President Obama's Unemployment Figures Are Smoke and Mirrors

I've looked at the various sites displaying this information and I've yet to find a credible source for the numbers other than the conservative sites creating their own information. Can you provide a link to credible numbers, like from the BLS, that support this claim?

Like RF says, you cant tout the figures under Reagan, Dush, Dush, and diss them now, they are figure the same exact way, so they are historically, and comparitively relevant, now, just as they were then.

Yes you really can … the graphs tell a story but around those graphs the bigger story is how things are changing, and just employment-unemployment is not a measure of much of anything, though it has a meaning … what about health care, or the level of employment. You cannot end the discussion with this chart. And by this I do not mean to support the thesis of this anti-Obama article which in addition to other mistakes ignores this chart completely.

My point was, as far as unemployment figures go, they are comparatively relevant, because they have historically been figured the same way, but the figures on the economy reflect them, as well, with slow but steady growth over quite a few months now.

Republicans and Democrats have always spun these numbers to their favor. It's all in the mathematics:

http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html

Yes, Eamon, if you include babies, children, and those on SS, OMG we are at 25% unemployment, lol.

Come on Ron. I know you're smarter than that. Here's another link that explains just one way the numbers are manipulated:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rosy_report_ruse_LsXHVA9epmxGzTBHeOW6WP

I found this comment on one of that guy posts, and looked at quite a few others and they convince me that this guy is right

-
Arthur Landry · Manager at Commonfund
I have read John Crudele since 1987 when the market was at 1700 and our GDP was 1/4 of what it is now. He has never written a positive word about anything. While he is sometimes right, wouldn't you think that at some time the economy may have been good. Bob Grant kicked him off his show as he claimed to have proof of Pres Clinton and cocaine traffic in Mena Ark- after a few times he was banned- Grant said "i kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and it never did so I could not have him on anymore".

The man is obviously a Conservative partisan, with an ax to grind, from several of his comments on several articles I read, and I put no faith in anything he says, and for good reason. Couldn't you just find someone at the RNC that would diss Obama? You might as well have.....

LOL. I knew you'd shoot the messenger on that one. How about Santelli:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000071307

ROTFLMAO. A commenter from his column. Arthur Landry - Manager at Commonfund, is a voice, video, & wireless manager. Basically an IT guy. Here's a link to his Linkedin profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurjlandry

A real financial genius. I hope you're not following his investing advice. He's just a schmuck that reads the NY Post.

Didn't say he was anything else, had no idea who he was, but he does appear to be right, not one good word in numerous articles I looked at, and no I dont follow him at all, but I do know there are more than enough right wingers that will neglect the fact that the economy is improving to try to unseat Obama. Personally, I would rather stick with the guy that is pulling us out of the mess Bush left us in, albeit slower than I would like, not turn it back over to the very people that caused it

Rick Santelli has been a partisan weasel for as long as Ive heard of him, which was before the stimulus Eamon

It really doesn't matter, anyway, the figures have been figured that way since forever, and the economy is showing growth as well, albeit slowly

Santelli's resume speaks for itself, plus his position as on air editor for CNBC, which places him live 12-16 times a day. Yeah, just some little partisan weasel.

Glad you agree, lol. Seriously, he admitted he was a McCain supporter, and he ranted about Obama was going to redistribute his wealth, before he even got his butt planted on Pennsylvania Avenue, he is hardly objective, he is an Obama hater, for good, or no cause, doesn't matter, but he is partisan, and extremely, from rants he has gone on, on the air, let alone off.Give me a freakin break.

Politics aside, his analysis of the markets, and the news affecting it, are reliable. That's why he is on the floor for the main source of immediate financial news daily. Regardless of his political leanings, you can count on his analysis. Actually, he is the first person that coined the term "tea party" in it's modern definition.

Maybe you can, I have to, and I do mean HAVE to, considering his politics, think I cant depend on him, because he has a basic political viewpoint. He can not do any different, he is who he is, and looks at the world from that point of view.

The unemployment numbers from the BLS have been calculated in more or less the same way for as long as I can remember. In every long recession I can remember people talked about the large number of underemployed and stopped looking people who weren't counted in the official figures.

