The capacity of voters to 'disremember' how they voted, and rationalize and justify their mistakes, astonishes me. If you ask a father what mistakes he made, or a worker, or a wife, people will pause for just a moment, before they respond. That is because they have given those questions serious thought. People either do not assume that they make mistakes that they should hold themselves accountable for in the voting booth or do not spend time thinking that they are worth thinking about at all. If you have not tried to learn from your past disappointments in the voting booth, whether it is ballot measures you voted for, that turned out to be bad ideas, or candidates that turned into rotten apples, you are not doing your job. Its not enough to vote in this country. Your duty is to become better at it as time goes on. That means it is a skill you try to improve.
LOL...oh and just how do you figure that? I suggest you look at your chart. Find 2009 and see where the economy was, then look at year 2010. Now tell me stimulus didn't work. Unfortunately for you and your so called "conservative" fellows it did work. You, like your fellow self described "conservatives", like to ignore evidence and reason. Except the GDP did get better as evidenced by your own chart. Dude, are you seriously that delusional? Unfortunately, you are. And the employment numbers did get better. Unemployment went for 10% to 4.7%. That too is a hard fact and 4.7% is close to full employment. If you know anything about macroeconomics you would know what full employment is, but you don't. Full employment is the level of unemployment needed in a healthy economy. Employers need to be able to hire new employees and if there are no unemployed people they cannot grow their businesses. Now let's talk about labor force participation rates. Why do you think labor force participation rates are problematic? Labor force participation only becomes a problem when labor is scarce. It isn't a problem when you have 10% unemployment. And the declining labor force participation rate didn't begin with Obama. It's reflective of changing American demographics. Baby Boomers are retiring from the labor force. That's not a conspiracy Obama had anything to do with. Obama didn't cause the Baby Boom. But the declining labor force participation rate just underscores the need for increased immigration. Where is your evidence "real unemployment is close to 20%"? It isn't. The real unemployment rate is 4.7%. This is yet another case of you mindlessly accepting and believing mindless partisan nonsense as gospel. You may as well believe in little green men running around naked on Mars. You would have as much evidence an reason. And it's not like it's difficult to find the unemployment rate, it's published each month by the Department of Labor Statistics. I can only assume you are referring to alternative measures of labor underutilization i.e. U-6 which measures unemployed people and people who are employed part-time and is frequently used by right wingers to misrepresent unemployment. Yeah, you can overstate the unemployment rate if you count employed people as unemployed, which is what Republicans do when they misrepresent the unemployment rate for political advantage. But even that measure isn't anywhere close to 20%. During the Great Recession it peaked at 17%. In May of this year it was 9.4% which is in the historical normal range. In any case it certainly isn't a measure of unemployment as you and your Republican fellows have asserted. What you are doing is just mindlessly repeating the nonsense and misinformation fed to you by Republican entertainers. And just who are these liberals? Are they representative of all liberals? That's yet another error of logic on your part. Assuming you are not projecting your beliefs i.e. biases onto them, and that's a very big if, it doesn't mean the "liberals" you encounter are representative of all liberals.
I think it's telling that you are defending big government and it's failures while I'm the one that is defending individual liberty, the Constitution and freedom. These liberals are the stupid ones that are brainwashed into believing that the world is coming to an end because of man caused global warming when it's not. But our republic and our freedoms are because stupid people are convinced that democrats are going to save them from fake global warming scare tactics. Democrats always are stirring up fears and scare tactics, that's why we had this Dallas shooting of police, because of obama and democrats demonizing the police and calling them racist. Democrats are on the wrong side of the issue almost always.
Democrats and their Keynesian spending already started before the recession but the fact is the job loss rate bottomed out January of 2009, the month they took over the WH too and the recession ended the following June before the stimulus even went into effect. The economy had already turned around. All they had to do then was make sure we got into a full recovery. Their plan failed and only piled on HUGE deficits to the debt and the GDP growth has been the worst in modern history along with the worst employment record in modern history.
