Unemployment Falls Only to 8.1%

[War Eagle714 16]

Obama, Biden, and Clinton can claim the plan is working and the economy is on the rebound all they want...at the end of the day, the numbers don't lie and the Democrat-led White House just isn't getting the job done.

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention.

 

The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.

 

The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000.

 

Cash-short governments were a key reason the job market was weaker in June and July than first estimated. Federal, state and local governments cut 39,000 jobs in those months -- above the earlier estimate of 18,000. In previous recoveries, governments have typically added jobs, not shed them.

 

Friday's report was discouraging throughout. Hourly pay fell, manufacturers cut the most jobs in two years and the number of people in the work force dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.

 

Stocks ticked in the first hour of trading, as investors anticipate the Federal Reserve will unveil a new bond-buying program at its meeting next week to try to lift the economy. The goal of the bond purchases would be to lower long-term interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending.

 

"This weak jobs report is going to feed into (the Fed's) argument that the economy is growing at a sub-par pace," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo.

 

The report provided fodder for both presidential candidates. Soon after the report was issued, Republican nominee Mitt Romney pointed to 43 straight months in which unemployment has now exceeded 8 percent.

 

"President Obama just hasn't lived up to his promises, and his policies haven't worked," Romney said in a statement.

 

-FULL STORY

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Don't buy into the hype. There's nothing a Republican-led White House could do any differently to significantly improve those numbers.

 

Edit: Actually, I lied. They could pass another stimulus bill but they haven't shown any indications they're willing to do that after incorrectly claiming Obama's stimulus has done nothing for the economy.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/21561909

 

Sluggish growth since 2009 has fed opposing assessments of the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Conservatives say stimulus does not work, or that Mr Obama’s was badly designed. Most impartial work suggests they are wrong. Daniel Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco inferred the stimulus’s effect through an analysis of state-level employment data. He concluded that stimulus spending created or saved 3.4m jobs, close to the CBO’s estimate (see chart 1).

Edited September 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

LOL at the only thing to do is pass another stimulus. I am sure everyone is going to be all over that.

[War Eagle714 16]

Don't buy into the hype. There's nothing a Republican-led White House could do any differently to significantly improve those numbers.

Don't but into the hype? So it's hype and not facts? People are more or less afraid of Romney because of all the hype being generated by a media dominated by the liberal market. Romney went into the Massachusetts Governorship while the state was in debt and left with a $3-million surplus. He has a private sector business record of saving companies from bankruptcy and he also spear-headed a campaign the clean up the Olympic games, get rid of the corruption, and maximize profits for the host cities.

 

Obama is inexperienced and in 4-years he's done nothing to prove that he is even a sliver of the solution. Romney has a track record efficiency and circling the wagons. So what that he's wealthy; Obama isn't poor either. So Bain Capital outsourced jobs in order to keep a lot of companies afloat; they did manage to save jobs that would've otherwise been gone if nobody stepped in and said businesses were kept in bankruptcy. Mitt has balls, Mitt isn't afraid to make the sacrifices, and he certainly cannot make things any worse. We already know what we get with Obama...a lot of talk and very little show. Obama is the Rex Ryan of the political landscape.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

LOL at the only thing to do is pass another stimulus. I am sure everyone is going to be all over that.

 

You're right, no one is going to be on board with that. My point was that, regarding fiscal policy, there aren't many other options to improve the economy significantly. At least not that I'm aware of.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Ben Bernanke implied in his Jackson Hole speech last week that the Fed will likely induce another round of quantitative easing to foster job growth. If they go through with it, whichever party is elected in November is going to have economy scoreboard for a while.

 

Don't but into the hype? So it's hype and not facts? People are more or less afraid of Romney because of all the hype being generated by a media dominated by the liberal market. Romney went into the Massachusetts Governorship while the state was in debt and left with a $3-million surplus. He has a private sector business record of saving companies from bankruptcy and he also spear-headed a campaign the clean up the Olympic games, get rid of the corruption, and maximize profits for the host cities.

 

Obama is inexperienced and in 4-years he's done nothing to prove that he is even a sliver of the solution. Romney has a track record efficiency and circling the wagons. So what that he's wealthy; Obama isn't poor either. So Bain Capital outsourced jobs in order to keep a lot of companies afloat; they did manage to save jobs that would've otherwise been gone if nobody stepped in and said businesses were kept in bankruptcy. Mitt has balls, Mitt isn't afraid to make the sacrifices, and he certainly cannot make things any worse. We already know what we get with Obama...a lot of talk and very little show. Obama is the Rex Ryan of the political landscape.

