Thread: Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst

Originally Posted by red states rule

Back to the buck pasing I see

Funny ptif219 blames clinton for passing a law against discriination (and singlehanded starting the bubble) not a peep, reality check that it was in fact deregulating congress "oh passing the buck are we"

Seeing the bubble started early 00's ...

But yes those pesky facts always get in the way of the history rewriting .

Originally Posted by k995

http://www.google.be/search?rlz=1C1C...daq.&safe=high

Have fun.

Have fun? You still have post absolutely squat of Bush blocking out of control F&F.

No opinions k, just facts

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly

Have fun? You still have post absolutely squat of Bush blocking out of control F&F.

No opinions k, just facts

Just click on the financial times link


Oxley hits back at ideologues
By Greg Farrell in New York
In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.
The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.



Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail.


He didnt even want to talk about a reform with his own party.

But of course this is only a republican saying this, we all know they cant be trusted right?

Originally Posted by k995

Just click on the financial times link


Oxley hits back at ideologues
By Greg Farrell in New York
In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.
The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.



Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of
Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail.


He didnt even want to talk about a reform with his own party.

But of course this is only a republican saying this, we all know they cant be trusted right?

What? Did they vote on it or was it block by the dems?

It seems you hinge your entire argument on something that all were not on board for, because the reps proposed the bill, and the dems blocked it.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3914353/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...#axzz1lQC18LvV

Originally Posted by ModerateG

The actual unemployment is ALWAYS higher. But conservatives seem to be comparing the actual unemployment of today to the non-actual unemployment of yesterday.

Agreed. How come no one is going back and "adjusting" Bush's numbers? Apples to apples Tea baggers.

Well over the 500 post limit so this thread is closed. A Part II thread can be created.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator