Unempoyment rate June 2006 compared to June 2009 (unemployed, March, 9/11, insurance)

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

Under Bush the national debt in 2006 was 574.3 million

Stop lying.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

Wow, lookie here folks.

Bush and his republican controlled congress were down right terrible at running an economy that the unemployment rate jumped to 4.6% for June 2006.

The dems were livid, saying that the Bush administration was hurting the economy with their policies and spending.

So lets spin forward to June 2009, liberals have controlled congress since 2007 and Obama is nearing 6 months in office and unemployment is now 9.5 and rising quickly.

Bush and Rep controlled congress 4.6% and the dems were going crazy.
Obama and the Dems controlled congress 9.5% and the dems are silent.

So lets recap-

Bush and the rep controlled congress 4.7% unemployment June 2006
Obama and the dem controlled congress 9.5% unemployment June 2009


Under Bush the national debt in 2006 was 574.3 million with 9-11,
3 disasters and two wars.

Under Obama the national debt in 2009 with no disasters, no 9-11 and we are now 11 trillion and growing every day with massive over spending with no end in sight.

So lets recap the debt-

Bush and the rep controlled congress 574 billion
Obama and the dems controlled congress 11 trillion+


Foreclosures-

Bush and the Rep controlled congress - 1.2 million foreclosures in 2006 for the entire year.

Obama and the Dem controlled congress 1.0 million so far this year and that is only 6 months time.

So lets recap-

Bush and the Rep congress had 1.2 million foreclosure filings for the entire year of 2006

Obama and the Dem controlled congress have hit 1 million foreclosures already and that was from Jan to June. Predictions are it will hit 2 million plus.

Bankruptcies-
Bush and the Rep controlled congress for the entire year of 2006 was
1,074,225

Obama and the Dem controlled congress so far in 2009 and it is only June has already hit 1, 202,503 filings.

So lets recap

Bush for the entire year of 2006 1,074,225

Obama for only 6 months of 2009 already has hit that mark with 1,202,503


Amazing how facts seem to fall into place and show some people who whined and complained just a few short years ago find themselves sticking their foot in their mouths today and facts show they are worse then the same people they complained about just afew years ago.

Facts will show that our current economy and job losses are getting worse by the day and we have spent ourselves into trillion of dollars of debt to stimulate the economy when in FACT it has absolutely done nothing but make things worse.

We had better wake up and real quick before it is to late. Obama told us we need to stimulate the economy and rushed this massive spending through as quick as possible and now the economy is worse and there is no urgency anymore.

Sad to see America falling apart as the facts show above and sad to see that the idea of Hope and Change that these democrats ran on turned out to be nothing but a bunch of false ideas and no real plans.

It's such a crying shame that your precious GOP drove the economy into the ditch by 2007.



Oh, MY! Just look at that trend line!

Who was in charge from 2003 to 2007?

Why are you trying to dishonestly shift the blame?

It's a good thing that reasonable, intelligent adults are now in charge of our country again.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by skoro

Why are you trying to dishonestly shift the blame?

Once a liar, always a liar.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

I'd rather have someone who trips over his words, but has a pair of balls and is a real man..than some panzy who only knows how to bow..I mean bend over and appologize..

I get it!

You like cheerleaders!



Macho, indeed!

[kerrymac]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

How is that logical? You're blaming Obama for the current problems, but then you're also saying that Carter was responsible for Reagan's problems for the first two years he was president?

Logic..yes..I am saying Obumer is screwing up so bad, it will take the next Pres. time to fix Obumers fk-ups.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by saganista

Sonny, you've got nothing to teach and a lot to learn.

Post-39: There was no tech bubble. The dot-com industry was cleaned out in 1997-98 as the brick-and-mortar boys saw the gains that B2B internet applications had brought them and began to leverage that in-house investment into retail operations. The telecom collapse resulted from white-collar crime and accounting cover-ups. Technology kept right on ticking throughout. If Clinton somehow benefitted, why didn't Bush?

Post-40: Reagan's tax cuts resulted in REDUCED federal revenues. This is what always happens as the result of tax cuts. Idiot supply-siders like to pretend that the secondary stimulative effects of a tax cut are enough to overcome the primary effect. It ain't so, and no serious person believes that it is. Federal revenues grew under Reagan after he abandoned the final third of his tax cuts and then enacted tax increases in all of 1983-86.