 

Did you read my entire post? Or just the first sentence? 'Cause you didn't actually refute anything I said...

 

FWIW, everything Romney and Ryan have proposed economically would deepen the recession. At a time when local and state governments are shedding jobs because they have no income (plus households saving rather than spending), severe cuts to federal spending plus tax cuts would send economic output tumbling and unemployment skyrocketing. This is basic macroeconomics. You can spew this political rhetoric nonsense all you like. It means nothing in the context of their proposed economic policies.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[War Eagle714 16]

Tou're right, no one is going to be on board with that. My point was that, regarding fiscal policy, there aren't many other options to improve the economy significantly.

Henry Ford once announced that he was going to double his employees' wages for no reason other than the fact he believed it was a major corporation's duty to service more than just it's shareholders. His plan was based on the simple principle that once companies' employees are another companies' customers and it doesn't take a genius to realize what spreading the wealth does for the economy. Now by "spreading the wealth", we aren't talking about taking money from the 14% of uber-wealthy Americans and giving it to the poor...we are talking about the private sector simply taking better care of it's employees.

 

Henry Ford's belief that it was his companies' responsibility to protect the financial welfare of his employees is what allowed Ford employees to live middle-class lives rather than poor. As a result, employee turnover was at an all-time low which effectively reduced the costs of new employee recruiting and training.

 

The point I'm making is the Government isn't going to effectively end the recession by increasing the national debt by another trillion or by taxing the small percentage of super rich. It's literally going to take the major corporations of this country to wake the hell up, take responsibility, and become more concerned about employee's well being and less about making more freaking money than a single person can spend in a lifetime anyway. It wasn't outside of the realm to be rich and care about your employee's in Henry Ford's era and it still isn't today. Taxpayers are sick of corporate welfare, as am I, but I do believe somewhat in the trickle-down-effect principle. But if the Government is going to continue to pump money into major corporations, why aren't they setting more precedents? The reason the bailouts have failed was because the Government failed to set standards on how the money was to be spent. The banks padded their pockets and still won't loan out money, which was the whole point of the bailout. Just think about that for a second...the banks were given your tax dollars but won't loan any of it out to you because you don't have a credit score of 750 or above.

 

The corporations of this country need to better protect the welfare of their employees, the banks need to start loaning out money, and the Government needs to seriously take a look at the corrupt system of personal welfare, disability, etc. Instead of the millions of dollars a year spent on conferences for the countless bureaucracies that exist within the United States Government...how about using technology to spread the message? We've all seen how GSA is spending our tax dollars and guess what, they aren't alone.

 

There's solutions but again, it's going to take a President with some brass nuts, not afraid to piss people off and cross up the "good ol boys" in order to make it happen. Obama has catered to too many sides to be this guy.

[War Eagle714 16]

everthing Romney and Ryan have proposed economically would deepen the recession.

Please explain exactly how you've come to this conclusion.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

The point I'm making is the Government isn't going to effectively end the recession by increasing the national debt by another trillion or by taxing the small percentage of super rich. It's literally going to take the major corporations of this country to wake the hell up, take responsibility, and become more concerned about employee's well being and less about making more freaking money than a single person can spend in a lifetime anyway. It wasn't outside of the realm to be rich and care about your employee's in Henry Ford's era and it still isn't today. Taxpayers are sick of corporate welfare, as am I, but I do believe somewhat in the trickle-down-effect principle. But if the Government is going to continue to pump money into major corporations, why aren't they setting more precedents? The reason the bailouts have failed was because the Government failed to set standards on how the money was to be spent. The banks padded their pockets and still won't loan out money, which was the whole point of the bailout. Just think about that for a second...the banks were given your tax dollars but won't loan any of it out to you because you don't have a credit score of 750 or above.

 

You're severely misinformed on the effects of both the bailout and the stimulus. The point of them was to put insolvent banks on solid ground to prevent a total collapse of the economy and to save jobs from continue to plummet at a pace of 750k a month. They also cut taxes to a large number of Americans and propped up state and local governments, of which the latter are forbidden from incurring large amounts of debt.

