quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



No, check your facts - unemployment just shot up to 9%

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Unemployment ROSE consistently during the Bush Presidency, it has declined consistently during the Obama Presidency.

The Bush economic programs allowed the economy to tank, it has begun to recover under the present administration.

The Republican "trickle down" economic policies did not work under Reagen, Bush sr. and Bush jr.

Shot up to 9% from 8.9%? Do you really want to go with that terminology?

Do you care that unemployment went from 4.2% to 8.2% under Bush (using the official numbers)?

In comparison, the same numbers went from 8.2% Feb, 2009 to a current rate of 9.0. with a peak of 10.1.

Unemployment has grown under the currect administration, but no where has it "shot up" like under the previous one. Just to show Im not being unreasonable, I looked back till 1970. Rates have not been this high since under Reagan in 82-83.

quote:



ORIGINAL: Sanity

See, Conservatives know that businesses create wealth and that government saps wealth. That means the best jobs bill is tax relief and smaller government... less red tape and unwarranted regulation handicapping business.

For the government to create a job it has to first take money out of the economy, and how is that supposed to help

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, we prefer policies that actually help the situation vs. the feel good policies of leftists which actually do far more harm than good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Wilbur and the other right wingnuts on this board like the idea of the people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, or underemployed, old, poor etc going hungry and homeless.

Name one jobs or financial help Bill that the repubs have even TRIED to pass since "taking over", that make things better for the under employed, the unemployed, the poor and the sick?
Oh ya thats right, there hasnt been one

So basically , you cant show that they have done anything regarding creating jobs, or helping the poor, yet they have had five months
What are the states republican reps doing, cutting , where are they cutting? the poor the sick, the underemployed, the unemployed, women and children.
Now how is that helping??
These people need help now not a few years down the road.
So why cant you answer honestly, what have they done to help the 43 million on food stamps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Leftists alternatively like to argue that its congress, not presidents who control the budget and the economy and then they flip arguments when its convenient for them to do so

quote:

Still, it averaged 5% under Bush. And again taz, the Frank / Dodd housing and banking crisis didnt help

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Still, it averaged 5% under Bush. And again taz, the Frank / Dodd housing and banking crisis didnt help

what should happen is that the most of 2001 should be attributed to Cinton because his policies were still in effect until October. The same should be for 2009 as the Bush policy was still in effect until that October.

2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2001
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2002
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2003
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2004
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2005
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2006
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2007
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4 2008
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0 2009

If you notice. at the end of the Bush policy, those numbers were higher than they are today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Still, it averaged 5% under Bush. And again taz, the Frank / Dodd housing and banking crisis didnt help

what should happen is that the most of 2001 should be attributed to Cinton because his policies were still in effect until October. The same should be for 2009 as the Bush policy was still in effect until that October.

2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2001
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2002
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2003
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2004
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2005
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2006
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2007
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4 2008
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0 2009

If you notice. at the end of the Bush policy, those numbers were higher than they are today.

I did the math.  Actually a bit over 5.3% using the above numbers from Jan 01 to Jan 09

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You are such a nice guy like that an all.

If we take into effect the policy, as Sanity pointed out in his post, then the average for Bush was 5.69%, not bad for an 8 year term... until you notice how the end of his policy term went spiraling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Again, much of that was due to the Democratic sponsored housing / banking crash

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You are such a nice guy like that an all.

If we take into effect the policy, as Sanity pointed out in his post, then the average for Bush was 5.69%, not bad for an 8 year term... until you notice how the end of his policy term went spiraling.

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal

conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work).

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


And none of that had to be approved by the President?