US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

You're such a ******* idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

God but you're an idiot! In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere! You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?
Uh, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion, dipshit.
I know this is difficult for you to understand, but being in the miccle of nowhere is a big problem if you have no pipeline, like N. Dakota, dipshit. It is not in Saudi Arabia or the gulf nations, since they have a major infrastructure. Dipshit. Net is it costs a lot to ship from N. Dakota via TRUCK, in comparison to other countries VIA PIPELINE.

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field? Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Only bat shit crazy sources. I notice you did not provide a link, dipshit. Is that because you are ashamed of where you get your information??
Use your brain for once, Rshermr! If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!

Use your brain, me boy, if you can. Why do you think the Saudi's are concerned about a very, very, very small oil reserve that is under 1% of the size of theirs, and that costs over twice as much to produce the oil, and way more to ship it to refineries. jesus, you want to believe your own bullshit. Dipshit.

So, as opposed to the con tools, like oldstyle, ideas, what ACTUALLY has caused declining costs of oil and oil products:
Four things are now affecting the picture.
Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.
Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk.
Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.
Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

So, while baken has been reducing oil production, overall oil production has increased

You think the price of gasoline has gone from plus four dollars to sub two dollars because of "low demand"? God but your posts get stupider with each passing hour! We had weaker economic activity when the price was close to five dollars! If you DID get a degree in economics, Georgie...which I HIGHLY doubt...then you are probably the dumbest economics major to graduate from a college or university this century!

So, lets see what you just said, me boy. You saidI said the price had dropped because of low demand. Now, me boy, you are either but stupid (possible) or lying. Because if you could read, I said there were 4 reasons. You picked one of 4. So, look again, me lying con. Second, you said I said that was the reason. It was 1. Not what I said as the only reason, but one of 4 reasons. And 2 it was not I that made that determination. The link took you to the article I quoted. It was by the Economist. Now, unless you are a complete fool (possible) you know they are an extremely credible and knowledgeable impartial source. So, there you go, me boy. Making things up again. I try to educate you, and you come back with unnecessary insults. Relative to my econ degree, you already stated that I did not have one, but lost that argument when you refused to take a simple bet, and if you were correct, make some money.
So, you say what I said was wrong. But by implication you said that the Economist was wrong. Sorry, me boy, you loose. If I have to believe someone, either you or the economist, you loose.
You should be embarrased. But that would require that you had some integrity, which you do not.
But it was a normal post for you. You loose your argument, then come back with personal attacks. o, me poor ignorant con tool, apparently you have no rational argument. Saying that the Saudis, who control 50% of the worlds crude oil, are concerned about the relatively insignificant Baken reserve, is your argument. It is too stupid for anyone to believe. So, then you revert to personal attacks and attacks on the study by the Economist. You, me boy, are an all time clasic con tool. Congratulations, dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs.

of course thats 100% ignorant and illiterate. It was the housing stimulus that caused the recession. A recession is the time it takes the free market to recover from liberal interference. Now do you have it straight?

 

[Markle]

I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?

True, the artificial fall prior to that was census workers being hired.

 

[Markle]

The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

How do you measure jobs saved?

 

[Markle]

Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous! I didn't do that though...did I? I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..

You must have a source, eh???
Of course you do not. None that you want anyone to see that you use. Just bat shit crazy con web sites. So, you say GM was going nowhere. But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS. No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.
Chrysler? That ANYONE bought them was a win. Why a win, me boy. Because there were jobs, me boy. Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.

"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?

The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.

At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.

"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.

The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points. Which you, as a con tool are spouting. But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.

I realize you much prefer posting word salads meaning nothing.

As you know, GM DID, after all, declared bankruptcy.

Had they and Chrysler declared bankruptcy in a manner available to normal companies NOT too big to fail, how many fewer new cars would have been sold in America?

Easy question, a general answer will suffice. Would fewer new cars have been sold in America had GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy?

 

[Markle]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.

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

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

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: 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 called 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: 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)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called 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: Treasury Secretary John 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)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

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)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

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

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “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: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

 

[Markle]

That was in 2003, and at that time Frank was correct.
After that Bush appointed HIS man to head Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and the lending INCREASED!!!! Bush owns the housing crash.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

That was in 2003, and at that time Frank was correct.
After that Bush appointed HIS man to head Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and the lending INCREASED!!!! Bush owns the housing crash.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

You're way too easy. Lots of childish rants and nothing more. Cute.

I knew you'd be ignorant of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were forced to increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios. I knew too you would challenge me for links and make a fool of your self in the process. You are so predictable!

"Beginning in 1992 Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of mortgages going to low to moderate income people. In 1996 HUD gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In 1996 HUD required that 12% of all mortgages purchased by Freddie and Fannie had to be “special affordable” loans, meaning loans to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median. The 12% dictum was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005."

How Government Stoked the Mania

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

You're way too easy. Lots of childish rants and nothing more. Cute.

I knew you'd be ignorant of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were forced to increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios. I knew too you would challenge me for links and make a fool of your self in the process. You are so predictable!

"Beginning in 1992 Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of mortgages going to low to moderate income people. In 1996 HUD gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In 1996 HUD required that 12% of all mortgages purchased by Freddie and Fannie had to be “special affordable” loans, meaning loans to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median. The 12% dictum was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005."

How Government Stoked the Mania

and lets not forget that when the crash came Fan/Fred owned 75% of the alt A and sub prime mortgages!!

 

[Rshermr]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.