I don't see why the current numbers are Obama's. He had nothing to do with the way the unemployment rate is calculated.

Why has the size of the labor force has been frozen throughout the Presidency of Obama?


After growing THROUGHOUT the history of our country, under Obama it HAS NOT CHANGED!

Instead of growing an average of 1,500,000 per year it has for decades it suddenly FREEZES and grows on 13,000 a year under Obama!!!

In Bush's last term the work force grew by 6,000,000, an average of 1.5 million per year ... to ZERO per year under Obama!!!

Add those 4.5 million not being counted and where are we?

Barack Obama is the first president who has NOT had the total number of people in labor force grow.

Every year millions graduate from college or high school and enter the labor force. That has increased the size of the labor force throughout the history of our country. Under Obama the number of people counted in the labor force has NOT grown at all, but rather stayed the same number.

That tells you that many are NOT being counted since they dropped out of the workforce, were forced into early retirement, or not being counted, etc..

What many in the media has not told the American people:

1) The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.5 MILLION.

2) 2.8 MILLION persons were marginally attached to the labor force. These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.

3) There are also currently 8.2 MILLION people employed part time who WANT full time jobs.


4) *** Not including the millions who have totally dropped off the BLS reports or are not being counted (see my posts above) ***


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

All a numbers game...

Why has the size of the labor force has been frozen throughout the Presidency of Obama?

Maybe, just maybe, mind you, it has something to do with the total collapse of the economy under Dush, you think? You don't come back from an event as all encompassing as that in a year, or two years, but we are coming back, slowly but surely with steady growth...

Ron,

It was Bill Clinton's policies that set us up for the global economic abyss.

I will assume that you know what "Derivatives" are. If not a derivative is a financial instrument "derived" from other financial instruments.


Brooksley Born head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commmission (CFTC) tried to regulate derivatives but Bill Clinton and his Presidents Working Group stomped all over her ... even destroying her career as head of the CFTC for trying to regulate derivatives.

That set the precident that anyone in any government regulatory agency who tried to regulate derivatives would loose their career !!!

Had Bill Clinton listened to Brooksley Born rather than his cronies on Wall Street the entire financial crisis could have been averted.

As we all know it was derivatives, specifically mortgage backed securities (MBS) that caused the financial crisis.


The interviews from the heads of the CFTC, SEC, and Council Of Economic Advisors on the following link explain how Bill Clinton's policies lead to the economic abyss because Clinton REFUSED to regulate derivatives:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Bill Clinton was the "Captain Of The Ship" who allowed weapons of mass destruction to be planted onboard the ship (derivatives, specifically MBS), Bush's fault was continuing following many of the policies set in place by Clinton.

If you are the Captain of the ship when the weapons of mass destruction are planted onboard the ship, and it later blows up while the person who replaced you became Captain of the ship, who is at fault? Answer: Both are at fault.

Derivatives were the weapons of mass destruction that took down many financial institutions and lead to the economic abyss.

First of all, it isn't that simple, the argument was never over whether OTCs should be regulated at all, but whether the CEA (CTFC) should regulate OTCs, or the broader SEC, and it was thought that putting them under the CTFC would only result in the practice moving off shore, to London, in most likelihood, but still being traded, completely outside our influence. Second The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 dealt with the issue in a Republican controlled congress. Clinton did support that original bill, but the same Senator Gramm, of Gramm Leach Blighly fame, that got the cushy Job at Citibank when he retired, soon after, put a hold on the bill,from Wiki -

On September 14, 2000, the SEC and CFTC announced they had agreed on a joint regulation approach for “security futures.” Senior Treasury Department officials hailed the “historic agreement” as eliminating “the major obstacles to forming a consensus bill.” [55] At the same time, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was quoted as insisting that any bill brought to the Senate Floor would need to be expanded to include prohibitions on SEC regulation of the swaps market.[56]

Democratic members of Congress later described a period in late September through early October during which they were excluded from negotiations over reconciling the three committee versions of H.R. 4541, followed by involvement in reaching an acceptable compromise that left some Republicans unhappy with the final version of the bill and some Democrats upset over the “process”, particularly the involvement of Sen. Gramm and House Republican leadership in the negotiations.[57] Despite indications no agreement would be reached, on October 19, 2000, the White House announced its “strong support” for the version of H.R. 4541 scheduled to reach the House Floor that day.[58] The House approved H.R. 4541 in a 377-4 vote.[59]

