Obama Says Boehner’s Job Creation Plans Are ‘Surprisingly Short and Sadly Familiar’

So, Barry thinks the OTHER guy’s plans don’t create enough jobs…
As opposed to ZERO jobs Barry created after spending a TRILLION DOLLARS?!!!
It’s time to get off the bus, Barry.
101 Days, and 30 minutes… November can’t get here fast enough. Thankfully, my absentee ballot came in the mail last week, and surprise, surprise!!
I didn’t vote for ANYONE that would even consider supporting Barry, not even for Chicago’s Dog Catcher!!

the republicans have nothing to over and no solutions……i will not dare vote for them…especially if they think being negative is going to get them elected or able to keep their job….something is better than nothing. Thanks for doing what you said you will do President Obama.

When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.” – BHO, JUNE 22, 2007

Make that Johnny Boy.. I was thinking about the other Ohio miscreant, Vilsack.

If not for the years of failed republican policies, high unemployment wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. If not for the republicans’ failed policy, there wouldn’t be a doctors payment problem in the first place. If not for the republicans disdain for sensible oversight, the disasters from wall street to the Gulf of Mexico, the communities across America might not have been so devastated. If not for their weeks and weeks of republican delay, the emergencies in our households and businesses in big cities and small towns wouldn’t be nearly as bad as they are.

To which my only comment is: Ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: The Spin Stops Here
************** Nice to see ya laugh!

How can Obama be so dishonest. Sure the Republicans are at fault, but so are the Democrats. Barney Frank, Frank Ranes, Freddy Mac, Clinton opening up loans to give everybody a house, including bag ladys. Yes the Obama the Republicans, George Bush the Liberal is part to blame. But Obama you are being dishonest by lying to the American people.

Did Obama forget about all his promises?
What about the Huge one, going line by line by line by line by line.
Obama you are fired, you just dont know it yet.

The only fault of the Democrats is being too bewildered by the Republican Do Nothing Smokes and Mirrors Confusion Machine and trying to placate conservative bullies like Breitbart, Beck, and Limblah by over-reacting to them and allowing time to be wasted.

prohb- If that is the only fault you find with the Demo’s and this administration then you are clueless…deficit, socilaist health care, unemployment at 10+%, Afghanistan, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security going bankrupt, and on and on…none of that alarms you? If not, that you too sweat incompetence

prohb- I don’t consider myself a republican but I am a conservative. Even when GW was president, i was objective enough to point out my concerns with his administration…be objective and don’t ignore the obvious…there are major problems, regardless on which side of the table you are on, with the way this administration is handling our country…don’t side with ignorance

CUT TAXES and YOU STOP SPENDING……….right the middle class tax cut happen back in 2009. If no one else spends and have confidence in the American market, then it should at least be the government. How much spending is the question up for grabs?

the republicans have nothing to over and no solutions……i will not dare vote for them…especially if they think being negative is going to get them elected or able to keep their job….something is better than nothing Posted by: concerncitizen +++Keep toting that bucket. See ya in November LOL

Yeah DaninSC – the job growth and WallStreet average you speak of was all built on phantom money borrowed from the future – Well, that came crashing down in 2008.
Gas price, go up and down, based on how the corporations see the market AND what they want, NOT because of a government.
Take some economics classes. Do you even know what a derivitive is or how they changed drastically into CDS’s (credit default swaps)during the past 30 years that helped to cause our recession? Open your eyes.

The Cynic-in Chief doesn’t like Boehner’s plan because is wouldn’t require thousands of pages of legislative cockamamie Obamaspeak. It wouldn’t have all those obtuse lines within which to hide sneaky Governmental control.
Have you ever paused to wonder just were does legislation actually originate? If each of the 435 Representatives held frequent town hall meetings only taking inputs from their districts back to Washington (as the Constitution implies), bills would be neither large nor intrusive. However that is not the case, if perchance town hall meetings are held they are more to justify why our Congressman voted for some cockamamie bill.
So where do gargantuan bills originate? Certainly not from the 435 districts, where would legitimate constituents or their Representatives find time to write such legislation? Members of Congress can’t seem to find time to read, much less understand, thousands of pages. So legislation is written by special interest lobbyists with money trails far from the 435 districts. Some bills have not even been fully read by the bill’s own sponsors.
The invasive and controlling “cap and tax” bill is but one coming example to watch for. My ex-ballplayer Representative keeps touting nonsense about an overwhelming consensus of world earth scientists while 31,487 American scientists (including 949 from my state) have signed a petition against global warming. Do you suppose our Representative bothered to consult even one of the 949 signers from my state? Does they represent us or special interests far from their districts? I think there is a money trail.

The only thing the gov can do to promote job creation is cut taxes and get rid of the some 76,000 pages of federal regulations hindering businesses and increasing their costs.

prohb- If that is the only fault you find with the Demo’s and this administration then you are clueless…deficit, socilaist health care, unemployment at 10+%, Afghanistan, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security going bankrupt, and on and on…none of that alarms you? If not, that you too sweat incompetence
Posted by: geoffssmallen
***********************************All of this you just posted has been a problem before Obama got into office….Now you may not agree with his policies and that is fair but what he has done within his first year and half is pretty good depending on who views it. I do not agree on everything but I do agree that something needed to be done and it will not get done overnight period. Especially when you have the opposing party not compromising on anything. It must be nice for the republicans to make 175,000 a year to say no or NOT WORK……There are Americans who work for 12.00an hour and have to compromise with people they dont agree with but the job has to get done! That is what you call productive and being mature in your profession cant say the same for our senators/reps.

Ed Taylor wrote -
“……31,487 American scientists (including 949 from my state) have signed a petition against global warming.”
Could you please send me the documentation or link for this?
Thank you.

dan in sc*****Obama job program
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.
Obama’s investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called “green collar” jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that’s been hit by the housing crisis.
“This agenda is paid for,” Obama said as the Republican National Committee promoted an “Obama Spend-O-Meter” online to track his proposals and portray him as a tax-and-spend liberal. Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.
***************now republicans may not agree with it but at least they can add to the program instead of critizing it and ignoring the proposal. That is compromising adding not destroying!

” Polls show that the American people trust democrats over the Republicans”
======================
Not among LIKELY voters which is what counts (especially in off-year elections).
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely Voters would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Look it up.

“Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries…”
=========================
Is this what the “stimulus” package was supposed to do? Keep believing him sucker.

The only good about Obama is some wind at Obama back as Obama leaves office for good.The Republicans played a joke on us with G W Bush , ‘ a bad joke at that ! Now the Democrats came back with their joke called Obama , ‘ another bad joke ! Just as bad as Bush ! Both Bush and Obama should be have been put out of Office ! Obama , just can’t see the facts ,’ NO ONE WANTS HIM IN OFFICE ! What we should do is Cut the power of the President ? Down size the Government ! Cut spending , like care for all the illegal’s in the U.S !

