Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force;

It was Democrats in congress threatening banks.

 

The reason mom was forced into the job market was ever rising taxes that gobbled up one income. This is on the Democrats.

 

The Republicans voted to fund it. Alas.

 

Be kind. They are still in shock. We have to expect some confusion.

 

spending bills originate in the house.

yes you are

stimulus, ACA

great, one plan 6 years later.

 

Because of politics

https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/06/gop-appropriators-to-allow-aca-funding-on-hhs-spending-bill/

Maybe you would like to shut down the government

 

And in the Senate. You once again show your ignorance of Constitution. REVENUE bills must originate in the House.

Once again are you a citizen here?

When you have a proper understanding of the government we can continue.

 

More non living wage part time jobs. Yeah real nice job Obama. We have an even greater disparity in income than the Gilded Age. Nice job Obama.

We can only expect the lives of the working and middle class to get worse until the scheme of economic globalization is reversed. The scheme to drive down wages to as low as possible destroys the non elites. To hide this, the old saw of figures don't like but liars can figure must be used. And is being used. If the liars can confuse and fool enough people change will not come, until the hunger pains trump he liars and their figuring. But once the suffering gets too great, and trump got elected because of this, change will come or else. Even the police state will not be able to stop it.

 

IOW, you know, as I pointed out, that the Republicans funded ObamaCare and the rest of the DP agenda.
The RP establishment has never offered much in the way of significant opposition to the DP establishment. Americans know that hundreds of phony show votes are just irrelevant posturing. The RP had better make their votes count for something from now on.

 

I agree and that why Trump ran against the Establishment not just the Dems and won. They better both wake up and get to work and stop the no\nsense

 

They do have a great opportunity.

 

Well, I agree with James Madison's interpretation of the constitution. The Federalist No. 58: “The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they ALONE can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government....This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect, every just and salutary measure.” (all caps mine)

Now you can't say I never gave you anything.

 

One point not made about unions is their effect on shipping jobs out.
They would agree to allow the company to open overseas factories because often it makes sense to build where the market is. But unions would go along to make sure the workers were well paid by local standards and employee safety standards met.
They should tear down statues of Mao to replace them with Reagan for his contribution to the Chinese economy.

 

While it would be wrong to hold Obama accountable for the economic downturn which began in 2007 and reached well into his Presidency. It would be as wrong for him to crow about an economy that is the worst in forty years as far as job participation rate. Not to mention the fact that millions of the unemployed have been out of work longer than at any time since the great depression.

 

LOL

You're gonna need a bigger shovel for all that shit.

We're talking "full employment" but here you are, conflating that with the "NAIRU". NAIRU is not the same as "full employment." The NAIRU is a formula containing other factors such as inflation. Not only do you bizarrely refer to the OECD, a foreign entity, but you don't even seem to comprehend their research was about the NAIRU and not full employment. Even worse for you, it's based on their own formula of the NAIRU.

Don't you think you should know what you're talking about if you're going to venture into the deep end of the pool without your swimmies?

What?? Who said they did nothing? Oh ... you did, citing your imagination. Well in reality, Frank sponsored a GSE reform bill and got it passed in the House, as did Pelosi. The Senate went with Pelosi's bill and got it to Bush's desk where it was signed into law.

But it mattered not, the damage was already done. And not "by some unknown measure," as you oddly position. As you were shown, the real estate market was heading towards critical mass in 2006[/B]. Foreclosures were at all-time highs at the time and the nation's 2nd largest writer of subprime loans, the sort which wrecked the economy, stopped writing them altogether before Democrats took control of the Congress.

And they got a bill on Bush's desk.

Republicans? They controlled the Congress and the executive branch during 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 -- and not one GSE reform bill in those 4 years reached the president's desk.

You're actually criticizing Democrats, who got GSE reform signed into law during their first session; while saying nothing about Republicans who accomplished zero such bills in two sessions.

Take your own advice and read more carefully, I didn't say revenues increased -- I said revenue growth increased -- which you denied. As I said, tax revenue growth increased every year under Clinton except 1999. I was wrong though as I see it also dipped in 1998, following the Republicans pushing through tax cuts. That's what you ridiculously opined as Clinton slowed down revenue growth. As the numbers show, he actually increased them, whether you look at nominal figures...

1993 8.8%
1994 9.0%
1995 9.3%
1996 10.8%
1997 11.0%
1998 10.6%
1999 4.6%
2000 13.9%

... or chained 2009 figures ...

1993 6.3%
1994 6.7%
1995 7.1%
1996 8.9%
1997 9.2%
1998 9.4%
1999 3.0%
2000 11.3%

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1980_2021USk_18s 1li111mcn_10f

LOL. Now you're talking about different years than I am. I'm talking about the years leading up to 2006 when the housing market went through the roof (no pun intended). Your link addresses later years. Again...