Yes vote responsibly and not for someone who acted with EXTREME CARELESSNESS with our national security and with reckless disregard for the laws government classified information and accountability in office who then lied through their teeth about it.
As previously explained to you, the government bailed everyone out. And it did so by providing secured loans and taking temporary equity stakes in some key businesses, businesses who employed large numbers of people. It kept those businesses alive. It kept people employed. And has been previously pointed out to you the government made a tidy profit on its investments. The American government invested in America when no one else would. And you and your fellow Republicans think that is a bad thing? Have you not figured out the national debt? Do you now know what the national debt is? Knowing you are a Republican it's silly of me to ask. Obviously you don't. Let's begin with a quick lesson the national debt. What is the debt and what drives the debt? The debt consists of debt the government owes to others and debt the government owes to itself. Debt the government owes to itself really isn't debt by any normal definition of the word. But due to the accounting method used by the government debt it owes to itself is reported as debt. As of today, The Reported National debt is: 19.3 trillion dollars of that amount, 5.3 trillion dollars is money the government owes to itself. The US Federal Reserve also owns about 2.8 trillion dollars of US government debt. So when you subtract out the money the government owes to itself, you have a real debt of about 11.2 trillion dollars. Did you know that when you earn a paycheck you contribute to the national debt? Every paycheck you get contributes to the national debt, and here is why. A good portion the payroll taxes deducted from your paychecks become national debt. It's a byproduct of the accounting method used by our government. And you want to blame that on Obama? When Obama entered office the reported national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars, and he inherited a 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit and an economy in severe decline. Additionally, Obama inherited 2 wars, and the largest expansion of entitlement programs since Medicare all of which were unfunded...meaning they were being financed with debt. When Baby Bush entered office the national debt was 5.7 trillion dollars and he inherited a huge budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor.. So if you look at just the nominal numbers, the debt under the Republican administration grew by 86%. If you look at the Obama administration, the nominal debt grew by 82%. So actually, the debt numbers were better under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations. Only in your fantasies are you the messenger. Those are the hard facts. How exactly were banks bailed out? They were given secured loans. In some cases they had do sell part of their bank the to US government. That's not a free handout as you and your fellow demagogues are fond of representing. You appear to be conflating the bailout and the stimulus package. The two are very different. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the bailouts were not giveaways. They were investments which ultimately did well for the government. The reason people lost their homes wasn't due to anything Obama did. It was the result of deregulation. Government screwed them over by deregulating the banking system 8 years prior. Tax breaks for the middle class were a big part of the stimulus package. You don't recall the payroll tax reductions? And just how did that happen and please be specific? I'm not asking for more mindless repetition of Republican memes. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the government i.e. taxpayers benefited from the bailouts. Apparently, you don't understand graphs either. Again, where was the economy in 2009? Where is it today? Contrary to your assertion, the economy grew dramatically between 2009 and today. The dramatic growth occured between 2009 and 2010, the period when stimulus was applied to the economy. There has been no fiscal stimulus to the economy since 2010 when Republicans took over Congress and refused further stimulus. That is why growth moderated after 2010. Did you now? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Really....but you do have time for all of these posts? And just how is The Donald going to stop the "rigged system"? What plans does The Donald have for stopping the the "rigged system"? Do you believe everything right wingers tell you? Obviously, you do. And that's why you will be and continue to be a pawn of others. Republicans purged the RINOs from their party a long time ago. It didn't help, because the ideology is fundamentally flawed. Yes, both parties are corrupted. But they are not corrupted equally. It is the Republican Party which caused unlimited sums of secret money to flood out polity. It was and remains the Republican Party which vehemently opposes election reforms and refuses to drain our polity of the money which corrupts our politics. And what evidence to you have that I'm defending the status quo? Just because I insist on evidence and reason, it doesn't mean I am defending the status quo. I would love to see significant electoral reforms. I would love to see special interest money removed from our polity. I would love to see ethics reforms in government. I would love to see better educated, better informed, voters. I would love to see the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine so that we could have better informed voters. Those are all anathemas to your beloved Republican leaders. You should be asking yourself, why?