If you want to know what happened to the stock market, read Thomas Sowell’s book:
“The Housing Boom and Bust”
That’s all you need to read.

Keep playing the class warfare game. I don’t give a crap how much the millionaire down the street makes. All I care about is whether I have a job and can provide for my family.
Posted by: Dan In SC
**************************Wow you sound like a “secret democrat”. Last time I check as a republican the ideology is constition, cut taxes, and protection. Finding a job for you……in republican language …you pull yourself up by your own boot strap…… so why are you worried about Obama providing jobs for you and your family?

It’s interesting to hear a guy whose ideas have, I believe intentionally, continue to destroy jobs, not create them. He has to talk down all ideas that would create jobs, because his plan is the opposite. Unemployment as an entitlement is his solution. Keeping buying his bs libs. Shortly you too will be unemployed and if the trend continues, there will be no money for unemployment benefits. then what are you gonna do?

According to Obama it’s only worthwhile if it stimulates a democratic voter.

All I want Obama to do is get the heck out of the way and cut taxes on the job creators so they can start hiring again.
Posted by: Dan In SC
Oh so once again you want the “govenrment” to cut taxes for you. Yep still depending on the government! GWB did this and people still were unemployed…..what else did you want the “government” to do?

Typical lib strategy. Putting words in ones’ mouth. Where the heII did I say ANYTHING about expecting Obama to provide anything for me?
All I want Obama to do is get the heck out of the way and cut taxes on the job creators so they can start hiring again.
******************* “secret democrat” I want Obama to move but do something for me too!!! he he ha

“did rasmussen forget about independent voters?”
============================
NEWSFLASH! Independent voters can also be likely voters. And if you think truly independent voters are enamored with the Dems and Obama, think again.
From a new Quinnipiac poll:
“but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52% to 37% approval to 52% to 38% disapproval in the last 12 months”
And BTW, Rasmussen nailed the 2008 elections.

The republicans have a job plan alright. They’ll double the number of jobs by making them all part time casual with no benefits and at will fire you for anything employment. People will be working 2 and 3 jobs just to make a living. People would have to be nuts to ever allow republicans back in control.

Now that the President has signed the Finance Bill (which is suppose to prevent another disaster) how can returning to the job stimulus program which gave us the low levels of unemployment of the late 1990′s and early 2000′s be a problem?

You’re all crazy…you think you’re living in a hollywood movie??? You really believed that the 1 perfect guy would show up in the nick of time to save you??? Obama sucks, he’s an idiot w/ exceptional skills at being a pure politician aka “shameless liar”

so much spin but few results tired of the retorick,talking heads doing so much and going nowhere

Just renew/restore the Bush tax cuts and adopt the Republican economic philosophy “the free market will correct itself”… Now, anyone with common sense and/or slightly educated should know the Republican’s approach is correct because the financial and housing markets fixed, healthcares affordable and manufacturing companies have returned to America to create/return jobs to American families… And if you believe that, Vote Republican!!

Posted by: Lizzie | Jul 24, 2010 11:23:38 AM… “How exactly can the republicans BLOCK anything when the democrats have the majority in the house and senate????????” What have they supported? Name one regulation or bill that Republicans have supported or proposed that would help Americans? Just because a party is the minority doesn’t mean you don’t co-sponsor a bill through your committee… Take Healthcare for example, the GOP’s solution… Start over? Really!!

“For the life of me I can’t understand why the GOP is blocking Obama’s jobs programs. We have to create jobs in this country immediately or America will fail.”
Obama doesn’t have “jobs programs.” He has wealth redistribution and welfare programs. Welfare doesn’t create jobs.
This isn’t exactly rocket science. Entrepreneurs in the private sector need incentives to take risk and invest capital to develop innovative products and services. That’s what creates jobs. Entrepreneurs need a predictable tax and regulatory model so that they can do effective business planning. Republicans understand those concepts. Liberal Democrats don’t.
Obama’s goal is to create a huge underclass that depends on Democrats just to survive. His actions prove it.

Hey why won’t anyone mention the high trade defecit we have with every country we deal with?? the Prez., senators, and even the man on the street will not mention this. This is the cause of millons of job loses . Mike

It is amassing to me the outrageous stupidity of this President. History clearly shows with out mistake that with the exception of President Kennedy who used republican policies, that the republican party are the only ones who have ever created jobs in America. Even Clinton had the Republicans controlling both houses forcing him to balance the budget before jobs were created under his administration. Are Americans to stupid or to lazy to check the factors. I guess Obama forgets it was HIM and Chris Dodd and Barney Franks that BLOCKED the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack that President Bush wanted to pass and subsequently caused the housing collapse and triggered the economic meltdown,. I guess he depends on the laziness of the American people not to check the facts for them selves. After all he has spent his political life selling LIES and deceit and so far the American people have proven brain dead enough to believe him. What an unbelievable liar we have for a President of the USA. Congradulations Brain Dead America.

And isn’t it interesting that ABC did not post this story or at least I never saw it posted.
A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause “irreparable harm” and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption
Now let me see so far the courts have ruled against Obana on the offshore oil moratorium,the Campaign Finance, and now it looks like the AZ law will be next as it should be. Has this President ever been right about anything? Not so far and yet here he is spreading more lies about how the failed policies of the past got us here. No Mr. President YOU AND YOUR STUPID LIBERAL CONGRESS GOT US HERE> And any one who thinks different is totally BRAIN DEAD.

Tax cuts don’t add to the deficit. Too much spending adds to the deficit. In your home, do you say that not making enough money causes your debt? No, it’s when you spend more than you make.

So he’s bad for not cutting spending. When he does (NASA) they cry because jobs are lost. The government is the largest employer. Let’s get something straight. He cuts government you’re going to see jobs lost. I don’t care where he cuts. THEN he was bad for saving a car company. And dang if he wasn’t bad for shutting dealerships on that one. When that was a plan already in the works by said car company due to an over saturation of dealerships. He’s bad for an oil leak, but worse for stopping 33 new drills. For every employee out there drilling there were 9 jobs attached back here. Yet we don’t apply this same logic to a car company he saves while complaining about HIS unemployment. Why don’t you guys just own you hate him and you’ll twist it into hate no matter what. He’s right. The right has NO new ideas. Those tax cuts didn’t bring us jobs the first time and they will add to the deficit. But keep on complaining about the deficit in the next breath.

Actually Bush cut taxes, he had only a 2.3% job creation for his entire 2 terms. President Clinton had approximately 23% and he raised taxes. Unemployment numbers escalated when the tax laws came into effect under Bush. Each quarter unemployment figures rose so cutting taxes mean absolutely nothing. We should be more concerned with job creation and that is only spurred with an educated work force for the 21st century. I think we need to seal our borders and become more judicious as to who we allow in. Perhaps an educated set of immigrants will help us move forward, increase competition amongst our students.

