227 posts
"2001: The Bush Administration tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but the Democratic Congress blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants."
Is this true, yes or no?
I liked the part where you said Fingers was bitching.
subprime mortgages were not issued
by either F.
They didn't cause the crunch
Hookbender — Apr 28, 2010Well, if reform wouldn't have helped shit, why the fuck are you so pissed at Bush? What the fuck else could he have done or tried to do?
Poor dude. Shit. Got anything else to read into my post? ;D
Yeah, your right. I don't know a lot about all this crap. I don't pretend to either.
What I do know, from my personal opinion piece dated 4-27-10, is that Bush isn't solely to blame.
And people who do blame him or republicans alone for this mess, well, lets just say they are much worse off than the ignorance on the subject that I've admitted to and showed at times during this discussion.
Did I ever say Bush was to blame? The amount of shit that Bush did not know could fill entire libraries. I doubt he had a clue, or cared, about anything that didn't start with an I and end with a q.
But you are saying that Bush proposed to save the world... when in fact, he did not. There's not a word in any of the history about regulating derivatives. The ass fucking our economy took because of the instruments created AROUND bad loans is many many times worse than it would have been if it had just been a downturn in the loans. If it was just a bunch of loans falling apart, that would have been bad. The fact that banks sold insurance on those loans, and then had to pay off, ended up causing a far worse crisis--suddenly there was a real crisis in cash flow, lending dried up, etc. You blame the smallest link in the chain, when the problem would have been easily isolated if that had been the only failure. No one should be allowed to create a package of bad loans, then immediately bet against them. The fact that this happened over and over and over again is what I think should be (and unfortunately, is not) illegal.
No, I said Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. Had nothing to do with Bush saving the world or attempting to stop the mess we're in. I said it wasn't all Bush's fault, or simply the republicans fault.
I said there was plenty of blame to go around. Both parties, Bush, Clinton, etc all played a role in our mess. Inshort, it was business and the governments fault.
I'm not trying to support Bush completely, just saying it wasn't all his fault, or the republicans fault alone.
Bush did his part to fuck this up, I know that. So did Clinton and maybe other Presidents before him.
Obama is completely innocent on this one. Does that fix it for ya?
Hookbender — Apr 28, 2010"2001: The Bush Administration tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but the Democratic Congress blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants."
Is this true, yes or no?
Bush didn't propose anything until 2003. He had a majority in the Senate and the House for 6 of his 8 years in office. If he'd wanted this regulated, he would have done it.
And the democrats have the majoriety right now so if Obama wanted healthcare his way, why did he have to cut it in half for it to pass. And why is it that most of this healthcare thing doesn't go into effect till 2014? Why not tomorrow if he wants it done. He has the majoriety. And why can't he just run financial reform through the way he wants it and when he wants it.... today? And if he wants to do the cap and trade thing, why not do that tomorrow? He has the majoriety, right? Yes he does. In fact, since he has the majoriety, he should have done everything he wanted to do the first 6 months of his time in office.
Hmmmm.
** 2001
April: The Administrations 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 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 OFHEOs 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 Presidents 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
Hookbender — Apr 28, 2010And the democrats have the majoriety right now so if Obama wanted healthcare his way, why did he have to cut it in half for it to pass. And why is it that most of this healthcare thing doesn't go into effect till 2014? Why not tomorrow if he wants it done. He has the majoriety. And why can't he just run financial reform through the way he wants it and when he wants it.... today? And if he wants to do the cap and trade thing, why not do that tomorrow? He has the majoriety, right? Yes he does. In fact, since he has the majoriety, he should have done everything he wanted to do the first 6 months of his time in office.
Hmmmm.
He didn't have to cut it in half to pass. He removed the public option, because even among Democrats it only had 30 or 40 senators supporting it. The large parts of it don't go into effect until 20
13 because the requirements for everyone to get insured require lots of overhead in the insurance industry and in the monitoring apparatus. The other things require democratic support as well as Republican support.
But don't pretend that Bush had the same environment as Obama. Obama faces 41 united Republican votes against everything. The Democrats under Bush did not use the fillibuster even 1/10th of the amount the the current Pubs do. Washington, while not entirely civil, was not uncompromising. Now, it is completely without compromise. And voting Republican in the next election only rewards that uncivility and encourages more of it. The idea that anyone would vote Republican because they don't like the way the
Democrats are working makes me laugh. Anyone with that attitude is just not paying attention.