 

 

The corporations of this country need to better protect the welfare of their employees, the banks need to start loaning out money, and the Government needs to seriously take a look at the corrupt system of personal welfare, disability, etc. Instead of the millions of dollars a year spent on conferences for the countless bureaucracies that exist within the United States Government...how about using technology to spread the message? We've all seen how GSA is spending our tax dollars and guess what, they aren't alone.

 

There's solutions but again, it's going to take a President with some brass nuts, not afraid to piss people off and cross up the "good ol boys" in order to make it happen. Obama has catered to too many sides to be this guy.

 

The difference between Henry Ford's era and this era are the dissolving of unions. Expecting a profit-maximizing firm to give two shits about its employees well-being instead of profit margins is naive.

 

 

Please explain exactly how you've come to this conclusion.

 

Keep reading. I explained why. Or you can click the link I posted above. It's explained in there too.

I get the impression you're not even reading my posts.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[War Eagle714 16]

You're severely misinformed on the effects of both the bailout and the stimulus. The point of them was to put insolvent banks on solid ground to prevent a total collapse of the economy and to save jobs from continue to plummet at a pace of 750k a month. They also cut taxes to a large number of Americans and propped up state and local governments, of which the latter are forbidden from incurring large amounts of debt.

You're severely misinformed on the results of the both the bailout and the stimulus. The Dodd-Frank law did nothing but give the Government even more ammunition in blaming the banks for our economic failures. The losses of the banks went from $10 billion to $50 billion, post bailout, which did nothing but lead to more bailouts and speculation of another mass plan. Congress allowed too many loopholes in bailout and banks were legally permitted to hedge over a trillion in assets. The bailout led to nothing more than short-term stock market gains and it's almost impossible to argue otherwise. I mean, look around...it's been 4 years, does the economy honestly reflect success of Dodd-Frank?

 

Now as for the stimulus...lol, an even bigger failure which is well-documented and a huge pain in the ass for Democrats to create the illusion of otherwise. Obama's stimulus plan cost the country $831 billion that we don't have, on a promise that it would see unemployment back to 6% by the end of his firm term. Well unemployment hasn't dropped below 8% and when you look at the cost-efficiency of Obama's stimulus, you'd be mildly retarded to claim it was worth it. The $831 billion cost of the stimulus and the estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million Americans who claims they wouldn't have found a job if it weren't for Obama's plan...means it cost roughly $693k per job.

 

Our economic recession technically ended in June of 2009 and since then America's growth cycle has been nothing short of pathetic. Obama is at risk of becoming the first president since WWII to not see a real GDP growth of 4% or higher in a first term. Obama's legacy is nothing short of our grandchildren and great grandchildren having to pay off the husky debts left by a President who spent the money and failed to bring the unemployment rate any lower than 8.1%.

 

The difference between Henry Ford's era and this era are the dissolving of unions. Expecting a profit-maximizing firm to give two shits about its employees well-being instead of profit margins is naive.

Yes, it's naive to expect it to happen...which I do not. I was making a point of what it would take to find a solution.

 

Keep reading. I explained why. Or you can click the link I posted above. It's explained in there too.

You're taking information from The Economist, one of the largest economic and socially liberal weekly magazines of the subject. No shit you believe Obama has a great track record and Romney will fail.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

You're severely misinformed on the results of the both the bailout and the stimulus. The Dodd-Frank law did nothing but give the Government even more ammunition in blaming the banks for our economic failures. The losses of the banks went from $10 billion to $50 billion, post bailout, which did nothing but lead to more bailouts and speculation of another mass plan. Congress allowed too many loopholes in bailout and banks were legally permitted to hedge over a trillion in assets. The bailout led to nothing more than short-term stock market gains and it's almost impossible to argue otherwise. I mean, look around...it's been 4 years, does the economy honestly reflect success of Dodd-Frank?

 

Uhhh....Dodd-Frank wasn't part of the bailout or stimulus...the repeal of Glass-Steagall and deregulation of commercial banks and the shadow banking sector are what gave us this huge financial crisis. Dodd-Frank reintroduces a lot of these regulations and begins the regulation of derivatives among other things. It's an attempt to prevent another financial crisis of that magnitude.