What are you telling me if you cut your hours at work back to part-time you may not run the risk of not being able to pay your bills? Cutting potential revenue certainly can create debt.

Obama: “…new investments in clean energy after his party already voted against the clean energy tax credits and loans that are creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of new businesses. ”
Just a week ago, Obama flew to Michigan to give speech in the opening of a new battery plant for 300 workers, with 150 million dollar stimulus fund. That is: half million dollars taxpayer’s money per job.

As it has been said so many times already, how do you like the Obama “CHANGE” so far????
He criticizes the other plan, but exactly how are his job creation plans going???
I forgot, they have saved millions of jobs already…..but created “ZERO” new ones…that’s how it works….
Can ANYONE prove those saved numbers???
The only numbers that go up are GOVERNMENT JOBS….more friends and family getting hired while everyone else can only look in the window and keep trying to get the job that 10 others are also trying to get.
Forget the “temporary census” jobs, where are the permanent ones?
Soon, he’ll go back and blame Bush again…..When does he grow a set and accept blame for something that hasn’t worked…..
Never…..the chosen one is like a consultant, never his fault, everyone else is at fault and everyone else is stupid…..except him….
Mid-terms can’t come soon enough & either can 2012…..
Hopefully, we can hold out until then….

Boehner spends most of his time putting forth tired talking points and gimmicks, and avoiding any discussion of his party’s agenda, as there isn’t one outside of opposition. But he did put forth a list of three things he’d pursue as Speaker to create jobs, and they are, unsurprisingly, ridiculous and repetitive (the same old, same old failed ideas). Boehner has no idea what he’s talking about. None. I’m not surprised the President mentioned that.
This is particularly telling: “even though his party voted against tax cuts for middle-class families, he would permanently keep in place the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans – the same tax cuts that have added hundreds of billions to our debt.”
Everybody knows the most immediate threat is not the debt, nor frantic concern over taxes, but rather weak aggregate demand. Therefore, what we need in the short term is quite different from what we need to do in the longer term. Yes, in the longer term, we need to bring down debt and deficits, but in the short term, right now, we need more spending, meaning continuing tax relief to the middle class and continuing unemployment benefits to those looking for jobs. I also support expanding something like Senator Wyden’s program to provide bonding authority for states, with assistance from the federal government in terms of tax incentives, for investment in infrastructure. As I understand it, the bond gets paid back with interest so the actual cost is a fraction of each dollar spent for much-needed infrastructure across the country.
Boehner, frankly, should stick to clubhopping and tanning. He seems to understand those things.

All the Republicans do is whine and run counter to what this President and his administration are doing to help the economy.
You should bring constructive ideas to the table and work together, instead of this Party of No strategy you’ve been sitting on from the beginning.
The American people see what the unpatriotic Republicans are doing and come November we’ll have less Republicans in Congress, which will be a breathe of fresh air.
God Bless America and God Bless Our President of The United States.

Acually its the massive tax cut bush gave to businesses that caused all the jobs to dissapper. American business is totally driven by investers that want to see immediate return on there stock investments and if they dont they call for the CEOs head. Therefor these businesses only really care on maxium profits in the short term. So when they got all this extra money from bush in the form of tax cuts they instead of using it to creat jobs they used that money to expand overseas. Then when tey got up and running overseas and saw that those businesses were costing them less money to operate because of things like lax environmental rules no minimum wage rules no workers safety regs and so on so they saw they quick profit it was costing them more to employ and run american businesses and they closed shop and used that money to continue to epand overseas and since there buddy bush was in office they didnt have to pay much in import taxes either so they made there cheaper product there and shipped it here and THEY made billions that they promptly donated to the GOP and everyone overlooked the fact that all the jobs dissapered and the top 1 percent made an extra billion in profits that unlike bushs promice didnt trickle down to any americans it trickled down to there overseas units and into there bank accounts. All the while the american people are out of work because of it. And if they give those same businesses more tax cut they same thing will happen. We should learn from history not repeat it.

Well Barak, so far your healthcare bill has increased my monthly premiums, increased my co-payments and made at least one of my doctors drop out of accepting my health insurance altogether.
Your financial package has made my bank charge for every check written and charge me a annual fee for my debit card.
I’m 72 years old and retired so, I guess you don’t have my best interests in mind.
Is this the kind of change you meant when you got elected?

Finn…you started out in the right direction then took a hard left. Monetary policy is determined by the Federal Reserve Board (heads of 12 Federal Reserve Banks). And although we suspect that president’s attempt to pull the strings, the Fed is independent. The Fed can actually cause or contribute to a recession by constraining the money supply, or cause/contribute to inflation/deflation by making too much or too little money available. To say that Obama’s inability to improve the economy is the result of a recession passed to him by Bush ignores the historical cycle of economic growth and decline. Regan had two recessions to deal with and the Democrats generally blamed him for them although the economic conditions were passed to him by Carter. The longest expansion in our history, generally credited to Clinton actually started under Regan. Although Clinton passed a budget “surplus” to Bush (take out the Social Security “trust funds” and there was no surplus), the economy had already started to stall. Republican spending didn’t help and when the Democrats took over , they passed and Bush signed legislation that ultimately caused the housing meltdown and bank failure which lead to the acceleration of today’s recession. Although your characterization of American business is a bit strong, the need for profit, along with NAFTA (Clinton) pushed jobs out of America to low-cost countries. The point is that we are in the fix we are in because of BOTH parties and our failure to demand smaller government, lower spending and less legislation will ensure that some future president will have an even bigger issue passed to him/her by Obama’s massive increase in the federal debt.

“and when the Democrats took over , they passed and Bush signed legislation that ultimately caused the housing meltdown and bank failure which lead to the acceleration of today’s recession”
Oh really? I’m sure it will be easy to list the legislation then. What bills were they?

They blame Obama because the Republicans have no solutions to the problems and refuse to accept that he is helping EVERYONE or trying to..Clinton had a surplus…that was squandered THIS IS FACT! and the only piece of legislation they can come up with is some of DEMS voted against English being the official language of the U.S.? Again, WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICANS PROPOSING TO FIX THE ECONOMY, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN UP THE GULF, HEALTHCARE, THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, AND SOCIAL SECURITY? And they keep saying they want to take the country back? FROM WHO? FROM WHAT?, FROM WHERE? where did the country go? Minorities are have been here and are here to stay…it’s best for everyone to come together and get along and come to a solution to make our country great again…instead of all this fighting…it’s ridiculous! People in this country civil rights no matter what their color, political affiliation, income, or religious beliefs!

This is another example of President Obama’s scorched earth policy. Attack Republicans regardless of facts even at the countries detriment.