As so passed by the House, H.R. 4541 contained, in Title I, the language concerning OTC derivatives that became the source for Title I of the CFMA and, in Title II, the language regulating “security futures” that became the source for Title II of the CFMA. Titles III and IV would be added when the CFMA was enacted into law two months later.[60]
[edit] From H.R. 4541 to the CFMA

Senator Phil Gramm

After the House passed H.R. 4541, press reports indicated Sen. Gramm was blocking Senate action based on his continued insistence that the bill be expanded to prevent the SEC from regulating swaps, and the desire to broaden the protections against CFTC regulation for “bank products.”[61] Nevertheless, with Congress adjourned for the 2000 elections, but scheduled to return for a “lame duck” session, Treasury Secretary Summers “urged” Congress to move forward with legislation on OTC derivatives based on the “extraordinary bipartisan consensus this year on these very complex issues.”.[62]

When Congress returned into session for two days in mid-November, the sponsor of H.R. 4541, Representative Thomas Ewing (R-IL), described Senator Gramm as the “one man” blocking Senate passage of H.R. 4541.[63] Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), the sponsor of S. 2697, was reported to be considering forcing H.R. 4541 to the Senate Floor against Senator Gramm’s objections.[64]

After Congress returned into session on December 4, 2000, there were reports Senator Gramm and the Treasury Department were exchanging proposed language to deal with the issues raised by Sen. Gramm, followed by a report those negotiations had reached an impasse.[65] On December 14, however, the Treasury Department announced agreement had been reached the night before and urged Congress to enact into law the agreed upon language.[66]

The “compromise language” was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000, as H.R. 5660.[67] The same language was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 as S. 3283.[68] The Senate and House conference that was called to reconcile differences in H.R. 4577 appropriations adopted the “compromise language” by incorporating H.R. 5660 (the “CFMA”) into H.R. 4577, which was titled “Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001”.[69] The House passed the Conference Report and, therefore, H.R. 4577 in a vote of 292-60.[70] Over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), the Senate passed the Conference Report, and therefore H.R. 4577, by “unanimous consent.”[71] The Chairs and Ranking members of each of the five Congressional Committees that considered H.R. 4541 or S. 2697 supported, or entered into the Congressional Record
statements in support of, the CFMA. The PWG issued letters expressing the unanimous support of each of its four members for the CFMA.[72] H.R. 4577, including H.R. 5660, was signed into law, as CFMA, on December 21, 2000.[73]

So, as we see, Clinton did not oppose regulation per se, he supported the original version, and the resulting watered down bill was sent to him veto proof, and it was Phil Gramm that held the congress and the president hostage on this, till he was sure the law had no teeth. Still, the BA SEC had the authority to regulate firms financial soundness, which could easily have avoided the collapse of firms like Bear Sterns, but they turned their heads, and Bush has to take the responsibility for that, as well as the responsibility for the housing crisis. From Bloomberg -Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt

The fact is Bill Clinton was taking his commands from those on Wall Street who were making billions off of the derivatives market. That is why Bill Clinton and his Presidents Working Group destroyed Brooksley Born former head of the CFTC, rather than regualte derivatives as she said needed to be done.

The reason the SEC or no other regulatory agency tried to do anything about derivatives after Clinton destroyed Ms. Born's career is by doing so Bill Clinton established the precident that anyone in any government agency who tried to regulate derivatives would LOOSE their career should they try to do so.

That is all stated in the interviews (as well as in the videos) with members of the CFTC, SEC, and Council of Economic Advisors on the thread I provided above from the PBS documentary called "The Warning".

I was sincerely hoping you would take the time to read all the interviews as well as watch the video to become knowledgeable on the history of what occured.

In parting while on the topic of derivatives, just thought I would provide the following link and information from the OCC. (The OCC derivatives report is always about a quarter behind.) I do so not to worry people, but rather to educate them on the continued growth of derivatives which is now more than 35% greater than just prior to the economic abyss.