 

Now as for the stimulus...lol, an even bigger failure which is well-documented and a huge pain in the ass for Democrats to create the illusion of otherwise. Obama's stimulus plan cost the country $831 billion that we don't have, on a promise that it would see unemployment back to 6% by the end of his firm term. Well unemployment hasn't dropped below 8% and when you look at the cost-efficiency of Obama's stimulus, you'd be mildly retarded to claim it was worth it. The $831 billion cost of the stimulus and the estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million Americans who claims they wouldn't have found a job if it weren't for Obama's plan...means it cost roughly $693k per job.

 

Yeah, you're definitely not reading anything I'm typing. I've posted evidence the stimulus saved over 3M jobs and prevented a total economic collapse. The administration was a little too optimistic, but to say the stimulus has been an illusion after I've posted both textual and graphic evidence suggesting otherwise is blatant ignorance and stupidity.

 

Our economic recession technically ended in June of 2009 and since then America's growth cycle has been nothing short of pathetic. Obama is at risk of becoming the first president since WWII to not see a real GDP growth of 4% or higher in a first term. Obama's legacy is nothing short of our grandchildren and great grandchildren having to pay off the husky debts left by a President who spent the money and failed to bring the unemployment rate any lower than 8.1%.

 

Presidents have far less influence over the economy than you seem to believe.

 

You're taking information from The Economist, one of the largest economic and socially liberal weekly magazines of the subject. No shit you believe Obama has a great track record and Romney will fail.

 

The Economist is socially liberal? lol. good joke. I'm a subscriber and I've read editorials and everything else form both sides of the political aisle.

 

The graphs I posted were from the CBO and Goldman Sachs respectively, by the way. Not The Economist.

 

It's clear you're ignoring facts I'm presenting, so I'm done "debating" with you. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall built of straw man fallacies.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[OSUViking 505]

You're right, no one is going to be on board with that. My point was that, regarding fiscal policy, there aren't many other options to improve the economy significantly. At least not that I'm aware of.

 

If we cut taxes, we might be able to give the middle class the incentive to spend. -HOWEVER-, this might not be the best option because people are conserving their money like the world is going to end.

 

Also, the economic is stagnating mostly because the Republicans are striking down everything. I mean, the Democrats could grow a pair and fight back, but the Republicans really come off as if they are in this solely to make Obama look bad.

 

:Americanpoliticians:

[OSUViking 505]

Phailadelphia: You might as well give up. People, for some reason, have bought into the hype that the bailout and the stimulus failed miserably. A lot of people fail to realize that the bailout saved the banking, insurance, and auto industries. They also don't realize that the stimulus literally staved off another depression.

[War Eagle714 16]

Yeah, you're definitely not reading anything I'm typing. I've posted evidence the stimulus saved over 3M jobs and prevented a total economic collapse. The administration was a little too optimistic, but to say the stimulus has been an illusion after I've posted both textual and graphic evidence suggesting otherwise is blatant ignorance and stupidity.

You're the typical Democratic apologist in that you'll take your charts and bar graphs...and as long as there's a + in there somewhere, you'll claim success. Do you not understand that Obama's failure to produce the number of job he claimed he would, the stimulus was an expensive failure? You want to spend $787 million to bring the unemployment to 6% or below, great but spend $831 billion and barely manage to touch %8...hell no, not worth the cost. Any moron could take over $800 billion and cut 2% out of the unemployment rate so let's not act like Obama did something extraordinary here.

 

Presidents have far less influence over the economy than you seem to believe.

Is this what makes you feel better about keeping Obama in office then?

 

The Economist is socially liberal? lol. good joke. I'm a subscriber and I've read editorials and everything else form both sides of the political aisle.

 

The graphs I posted were from the CBO and Goldman Sachs respectively, by the way. Not The Economist.

Of course they present shit from both sides, hell, even Fox News puts the Liberals on camera b/c it's not much of a debate w/o the other side present to make their argument.

 

The Economist was founded by James Wilson, Liberal politician James Wilson...and the entire basis of the publication is to support the principles of economic liberalism. It supports free trade, global warming, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, central banks, government regulation of health care, free immigration, smoking bans, heavier control laws, progressive taxation...need I go on?

 

It's clear you're ignoring facts I'm presenting, so I'm done "debating" with you. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall built of straw man fallacies.

Again, your facts show that Obama's 4 years and billions of deficit spending took an American economy that was 'horrible' and made it 'a little less horrible'. Pat on the back!