What change is the Republicans going to bring? It’s a legitimate question…since ‘our messiah’ and us ‘Obama lovers’ don’t seem to fathom that he is ‘adding on to the deficit’…

Obama’s ideas are not new, and when used in the past they have never led to anywhere good. Can’t wait until this charlatan is out of office. I can’t say that the Republicans are much better, but at least they aren’t trying to destroy us.

I mean you oppose Obama and the Dems and their policies so much…what can Boener and the Republicans DO to fix this mess?

3.7 trillion dollars defict in less than two years that’s all Obama has done. NO republican can match that record no sir…Of course we will say NO ! Hell NO!!!

hello_there well we could start off with setting up a flat tax that would end the IRS and save some money along with making a fair tax system at the same time. Or we could restrict how much unions have power over companies since its unionized companies like GM that hit the crapper because they couldn’t afford their fancy retirement packages. Or we could set up health insurance like auto insurance where you could buy across state lines to create more competition.

Michael Paul Wein and your one of those blind fools that thinks the government should give freebies to everyone and push the idea that making money is evil.

@ adam…
at least that’s a start…

i actually think our country needs another epic project like the good old days when we built the hoover damn or the apollo program. This time we need to build a fusion reactor, its something that would put the USA back on the map for going the distance to achieve greatness. (and it would create jobs too)

Oh, and by the way, why hasn’t ABC or any of the others done a story on Bohners plan so the people can know about it? Oh, I forgot, the Pelosi Cult needs to approve the story first…

bluemingvase: After President Clinton left approximately 1 million of his 23 million jobs he created was lost in first term of Bush. So Clinton NET 22 million jobs if one to judge what you assume is his mess. Bush had 8 years to fix the claim of Clinton’s mess, LOL. He had 6 years of a majority in both houses. President Bush created 3 million jobs net in 8 years, and that is including running two wars. Private industry is involved in military equipment. What got us out of the depression WWII, interesting two wars got us in a near depression. When president Bush instituted the tax cuts, unemployment rose steadily, they don’t work, especially running two wars.

Obama set a bad tone from the start. Telling the “secured” GM bondholders to take a hike. When you don’t play by the rules who will trust you, and who will hire someone if they expect the cost to go up dramatically in the future. No one knows how much this health care is actually going to cost. The feds numbers are probably a mith. When there is uncertainty in the air, an employer will play it safe. Obama also makes a villian out of anybody who makes a buck. Those are the folks that hire people.

Boehner and the Republicans mistakenly believe that extending the Bush Tax Cuts would increase jobs and fix the economy.
But all during the Bush Tax Cuts the unemployment figures of each year show that was not the case: 1/1/01 4.2%, 12/1/01 5.7%, 12/1/02 6.0%, 6/1/03 6.3%, 3/1/04 5.8%, 4/1/05 5.2%, 2/1/06 4.8%, 12/1/07 5.0%, 5/1/08 5.4%, 8/1/08 6.1%, 11/1/08 6.9%, 12/1/08 7.4%, 4/1/09 8.9%, 12/01/09 10.%, 6/1/10 9.5%
Before Bush tax cuts: August 2009 through December 2009 unemployment percent rate ’3.9%’ ! ! !
Before Bush tax cuts the unemployment rate was at a much lower percentage, than with Bush tax cuts.

When Obama calls Boehner’s plan “surprisingly short and sadly familiar”, it reminds me of some people I provide financial counseling to. Buried in debt (most of the time self-created) they ask me how to get out of it and they expect a complex answer. I tell them, “Stop spending money you don’t have, sell what you can to pay off your debt, and find a way to increase your income.”
They look at me slack-jawed. I focus them on a custom, easy-to-follow plan and most succeed at becoming debt-free.
Politicians purposely take simple problems and make them more complex than they really are. The way to address massive federal deficits is to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON’T HAVE. Half of our federal budget is DEBT. Even if the wealth of the top 1% was outright confiscated, it wouldn’t put a dent in it. And the private sector can’t grow fast enough to fund it. It’s just plain insanity. Obama can whine all he wants. Deep cuts are necessary to get us back on track. Austerity is absolutely where we’re heading. We have no choice.

Boehner and Republicans voted AGAINST the Tax Cuts for the Middle class.
But they had no problem voting for the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich and wealthy.

I think employment went down b/c of the temporary census hires but it’s improving overall. What are people griping about?

“Even if the wealth of the top 1% was outright confiscated, it wouldn’t put a dent in it”
How much wealth are you alleging the top 1% has? What percentage of the debt does it have to be to constitute a “dent”? Beware self-proclaimed small business owners who advocate huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

“It’ll particularly hurt the working poor and middle class the MOST”
And since it won’t hurt the middle class very much just like it never benefited them very much I guess the wealthy can afford it and shouldn’t complain.

This COMMUNITY ORGANIZER has done nothing but destroy this country ,none of his ideas are working and we are in a more worst state of living then we ever have been in the past.I can honestly say this because I have been around 72 years,never seen it so bad as now and under him it will get worse,he needs to go and his cronies as soon as possiable.Nov is first step.America wake up please,this President is destroying us.It seems all he care about is himself,and taking advantage of it,thinking he was crowned a KING.Parties,vacations one after another,campaigning around the world nothing accomplished.Wasting taxpayers money,and trillions in debt > Sad Sad SAD

Finn -
You are partially correctabout the housing bubble. The problem is that you fail to realize that it wasn’t lack of government intervention that encouraged loans to be made that could never be repaid. It was government intervention.
Furthurmore, it was not lack of government intervention that encouraged Wall Street gobbel them up like candy – it was again, government intervention that ensured they could make huge profits without any risk of loss because your wonderful democratic congress made them government backed.
Is it any wonder that Wall Street (which pours vast sums of money into politics) has given more to Democrats than Republicans by more than a 2 to 1 margin.
But you can be assured that your liberally biased (make that political hack job) media will continue to pretend that Republican are in bed with Wall Street. Forget the fact that Obama has more Lehman Bros execs in his whitehouse than any five previous presidents -
Is it any wonder that while many Americans got ZERO when the Wall Street firms which were Lehman competators went under – Lehman got 100 cents on the dollar. Nice eh?
Do you really think that MMS was just laxidaisacal with Safety and Regulations of oil drillers over a couple of Mets tickets? BP funeled more than a million dollars to team Obama.
Not to mention that BP poured resources into making feel good “Green” advertising leading up to, and supporting the Obama campaign. Has the whole – “Beyond Petroleum” ad campaign been totally forgotten?
Can you not see how NBC – Owned by GE has shilled relentlessly for this administration, only to be awarded all the of “smart grid” contracts in California and Florida?
What you are witnessing is what is being referred to as crony capitalism. It is what they practice in Chicago and it is what has been brought to Washington.
It is no different from mob tactics – “play ball with us and we will make sure you get the work, and when we are done with you we can just burn it to the ground and collect the insurance.