Oh, please back up your assertions with, you know, evidence. The fact is you have no evidence, because none exist. Unemployment rate didn't bottom when Obama was sworn into office. Why don't you Republicans check this (*)(*)(*)(*) out instead of just mindlessly repeating lies? Check it out dude. The data is readily available. What had occurred prior to Obama being sworn it was the bailout out of the banking industry. That was important, it was critical, but it wasn't the end by any means. It kept the banks open. But it didn't end the economic declines. The unemployment rate didn't peak until October of 2009, that was more than 9 months after Obama was sworn into office. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows facts do matter. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Oh,and where is your evidence that I'm defending big government and its failures? And where is the evidence you are defending individual liberties, the Constitution and freedom? What you have done and what you continue to to is defend the ability of the rich to suppress the poor. You defend the right of polluters e.g. global warming to pollute, while decrying the right of poor and middle classes to breath, drink and eat pollution free consumables. You are defending the right of the elites you decry to abuse everyone else. That is the irony here and you don't even know it. Global warming is a matter of science. Unfortunately, as with everything else, Republicans have politicized it. It's the scientists who are warning us of the dire consequences of climate change. It's not the Democrats i.e. liberals. Whither you want to admit it or not, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to witness the effects of climate change. Glaciers are melting at ever increasing rates. The planet is becoming warmer. Sea levels are rising. Those are hard facts. Unfortunately, the Republicans Party has become the anti-science party. Unfortunately. facts and reason are not needed nor wanted in the Republican Party.
What are you disputing? DUDE, that's not what I said did I. The JOB LOSS rate bottomed in January of 2009 and started to quickly recede and had done so BEFORE the stimulus went into effect. DUDE. Learn the difference. DUDE. Yes Bush stopped the meltdown with the bridge loans that were paid back, what's your point. And the recession ended by June. All the Democrats including Obama had to do was get out of the way and let the recovery begin, instead they tried to micromanage it while Obama played boy-industrialist and it was a disaster. And I'm not a Republican.
TLTR. Try to stay focused. Your posts are boring me. I took economics in college but didn't finish my degree. My son graduated from USF with a degree in economics. I don't care if you don't believe me.
I asked you to prove your assertion. Was that too difficult for you? Dude, you should take your own advice. The fact is the unemployment situation didn't bottom out until October of 2009 that's more than 9 months after Obama was sworn into office. January, the month Obama the month Obama was sworn into office, the job losses peaked but job losses continue to increase. It wasn't until after Obama was sworn into office and after Obama and his fellow Democrats had passed a stimulus package that job losses receded. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows facts and reason do matter. Bush bailed out the banks, that's normally considered a good thing, one of the few good things Baby Bush did while in office. And he did more than provide "bridge loans". He purchased equity in banks. He purchased loans from banks and other financial institutions. All of which were good things for the economy. Haven't you been paying attention? I have been defending the bailouts. Your fellow so called "conservative" has been attacking the bailouts and blaming Obama for them. I guess you read my NBER reference, well that's a good thing. Yes, per my previous reference the recession did end in June of 2009. But I guess you missed this part, as I previously wrote the road to recovery began with he bank bailouts. The bailouts were an important first step, and that first step occurred with Obama's support 4 months prior to Obama being sworn into office. It's interesting to note that Republicans in congress vehemently opposed the bailouts and as a result, the bailout package failed the first time it went through Congress. And where is the evidence to support that one? That's not what the evidence says. That's not what the economists say either. That's just more right wing good old fashioned magical thinking. The fact is the economy continued to decline, unemployment continued to rise until well after the stimulus package had been enacted. Of course you are not a Republican and the sky isn't blue. You just argue their causes. You just believe what they believe. But you are not a Republican.
All you've been doing is defending leftist socialist big government. The Fairness Doctrine? Really? That is limits on free speech. This is what I mean when I say they liberals want to take away freedoms. The First Amendment, free speech, freedom of religion. Most scientists know that global climate is driven by the Milankovitch Cycles. Stupid global warming alarmists and self important climatologists want to press the communist globalist agenda and generate more government funds to line their own pockets. Follow the money. We are in an Ice Age that is 2.6 million years old. We are currently in an interglacial period. We will once again return to a glacial period and their is no way we can stop that. The glaciers will not only return, they will cover most of North America. We will be dead by then. Stupid people worry about global warming.
Yeah too long to read if you have a short attention span. I mean who needs facts and reason? Well if you are a Republican or so called "conservative" like you, obviously you don't need facts or reason, and that is a shame.
What are you disputing, is that too difficult for you? The loss rate bottomed out and quickly receded BEFORE the stimulus, having a comprehension problem? And the recession ended by June. The econcomy had begun the turnaround and all they had to do was get out of the way of it. The lose RATE, try reading more slowly. Then they passed their huge wasteful spending program which did nothing and refused to take measures that would have helped get us into that full recovery we so desperately needed. And it was paid back and Obama did not have to worry with it, just get out of the way and let the economy recover. No need to I am fully aware of NBER and they confirm my statement, the recession ended in June, Obama came into office in the last 1/3 of it as it was already starting to recede along with the job loss rate, he did not SAVE THE ECONOMY from a depression or any other such nonsense. What he did was put a damper on the recovery after he and his fellow Democrats continued their historic spending spree. Yes Congressional Republicans had their own plans to get us through the crisis which did not pass. The fact remains it was in place before Obama moved over to the White House and not because of him. And yet now the Democrats cry about bank bailouts and they should be forced to fail. Yes historical recoveries and the last 9 years and the GM/Chrysler debacle and all the other industries Obama has decided we the taxpayers need to "invest". Can you prove we entered a full recovery with full employment AND at least average labor participation rates and fewer people receiving government assistance and solid GDP growth above a meager 1.5% average? Nope not a Republican, I argue conservative policies.
And your obfuscation continues, I asked you a question, a question which you have failed to answer. I'm disputed nothing with my question. I just asked you to provide some evidence for your assertion. You are being dishonest. What do you think the bank bailouts were if not fiscal stimulus? How many times have I pointed that out now? So your assertion is factually incorrect on several fronts. Two, do you understand what the "job loss" measure is? Apparently not. Every month the US government receives job hiring and firing data from employers. That's where the monthly jobs numbers come from. In January of 2009 when Obama was sworn into office 791,000 jobs were lost per the jobs report. In March of that year, after Obama's stimulus package had been signed into law 823,000 jobs lost. Contrary to your assertion, job losses were not "stabilized" when or before Obama was sworn into office. After implementing Obama's stimulus package job losses continued throughout the year but at greatly reduced numbers. Contrary to your assertions job losses didn't bottom out until March of 2009. Unfortunately for you and your Republican comrades facts do matter. They just don't support your stories. The unemployment number measures the number of people who are, you know, unemployed. When Obama was sworn into office the unemployment rate was accelerating. It wasn't slowing. Additionally, the economy didn't begin to grow until the third and fourth quarter of 2009, that's well after Obama was sworn into office and after Obama's stimulus package had been passed and implemented. Contrary to your assertion, the economy didn't bottom until the late in the second half of 2009. That's what the data says. That's what the NBER says too. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&904=2008&903=5&906=q&905=2010&910=x&911=0 Try understanding what you are posting? It was paid back, but not before Obama was sworn into office. Obama did have to worry about it, and Republicans blamed Obama for the bailouts while totally ignoring their roll in the bailouts. So yet again you are being more than a little disingenuous. And the data, as previously explained debunks your notion of a magical recovery. You don't know beans about economics and you are being dishonest yet again. Your knowledge of the NBER is about 24 or 48 hours old. The job loss rate isn't an economic measure...oops. It's something you and your fellow Republicans invented. What is measured and reported is the monthly job losses and gains. It's not a measure of GDP so for you to misrepresent