Fannie and Freddie were a small portion of the problem. You think that creating a new oversight committee would have saved the economy? Note the part where it says "hedge funds" collapsed at Bear Sterns. What's a hedge fund? Go find out, then post some more. The downturn would have been well contained if it had just been mortgages that collapsed. Because, let's be real here, real estate prices were bound to drop at some point. No matter how good the loans made were--even if everyone had a 30-year-fixed mortgage with 20% down, real estate prices could still have lost 50% in some places. It happens. Bad loans made that worse. But what made it many times worse is the thing that I have mentioned now in just about every post in this thread, that you still have no understanding of, even though it's been in the headlines now for the last year and a half, just about every day.
Keep telling yourself that Fannie and Freddie Mac caused the housing market to implode, and the economy to implode, and vote accordingly. I'm pretty sure that conservative news and radio has latched on to that as the key factor in the crisis. And that attitude is just as wrong and uninformed as just about every other issye that they latch on to.
Look F&F did not cause the crash,
This is a complete "straw man" argument.
F&F may need reforming - or abolition even.
But that is a seperate issue.
GROUND ZERO for the subprime crisis was 2004-2006
The front men originating liar loans with 12% guaranteeing default triggers - re-packaged by banks (e.g. Lehman etc.) into securities blessed by rating agencies (e.g. Standard & Poors, Moody) and credit insured by AIG and others.
Then sold into the market as AAA investment secuities.
Do you notice that F&F haven't got a mention yet - well they do got a mention as one of the suckers that bought up and supported
this market in those toxic securites - under government orders probably
That was the bomb that went off - it was the 9/11 event of the credit crunch - all paths track back to it.
That period of titanic mortgage fraud belongs to the republican administration of the time.
It was their idea for how the mortgage market should be reformed away from F&F.
Now you can have an argument about the F&F, fine.
The credit crunch was caused by a policy experiment by the republicans in the Bush 2nd term.
It was unique to the US - didn't happen anywhere else.
they experimented with a total hands off laisse faire market approach - probably to show how the F&F model needs reform,
I hadn't connected those particular dots, but it makes a lot of sense.
Bush didn't know - I believe that he didn't mean it, he was operating on blind faith and paid no attention to it.
His administration - well they were hand picked ideologues and like a financial god squad ignored the fact that the world wasn't flat.
So as surely as the sun rises - it fucked up after 2 years by the 3rd year was a shit storm that got. actually demanded their attention,
resulting in the huge bail out.
Bush's famous "This sucker is going down" moment.
They meant to show that a pure capitalist approach was superior, and in the process almost wrecked and discredited the capitalist system.
The reality is all markets are taken for granted as regulated,
Food,
Medicine,
Building,
Utilities,
etc...
It is simply unquestioned
For a 2-3 year period in the mortgage market in the US - it wasn't, and an a strange alternative route ballooned and burst with devastating effect.
Interesting to note - this Bush republican mortgage route doesn't exist anymore.
and didn't exist in any significant way before 2004 -
then it was F&F activity - the thing you want to reform.
2004 -2007 was the Bush reform.
Hookie:
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz0mRDfvKHf
Fascinating, I'm sure. If you are actually interested in getting your head out of the sand, you can read more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
And more:
But here's the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.
Hmm... did anyone in this thread--say, anyone from the British Isles--mention this at any time during this thread? Or even, multiple times?
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/did_fannie_and.html
charger — Apr 28, 2010Fannie and Freddie were a small portion of the problem. You think that creating a new oversight committee would have saved the economy? Note the part where it says "hedge funds" collapsed at Bear Sterns. What's a hedge fund? Go find out, then post some more. The downturn would have been well contained if it had just been mortgages that collapsed. Because, let's be real here, real estate prices were bound to drop at some point. No matter how good the loans made were--even if everyone had a 30-year-fixed mortgage with 20% down, real estate prices could still have lost 50% in some places. It happens. Bad loans made that worse. But what made it many times worse is the thing that I have mentioned now in just about every post in this thread, that you still have no understanding of, even though it's been in the headlines now for the last year and a half, just about every day.