“Even if the wealth of the top 1% was outright confiscated, it wouldn’t put a dent in it”
I haven’t been able to find an estimate for how much wealth the top 1% has quickly, however Wikipedia quotes the Federal Reserve that the top 25% have about $54 trillion. Since the debt is about $13 trillion and most of the $54 trillion is heavily concentrated toward the top percentiles I’m definitely seeing a big “dent”. So it’s right-wing baloney for dinner again as usual.

My health insurance premiums went up effective September 1 … 10% increase. I’ll thank you personally, democrats, when I cast my vote the first Tuesday in November.

I just want a job that pay a living wage. Is that too much to ask?

.To take a 281 billion budget and bring it up to 1.3 trillion.
Actually, Wade, if you’re familiar with fiscal years and such, Bush-Cheney left office handing off a 1.3 trillion deficit (see 1/7/09 CBO estimates) to Obama on the day he was inaugurated.
Perhaps, a precocious fifth grader would be more economically and fiscally literate than, say, ahem, the average right wing deficit peacock.
For example, perhaps a fifth grader would actually know and cite correctly that at the end of calendar year 2000, just before Bush took office, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Bush nearly doubled it. Just before Obama took office the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion(source: historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget. ) In other words, your numbers are really off. In addition, credible sources acknowledge that Bush policies, including his tax cuts for the wealthy and the recession and the bailouts that started with Bush account for much of the increase in the deficit. Fact check your own comment– its not hard, and then perhaps someone somewhere might be able to take your wild-eyed accusations a little more seriously.

other than repealing the healthcare bill and cutting taxes…what ideas do the Republicans have?
–
They have nothing. Nothing at all. Cornryn, Kyl, Boehner, Sessions and others have all made that perfectly clear. Some conservatives on here mention austerity though the Republicans have a terrible record when it comes to fiscal responsibility, let alone austerity, and austerity at this point is akin to a grossly unhealthy crash diet when one isn’t healthy enough to survive said diet. Moreover austerity to Republicans means kicking the poor, the middle class, labor, the disabled, minorites, women and the laid off to the curb while overspending on other things– see Washington Posts series on Top Secret America, for instance– and, of course, warmongering however they can, even its a war on drugs or ACORN or whatever.

Ok..let me see..3.7 trillion dollars deficit in less that 2 years and zero jobs..hmm ..wow…great…bravo..The future with Obama is so bright that I have to wear shades LMAO..
ohhh and the story about tax breaks for the rich..well lets put his way.. It’s business that one that create jobs not the Welfare ok?..If I get business to give jobs I’m more than happy to give tax breaks in the other hand government handouts only creates dependency and big taxes for the hard working americans like me. Socialism has failed in the entire world !! Check out Greece and see for yourself what happens with nanny states !! …bye!

The Right always goes on about how “business creates jobs”. No doubt that’s true! they create jobs in India, China, Mexico, Sri Lanka, everywhere but here! The next thing out of the right wingers mouth is “of course, because they don’t have any unions in those places”! so, the american worker is left to compete with workers in third world countries who are lucky if they get a bowl of rice at night, never mind any health insurance or other benefits. No matter how many tax breaks the greedy tycoons get, they will funnel the money where it leaves them the most to line their own pockets, and to Hell with their fellow countrymen. If you buy that old Republican line, I have a few choice acres here in the desert to sell you!

Posted by: Phoenix lady “No matter how many tax breaks the greedy tycoons get, they will funnel the money where it leaves them the most to line their own pockets” ——— Absolutely agree to a point. The lesson to learn I believe is that business seeks to make the largest profit in the same manner as the consumer wishes to spend the least. Put in your words, both are trying to keep their pockets lined. You also bring up an interesting point that I would like to ask liberals about unions. (Primarily because I really don’t like them.) Just exactly how can you support unions that have manipulated their employer to the point that they achieve benefits that unheard of and to expensive. For example, a retirement age of 55 with 80% of your salary. For those of you that have watched the action out here in California. The City of Bell adminstrator who made a salary 4 times that of Obama at $800k resigns and because of the “UNION” he will still recieve pension benefits at $600k a year that the rest of us in the state have to pay.

The other often miss quoted issue is that Bush left Obama a $1.3 Trillion deficit the moment he walked in. The fact is that the actual deficit on the budget was under $500 Billion and balooned to $1.3 Trillion with the passage of TARP ($800B) which Obama voted for.
—
How does this change the facts, and or make my statement a so-called “miss quote”? The fact remains the numbers I pointed out were way off, and inaccurate, were in fact, way off and inaccurate. Can you point to a source that proves otherwise? Do you have alternate numbers? Do you even understand what you’re attempting to post? No?
It certainly doesn’t appear so.
I said, if you’re familiar with fiscal years and such, Bush-Cheney left office handing off a 1.3 trillion deficit (see 1/7/09 CBO estimates) to Obama on the day he was inaugurated. Before President Obama had even taken office, federal spending was up by about 9 percent over fiscal year 2008 levels.
And I’ll even go further and note that when President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion. Those numbers have been fact-checked by politifact. there is some disagreement in regards to whether $8 trillion is exactly right but its an even number and mostly right, so you can fanagle around with that if you wish.
Moving on, I also said that at the end of calendar year 2000, just before Bush took office, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Bush nearly doubled it. Just before Obama took office the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion(source: historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget. )
Can you prove those numbers are inaccurate?
Of course not.
You seem to whining about Obama voting for TARP, and then saying it was a good thing, which doesn’t help your argument. You sound inconsistent and in over your head. So, since I am magnanimous and compassionate, and believe in helping others when I can, I’ll actually help you– even though I have to say here that in special cases I think about changing my screen name to “So, are you a conservative, con artist, the conned or simply waaaaay confused?”
So here’s the assist for a more reasonable argument from a conservative perspective: Riedl (Heritage) argues that some of the TARP should be assigned to Obama because there are only three parts of TARP that are lost money– the auto company bailouts, AIG and the home loan program. Most of the auto bailouts and the home loan program were initiated by Obama (though I’d argue it wasn’t Obama who was at the helm when the economy crashed making the bailouts and home loan program necessary, and CAP would argue that , changes in federal law during the Bush administration– Bush policies– are responsible for a large chunk of the short-term fiscal problem and the very weak economy he left behind plays a major role in the problem as well; not only do they crunch the numbers but its common sense. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty. )