The notional amount of derivatives held by insured U.S. commercial banks from the second quarter of 2011 was $248 trillion. (That is the last data available from the OCC)

In mid-2008, just prior to the economic abyss the notional value of derivatives held by U.S. commercial banks was a mere $182.1 trillion

http://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/derivatives-quarterly-report.html

OK, stay in your comfort zone, facts mean nothing, Gramm wasn't the one that made sure they weren't regulated by anybody, since Clinton and his team didn't agree the same regulatory agency that regulated hog jowls should regulate financial instruments, lol. And they say you cant teach a conservative anything....

Derivatives are not intrinsically worse than other forms of financial gambling, DC, as long as they are based on real value, not pie in the sky inflated beyond reason bad credit risk ones.

I was sincerely hoping you would take the time to read all the interviews as well as watch the video to become knowledgeable on the history of what occurred.

I watched and read most of it, the reason it didn't impress me like it apparently did you was I already knew the whole story, I was around and politically active at the time, kept up with such things, lived through it, and I thought the video was frankly misleading. Phil Gramm is the one that assured NO ONE would regulate, not Bill Clinton, who admittedly had a major disagreement with an appointee that wanted to increase her power base exponentially. Such things happen, but that did not mean Clinton was committed to NO regulation at all, that was what was supposed to come out of the legislative process, but obviously, and for the reasons noted, it did not, and Phil Gramm was justly rewarded for his treachery with a cushy,.... very cushy,.... position at citibank soon after. And as I already said, Bush and his SEC could have easily averted or at least mitigated it, anyway, if he had not told them to take a completely hands off attitude. No SEC doing its job would have let the things they did happen, that much, I'm assuming even you can not deny.

I can tell by your posts to me and others, rather than engaging in a professional dialogue you tend to change what they posted or attempt to insult them to try give yourself credibility. Such as above you tellling me to stay in my "comfort zone". I am very comfortable discussing derivatives, the financial crisis, and regulations.

Personally I am extremely familiar with derivatives, they are covered very well in Level 1, Volume 6 of the CFA curriculum.

I did not say "Gramm wasn't the one that made sure they weren't regulated by anybody" as you posted above, but instead I quite clearly stated Bill Clinton (as well as his Presidents Working Group) were the ones who refused to regulate derivatives when Brooksley Born former head of the CFTC "Warned" Clinton of the dangers of some derivative instruments not being regulated. Thus the name of the PBS Frontline documentary called "The Warning" posted above.

Back to my original post above.


The chart on the link below is the US labor participation rate from 1948 -2011.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/
US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011.svg

You will notice a rapid drop during Obama's presidency.

Why is that important to look at?

Because every year over a million people enter the labor market after graduating from high school, college, etc.. Given the number of new entrants into the labor market the past 3 years which would be in the millions ... the rapid decline shows many people retired, were forced into early retirement, just gave up hoping to find a job, etc..

Obama has had the greatest plunge in decades in the total SIZE of the labor force, so it has made it easier for him to achieve a lower unemployment rate.

Have we really added as many jobs in America as Obama wants everyone to think, or have MILLIONS of people fallen out of the labor force. The chart on the link above answers that question.

Keep in mind while looking at the chart, it DOES include the millions of NEW ENTRANTS into the work force.

Will people ever stop blaming Bush as well as others for Obama's faults?

I come from the corporate world and there is NO ONE employed for long that blames the person they replaced for as many years as Obama has blamed Bush without being fired.

In the corporate world what Obama has done by continuously blaming others for as long as he has is called ... "AN EXCUSE".


A leader leads, while a person who can not get the job done makes excuses.

What Obama and the media are not telling people ...


"Wages are up only 1.9% over the last 12 months. That rate of increase is close to a 70 YEAR LOW."

"According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, there were approximately 147 million employed persons in the United States in mid-2008 versus something in the neighborhood of 140 million today based on the recent data."