Keep telling yourself that Fannie and Freddie Mac caused the housing market to implode, and the economy to implode, and vote accordingly. I'm pretty sure that conservative news and radio has latched on to that as the key factor in the crisis. And that attitude is just as wrong and uninformed as just about every other issye that they latch on to.
And you keep pretending I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Holy shit. ::)
I'm simply saying it wasn't all Bush and republicans that caused this mess. You can think that, if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
I think Bush and republicans were partly responsible, and that's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than it's all their fault, imo.
Now, quit yer bitchin.
By the way, interesting last post Fingers. :)
Hookbender — Apr 29, 2010I'm simply saying it wasn't all Bush and republicans that caused this mess. You can think that, if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
I think Bush and republicans were partly responsible, and that's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than it's all their fault, imo.
Now, quit yer bitchin.
By the way, interesting last post Fingers. :)
No, I never said that. We all know that Gramm-Leach-Biley, while sponsored by a Republican congress, was signed by Clinton. And Bush just didn't do shit. He didn't help the economy, and he didn't hurt it. He just started some wars and shit, and let the economy run wild. DO you think that the fact that it wasn't Bush's fault makes him a better president? Before the financial crisis took shape, he was already one of the worst--ever. Why is it that he now seems so much better to you?
It's pretty annoying to listen to you blame Obama for all sorts of ridiculous shit when he's actually got out there in front of his platform and worked to enact it, and done an admirable job as far as I can tell. Not only did he get his healthcare plan enacted in a somewhat intact form, but the economy is kicking ass. My company's stock was at 22 when Obama took office, and it's at 70 today, and the rest of the market has also done fairly well, yet your position is that Obama somehow ruined everything. I'm not sure the sum of the parts equals your answer.
Goddamn Charger. This is the first time I've seen you so blinded by hate for Bush that you lost the understanding of the english language. ::)
I don't "blame" Obama for anything, as far as this mess is concerned. I have pointed out things he said he would do that he hasn't and I see no need to re-state those things again.
::)
Blinded by hate for Bush? I think I'm one of the fairest liberals out there towards him. The list of crappy shit he did is really fucking long. No child left behind? What a crap method to help out schools--let's take money away from schools that aren't doing well, because what they need is LESS help. Oh, I know, let's take away people's rights, let's tap their phones without a search warrant, let's redefine torture. War in Afghanistan? Ok, let's do it, but let's do it super-half-assed. War in Iraq. Hell yeah! Because they have nothing to do with anything, and everyone knows it's genius to start a war with no exit strategy. And by the way, that place is brimming with chemical and biological weapons, and they're working on nukes. Oh, I know what else we can do--let's place severe restrictions on stem cell research. If we clamp that down enough, we can pretty much insure that we will fall 6 or 7 years behind the Chinese, Koreans, Russians, and all of Europe. But who needs science when we have... faith?
Name one thing I've said about him that isn't true. He took his eye off pretty much every ball. Before the financial crisis hit, there were historians all over the place that were calling him the worst president ever. His approval rating was in the 20s. I am not anywhere near alone in the view that he was a disaster.
Now, you come along and cast him as not so bad, with rose-colored glasses? Not so bad? The single worst president in ours and our parents' lifetimes? Sure, he may not be to blame for the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean he did much of anything well or right in his tenure. His greatest accomplishment, to me, was getting re-elected. That was a Herculean feat.
Bush and republicans are partly responsible for
the sub prime crisis in the same way they are partly
responsible for war in Iraq.
That is the measure of their "partly"
So I agree they were only partly to blame.
charger — Apr 29, 2010Blinded by hate for Bush? I think I'm one of the fairest liberals out there towards him. The list of crappy shit he did is really fucking long. No child left behind? What a crap method to help out schools--let's take money away from schools that aren't doing well, because what they need is LESS help. Oh, I know, let's take away people's rights, let's tap their phones without a search warrant, let's redefine torture. War in Afghanistan? Ok, let's do it, but let's do it super-half-assed. War in Iraq. Hell yeah! Because they have nothing to do with anything, and everyone knows it's genius to start a war with no exit strategy. And by the way, that place is brimming with chemical and biological weapons, and they're working on nukes. Oh, I know what else we can do--let's place severe restrictions on stem cell research. If we clamp that down enough, we can pretty much insure that we will fall 6 or 7 years behind the Chinese, Koreans, Russians, and all of Europe. But who needs science when we have... faith?
