2010. You ******* idiot, the latter includes a sample of both people who have and haven't turned 62 (which lowers the average). Seriously, Crazy Ed, just how fucked in the head are you?

Here's the chart a sane person would have posted ... Number of retired workers

Number of retired workers:

2002: 29,190,137
2007: 31,525,098
2008: 32,273,145
2013: 37,891,025

Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period up through 2007:

466,992
Increase during 2008, the year baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62:

748,047 -- an increase of 160% over pre-2008 levels
Average increase of retirees during the 5 year period starting in 2009:

1,123,576 -- an increase of 241% over pre-2008 levels

Do you understand now how baby boomers are dragging down the labor force participation rate or do you need further explanation?

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not cause spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Huge drop in LFPT then was caused by worst recession since Great Depression and verified by 15% U6 unemployment number.

How does it feel to always be stupid and always remain proud of being a stupid liberal??

Holyfuckingshit!

Moron (my apologies to morons), the only way you can come up with 31 million in 2000 is to reference the total column which includes spouses and disabled children of retirees. You know, folks who were already not in the labor force. You have to be a special kind of stupid to make the claim you're making -- that people who were already not in the labor force contributed to lowering it.

You're a ******* rightard, Crazy Ed.

Your senility aside, when counting only baby boomers who retired, the numbers are exactly as I posted:

2008 increased by 748,047 -- up 160% over pre five years
2009-2013 increased by an average of 1,123,576 -- up 241% over that same period.

Do you really think it matters if you're lucid enough to understand?

Again, you are using total recipients, not new recipients which is more because the total deducts those who have died and no longer collect SS from the new. In 2009 there were 2.7 million NEW retired workers in 2014 there were 2.8 million NEW retired workers.

Beneficiary Data

 

[Faun]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Not so fast there Slick! you are dishonestly using total recipients which is the number of new recipients MINUS the number dying, which is deliberately misleading, of course.

The more honest number is the number of NEW retired workers alone. Using that number you can see that the number of new retired workers stayed pretty steady from 1975 until 2007 averaging about 1.6 million new retired workers per year. From 2008 to 2014 the number rose to 2.7 million per year

Beneficiary Data

To use this link, in the right side time series report, click on:
retired worker
set frequency to annual
click on ALL years
click on GO

By those numbers ...

Number of new claims to retirees from 1/2009 thru 12/2014

16,304,145

Increase of not in the labor force during that same period:

12,369,000

 

[edthecynic]

No coincidence at all .... 2008 was the year the baby boom generation began hitting the retirement age of 62. The number of retirees doubled that year and is currently almost triple from what it was before then. There are other forces weighing it down as well, but baby boomers are the biggest impact.

typical lying idiot liberal SS went in 2000- 2005 from 31 million to to 34 million recipients and in 2005 to 2010 from 34 to 37 million recipients(doubled???) so recession did not case spike in LFPR . In fact, hard times caused old folks to stay in labor market.

Not so fast there Slick! you are dishonestly using total recipients which is the number of new recipients MINUS the number dying, which is deliberately misleading, of course.

The more honest number is the number of NEW retired workers alone. Using that number you can see that the number of new retired workers stayed pretty steady from 1975 until 2007 averaging about 1.6 million new retired workers per year. From 2008 to 2014 the number rose to 2.7 million per year

Beneficiary Data

To use this link, in the right side time series report, click on:
retired worker
set frequency to annual
click on ALL years
click on GO

By those numbers ...

Number of new claims to retirees from 1/2009 thru 12/2014

16,304,145

Increase of not in the labor force during that same period:

12,369,000

Some workers keep working, usually part time, after they start collecting benefits.

 

[Dragonlady]

The percentage of older workers has gone up slightly since the Boomers started retiring, but part time workers aren't counted in the workforce numbers. Only full time workers are included.

 

[Care4all]

So let's review the excuses for Obama's poor economic record:

* The first huge spending increase came in the FY 2009 budget.

Obama signed most of the FY 2009 spending bills, because the Dem-controlled Congress stalled them so they could pad them and he could sign them.

* Freddie and Fannie had to be taken over by the federal government, and that cost a lot of money.

And that would not have been necessary if then-Senator Obama and other Dems in Congress had not blocked Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie's dangerous intervention in the housing market. This is all on YouTube, if you don't like to read.

* TARP cost a lot of money.

Then-Senator Obama voted for TARP, and TARP would have been much smaller or even unnecessary if Senator Obama and other Dems had not blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie. There would have been far fewer risky home loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place if Freddie and Fannie had not opened the flood gates by their massive intervention.

* There was a sizable Social Security cost-of-living increase for FY 2009, and that cost a lot of money.

Please. It's not like SS cost-of-living increases had never happened before! They happen every few years, for goodness sake. That's a poor explanation for the tripling of the deficit in just one year. By 2007, before the recession hit, and before the Dems took control of Congress, Bush had the deficit down to less than $200 billion. But then the Dems jacked up spending in the FY 2009 spending bills that they stalled so Obama could sign them.

* The huge increase in the number of people who have left the workforce is due to a large wave of people retiring.

Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt. See the OP.

* The U-6 is not a good gauge because it includes people who are employed. So it doesn't matter that the U-6 has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush.

The "employed people" in the U-6 are people who want full-time work but can't find it and who are stuck in part-time jobs that they're working only out of necessity. The rest of the people in the U-6 are jobless. The U-6 is widely recognized as the "real unemployment rate."

By the way, the labor force participation rate has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush, as I've documented in previous replies. This fact should be no surprise since the U-6 has been so high under Obama.

That's all premised on your lie that Democrats blocked Republicans from passing reform of the GSE's. I challenged you to cite the bill Democrats filibustered in the Senate, which was the only way they could have blocked the majority party Republicans, and you couldn't find a single one.

Oh, and have you learned yet what happened to the one bill passed in the House?

Freddie Mac spent millions in Lobbying Republicans who were originally in favor of the regulatory bill, to change their support and to oppose the Hagel Regulatory bill, this is why it was never brought to the floor and passed with the Republican majority...

Rampant Corruption Plagues Washington Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not Completely to Blame for the Credit Crisis Writing Program Boston University
For example, one freshly exposed lobbying scandal showed that, in 2005, Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm about $2 million to put an end to potential legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae. The legislation, put forth by a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, would have overhauled the regulatory system currently in place.13 At the time, most Republican senators supported the bill. Unknown to Hagel and the senators who supported his plan, DCI, the consulting firm, was undermining his efforts by targeting and convincing various Republican senators to drop support for Hagel’s bill. In the end, there was not enough Republican support to warrant even bringing it to the floor for a vote