7 MILLION people have disappeared from the size of the work force since 2008 according to Federal Reserve reports

What you did do is implied Clinton and his crew opposed all regulation, which they did not, they considered doing it under CTFC to be an approach that would clearly hurt our economy, and result in the practice being off shored out of our influence, entirely. While we all know that due to the economic fiasco Bush left us with, what you note is probably true, it took over a decade to pull ourselves out of the mess Republicans put us in in the great Depression, and things are not going to change overnight in this case, either. Here is what I see, steady improvement from the hole Bush dug, and the idea we should turn the economy back over to the same ideology that dug that hole for us, is not a goo one in my book.

Given that the U.S. needs to create approximately 125,000 jobs on average each month just to keep up with demographic additions (NEW ENTRANTS) to the labor market ...

that is 1.5 million new entrants per year.

The data is from mid-2007 to present. So 6.75 MILLION new entrants have entered the labor market. (4.5 years x 1.5M)


Result, close to 13.75 MILLION people have dropped out of the labor market for whatever reasons since mid-2007 !!!


What the Federal Reserve data shows is Obama has had it VERY EASY to achieve a lower unemployment rate.

And while you would like to frame steady progress from a very deep hole that you dug for us, as failure, the trend is obvious, and getting better

Probably inconvenient, but there it is

23 straight months of private sector job growth and over 3.7 million jobs added. That is frankly amazing considering the depths the economy was in when Obama took office. Spin it any way you want to, that isn't failure, as much as the party of no hoped and dreamed for it, actually plotted to make it a reality. Think where we could be if they had been as concerned that millions had no job, one tenth as much, as they were concerned about putting one man out of a job....

Please do not let Obama deceive you with what he tells you on TV during his "pep rallys".


As I posted below on this page:

Nearly 43 PERCENT of the jobs added during the past six months have been in relatively low paying industries, such as retailing, temporary staffing, leisure, hospitality and home health care" ... as well as couries and messengers.

See link below for quote:

https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/com/
research/economic_indicators/Employment_01062012.pdf

The most recent BLS report was much the same with job gains
in department stores at 19,000, health and personal care stores 7,000. Also, employment in leisure and hospitality increased by
44,000, primarily in food services and drinking places 33,000. As everyone can see, many of the 243,000 jobs reported in yesterdays BLS report were what are historically low paying jobs.

LOL, just for fun, I took a look at the death rate from 2007 to 2011, and the US population figures, and I can tell you where a lot of those people disappeared to out of the labor market, DC.....Figures dont lie, but liars figure....

That is why every statistic shows the middle class is shrinking, because many of the jobs created during Obama's term have been LOW PAYING jobs.

The most recent report I posted from the Federal Reserve show the same results of Obama's presidency ...

"Wages are up only 1.9% over the last 12 months. That rate of increase is close to a 70 YEAR LOW."

Well, isn't that nice, first you offshore all the manufacturing jobs during the Bush years, then you ignore that the service sector is where almost all job growth during the Bush years came from, because of that, and suddenly it is Obama's fault that new jobs are coming from the service sector....pathetic.

Besides, when you look at the breakdown, many jobs in the service sector are not all that low paying, it covers health care, for instance. I think the results are good, many people would be fine with just having a job, and are. Trying to paint a recovery as a failure is going to be an uphill job for you, DC. I dont envy you the task.

"LOL, just for fun, I took a look at the death rate from 2007 to 2011, and the US population figures, and I can tell you where a lot of those people disappeared to out of the labor market, DC.....Figures dont lie, but liars figure.... "


Under your improper assumption you are assuming all deathes were only of people only in the labor force.

To attain a closer estimate you would need to look at the most recent mortality rates by age. As we both know many of the deathes were under the working age or over the median working age. Additionally, many deathes within the population of those whom were of working age were not employed due to long term and intermediate term illnesses.

As a result, you can not attribute the decrease from 147 million to 140 milllion of the number of people in the labor market strictly due to mortality as you did.

That is why every statistic shows the middle class is shrinking, because many of the jobs created during Obama's term have been LOW PAYING jobs.

Well, first of all, many went bankrupt after the housing market crash that Bush caused put their homes hopelessly under water, and many lost their jobs, and many still have not found new ones, and subsist on unemployment and government programs, but yeah the middle class is shrinking, continuing a trend that has existed through the presidency of Bush, as well. Heres a news flash for you, you cant export our manufacturing sector to China, the very base of middle class wealth, and expect the middle class here to thrive.