Post-43: Bush's tax cuts fixed nothing. Because they were targeted to the rich, they produced no new economic gains, only a weak and so-called jobless-recovery based solely on expanding corporate profits. This is why the Fed had to leave interest rates at zero, hoping to promote some activity, but the activity that promoted was demand for MBS's that Wall Street fed and fed and fed, finally dumping us into a credit crisis after paper they knew was bad when they created it started to fail in other people's hands.

Post-46 It is you who is clueless. The banks and auto companies came to the government on the brink of failure. Failure has way significant and undesirable downstream effects. See Lehman Brothers. There was never any intent to "centralize" anything. Just an intent to contain a crisis in the only way that it could be. Health care and energy have been two grwoing national disasters for decades. Efforts to move in different directions are long overdue. ARRA has already put memaningful resources into the economy and the bulk of it is yet to come. The idea that it is "screwed up" is in your head.

Post-49: The government is crafting regulations to keep the financial sector from the sorts of excess that put us where we are today. Too bad the Bushies didn't think to do that. Instead, they were cheerleading for the whole operation. There is a difference between health care and health care financing. For all the "intense economic education" that you think you have had, you are certainly slow to see that difference. Cap & Trade will shift demand from one sector to another. That's the whole point of energy independence. What did the automobile do to the buggy-whip and blacksmith industries? Real job-killers those cars were.

Post-50: The FDR Prolonged the Depression school has all the professional respect and reputation of the palm-reading industry.

Bottom Line: Like the universe of right-wingers, you are far from the mark from the get-go.

Sigh, like all lefties you are the keeper of the facts and any evidence that disagrees with your point of view is loony.

Bush didn't benefit because the tech bubble burst.

CEPR - The Obama Economic Team: Clinton Retreads?

Cut taxes revenues rise, happened under Kennedy, happened under Reagan happened under Bush.

TDP - Tax Cut Revenue Rewards

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates


Failure does have a downside especially when market forces are ignored. The auto companies should have been allowed to fail so their resources could be used more efficiently (speaking of buggy whips) now we are pouring money down a rat hole.

How is forcing healthy companies i.e. Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley to take bailout money an attempt to contain a crisis.?

Anyone who believes healthcare costs will be reduced due to UHC are delusional. The costs do not magically disappear, insuring 46 million extra people will erase any savings realized by taking insurance profits out. Congress realizes it will cost at least $1 trillion .

Yes I know UCLA and Penn are full of loonies. This may help explain our friends anger and sarcasm. http://nrd.nationalreview.com/articl...Q1ODJhMGI3YTI=



Check out the tone of the posters response, again these are the folks we are dealing with present an alternate view and you are crazy or stupid. Any references are the "wrong " references. Note also defense of notions like cap and trade, when presented with real life example of what happened (Spain) the poster can only resort to sarcasm. All he has left. So sad.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

It isn't. I was only providing an answer to movingforward's question.

Oh no, I didnt mean you, MIKEETC! I was quoting your post of 7.6% for whoever I was addressing, hoping it might ring a bell with them if they'd looked at the first couple of pages of the thread. Sorry!

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

I'd rather have someone who trips over his words, but has a pair of balls and is a real man..than some panzy who only knows how to bow..I mean bend over and appologize..

The real world runs differently than the way you'd like it to, but you can print this out and tuck it under your pillow at night if it makes you feel safer

http://images.entertainmentearth.com.../DC10827lg.jpg

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by delusianne

Oh no, I didnt mean you, MIKEETC! I was quoting your post of 7.6% for whoever I was addressing, hoping it might ring a bell with them if they'd looked at the first couple of pages of the thread. Sorry!

Cool...

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

That is an excellent point. Reagan oversaw the highest unemployment rate over the past 26 years more than 2 YEARS into his presidency, and yet he is widely credited with fixing the economy.

And when Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5%. Inflation was 13% when he took office and under 5% when he left. Interest rates were 20+% and under 12% when he left office. THAT is why he is widely credited with fixing the economy.

The fact is Reagan left the elder Bush with a very good economy.