[War Eagle714 16]

Phailadelphia: You might as well give up. People, for some reason, have bought into the hype that the bailout and the stimulus failed miserably. A lot of people fail to realize that the bailout saved the banking, insurance, and auto industries. They also don't realize that the stimulus literally staved off another depression.

The fact you're still toting a Sid Rice-Vikings sig says all I need to know about how you roll

[OSUViking 505]

I'm still "toting" a Sidney Rice signature is because I've been insanely inactive here for... IDK, the past year or two?

 

EDIT: That also wasn't meant to be taken as a jab at you. I can't insult fellow Vikings.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Vikingfan465

[OSUViking 505]

Again, your facts show that Obama's 4 years and billions of deficit spending took an American economy that was 'horrible' and made it 'a little less horrible'. Pat on the back!

 

That's exactly the case. Hell, we probably didn't spend enough with the stimulus. When you're in a recession, it's pretty common to spend a lot to stimulate the economy and get money flowing again. This naturally leads to a massive increase in deficit spending.

 

Also, I'm just going to say this now, but Obama has made a lot of idiotic/dumb ass promises. Holding any politician to their promises is unfair as it implies they are normal like the rest of us.

[OSUViking 505]

No shit you believe Obama has a great track record and Romney will fail.

 

I'm going to take the chance to mention that I myself am not an Obama cock sucker. I acknowledge his faults; however, I agree with his economic policy.

 

Romney, however, mimics the economic policy that brought us to this very situation. I don't see how repeating the same action will get different results this time around.

[War Eagle714 16]

I'm still "toting" a Sidney Rice signature is because I've been insanely inactive here for... IDK, the past year or two?

I was kidding anyways

 

That's exactly the case. Hell, we probably didn't spend enough with the stimulus. When you're in a recession, it's pretty common to spend a lot to stimulate the economy and get money flowing again. This naturally leads to a massive increase in deficit spending.

 

Also, I'm just going to say this now, but Obama has made a lot of idiotic/dumb ass promises. Holding any politician to their promises is unfair as it implies they are normal like the rest of us.

Obama hasn't really lived up to a majority of his promises. Last I checked he had a 57% rate of following through on his 2008 campaign promises but the 43% he hadn't followed through with are the big ticket economic issues.

 

And you're wrong about the deficit spending. Obama agreed that deficit spending needed to end during his 2008 campaign but then he comes into office and outspends any other President in the history of this country, in record time, and while financing 1 less war. There's no secret vault the US owns, that is full of money. People need to stop acting like there's no long term repercussions to spending trillions and trillions into the red.

 

I'm going to take the chance to mention that I myself am not an Obama cock sucker. I acknowledge his faults; however, I agree with his economic policy.

 

Romney, however, mimics the economic policy that brought us to this very situation. I don't see how repeating the same action will get different results this time around.

I would agree that Romney and Obama, in a lot of ways, are the same person but I believe the economic downfall sits better in the hands of a businessman that has Romney's record of turning rags into riches. I already mentioned what Romney did as the Governor of Massachusetts and I want to see him get the same opportunity with the entire country.

 

What good does agreeing with Obama's economic policy if he's already proven to not follow through with it? And if Romney's policies seem to mimic much of Obama's because just about every politician can acknowledge was is wrong and what needs to be done in order the fix. What [should] makes the difference is which candidate is more likely to execute. You know, make shit happen...something Obama hasn't/isn't doing.

[seanbrock 1,684]

First off it's really overstated how much influence the president has over the economy. Second it takes time for the policies to not only take effect but also a lot of the economic boons that presidents are credited for are a result of decisions made in the previous administration and outside economic forces that have nothing to do with politics (see Bill Clinton).

 

imo, if you were to compare our goverment to a corporation, the president is more like the C.O.O than the C.E.O. To me you can make a strong case for the Speaker of the House as the most powerful political figure in the country. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is billed as "Obamacare." Democrats defend it and republican's rip it, but ironically "Obamacare" is a lot closer to "Romneycare." In fact it was designed to be like Romney's health care plan for Mass.

 

Lastly the morons who are arguing about Obama vs. Romney need to be reminded of the Vote or Die epidsode of South Park. Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwhich. Either way we loose.