So, how do you spot a con playing deficit peacock and know they’re not the real deal?
They never mention revenues. (check)
They offer easy answers. (check)
They support policies that make the long-term deficit problem worse. (e.g. extending all of Bush’s tax cuts, even those the wealthiest of the wealthy; they believe in the mythical GOP tax fairy; they voted for slashing the estate tax so that the 3,000 richest families in the country can get another tax cut, a policy which would increase the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years.
They think our budget woes appeared suddenly in January 2009, or are the fault of Obama though he inherited the least balanced balance sheet in 60 years. (check)
(h/t Michael Linden)

conservatives or con artists — where are you getting your “facts”…they are totally bogus, and I believe you know this.
The deficit has completely grown out of control with Pres. Obama and the policies of this Democrat Congress. Is mandating new statutes and possibly increasing the tax rate of all Americans the best way to cut away at this deficit?! Which segment of our population opens businessnes and employs people? The rich!! I am not among those ranks, but I know most of us in the country would not have jobs without their dreams (and dollars). A lot blame Bush for job loss but do not forget the crippling of our economy that occurred the months after the attacks on (9/11)

That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. —
Was it? And what was Doug Holz-Eakin saying at about that time? Moreover, did it finally pay for the Bush tax cuts which the CBO projected at the end of 2006 would add trillions to the deficit if made permanent and Congress extended relief from the alternative minimum tax? Did it change the fact that the deficit in 2006 was the second largest six-year deterioration in the budget in 50 years, second only to the the deterioration in the six-year period from 1998-2004, which was the largest? Did it account for the fact by 2007, the average Middle Class family income was LOWER than when Bush took office?
Did it solve the problems that led to the necessity of the bailouts and the severe economic recession? Did it prevent the pending recession?
No?
Because, ultimately, there’s no question that increasing the debt is the direct result of the recession and the need to respond to it.
And, frankly, I agree with Dean Baker when he says, “The roots of this economic crisis are very much centered in the growth in inequality over the past three decades” And the growth in inequality comes from right wing ideology which has failed us. It was not a natural process but the result of conscious policy. Conscious, but certainly not conscientious.

“First, the government required a certain percentage of loans to be subprime to ostensibly keep the poor from being discriminated against – in other words, they forced banks to loan to people the banks otherwise would not have loaned to because they didn’t have the financial wherewithal to be able to pay the loans back!”
And that certain percentage was low, nowhere near enough to account for the size of the housing bubble. Yes in righty words it means these people couldn’t pay the loans back but in fact the mortgages were written so lower income people COULD pay them back. That was the whole point. By the time disaster loomed most of the sub-prime mortgages went to people who could qualify for a conventional loan but chose a risky one instead….sub-prime mortgages for everybody must have been a Republican idea.

Cons. or Con arts. What do you mean “We see you. You can get some sleep now”?! That is totally creepy! I didn’t know Axelrod or Gibbs or the Secret Police were monitoring this website.

“Then the majority of those loans were bought by Fannie & Freddie”
You can’t produce any figures to back that up. Freddie and Fannie lost considerable market share because they resisted buying nonconforming loans. In order to blame Freddie and Fannie for the financial crisis like in typical right-wing revised history you have to turn a completely blind eye to what was going on in the private mortgage industry, investment banks, and other markets.

So Clinton NET 22 million jobs if one to judge what you assume is his mess. Bush had 8 years to fix the claim of Clinton’s mess, LOL. He had 6 years of a majority in both houses. President Bush created 3 million jobs net in 8 years, and that is including running two wars. Private industry is involved in military equipment. What got us out of the depression WWII, interesting two wars got us in a near depression. When president Bush instituted the tax cuts, unemployment rose steadily, they don’t work, especially running two wars.
Posted by: phantomniter | Jul 24, 2010 5:41:58 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
I’m sorry, but if this were correct, we would have had huge increases in unemployment during the Bush years. We didn’t. The fact is that when Clinton left office we were already in a minor recession – remember the dot com bust? Even with the dot com bust, 2 wars, 9/11, Katrina & so on, we still had historically low levels of unemployment. Its impossible that Clinton created 22 million jobs and Bush only 8 – unless we lost a heck of a lot of population during the Bush years (clearly we didn’t).
The comparison to WWII getting us out of depression is grossly misleading. WWII did pull us out of the depression, true, but we also had wage freezes, price controls, food rationing, tariffs, etc. The Iraq & Afghanistan wars haven’t put a dent in our way of life or anything else. There simply is no comparison.
Our last year and current year deficits however? THOSE CAN be compared to WWII levels – we are at the highest deficits relative to GDP EVER since WWII. Those are all Obama, baby.

We can all find fault and blame somebody but where are the ideas and American spirit that has served/saved us in the past all i see is political party bias on both sides. when are we all going to be Americans again and not democrats and republicans?

Great, so you’re saying I should dig my Jimmy Carter sweaters out of the attic? Right-wingers yammer on about austerity but Republicans never actually try to put anybody through it once they get in office. This is just a sales pitch. For instance can Republicans try and cut military spending after their all their career boasts about being strong on defense? That’s why you don’t see or hear any clear plans of action from them.
Posted by: Skip | Jul 24, 2010 8:00:23 PM
::::::::::::::::::::
ROFLMAO!!! I’m sorry, but this has got to be a first. “Strong on Defense” doesn’t mean cutting defense. To the contrary, it means ensuring the most basic constitutional requirement of our federal government – its main reason for even existing – ensuring that we have a strong defense capability so that we can protect our nation!

Hmmm… there’s a bit of innuendo and rumor to your facts.
At the beginning of Bush’s two terms unemployment was 4.2%. By December, it was at 5.7% and it didn’t go below 5.7% until late 2004, and even then it only dipped to 5.4%. As you say, its easy to look up. (Bureau of Labor Statistics). >A bigger and more focused stimulus was needed, but the Republicans and conservaDems worked against doing what was needed for a more steady and less jobless recovery.
Josh Picker of CAP notes that following the Bush tax cuts, the country “registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period”. “Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, >
Posted by: conservatives or con artists? | Jul 25, 2010 1:34:22 AM
Con Artist – YES YOU ARE!! (h/t Obama) Josh Picker of CAP is the source you choose to quote? Well, now we know where you are getting your ‘facts’ from – lets just tell everyone here what that is. Its the Center for American Progress, who’s mission is ‘progressive ideas…..’ Could you pick a more biased source to quote? His claims are laughable. Worst job growth since 1945? How does he POSSIBLY square that with unemployment rates above 7% from 1975-1977? and again from 1980-1986? Plus 1992? I think we can pretty well discount anything from this guy or that organization.
As to the Repubs ‘working against’ a better stimulus – with the majorities the Dems had, they have NO ONE to blame but themselves for what the stimulus did or did not contain. The Republicans were for all intents and purposes shut out of the process. You own this one, and trying to blame the Repubs is just pathetic.
Innuendo and rumor to my facts, hum? Well, how about we note that the dot com bust hit and Bush came into office at the start of what turned out to be a mild recession. Then the “Bush tax cuts” weren’t signed into law until June 01. The tax cuts were set for a SLOW PHASE IN PERIOD OVER THE NEXT NINE YEARS. 9/11 hit, and we attacked Afghanistan. As to the tax cuts and that 9 YEAR phase in? Cuts for the poorest were phased in FIRST, then the middle class, and finally cuts for the highest brackets LAST. Business plans and budgets would have already been set for the year, and individuals wouldn’t start benefiting until they filed the following April 02, and even then pretty much only for the poorest people, and they’re not creating any jobs.
You neglect to account for any of that in your ‘facts.’ Then a SECOND act, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, was signed in May 2003. That act sped up some of the slow phase in of the original act. Two months prior to that we had just started the war in Iraq. What was the unemployment rate when signed? 6.1%, then 6.3% the following month, and then it began dropping from there slowly but surely. By the time Katrina hit in Aug 2005 it was down to 4.9%. 2006 avg. 4.63%, 2007 avg. 4.61%.
What was the average unemployment rate during the Clinton years? 5.21%. Omitting Bush’s final year where we can argue about the causes of the recession and increased unemployment (along with everyone else!) what was Bush’s average unemployment rate? 5.20% What was it if you include the last year? 5.27% Source, U.S. Department of Labor. We all know about where it is now after 18 months of Obama/Pelosi/Reid, almost double the worst estimate of Bush’s.