Name one thing I've said about him that isn't true. He took his eye off pretty much every ball. Before the financial crisis hit, there were historians all over the place that were calling him the worst president ever. His approval rating was in the 20s. I am not anywhere near alone in the view that he was a disaster.
Now, you come along and cast him as not so bad, with rose-colored glasses? Not so bad? The single worst president in ours and our parents' lifetimes? Sure, he may not be to blame for the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean he did much of anything well or right in his tenure. His greatest accomplishment, to me, was getting re-elected. That was a Herculean feat.
i think carter was worse....
But do you remember Billy?
"Sure, he may not be to blame for the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean he did much of anything well or right in his tenure."
And that's all I said right there. That he wasn't solely responsible for the mess we're in and that he attempted to reform Freddie and Fannie. Thats it. Never said he wasn't so bad, or he was o.k., or he saved us from the devil of world economic failure, or that he had fleas.
I don't get you adding all this other crap to my post. Give me a break. You know I don't think Bush was a good President. Whats up with all this other crap?
The stock market usually indicates economy is improving. It's a leading indicator. A lagging indicator, for example, is the unemployment rate. Normally speaking you would be correct, but not today. We have high unemployment right now which negates your position of the economy being so wonderful. Hopefully in the next few quarters we'll see a improvement in employment. The market has recovered, in this case, much quicker than the economy. Not sure why you think the economy is so wonderful right now. I guess because we have a Democratic President. If Bush were in office, I think your opinion today would be much different.
chase — Apr 29, 2010[quote author=charger link=1272178696/50#69 date=1272564596]Blinded by hate for Bush? I think I'm one of the fairest liberals out there towards him. The list of crappy shit he did is really fucking long. No child left behind? What a crap method to help out schools--let's take money away from schools that aren't doing well, because what they need is LESS help. Oh, I know, let's take away people's rights, let's tap their phones without a search warrant, let's redefine torture. War in Afghanistan? Ok, let's do it, but let's do it super-half-assed. War in Iraq. Hell yeah! Because they have nothing to do with anything, and everyone knows it's genius to start a war with no exit strategy. And by the way, that place is brimming with chemical and biological weapons, and they're working on nukes. Oh, I know what else we can do--let's place severe restrictions on stem cell research. If we clamp that down enough, we can pretty much insure that we will fall 6 or 7 years behind the Chinese, Koreans, Russians, and all of Europe. But who needs science when we have... faith?
Name one thing I've said about him that isn't true. He took his eye off pretty much every ball. Before the financial crisis hit, there were historians all over the place that were calling him the worst president ever. His approval rating was in the 20s. I am not anywhere near alone in the view that he was a disaster.
Now, you come along and cast him as not so bad, with rose-colored glasses? Not so bad? The single worst president in ours and our parents' lifetimes? Sure, he may not be to blame for the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean he did much of anything well or right in his tenure. His greatest accomplishment, to me, was getting re-elected. That was a Herculean feat.
i think carter was worse....
I would absolutely dispute that.
Hookbender — Apr 29, 2010"Sure, he may not be to blame for the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean he did much of anything well or right in his tenure."
And that's all I said right there. That he wasn't solely responsible for the mess we're in and that he attempted to reform Freddie and Fannie. Thats it. Never said he wasn't so bad, or he was o.k., or he saved us from the devil of world economic failure, or that he had fleas.
I don't get you adding all this other crap to my post. Give me a break. You know I don't think Bush was a good President. Whats up with all this other crap?
The stock market usually indicates economy is improving. It's a leading indicator. A lagging indicator, for example, is the unemployment rate. Normally speaking you would be correct, but not today. We have high unemployment right now which negates your position of the economy being so wonderful. Hopefully in the next few quarters we'll see a improvement in employment. The market has recovered, in this case, much quicker than the economy. Not sure why you think the economy is so wonderful right now. I guess because we have a Democratic President. If Bush were in office, I think your opinion today would be much different.
