Obama's Budget defeated in the Senate 99-0...Again.....

Dude, if the economy declined even further in the 1stQ2009, and then declined even further in the 2dQ2009, then the "deepest part" of the recession could not have occurred in the 3d or 4th Q of 2008.

 

I love it when your conservatives ridicule statements without having read the thread or having a clue as to what they are lauging about.

It makes them look that much more foolish.

 

The OFHEO. A White House executive agency directly under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a cabinet level department.

 

Dude wheres my Budget?

Specifically the Senate Democrat's Budget.......keep us posted on Bigfoot ok.
.
.
.

 

And there you go with your lies (*)(*)(*)(*) lies and statistics.

2007 2,728,686 last year Republican control of the budget
2008 2,982,544 9% increase first year Democrat control including Senator Obama
2009 3,517,677 18%
2010 3,456,213 -1.8%
2011 3,603,000 4%

Overall 32% increase over final Republican budget in just 4 years. In actual dollars almost a TRILLION dollar increase. Almost double the increase in 4 years over the Republican 6 years.

 

Dude, how many times are you going to ask the same question when I've answered it 2 or 3 times already?

 

I didn't lie at all. Those of us who have a clue know that Obama wasn't president in 2007 or 2008 and only part of 2009.

And your figure for 2011 is wrong.

 

Riiight. It's the minorities' fault.

I particularly like the "unintended consequence of liberal good intentions." That is just REALLY special...

"The following is President George W Bush

More Americans than ever own their own homes, but we must continue to work thorny so that every family has an opportunity to realize the American Dream. In 2002, I announced a purpose to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the run out of the decade. Since then, we have added 2.3 million foreign minority households. My Administration has also set a goal of tallying 7 million new affordable homes to the market inside the next 10 years. In my FY 2006 budget, I proposed a single family housing due credit and two mortgage programs -- the Zero Downpayment mortgage and the Payment Incentives program -- to help more families pull off homeownership. In 2003, I signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, and I have proposed more than $200 million to continue the American Dream Downpayment Initiative to provide downpayment assistance to thousands of American family. By promoting initiatives such as financial literacy, tax incentives for building affordable homes, voucher programs, and Individual Development Accounts, we are strengthening our communities and improving citizens' lives.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by rectitude of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2005 as National Homeownership Month. I call upon upon the people of the United States to observe this month beside appropriate ceremonies and activities recognize the importance of homeownership. "

The BULK of the risky loans that created the financial crisis were NOT UNDER THE CRA.

Why does the right continue to belabor such a ridiculous point?

Was it minority lending that caused the ratings agencies to give out bogus ratings on these toxic mortgage packages?

Again, how do you explain that banks under the CRA performed MUCH better and had MUCH fewer of these toxic loans?

 

You're claiming Bush didn't inherit a slowdown and a recession?

 

Why would you say that?

 

Obama added more to the debt than Bush. Fail

 

What...you mean even his buddies think he is insane? Imagine that!

 

Special, and true.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

Sounds like Bush followed through with the same ideas that Clinton implemented. Home ownership for minorities increased faster in the 1990s than any previous decade. Funny how Bush gets the blame for carrying on with the same ownership goals that his liberal predecessor started? More liberal hypocrisy.

Take a look at the housing graph on the previous page. The rising home prices started around 1998 and continued through 2006. They had remained relatively flat for a long period of time before that. It started with Clinton.

You haven't presented any evidence of this.

 

We are talking about spending, not debt. Fail. You can go back into a coma now.

 

When Clinton was president, we didn't have a historically gigantic bubble in the housing market. Unlike Bush.

 

The chart shows otherwise. All of a sudden, home prices started increasing after remaining flat for a long period of time. The bubble formed under Clinton. Under your logic, Obama deserves all of the blame for the current state of the economy.

 

Clinton was out of office by early 2001.

By that time, there was no bubble and housing prices, though increasing, were within the normal range of fluctuation.

 

Wrong again. A recession is defined as a period of economic downturn. Any reasonable person would agree that an unemployment rate of 11% and dropping, coupled with real private GDP per capita dropping like a rock, amounts to a recession.

I pointed out no such thing. I said a President could put upward pressure on GDP by increasing spending.

Wrong. Many factors go into determining whether or not a recession exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction, a general slowdown in economic activity.[1][2] Macroeconomic indicators such as GDP, employment, investment spending, capacity utilization, household income, business profits, and inflation fall, while bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise.

But what does that have to do with your inaccurate claim that Obama didn't inheret a recession?

 

I have continuously pointed this out to the neo-conservatives on this thread, but it falls on deaf ears.

 

It was so true you deleted the rest of my explanation, and then pretended like I didn't already address your "how so?"?

It was false because the budget submitted by the Republican was a copy of President Obamas... to make a point. Which it did.

 

No, it wasn't normal. By 2001 the housing prices were already higher than at any point in history.

 

Same with 1989. But we didn't have a housing bubble in 1989, did we?

 

So, in other words, a recession is not defined by unemployment. We had rising unemployment throughout 2009 and 2010, yet with our positive GDP, we were not in a recession.

From your link

"In a 1975 New York Times article, economic statistician Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was "two down consecutive quarters of GDP".[3] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten".

So it would make sense that if we were projected at 0.1% loss for the quarter, the Government could make up that loss by spending more and putting us above the line, therefore "spending us out of a recession"

You can't have a recession based on rising unemployment if GDP is positive. Unless you want to argue that we actually weren't out of the recession by June 2009?

 

That would all depend on how you define "recession", now wouldn't it?

I agree that is one method of definining a recession. But it isn't the only one. Pointed out by the quote you yourself cited.

It could do that if it wanted to. But what does that have to do with your inaccurate claim that Obama didn't inheret a recession?

That would all depend on how you define "recession", now wouldn't it?

 

Nah, they were still within a reasonable trend.

But you are right, they were already growing.

Only a completely irresponsible administration at that time would push far greater homeownership and policies to get even more people buying homes and increasing prices.