Socialism/Communism plus the most abusive and criminal militaristic imperialism has been to America for many decades if not begining soon after the Founding Fathes left the scene, what in true life termites are to a wooden structure, where in either case the inhabitants therein completely unaware of impending destruction. This, in a figure of speech! The blame game going on now is prove of such disater! Yes, America is now the true joke of the world, while its guns roar around the globe in self destruction like all previous Empires!

Houstonblazerdad posted>>>OK then. Let’s show it. Step 1: The Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that only 1.9% of small businesses are in the two top brackets that would be affected. That’s a little better than the dozen small farms affected by the estate tax, but not by much.
Step 2: About half of that 1.9% aren’t really small business owners at all. They’re high-income investors who get part of their income from investments in small businesses. So we’re down to about 1% of small businesses that would be affected.
Step 3: The top brackets are just that: brackets. When the top rate goes up, it doesn’t affect your entire income, just the portion in the top bracket. So if the top rate goes back up from 35% to 39.6%, it only affects the portion of income above approximately $400,000. A small business owner making $500,000 would see an increase of about $5,000. This is a fairly modest amount for someone making a half million dollars, and anything higher than that is hardly a “small” business to begin with. And the marginal effect is even smaller for the second highest bracket.
Step 4: The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the 10-year cost of these upper-income tax cuts is $678 billion, the vast majority of which hits wealthy individuals, not small businesses no matter how you define them. That’s a fair chunk of change for anyone concerned about the deficit.
So that’s the case. Letting Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire affects only a tiny number of small businesses; it doesn’t affect them very much; and it generates revenues of $678 billion. If the only thing you care about is keeping taxes low for rich people, you won’t be convinced. For the rest of us, it’s a no-brainer.____________________________
Thank you Sir!!! this is a most practical, common sense and to the point argument made that I have seen in awhile… I thought it was worth repeating again…Beautiful!!!

Ummm….Mr Obama….All the sky-is-falling predictions you state that Mr Boehner would bring would require YOUR signature! Of course, if you are worried that the general public is insisting you actually sign those bills, then perhaps you should take that as a sign of what We The People really want!

Mr Obama….You are well on your way to realizing your apparently much desired legacy of being the most polarizing partisan socialist President in our history! Nothing you have done has been in the interest of the centrists in this country..the heart and soul of America. No Sir, YOU have only served your radical base since taking office…and for that, We The People will need to make adjustments to reign in the damage you and your liberal colleagues in the Congress have inflicted on us all. Stop blaming republicans and accept you for who you are!….even if that truth hurts.

obama is full of it, his lies are clear as day. shame on him for trying to lie to our faces in his radio address.
he is ourtight lying about this economy.
i hate to say it but Obama is the worst leader this country has ever seen.
Obama reacts he does not lead in a time when America needs a leader (we do not have anything near a leader in Obama)
i wish i never trusted or voted for Obama. is sad i was fooled.

how will obama react to Korea? will he jump to judgement as he usually does.

I think Boehner is nothing more than a hack just like Harry Reid, but Obama please get off this same old CRAP!

“When the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate back in January of 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at an all-time high of 12,400 and gas prices hovered around $2.15 per gallon”
Most Americans now realize the 14,000+ point DOW was just a bubble, a house of cards built on fake numbers. And while the DOW was up gas prices were way up too…around 5 bucks a gallon. Gas prices didn’t drop till after the crash. You baloney meisters can’t post a single assertion without distortion. But luckily, despite your pathetic attempts, most Americans haven’t forgotten a dumbfounded looking George Bush coming on the TV to tell us we were heading for the greatest financial train-wreck since the Great Depression unless we bailed out the banking industry……all that after Republicans had sworn up and down that they could run Washington like a business and the economy was strong, and the Democrats were hapless do-nothings. So Republican approval ratings hover in the 20′s now as a result and most deservedly so.
So hammer away endlessly on your keyboards right-wing historical revisionists, but it’s hopeless…..you will never erase that image of Bush from the public consciousness. No right-winger has ever posted on these pages an explanation of how the Democratic congress universally derided as the “do-nothing” congress crashed the economy by either doing nothing or doing something and being able to state what it was.

“So hammer away endlessly on your keyboards right-wing historical revisionists, but it’s hopeless…..you will never erase that image of Bush from the public consciousness.” – Skip
Thank goodness for that Skippy!
Conservatives, Independents, Responsible Americans, don’t ever forget!
It’s really bad when Democrats get in power and spend spend spend.
It’s worse when Republicans act like Democrats and spend spend spend.
Don’t forget Bush.
Vote Conservative!

“Because the securities and derivatives blowing up the DOW were loaded with worthless mortgages”
=========================
And tell me again how we got into the mortage crisis? I’m sure you’ll say that Frank, Dodd, Fannie, and Freddy had NOTHING to do with it.
But Bush, Republicans, and that terrible free-market capitalist system is all at fault right?

“But Bush, Republicans, and that terrible free-market capitalist system is all at fault right?”
We have a mixed economic system. No modern nation has a free-market capitalist system just like Democrats aren’t socialists. Even the terminology you guys use is corrupted for propaganda purposes.

Tim Geithner’s interview was further evidence of him being more of a political hack then someone possessing the knowledge and leadership to right our economy. Geithner, should be fired immediately but of course since he is doing the bidding of Barack Obama …he won’t be and sadly, unemployed Americans will continue to suffer.
Obamanomics…is pure fantasy. You doubt me…look at the unemployment figures and the cash balance sheets of the private sector. The private sector has NO confidence in this negative business climate fostered by Obama and his administration that is almost completely devoid of anyone with private sector experience. What a joke!