WTF, dude. You just said in that very post that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator, then said that high unemployment now means the economy is not recovering. We've got growth in all sectors. Even fucking real estate is recovering. Our economy has grown for the third quarter in a row--3.2% this quarter. The company I work for (and many other tech companies) have had stellar quarters for the last year. I have more than tripled my money in my company's stock just in the last year and a half.
Part of that is actually due to Bush--after all, it was Bush who bailed out the banks, not Obama. But part of it is also due to Obama and the stimulus, and some of it is due to us accepting the depth of the recession and readjusting.
If you want to argue that the economy is not recovering, you're going to need to come up with something better than a lagging indicator that is still lagging. Everyone I hear has said unemployment could be high for years.
Hey Hooky, quit lagging! :D ;D
Hook logic is woman like.
"If you want to argue that the economy is not recovering, you're going to need to come up with something better than a lagging indicator that is still lagging. Everyone I hear has said unemployment could be high for years."
First, I'm not arguing the economy isn't recovering. I said the employment rate is a indicator of economic growth. During economic growth, the employment rate usually gets better. In this case it isn't. Companies aren't hiring.
I simply pointed that fact out. If your gonna say the economy is so great, don't you think people finding work is kinda important? Cause they are not. The economy isn't doing so well for millions of people right now, regardless of what your stock is doing and how well your personal situation may be. Chargers life isn't a economic indicator. ;D
The market has been doing pretty well for a long time now, but the employment rate is horrible.
"Even on optimistic assumptions, there is going to be substantial unused capacity in this economy," White House economic adviser Lawrence Summer said Friday. He noted one in five men between ages 25 and 54 was unemployed. Even if the economy returns to full employment in five years, he predicted, one in six wouldn't be working."
And your conclusion is what ...
vote back in the last lot.
To keep the politician honest - you say.
I say it is the opposite.
Fuck things up and you only lose your sheep for a short time -you can rely on the return to the fold after the flirtation
Which is a politic truth
And why they won't ever change much as that is the game they have to play, the level is determined by the voters.
Which is mostly an ignorant and at best a "got talent" type pop show.
Though I am impressed with the republicans in being able to recover so quickly from the total fuck up they made of things.
It is hard to point at a single success story.
Started with the biggest terror attack ever on US soil (or anywhere!!!!), got embroiled in a war under false pretences and then as close as it gets to collapsing the economy into a 1930's debacle.
But 2 years after - it wasn't their fault.
They must be - HeHeHeHe
I would be if I were Dr Evil :)
Hookbender — May 01, 2010"If you want to argue that the economy is not recovering, you're going to need to come up with something better than a lagging indicator that is still lagging. Everyone I hear has said unemployment could be high for years."
First, I'm not arguing the economy isn't recovering. I said the employment rate is a indicator of economic growth. During economic growth, the employment rate usually gets better. In this case it isn't. Companies aren't hiring.
I simply pointed that fact out. If your gonna say the economy is so great, don't you think people finding work is kinda important? Cause they are not. The economy isn't doing so well for millions of people right now, regardless of what your stock is doing and how well your personal situation may be. Chargers life isn't a economic indicator. ;D
The market has been doing pretty well for a long time now, but the employment rate is horrible.
"Even on optimistic assumptions, there is going to be substantial unused capacity in this economy," White House economic adviser Lawrence Summer said Friday. He noted one in five men between ages 25 and 54 was unemployed. Even if the economy returns to full employment in five years, he predicted, one in six wouldn't be working."
Are you on crack right now?
Looking at historical unemployment rates, we had 3 months in this recession (October to December) of 10% + unemployment. Now the rate has dropped to 9.7% for the past three months. Do you know how long it took under Reagan? We had unemployment of 10%+ for 10 months straight, from September '82 to June of '83.
Considering the depth of the crisis, the recovery, even in unemployment, is happening
unbelievably quickly. I'm not sure how you can interpret the facts of this otherwise. Of course, opinion is opinion. But the facts remain. Unemployment is dropping, and the economy is in recovery.
Reagan???? Who gives a damn about Reagan? Oh wait, he's republican too and you hate him also. I get it.