As you were shown, tax revenue growth grew under Clinton.

Nice diatribe, but the $1.2 trillion dollar projected deficit issued in early January, 2009, was revised upwards from some $400 billion due mostly to the collapse of the economy, not because Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on a budget.

The current recession "will probably be the longest and the deepest since World War II," the CBO said. The economic deterioration since September, which was the last time CBO made deficit projections, is the biggest contributor to a sharp decline in tax revenue projections. The CBO expects tax revenue in 2009 to fall by $166 billion, or 6.6%, from the previous year's collection.

That revenue decline, in turn, is the biggest reason for the worsening outlook over the next decade, said Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist at the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group. "The revenue effect is huge."

In addition, CBO expects inflation-adjusted GDP to fall by 2.2%. Going forward, the agency said it expects a "slow recovery" in 2010.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/​

Blaming the 110th Congress for the toxic loans written years earlier while Republicans were in charge of the Congress and Executive branch is like blaming a home owner for the plane that crashed into his house.

 

Wrong ... it was this neo conservative BS of deregulation of finance markets started under Reagan which caused at least this crises.


Again and again politicians tried to tame the markets with laws. So far, however, they have not been sufficiently consistent. In the meantime, one knows that strict supervision is the best crisis prophylaxis. But precisely the indecisive back and forth of regulation and deregulation has always led to major financial and economic crises.

Precisely said, the Democrats are always trying to settle regulations, which are subsequently canceled by the Republicans.
Of course, the Republicans keep saying that the Democrats are the bad guys with their regulations ...

The fact is, every deregulation ends in chaos, because in the financial markets the lack of surveillance of the Wild West breaks out, where existing laws are as interesting as the NY Times of the last and corresponding attention!
You can not leave the financial markets to yourself, and this fairy tale of the self-regulating market is simply not to get dead!

 

Doesn't change the fact rahl is still batting zero when it comes to how the government works. Either house of the Congress can pass spending bills. Bills to create taxes or duties or tariffs or raise money must originate in the House.

 

That is true. But the House does have the power to stop spending. The RP leaders chose not to exercise that power and instead continued to fund Obama's programs because they knew too many Republican politicians would cave under pressure. We have had too many failed phony "shutdowns".

 

And when people have to get snarky it usually means they are losing ground.

And as I demonstrated that is a subjective term and the unemployment during that period certainly fell within those ranges.

As I said above.

Bills that didn't go far enough and in fact expanded F&F after they had rejected previous bills proposed by Republicans going back to 2003.

You are the one who said it was too late by some unknown measure, that's your best excuse?

And when the crisis deepened what did they do?

Yes as the Democrats said there was no problem and wanted to expand F&F.

Look there is blame on both sides as what to led up to it, the issue is what did the Democrats do to rectify when they got into power along with the rest of the economy?

Their failed stimulus?

Revenue growth slowed.

From White House OMB historical tables

Year - Revenues - % chng
1990 1,032.0 4.1%
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 addtional tax payments deferred to 1995 and 1996
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <-"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf

So even with the deferred revenues tax revenue growth slowed
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%

I'm talking residential housing and GDP. It is about 3.5% of GDP and at the peak about 5%. The growth during those 52 months was broad based.

Not according to the White House OMB. Why do you think Clinton gave his infamous "I raised taxes too much" speech.

Ahhh those are the historical facts.

Revised from the previous Democrats huge increase upon which they doubled downed the next year. And they did it OVER Bush.

And it was the job of the Democrats to mitigate the effects of the recession which end in June of 2009 and get us into a full recovery, which they did not Their policies failed and they refused to change course over the years.

 

If you want to really understand what happened read the following.

"The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers–a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks"
https://spectator.org/42211_true-origins-financial-crisis/

 

What was the real motive behind the Clinton's administration to allow people who could not afford the house payments by allowing the lenders to falsify the buyers application on their income questions so they could be approved? How about the balloon payments that made it impossible to pay so they could stay in their home? It appears these people were used so home builders would keep on building new homes in a bubble that could not meet its financial obligations.

It is interesting that Fannie and Freddie with all that new real estate that didn't exist before quickly rebounded and began earning profits in such a short time frame on all that property added under their control.

 

So what so does the Senate and when Republicans control both we have some simblance of fiscal responsibility which we se none of when Democrats do.

 

Yes, Republicans are better than Democrats, at least under Ronnie, Cal and Ike, but spending and Big Government remain a bipartisan problem. Alas.

 

A highly unbalanced problem with the Democrats BY FAR the party of huge spending. Lets not forget it was a combination of tax policies that greatly increased tax revenues and spending restraint.by the Republicans that produces the surpluses and then droped the deficit down to a paltry $161B by 2007 after the 2001 recession.

 

One has to ask: Have we no grand juries?