…..you could have reassured Wall St. there was real value in all those overrated worthless financial instruments and prevented the DOW from unfairly readjusting itself downward by about HALF!
Posted by: Skip | Jul 25, 2010 10:26:41 AM
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Uh, huh, Skippy. Tell Goldman Sachs that the billions they earned off that market, both on the way up and on the way down, is actually all fake money that they cannot spend or use. See what response you get.

“I’d like to see any factual data showing any significant number of people who could qualify for a conventional loan taking out a sub-prime instead”
From Wikipedia:
>> The proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. However, there are many factors other than credit score that affect lending. In addition, mortgage brokers in some cases received incentives from lenders to offer subprime ARM’s even to those with credit ratings that merited a conforming (i.e., non-subprime) loan <<

….However, there are many factors other than credit score that affect lending….
Posted by: Skip | Jul 25, 2010 5:48:44 PM
::::::::::::::::::::::::
That’s right Skippy, there’s the key sentence – you’re starting to get a little warmer now.
ARMs have nothing to do with prime v sub. ARMS are just “Adjustable Rate Mortgages.” They were just as available in conventional mortgages. The definition of prime v. sub-prime is the CREDIT RATING of the borrower and those “other factors” which specifically determine how good a risk that person is or isn’t to be able to repay that loan. Sub-prime means, based on credit rating AND those other factors, you’re not a good risk. You can’t qualify for a conventional loan. So, who were many of those with good credit ratings but who were unable to qualify for conventional loans? Those who were investors who already had other mortgages. It wasn’t people who had good credit ratings AND were ABLE to qualify for conventional loans CHOOSING to get sup-prime mortgages.
Cripes, even the ARMs you are so hot on – you got/get BETTER RATES for conventional ARMS than for identical repayment term sub-prime ARMs.
You go on to say:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
They erroneously thought they would be able to renegotiate these loans at a lower rate later on, but once the bottom started to fall out of the market they got stuck with the higher rates.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
That wound up being a problem with a lot of ARMs. NOT just “sub-prime ARMs” as you keep saying, but ALL ARMs. That’s how so many people who got conventional ARMs have also been caught out.

The wording in Wikipedia is clear. It doesn’t say “The proportion of ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages”
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Of COURSE not, that’s been my whole point!! ARM loans can be either conventional OR sub-prime. You go on to say:
::::::::::::::::::::::::
-Skip:- it says “the proportion of subprime ARM loans”.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
That’s right, they are specifying the percentage of sub-prime ARMS involved in the situation, because it’s the SUB-PRIME CRISIS. What you fail to do is continue with the caveat they apply to the phrase, which is “HOWEVER, OTHER FACTORS….” They’re telling you that while those people’s credit scores were good enough to get conventional loans, they probably went with sub-prime BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T QUALIFY for a conventional loan due to other factors that affect your ability to repay loans. Then you say:
:::::::::::::::::::::::
-Skip:- It is not colloquially known as the adjustable rate mortgage crisis, it’s known as the subprime mortgage crisis. If you don’t like the terminology used why don’t you edit Wikipedia?
Posted by: Skip | Jul 25, 2010 6:59:18 PM
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I’ve got no problem with the Wiki wording you’ve quoted, it is quite clear. It just doesn’t say what you are trying to make it out to say. You were trying to make it out like all ARMs were sub-prime and were therefore the problem, and that people who could qualify for conventional loans were choosing sub-primes instead because that’s where they could get ARMs.
As to your “not colloquially known as the adjustable rate mortgage crisis, it’s known as the sub-prime mortgage crisis” bit, that’s EXACTLY right and what I’ve been saying all along. You are the one who keeps harping on how ARMS are a huge part of this. Its NOT the ARM crisis, its the sub-prime crisis. NOT the “ARM sub-prime” crisis either as you would have it. There are plenty of NON-adjustable fixed rate sub-prime loans that have been defaulted on also.

“You were trying to make it out like all ARMs were sub-prime and were therefore the problem, and that people who could qualify for conventional loans were choosing sub-primes instead because that’s where they could get ARMs”
Yes I was lumping ARMs in with sub-prime and Ninjas as being high risk loans. Obviously ARMs are higher risk whether they’re conventional or not. While you want to say >>however other factors<< is a caveat for not qualifying for a conventional loan it's not what the article says. Anybody interested can read it and judge for themselves.

“You tried replying with a wiki quote that merely stated a percentage had high enough credit scores – but that says NOTHING about being able to QUALIFY FOR THE LOAN – its only one part”
OK I’ll grant you that. But if it says nothing about these people ultimately being able to qualify for the loans why would they deem it significant enough to state it? You’re claiming most of these were second homes…do you have any data to back that up?

…sadly familiar.. yes, both parties plans seem familiar.. faux grass roots middle class protecting plans that are really geared toward protecting the people who are going to finance the next campaign..if their name is followed by a R, D or I (or TP).. they will soon be sucked into the Beltway ways..

there is nothing in your post whatsoever that disputes anything in mine. You just confuse correlation with causation.
——
Ah, but there is. Though it IS interesting how you can miss it, and distort what I said and you said, and the numbers and history so brilliantly.
Good con.
You claimed unemployment didn’t rise steadily under Bush after the tax cuts were implemented and that in fact they declined very quickly.
That isn’t the case.
As you said, its easy to look up the actual numbers. I encourage everyone to do so– month by month. Look. it. up. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Also, it is very easy to look up what job growth means– and to look up the numbers– year by year, month by month, admin by admin. I can’t be held accountable for the distortions and lack of knowledge of right wingers. They actually thrive on not knowing what they’re talking about. I just enjoy pointing out their innumerable inaccuracies and watching their heads explode afterward.
On top of lying about unemployment and job growth, you put words into my mouth as to what I claim. Quote me directly next time, as I like to stick to my arguments and not deal with cons’ straw men arguments and ad hominen (aka oh-god-he’s-liberal-or progressive-or-has-read-Marx-so-he-must evil-and-wrong-and-I-can’t-even-look-at-the-analysis-or-I-might-die-or-be-burnt-at-the-stake-as-a-shrieking-witch argument, used here against CAP and Picker, which just makes me chuckle as I find it odd that right wingers can’t make it through the arguments of those who think differently without losing their freaking minds- ha!)attacks.
On the upside, you realized you had to add onto your argument significantly to not come across as someone with a loose grasp on the facts but even then I think anyone with a cool, unbiased mind who fact checks your post at Jul 25, 2010 6:01:22 AM will find much to chuckle over. Since this post is a few days old, I’ll leave it at that, and see if anyone has come up with new distortions and misinformation.
Well, I’ll leave it at that and I’llrecommend : George W. Bush: Screwup-in-Chief, 2001-2008, Capital Gains and Games, and The Nation’s series on Inequality in America. (I can see it now, after the fact, “con’s heads explode!” at the mere mention of The Nation on blog thread… and then they pretend they make more sense than progressives who can coolly read from a wide array of sources without going bonkers and quickly backtracking to try to make a lie sound less lie-like)