Well, your Presidents man see's a different picture than you. And here is a liberal source of info I'm sure your aware of that also disagrees with your stance of pretty flowers and tulips ahead. ::)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36547595/
In a nutshell, your completely wrong on your view of unemployment and the seriousness of people still not working or being able to find work. Yeah, the economy is doing better and moving forward, but damn we're still fucked up. Badly my friend. think what you want, but we still have a long way to go to fix this mess. Obama would agree with me on that point I'm sure. ;D
Don't you live in California? Your unemployment rate is what, around 12 or so percent? And your not willing to acknowledge the seriousness of this problem? Shit. And you want to know if I'm on drugs?
"even in unemployment, is happening unbelievably quickly."
"April 17, 2010|By Alana Semuels
California's unemployment rate reached a new high of 12.6% in March, bolstering fears that a weak labor market will remain a drag on the state's economy at least through the end of the year."
"The unemployment rate in February was 12.5%."
Yeah, new employment is "unbelievably" strong right now. Kicking ass in fact. :o
Dude, considering how bad the crisis was, this is a remarkable recovery by any measure. Just because you now hate Obama, that doesn't give you license to spout shit all day.
And I didn't compare Obama to Reagan because he's a Republican. I chose the comparison because that's the only other time we had over 10% unemployment as a nation. By the way, Reagan is often lauded as one of our greatest presidents... he entered office with 7.5% unemployment, had it peak at 10.8% for two months (November and December of his second year in office)... compare that to this recession and it looks like things have been incredibly tightly controlled in this crisis.
Stop being such a fucking tool. You are wasting my time.
Look. Your the one spouting shit all day and I'm the one correcting you. I post, you add shit from left field I never even thought, much less posted.
And your doing it again in your last post. I like Obama, but not enough to ignore his faults. If you wish to, be my guest. I never even suggested I didn't like Obama, much less hate him. I respect the man greatly. I just disagree with some his actions thus far. I still hope he is successful and gets this country heading in a better direction.
I am by no means being a tool. You are. And you would do yourself a great favor by thinking before you post such rediculously wrong shit as you ignore the facts that are laid at your feet.
Sorry it's ole Hook that has to correct you, but hey, you helped create this monster, so deal in facts with evidence as you usually do and stop being blinded by faith in Obama and hate for Bush and company.
Your waisting my time by having to correct you when you know the shit your spewing is crap.
What was the unemployment rate at it's worst and what is it now? You think that's a wonderful improvement? Go tell that to the unemployed in your own state, then to the rest of the states. Dare ya. I've read reports where the rate could go as high as, well you, as 15%. And, any small glitch and boom, double dip recession.
Things aren't as rosy as you paint them to be. Thats my point.
What do you think is the right path?
The economy has grown for three straight quarters. Unemployment is now dropping. What is your definition of what is happening now? Are we still in recession?
From where I sit, looking at only the unvarnished facts, and the historical patterns, I see the fastest recovery from 10% unemployment we've ever had. I see the largest economic crisis of our lifetimes, and easily of the last 30 years, contained in a year. If that's not a good result, then I guess I don't know what a good result is.
Or is this not a recovery until we're at 5% unemployment? Why stop there? How can you call an economy good if 1 in 20 people can't get work?
If McCain was president, would this be a recovery?
You talk about me spouting shit from left field. I've produced the numbers. You've produced conjecture, and talked in vague terms about people not being able to get work. Well shit, I see a lot of hiring happening now. I get job offers at least once a month. And I know a lot of other people who do, too. But that's not a solid number, that's just my gut. The numbers say quite clearly that we are in recovery.
If actual facts aren't acceptable to you, then there are special channels called Fox News and MSNBC where you can get the "real" truth.
BINGEWOOD — May 04, 2010What do you think is the right path?
Apparently he thinks it's the one that's left. ;) :D
charger — May 04, 2010The economy has grown for three straight quarters. Unemployment is now dropping. What is your definition of what is happening now? Are we still in recession?
From where I sit, looking at only the unvarnished facts, and the historical patterns, I see the fastest recovery from 10% unemployment we've ever had. I see the largest economic crisis of our lifetimes, and easily of the last 30 years, contained in a year. If that's not a good result, then I guess I don't know what a good result is.