[War Eagle714 16]

First off it's really overstated how much influence the president has over the economy. Second it takes time for the policies to not only take effect but also a lot of the economic boons that presidents are credited for are a result of decisions made in the previous administration and outside economic forces that have nothing to do with politics (see Bill Clinton).

 

imo, if you were to compare our goverment to a corporation, the president is more like the C.O.O than the C.E.O. To me you can make a strong case for the Speaker of the House as the most powerful political figure in the country. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is billed as "Obamacare." Democrats defend it and republican's rip it, but ironically "Obamacare" is a lot closer to "Romneycare." In fact it was designed to be like Romney's health care plan for Mass.

 

Lastly the morons who are arguing about Obama vs. Romney need to be reminded of the Vote or Die epidsode of South Park. Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwhich. Either way we loose.

Okay, I can see where this is going. Too many of this "the President is just a figure head so who cares" crap going on here. But let me acknowledge that statement and for a second pretend it's true...

 

The Democrats had the White House and control of Congress for 2 years...and they didn't do shit. Does this mean Congress really has no power too?

[seanbrock 1,684]

Okay, I can see where this is going. Too many of this "the President is just a figure head so who cares" crap going on here. But let me acknowledge that statement and for a second pretend it's true...

 

The Democrats had the White House and control of Congress for 2 years...and they didn't do shit. Does this mean Congress really has no power too?

I didn't say the President is just a figure head, but the house has control of the budget. That's a pretty well known fact and if you're so all about Republican's being so much better, then how do you explain how much of a meltdown occurred during the Bush administration? All either of them do is just throw around the same old tired ideas that don't work and only serve corporate interests of the various campaign contributors. Why do we continually settle for the same bullshit?

[War Eagle714 16]

I didn't say the President is just a figure head, but the house has control of the budget. That's a pretty well known fact and if you're so all about Republican's being so much better, then how do you explain how much of a meltdown occurred during the Bush administration? All either of them do is just throw around the same old tired ideas that don't work and only serve corporate interests of the various campaign contributors. Why do we continually settle for the same bullshit?

Well this "meltdown" you speak of is accurately broken down in the following ways:

 

The strain put on the economy during the Bush Administration was obviously financing 2 wars at one time. Now over time these wars suddenly morphed into "a big waste of time" in the eyes of many in the public but I can remember when thousands were stomping on the front gate of the White House and demanding blood be shed in the name of 9/11. We didn't care the costs, somebody was going to pay. My how quick we forget...but even the wars, as taxing as they have been, they aren't to blame for the economic downfall.

 

Back in 1999, Liberals were bragging about how extensions of Affirmative Action signed off by Clinton had led to huge rises in home ownership by Afro and Latino Americans. Meanwhile, economists were pulling out their hair while screaming that Dems were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans which would fail the moment the housing market slowed. Deadbeat borrowers wouldn't be able to get out of their loans by selling their houses and (as predicted) the housing bubble would burst. As I've heard it described once: "The Democrats created an affirmative action time-bomb", and it went off during the Bush years.

 

It was actually in Bush's first term where White House chief economist Gregory Mankiw, (Romney's current chief economist), warned that the Govt's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with masses of loans to unqualified buyers was creating a huge risk for the financial system. Barney Frank (D) denounced Mankiw's theory, claiming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault" by the GOP and went as far as to say: "How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them!"

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars later...the liberal media would have you believe George W. Bush is personally responsible for the collapse of Wall Street. lol The Dems created the banking downfall, not the GOP.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Bush isn't totally responsible, it's been an ongoing process for 30-40 years, but how can you sit there and act like he din't contribute. His secretary of treasury was Hank Paulson for Christ's sake lol.

[War Eagle714 16]

Bush isn't totally responsible, it's been an ongoing process for 30-40 years, but how can you sit there and act like he didn't contribute. His secretary of treasury was Hank Paulson for Christ's sake lol.

Paulson made plenty of miscalculations but I think anybody would, given the situation he inherited. The decision to force Lehman into bankruptcy was made without knowing other major banks were nearly in the same bad position. Do I agree with the bank bailout? I think it was absolutely necessary. Would I have structured it differently? Absolutely.

 

But let's put the horse back in front of the wagon here. Is Paulson the face of an bank bailout if there's was no credit crisis to begin with? It's like blaming the mechanic for screwing up the repair when you could've avoided the situation by not smashing up your car in the first place.