it as you have repeatedly done is either dishonest or ignorance or both. Per the previously referenced NBER the recession ended (i.e. toughed) in June. That's well after Obama's stimulus...oops. How did Obama's stimulus plan put a "damper on the recovery" on the economy? Where is your evidence for that one? Let me guess, you have no evidence, You are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up yet again. You ignore real and credible data and you make stuff up. Oh and what plans were those exactly? Who are these Democrats who cry about "bank bailouts"? Democrats wrote and passed Dodd-Frank which re-regulated the banks in order to prevent another great recession. And you think anything in that paragraph makes any kind of sense? First, Obama hasn't been in office 9 years. American presidents are term limited to 8 years. Obama invested in the auto industry in order to keep people employed. Whither you like it or not the auto industry employs thousands of people in this country. It's a big part of the manufacturing base. Keeping those people employed kept them paying taxes and out of the government safety net. That's a good thing. Per previous references, if you had done a little homework you would know that from December 2009 to December 2015 the average economic growth rate was 3.5.%. I have already proven that, I suggest you go back and slowly re-read or do your own research. What do you consider a "full recovery"? The economy has recovered all the jobs lost during the Great Recession. How much more full do you want it to be? Why do you think lower labor force participation rates are bad especially during a period of excess unemployment? You obviously don't understand what labor participation rates are or why and when they are important. The population is growing so by virtue of that fact, ceteris paribus, the numbers on public assistance will grow from year to year regardless of economic circumstances. And yes, there is evidence the US is close if not at full employment. http://fortune.com/2016/02/05/full-employment/ Of course not, you just mindlessly repeat Republican propaganda. But you are not a Republican.
I was distracted during my last post, so I just want to make this point crystal clear, your reliance on a fictitious economic metric is dishonest and misleading. There is no "jobs loss rate" economic metric. No one measures it, no one reports it. Because it is completely meaningless and it certainly isn't a measure of economic activity or growth as you have repeatedly represented it to be. Job loss and job gains vary greatly from month to month. That's one reason why no one but demagogues pay attention to it. I'll give you an example, in November of 2009 7,000 jobs were lost. The following month 279,000 jobs were lost. That's an almost 40 fold increase in job losses. That's a much higher rate than anything we saw in all of 2008 and in most of 2009. So your assertion that the "rate" had bottomed prior to Obama's tenure as POTUS is also factually incorrect. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows facts and reason do matter.
So you have been reduced to pulling specious information from specious websites. Whey am I not surprised? If you want Fed data, why don't you get it directly from the Federal Reserve? Additionally, that chart isn't a chart of "rates". Remember...your whole argument was based on rates. You claim the month to month rate had bottomed out in January. Per my previously referenced record of reference source, it didn't. And per my previous post, no one measures or reports monthly rate changes in the non-farm payroll numbers because the rate is essentially useless for a number of reasons including the extreme variability in the jobs numbers and in the rate. Your rate argument is nonsensical. It only appeals to ignorant demagogues. That's why they use it. That's why you used it. The unfortunate fact for you and your Republican fellows is that the recession ended (i.e. troughed) in June not January as you have asserted. Contrary to your assertion, the recession didn't end in January before Obama entered office. You have absolutely no evidence that further stimulus wasn't needed and was a waste as you have asserted. In fact, all the evidence says otherwise. As previously pointed out to you monthly job losses didn't peak until March of 2009. The "rate", your much touted fictitious econometric didn't peak until December of 2009. You have not even one credible economist to back your assertion...not one. Because they are with Obama on this issue. But, hey, you have Republican Party demagoguery and in Republican circles that's all you need. Demagoguery always trumps truth and reason in those circles. Unfortunately, Republicans don't need evidence or reason, nor do they want it. They are a party of beliefs over evidence and reason. They are the anti-science party. Below is a chart from the BLS which shows the non-farm payroll numbers from the record of reference source, The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Guess you didn't read the fine print as to the source. BTW that's the same or similar graph then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and also David Axelrod used to taut how Obama's policies had been so successful. http://www.politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/ Note the sources... So go argue with them over your petty discrepancies in the the numbers and stop being obtuse about it. The fact remains the job loss rate bottomed out the month Obama took office and was already receding on the fast track before anything to do with the stimulus went in effect. Why would I go to the Federal Reserve for job loss data, I gave it to you from the Labor Department and the Speaker of the House. Yes it is a chart of rates, the month Obama took office we were losing jobs at a rate of over 700,000 and it bottomed out there and started to quickly recede. Your previous was the UNEMPLOYMENT rate.........learn the difference. ROFLMAO the unfortunate fact for you is that I made no such claim, try reading more slowly next time. I was the one that noted it ended in June, BEFORE anything from the stimulus went into effect. Ahhh once again contrary to your fallacious assertion I made no such assertion. And the fact remains the Obama administration claimed that the stimulus would hold unemployment to a peak of 8% and instead in continued to 10% and then stayed over 9% for the next 4 years. It was a total flop and even he had to admit it later with his comment about those shovel ready jobs not being so shovel ready. The man and his staff are economic dunces trap by their own ideology and refusing to admit it doesn't work and cost us TRILLIONS of hard earned taxpayer dollars. No they had slightly receded by then but again there was not stimulus going on then nor in June. The data speaks for itself. You really think you ad hominems towards Republicans are evidence of anything? Below is a chart from the BLS which shows the non-farm payroll numbers from the record of reference source, The Bureau of Labor Statistics. [/QUOTE] As I said, look how they had already started the fast track receding before anything in the stimulus went into effect. And BTW you are conflating two different data sets and then pointing to a minor difference between the numbers.
Yeah, I noted the source. It's the same old specious website. It's the same old specious crap. I have repeatedly shown you data directly from the source which directly contradicts your assertions. That should be a problem for you, but it isn't. You keep ignoring first hand credible data. For your edification politcalirony.com isn't a Department of Labor website, nor is it the House Speaker's website...just saying dude. Just because a specious website publishes something it doesn't mean it's true. You keep ignoring credible sources (e.g. The Department of Labor, Federal Reserve, etc.) in favor of specious sources. Unfortunately it's what partisan devotees of any stripe do. Here is the problem, those discrepancies are not petty. First you said the "rate" which is a fictitious metric which no one measures or reports because it is completely bogus bottomed out in January. I have repeatedly demonstrated it didn't. The "rate" didn't bottom out until December of 2009. The unemployment didn't reach its zenith until March of 2009 which was after Obama had been sworn into office and the stimulus bill had been enacted. Those are the hard facts you keep ignoring. Except it didn't as has been repeatedly explained to you. Yeah, why would you go to the Federal Reserve for data when you can get it from specious websites? You have given me absolutely nothing from the Department of Labor. What you have me was another chart from the same specious website. It wasn't from the Department of Labor. The chart you attribute to the Speaker of the House, a Republican partisan, is from that same specious website. If you want something from the Speaker's office, why don't you get it directly from the Speaker's Office? I have repeatedly given you data from the Department of Labor which directly contradicts your assertions. Unlike you, I have directly referenced the Department of Labor website, and in particular the agency responsible for measuring and publishing these metrics. Theses are the metrics and the data you keep ignoring because it very clearly disproves your assertions. No it's not a chart of rates. I'm not sure what is a chart of. But it definitely isn't a chart of rates. Apparently you don't know what a rate is. The unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans it's very clear job losses didn't bottom out until March, after Obama was sworn into office and after his stimulus package had been enacted. As much as you want to deny it, that is the fact. It's also a fact that the recession didn't end until June of 2009. The unemployment rate didn't top out until October of 2009. And the fictitious econometric you want to introduce didn't bottom out until December of 2009. So no matter how you want to slice it, you are wrong. Hmm....and you think that makes sense how? I guess you don't know the difference between a rate and a total. Oh, so you are now admitting the recession didn't end until June. I was the one who told you the recession ended in June per the NBER. It was I who showed you the link to the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) which showed you the recession ended in June of 2009 which was well after Obama was sworn into office and well after his economic stimulus package had been enacted. If you now accept the recession didn't end (i.e. trough) until June, then you have to admit your assertion to the contrary, that the recession was over in January, that Obama needed to do nothing because everything that needed to be done was done and the economy was in recovery, is bogus. You can't have it both ways. Either the recession was over in January before Obama was sworn into office or it wasn't. And clearly all the evidence, including your fictitious econometric "rate" says it wasn't. Is your thinking so disconnected, you cannot understand that very simple fact? Well, your dishonesty continues. You did make that assertion. The fact is you have made contradictory assertions. The Obama administration never claimed, "claimed that the stimulus would hold unemployment to a peak of 8%"...oops. