Listed below are the facts as to the REAL economic reality just prior to the mortagage crisis in late September 2008.

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush’s presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom’s, 37% above Germany’s and 38% more than Japan’s.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg’s, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders. While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany’s), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S….

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area. The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton’s term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party’s criticism of President Bush’s economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The risk with Barack Obama is that he will pursue a “social justice” strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in “old” industries and public services. If so, the pain of this recession is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.

All I’m saying is that Obama didn’t have a chance, due to the mess left to him. And he may be talking out of his ass all the time, however…the American government is one of if not the most corrupt system in the world, and I’m sure his decisions and actions are coming with a lot of pressure…even more then GB had, due to the circumstances, and the pressures of being a black president. If memory serves me correctly didn’t Bush have the lowest approval ratings ever???

Oh yeah…he’s sweet though, he led their economy to a strong position…check other countries of the world, I’m sure economies were lights out everywhere during those years…not just in America…check now…pretty sure economies are the shits everywhere…not just under the Obama led America.

Back to the subject of the housing crisis Big show I have pasted a pretty insightful esay from a fellow blogger named “Blue Collar Muse ” hope you enjoy.

The following quotes are from the New York Times five years ago. Republicans proposed increased oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats fought it.

“The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.” Democrats pushed back. “Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing”.

“These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis”, said Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. “I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Given the above, the following would be great questions for Barack Obama either tonight or in the Economic Issues debate at Belmont University next month.

1.Why did you stand silent in 2005 and vote with the other Democrats to block very financial reforms which would have prevented the current crisis in the financial markets?

2.One of the primary reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that “community organizers” like ACORN, for which Obama worked, spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. These campaigns often were couched in racially inflammatory terms. Does Obama still think that banks should have made these loans?

3.Why did you not favor punishment for the former CEO of the bankrupt Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, a man who personally made $90 million over a few years while cooking the books Enron-style at Fannie Mae? And why did you have Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairman, helping you pick you VP before the pure embarrassment made him resign?

4.How can you blame John McCain and the Republicans for this mess when you yourself supported the easy credit policies and refused the needed reforms for these programs?

5.How can you blame John McCain and the Republicans for this mess when you yourself supported the easy credit policies and refused the needed reforms for these programs?

Zimms…Its like this. Bush was a fuck up and left the world in a mess. The whole recession can pretty much be blamed on the sub prime mortgage crisis, and mortgage backed hedgefunds which all defaulted as people stopped paying. Its much like the situation in Alberta currently. Do you really…really think Ralph Kline was the best premier in world history because he led Alberta to a surplus and carried that surplus through for X amount of years? Or do you think it was the fact that he was in power during a time where the Alberta oil and gas industry began to boom again, and reaped the benefits, and as long as things were going good and people were hearing the words “suplus” instead of “deficeit” he was the best thing going. Now you have a guy in Stelmach, who has came in and is considered the worlds biggest jack ass, and is running a deficeit…He made some poor announcements, but there was also studies done that the Alberta government wasnt maximizing its revenue from the Oil and Gas industry. He implemented the right things and now they are. Just like Bush…the only thing the guy had going for him was his last name, he cheated his way into office, he tried to redeem his daddies lost battles, he racked up enormous amounts of debt…were talking trillions of dollars, and he did leave Obama in a bad spot. You have to remember that Bush was still in office when the sub prime crisis happened. His government allowed the rulings to be in place to hedge mortgage backed securities, and when he left office the world…not only America…the world was in its worst recession since the 1980’s. Almost 30 years. Obama was dealt a tough slate to start with. I dont know what he is doing, but I have heard people arent happy. So be it. We all knew he wasnt going to be the god send people hoped for, and Im sure he is doing what he feels best. He is cleaning up Bush’s mess, and the American econoy has been in the shits for awhile. Like I always say. When our dollar is at or around par(which it went to $1.1014/1 US$ in September or October of 2007…Under Bush) its not our economy that is doing so well as much as the Americans economy shitting the bed. Think about it. Its a direct correlation between the countries, we need them…and when they suck our dollar goes up, meaning they arent going to be buying our exports cause they are too expensive, which drives our dollar back down to below par. Currently we are at like $0.93/$ 1US and its a good spot. Our dollar isnt undervalued or overvalued and they can still afford to buy our exports keeping our economy in a good spot. We have, and always will be one of the most respected countries as far as the banking industry goes for stability. The Americans…not so much. And if youre not sure, check again what caused this recession…sketchy American banking practices, created and allowed to flourish under George Bush.

George Bush is a fucking idiot….