Or is this not a recovery until we're at 5% unemployment? Why stop there? How can you call an economy good if 1 in 20 people can't get work?
If McCain was president, would this be a recovery?
You talk about me spouting shit from left field. I've produced the numbers. You've produced conjecture, and talked in vague terms about people not being able to get work. Well shit, I see a lot of hiring happening now. I get job offers at least once a month. And I know a lot of other people who do, too. But that's not a solid number, that's just my gut. The numbers say quite clearly that we are in recovery.
If actual facts aren't acceptable to you, then there are special channels called Fox News and MSNBC where you can get the "real" truth.
I'm not disputing where the economy is or where it's going. Never said anything about the economy. You trying to start a argument within an argument to hide your false sense of security or something?
How about 1 in 6 people can't find work 5 plus years from now. those numbers not any good? Consider the source before answering please. I never said the economy wasn't recovering or getting better. Just because it's in recovering mode, doesn't mean, based on your present situation, that life is just a dream....for everyone. The unemployment rate is a economic indicator of the shape of the economy. The economy is growing but jobs are still few and far between. How can you argue against that is beyond me.
I don't care to speculate about what if's, as I said before. McCains not President.
Once again, Chargers life isn't a economic indicator. Millions of people who can't find work don't give a shit about Chargers flowery life or his stock going through the roof. Millions....of people. Your own state has one of the highest unemployment rates. You think they wanna hear how grand your life is? And I didn't suggest we were not in recovery. Never mentioned that at all, in fact. So, Charger and his peeps are working, have jobs, and getting job offers right now. Why would this matter....at fucking all? If everybody that has jobs now get job offers.....well damn, the unemployment rate should fall like a damn boulder Shrek.
"You" suggest we are in a recovery and the economy is doing great, considering. I agree with the exception that during a normal recovery, the unemployment rate usually drops. My suggestion or opinion, based on fact, is that the economy may be recovering but it isn't peaches and cream because way to many people are still unemployed and losing jobs everyday. The unemployment rate is still around 9.7%, which isn't very far from 10 I might add.
So we agree that the economy is recovering, just disagree that it's unbelievably wonderful right now.
I say unemployment is still bad, you say based on your life, the unemployment rate is just amazing.
Yet I ignore the numbers. Unbelievable.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said, considering the depth of the crisis, that the economy got turned around incredibly fast, and yes, we are in recovery. Unemployment is a lagging indicator--that's what you said in your first post.
And did you completely miss the part where I said "I see people getting hired, I get job offers every month, but those are not facts"? I specifically pointed out that the NUMBERS are good. That we have had 3 quarters of growth. That unemployment hit 10% for only three months. Considering that in late 2008 we were on the verge of the collapse of the entire world's monetary system, that seems to me to be fucking great. Sure, a lot of people are unemployed. But in late '08, I would have thought we'd be at 20% unemployment by now.
For some reason, you are free to argue with your gut, but you call me a cheerleader when I point out that the NUMBERS look good? Well, they do. I don't know who told you that we would hit 10% unemployment and then 6 months later it would be down to 5%--that's just asinine. It's going to take years for it to get to 5% again.
And don't give me that BS about what Larry Summers predicts. A prediction of what the world will look like in 6 years is not a fact, it's a fucking prediction. Did he predict AIG or Bear Sterns? I predict we will all have jet packs in 6 years. Does that make it a fact that I can now quote to prove my point? Fuck no. It's a prediction.
Use the facts. If you want to argue fantasy and conjecture, I can create a Dungeons and Dragons forum for you, and provide a virtual 20-sided die. I'm looking at the situation now, and it is improving. The recovery looks truly amazing to me, considering our past history and the potential damage of this crisis.
Of course not everybody has it good. That's not the way it works. Even with 5% unemployment, some 45% of those people make less than $45k a year. You think they are rolling around in piles of money? Only 6% of people make more than $150k. There are not a whole lot of people making a whole lot of money.
Are you arguing intentionally for socialism? Do you think it is every person's right to have a job? Is there some job solution you are espousing here? You don't seem to be happy with the government trying to create jobs. What is your solution? Are we on the right path? Do you have anything positive to say or is it all shit from where you are looking?