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...-says-obama-promised-stimulus-would-keep-une/ That is just one of the many falsehoods which are often repeated and accepted as truths by Republican devotees. Once again for your edification: 2009 Non Farm Jobs Data directly from the Department of Labor (i.e. Bureau of Labor Statistics) website The unfortunate fact for you is job losses didn't bottom out until March which was well after Obama was sworn into office and after his the Democratic stimulus package had been passed. Yes it does, you should listen to it. And the fact remains, you cannot name even one credible economist who agrees with you. That's not ad hominem, it's fact. Congratulations, you have plagiarized my prior post. Except that's not what the data says. Either the recession was over in January as you have said, nothing more needed to be done, or it wasn't. And the data says it wasn't. Economists say it wasn't. The NBER says it wasn't. The recession didn't end i.e. trough as measured by the NBER until June of 2009 well after Obama had been sworn into office and after the auto industry bailout which saved thousands of jobs, and well after the Democratic stimulus package. And the fact remains you cannot find even one credible economist who agrees with you. Because it wasn't over in January. Other things needed to be done, and were done. Unfortunately, Republicans have and continue to place partisan ideology over facts and reason and the country and that can only lead to disaster.
On average, I think Clinton did a good job. But you're right on this one. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 he also loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. There were (and still are) other pressures on the economy, but that started the snowball that broke the mortgage industry.
The only sane criteria for voting this year are the court picks. The POTUS does not have the power to affect much change unilaterally. The courts do.
Nope you are ignoring it. Want another Another from Business Insider. How about one from MSNBC Just because a specious website publishes something it doesn't mean it's true. So you are claiming the Democrats are lying about their claimed Obama successes..........gotcha! No try actually refuting the facts. Quite petty and you are merely bickering over them. It's not my problem you do no understand economics and the difference between the job loss rate and the unemployment rate and the unemployment rate zoomed right by the 8.5% Obama said his stimulus would hold it to and hit it's zenith in October of 2009 at 10% and stayed over 9% for the next 23 months. Except it did you not knowing the difference between the job loss rate and the unemployment rate notwithstanding. Pelosi is now a Republican partisan.......................you are just getting laughable at this stage. No you've claimed data that shows you don't know what your are talking about. Those are charts which show the rate of job loss. I'm not a Republican. Stop digging your hole. I guess you don't realize and chart of monthly job losses shows the rate and the trend of those job losses. Now? Show where I have ever claimed different. I can go back a year two years three years and more posting the fact that the recession ended in June of 2009 so I would caution you getting snarky about you telling me something. And it ended before anything in his stimulus took effect, he would have done best to just cancel it at that point. Quote where I made such a claim, now you seem confused over the job loss rate bottoming out and the recession ending. Perhaps you should put down whatever it is your are smoking or drinking. You should stop trying to put words in mouth because it makes you look quite foolish. Quote where I claimed the economy was in recovery in June especially a full blown recovery. I have consistantly claimed we never got into a full blown recovery under his policies. You can't try to put words in my mouth and then argue against them. So you don't understand that the rate of job loss is what determines when recessions begin or end now. Stop digging your hole. So you never read the report written by his economic advisers that they used to sell his stimulus I see. Oops. Try the chart on page 4 chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf See above. You need to start reading more slowly.
Well, I used all my knowledge in public policy and economics and came out with a clear decisive decision. Now that he has won it is time to put or shut up, the republic has entrusted Trump with great power. With that, I expect great things.