As a result, you can not attribute the decrease from 147 million to 140 milllion of the number of people in the labor market strictly due to mortality as you did.

And I did not do that, but as you know, or should, you didn't allow for the ones of working age that died, either, because it suits your purpose not to, or to examine any other factor than, Obama did it, lol

Not to mention you have two years of the Bush presidency included, there, and imply Obama's responsibility for them, as well. This is typical, as you folks like to throw Bush's massive 2009 deficit on his back, as well, even though it was a Bush budget.

Who initiated the increase sub-prime lending as a part of their political agenda?

It was Bill Clinton and his appointee to secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros. Both Clinton and Cisneros is the reason sub-prime lending ramped up the way it did because they wanted those who had sub-standard credit to become homeowners too.

Although Bush tried to take credit for the number of American's owning homes during his presidency those were policies of Bill Clinton (as well as Henry Cisneros at HUD), and also what caused so many sub-prime borrowers to buy homes.

A major factor why Henry Cisneros became a Board Director member at Countrywide since they were the kings of sub-prime lending. While there he was the board member responsible for "Financial Compliance & Internal Audit" which he was paid millions for during his time at Countrywide. Coincidentally, Henry Cisneros resigned LESS than 3 days before Countrywide went BELLY-UP.

I will post more later it is the middle of the trading day.

All the best to you.

Got new for you, it is Bush that ramped up sub prime loans, despite the CYA myth, by jacking up the FMs affordable housing goals through his HUD, among other things. The Administration in power sets those goals, and he upped them, not decreased them, which he also could have done if he was really interested in reining in the FMs like he tried to give the impression he wanted to. Here is the start of the housing crisis, and it was Bush pushing the FMs, not them all on their own going out of control. It might also interest you to know that over eighty percent of the loans that caused the housing crisis were made by entities like countrywide, that were under absolutely no federal regulation in that regard. Bush's tax cuts were doing nothing for the economy, as tax cuts never do, by themselves, in a recession, they have to have something else kick the economy in the ass, and for Bush, that was the housing market, and without some sign of a recovery, he had little hope of being re elected.

Want to blame it on CRA?

Heres a little something on the FMs

It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. Robert Gordon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress

While once you start it rolling, you will have no problem finding riders for the greed train, someone has to release the brakes, throttle up the engines, and get the train rolling, and in this case, Cisneros, or no Cisneros, that person was Bush. Cisneros did not have the power to do that, he was out of office, Bush did.

You missed the entire point.

It was a combination of Bill Clinton and Henry Cisneros's policies that initiated the increase in sub-prime lending. You seem to forget that Henry Cisneros was Secretary of HUD which gave him the power to initiaite Clinton's policies within HUD as well as other entities which is partially explained below:


Regulatory Authority over the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC).

Title III of the National Housing Act (Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act) gives the Secretary regulatory authority over FNMA and the Financial Institution Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 conferred the same authority on the Secretary giving authority over the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC).


Once a President of the United States puts policies into place it is often difficult for following administrations to change those policies. Bush's fault was continuing the policies put into place by the Clinton administration.

Once a President of the United States puts policies into place it is often difficult for following administrations to change those policies. Bush's fault was continuing the policies put into place by the Clinton administration.

Nice try, Mr Propaganda, but Bush not only didn't reduce those goals, which he could have easily done, at least marginally, without much blowback, despite your declaring without any justification he could not, he pumped them up. And at the same time he virtually quit enforcing CRA.

As for your declaration of how much money we have lost in wages, since Obama took over, you need to get a grip, and admit whose fault that really is, and that would be the guy that trashed the US economy, George Dush’s. You people are sad, look over here at all the damage, dont look at who caused it,. . . . YOU!

Dude, you do know none of your links lead anywhere but an error message, I hope. Again I will repeat, despite the damage you folks caused, and now seek to put on Obama's back, and despite every obstruction that Republicans in the House and Senate have used to halt any recovery, just to unseat him -

23 straight months of private sector job growth and over 3.7 million jobs added. That is frankly amazing considering the depths the economy was in when Obama took office. Spin it any way you want to, that isn't failure, as much as the party of no hoped and dreamed for it, actually plotted to make it a reality. Think where we could be if they had been as concerned that millions had no job, one tenth as much, as they were concerned about putting one man out of a job....