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

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

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: 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 called 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: 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)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called 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: Treasury Secretary John 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)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

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)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

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

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “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: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Markle, you ******* con tool:
You just used Sweetness and Light as a source. Which proves you ar an absolute con tool, and are unable to understand the concept of impartial sources. You are a useless piece of shit, me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

You're way too easy. Lots of childish rants and nothing more. Cute.

I knew you'd be ignorant of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were forced to increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios. I knew too you would challenge me for links and make a fool of your self in the process. You are so predictable!

"Beginning in 1992 Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of mortgages going to low to moderate income people. In 1996 HUD gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In 1996 HUD required that 12% of all mortgages purchased by Freddie and Fannie had to be “special affordable” loans, meaning loans to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median. The 12% dictum was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005."

How Government Stoked the Mania

then, to further prove yu are a con troll, you use Russell Roberts, a contributor to CATO and George Mason University. No one who actually expects to be believed uses RR, or other similar nut cases.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!

And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?

The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse. At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased. It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.

Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations. I suspect not.
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.

You're way too easy. Lots of childish rants and nothing more. Cute.

I knew you'd be ignorant of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were forced to increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios. I knew too you would challenge me for links and make a fool of your self in the process. You are so predictable!

"Beginning in 1992 Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of mortgages going to low to moderate income people. In 1996 HUD gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In 1996 HUD required that 12% of all mortgages purchased by Freddie and Fannie had to be “special affordable” loans, meaning loans to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median. The 12% dictum was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005."

How Government Stoked the Mania

then, to further prove yu are a con troll, you use Russell Roberts, a contributor to CATO and George Mason University. No one who actually expects to be believed uses RR, or other similar nut cases.

liberals love to pretend that despite 132 liberal programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford that when they could indeed not afford them it had nothing to do with the 132 liberal programs. Insane???

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

How do you measure jobs saved?

You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.

 

[Markle]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.

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

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

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: 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 called 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: 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)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called 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: Treasury Secretary John 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)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

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)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

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

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “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: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Markle, you ******* con tool:
You just used Sweetness and Light as a source. Which proves you ar an absolute con tool, and are unable to understand the concept of impartial sources. You are a useless piece of shit, me boy.

Show us all what is NOT true. I suckered you once, already, ready for another?

 

[Rshermr]

Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Oh. Just happened to be. For eight years. And did nothing while the economy cratered. But it was not his fault???? Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major. That does not give you a right to modify history.

Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.

Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.

You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..

You must have a source, eh???
Of course you do not. None that you want anyone to see that you use. Just bat shit crazy con web sites. So, you say GM was going nowhere. But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS. No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.
Chrysler? That ANYONE bought them was a win. Why a win, me boy. Because there were jobs, me boy. Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.

"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?

The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.

At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.

"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.

The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points. Which you, as a con tool are spouting. But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.

I realize you much prefer posting word salads meaning nothing.

As you know, GM DID, after all, declared bankruptcy.

Had they and Chrysler declared bankruptcy in a manner available to normal companies NOT too big to fail, how many fewer new cars would have been sold in America?

Easy question, a general answer will suffice. Would fewer new cars have been sold in America had GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy?

Wow. That was a profound post. The fact that you see no meaning in my posts just proves the obvious. You are stupid, me boy.
They did declared bankruptcy????

Probably not. Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool. The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US. And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or Chrysler. Sorry you missed it. I suspect, however, you miss a lot with your head up your ass.

 

[Rshermr]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.

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

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

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: 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 called 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: 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)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called 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: Treasury Secretary John 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)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

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)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

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

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “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: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Markle, you ******* con tool:
You just used Sweetness and Light as a source. Which proves you ar an absolute con tool, and are unable to understand the concept of impartial sources. You are a useless piece of shit, me boy.

Show us all what is NOT true. I suckered you once, already, ready for another?
I know you will never get this. But there are a few left wing nut case web sites out there. They produce a good deal of left leaning nonsense. Now, me boy, I have enough integrity to avoid those sites. And to never use them to prove a point. Doing so would show NO integrity.
You, on the other hand, HAVE no integrity. You use bat shit crazy con web sites. Which is your option. It is just that people who want truth instead of agenda find you to be what you are:
1. A con troll.
2. Without integrity.
3 Stupid.
4. A waste of their time.

You want to know what is evidence of an immature mind? That would be you, dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

How do you measure jobs saved?

You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.

And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!

 

[Faun]

I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?

You think wrong. Census data was collected in 2010, not 2011. There was no spike in unemployment in 2011.

 

[Faun]

all [periods of high unemployment] were under Republican Presidents??

and all under obvious Democratic policies!! Think before you post. Under Republican capitalism supply equals demand so everyone who wants a jobs has one.

LOLOLOL

Thanks for the laugh, Crazy Eddie.

8 years of Republican rule in the 1920's ... 6 years of Republican rule in the 2000's ... and according to the inmates, the booms they created were thanks to Republican policies but the busts those booms turned into were the fault of Republicans behaving like Democrats.

 

[Faun]

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.

Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.

Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.

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

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

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: 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 called 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: 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)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called 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: Treasury Secretary John 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)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

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)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

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

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “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: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

We know that the Democrat-led Congress passed GSE reform in response to Bush's warnings ... what GSE reform bill(s) did the Republican-led Congress pass in response to Bush's warnings?

 

[Rshermr]

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

How do you measure jobs saved?

You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.

And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!

As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.