It's always been a lagging indicator and it always will be. This time because of the depth of the recession, it could lag a lot longer. Everyone knows this. It's not a marker of whether the economy is recovering or not. It's just the facts of a recession.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=unemployment+lag+recession
charger — May 04, 2010It's always been a lagging indicator and it always will be. This time because of the depth of the recession, it could lag a lot longer. Everyone knows this. It's not a marker of whether the economy is recovering or not. It's just the facts of a recession.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=unemployment+lag+recession
O.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_indicator
Quite a monster you are...
I'll just answer a few of these question real quick.
"Are you arguing intentionally for socialism? Do you think it is every person's right to have a job? Is there some job solution you are espousing here? You don't seem to be happy with the government trying to create jobs. What is your solution? Are we on the right path? Do you have anything positive to say or is it all shit from where you are looking?"
#1-No
#2-No
#3-No
#4-Not a question but...Sure I am happy with the government trying to create jobs.
#5-I don't know enough about it to comment except that the unemployment rate is high and about 12 or so million people are unemployed right now. I could research and find out some options and get back to you.
#6-I'm not sure whether or not we are on the right path.
#7-Yeah, the economy is improving and I hope that continues. It would make me damn happy if Obama got credit for fixing this mess, even though I doubt that will happen. Nothing has been shit I posted. As far as I know it's all been fact.
One other thing....
"And don't give me that BS about what Larry Summers predicts. A prediction of what the world will look like in 6 years is not a fact, it's a fucking prediction. Did he predict AIG or Bear Sterns? I predict we will all have jet packs in 6 years. Does that make it a fact that I can now quote to prove my point? Fuck no. It's a prediction."
So read about it other places. I've seen many articles that predict the same thing. I didn't present his statement as fact. I presented his statement as another opinion that there is concern with unemployment even though the economy is improving. I know what a prediction is, I use to be Religious, remember? ;D
I predict the Hook-bashing is not over. ;D
On another note, if the Government creates new jobs but they're all working for the Government, isn't that actually worse than not creating any new jobs??? It would seem to me that it simply means that everyone with a non-Government job now has to pay for even more...
I guess it depends on what the jobs are.
To clarify, every government job is paid 100% out of taxes. Sure, each employee may give back 28% or so, but that still means that non-Goverment employees are paying for those jobs with their tax dollars, doesn't it?
CraigBert — May 05, 2010I predict the Hook-bashing is not over. ;D
On another note, if the Government creates new jobs but they're all working for the Government, isn't that actually worse than not creating any new jobs??? It would seem to me that it simply means that everyone with a non-Government job now has to pay for even more...
It's called counter-productive and stupid as hell.
And Charger....
"Considering the depth of the crisis, the recovery, even in unemployment, is happening unbelievably quickly."
From 10% to 9.7% is unbelievably quick to you?
" Unemployment is dropping, and the economy is in recovery"
How is 3 months of steady unemployment considered dropping to you? And you consider from 10% to 9.7% a considerable drop? Wow. Pretty liberal stance Shrek. ::) Sounds like Bush math to me.
Right, and if we need those jobs done we pay. Are you arguing against gov jobs in general or new gov jobs? The gov can only create new gov jobs, I guess they can offer incentives to private companies but isn't that using gov money/credits too? If lowering unemployment is your goal, new gov jobs might help a little bit...can't see it as really taking a bite out of our current situation tho. If retaining all yer bread is your goal then sure there are lots ways of doing that, many with results you may not like.
Jobs are created by private companies and many of them have had their productivity go up after dropping employees in a time when people are spending less while paying off the credit cards they've run up over the last bunch of years. No real reason to hire. They now say that small businesses is the engine...mebee because big business has outsourced the shit outta this country. Taxes are blamed often but I think dealing with countries who are down to rape their people and environment on the cheap may have more to do with it. Wait a minute do they even pay taxes? depends I guess. Less domestic manufacturing means less unskilled labor needed means a portion of people will not get jobs. In short "Buy American" from companies that pay taxes. But wait, that might be expensive compared to the artificially low prices we pay for many items.
The funny thing about taxes is you can think of 100% of your taxes as going to whatever you want...most people wont get close to paying fer a single mil plane in their lifetime.