Sucks to be you, I would imagine, sorry.

Most Americans have friends or relatives who've lost homes or jobs because of Obama's mistaken economic policies.

No, most Americans have friends or relatives that have lost homes or jobs because of Bush's mistaken economic policies, you don't get to blame the guy that cant clean up your mess fast enough for you for the mess, Einstein

How about most Americans have lost homes because Of Clinton and a BiPartisian Congress under him repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. Hmmmm, lets start the blame where blame is due.

Bush went back to Congress, and Barney Frank assured him that things were fine, he saw the writing on the wall, but Congress, said no no things are fine when in fact things weren't fine.

Now Barry Boy is mucking up the economy WORSE
His lies, actions, and attitude are disgusting....but all he can do well is bow to heads of state and blame Bush. Making it appear the words he uttered just after inauguration of the 'Buck Stopping here' just meaningless words, like just about every word that he utters out of his mouth

Or better yet, Americans are STILL losing their homes because THERE ARE NO JOBS!

How about it wasn't Clinton that immediately got a cushy job with Citibank after the Gramm Leach Blighley legislation passed with a VETO PROOF majority in a Republican controlled congress, it was Gramm. Bush went back to congress to cover his ass, twice, on the FMs, and in both cases, Barney Frank had nothing to do with killing the bill, because the first time Bush did, the bill died in Republican committees in the House and Senate, and the second time, after getting all those videos of Franks and others, to play to the rubes, like you, it passed the house, over Franks objections, and conveniently was killed in a Republican controlled committee in the Senate. And all that time, Bush had been cranking up the affordable housing goals of the two FMs through his HUD. You may want to believe those lies, but I know better. Barry boy, despite the party of no House, has improved the economy, and brought down unemployment, but you cant get out of a hole that deep, that quick. A hole that Bush most definitely dug for us....

This was the start of the housing crisis, and it was Bush pushing the FMs because he needed a recovery to get re elected, and the tax cuts were doing nothing.

I don't believe the numbers, because I don't feel they accurately represent the amount of people out of work. How many people not working don't qualify for unemployment. How many people have lost their UI benefits and are still not working.......

I want the government to give me the real statistics.

Perhaps you should look at the GDP, then, but I doubt you were saying the same when there was an R behind the presidents name, With all due respect, Mooch.

Yeah, look at the GDP for 2011 Mooch, a whopping 1.7%. LOL

Steady growth, while not what we would all like, isn't what Dush left us with, and it has been steady, for quite a few months now. We would probably be doing much better if you folks could put a little pressure on your compatriots that are only interested in unseating Obama, not the economy.

Before cheering about yesterday BLS report, American's need to ask themselves the following question ...


"How Well Do Those Jobs Pay?"

"Nearly 43 PERCENT of the jobs added during the past six months have been in relatively low paying industries, such as retailing, temporary staffing, leisure, hospitality and home health care" ... as well as couries and messengers.

See link below for quote:

https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/com/
research/economic_indicators/Employment_01062012.pdf

Yesterdays BLS report was much the same with job gains
in department stores at 19,000, health and personal care stores 7,000. Also, employment in leisure and hospitality increased by
44,000, primarily in food services and drinking places 33,000. As everyone can see, many of the 243,000 jobs reported in yesterdays BLS report were what are historically low paying jobs.

Does not paint a good picture for the long term of our country when the majority of jobs being created are historically low paying jobs. Also, explains the decline of the middle class in recent years.

Of course they were in the service sector, where else are you going to get them, since Bush put out a memo through his department of commerce head explaining the benefits of off shoring, and explaining the best ways to do that. Almost all of the growth since, including during the Bush years, was in the service sector

if it's so good or so much bad, please, help me to get a full-time job just now, in the filed I am good at. if one can do that, I will support that somebody's idea. with no slang and no bad intentions - I am a polite person.

What field is your experience in, Ivan? Where do you live, and are you willing to relocate?

What field is that Ivan?