What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

in a secret undisclosed location with NIGGER DRIXXXX screaming

Breitbart made WANG WEINER do it

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

U.S. economic growth was a bit slower than initially thought in the first quarter as businesses restocked shelves at a moderate pace and government spending declined sharply.

Gross domestic product increased at a 1.9 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate on Thursday, down from last month's 2.2 percent estimate. The economy grew at a 3.0 percent rate in the fourth quarter.

The report also showed that after-tax corporate profits dropped for the first time in three years.

A modest downward revision to consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, and stronger import growth also accounted for the weaker first-quarter output. Economists polled by Reuters had expected growth would be revised down to a 1.9 percent pace.

Business inventories increased $57.7 billion, instead of $69.5 billion, adding only 0.21 percentage point to GDP growth compared with 0.59 percentage point in the previous estimate.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/05/31/us-1q-gdp-growth-revised-lower/#ixzz1wS4VmKJq



Limping into the next recession?

 

[busybody..]

were WE ever out of it?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

were WE ever out of it?

I'll email Zandi...

 

[busybody..]

U.S. initial jobless claims rise to highest in five weeks, hitting 383,000 last week


I know

Lets talk


SWEATERS

HORSES

ROCKS

HAIRCUTS

egads

I forgot

DOGS

 

[busybody..]

I'll email Zandi...

no need

he posts here

his name is NIGGERPOONZANDI

 

[richard_daily]

From the 1880's on, Germany was a Socialist Welfare state, there was no such thing as a right-wing as you know and hate it other than the monarchists. Hitler was the leader of a Socialist Party and once defeated, this proved highly embarrassing for the remaining cause of Socialism world-wide so they jumped through hoops to prove he wasn't a Socialist, but most of the vehicles they used were specious and fallacious.

He took money from big business!

THEY ALL DO.

It's called protection money. Again, I direct you to his 25 points.

The problem with Socialism is that it is a polity of emotion and altruism and each and every Socialist holds a unique view on what exactly are things such as human rights, equality and fairness and eventually finds that to create a Socialist consensus, that they have to accept some differing precepts that they assume will change once they have taken the power of government. Alas, this state never materializes and as Hayek brilliantly points out, this mechanism of consensus, as power is gathered, leads to a strong man f or having once tasted power, people are terrified of making a decision that might awkwardly put them outside of the consensus until that one guy comes around who not only wants the heat of making the decisions, but desires it above all else.

In short, I know that thread, I know the arguments, and they prove nothing but they make the proto-Socialist feel better about what will happen this time, when his special little niche of Socialist thought finally comes to the fore.

The answer was no; it [that their drug use was currently considered an illegal act by their own 'democratic' government] didn't bother them. It doesn't really bother anyone who accepts mob rule as a desirable form of social organization. The reason is that democrats never regard existing democracy as their preferred political system — they regard it only as a transitory state to a democratic utopia in which the elected leaders will agree totally with their own values and social-political views. Mises has observed that "the critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct." Hence, when people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing "the right people" — by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies. This is what allows an intelligent group of people to espouse mob rule as a desirable principle, even as they simultaneously commit acts that brand them as criminals worthy of imprisonment under the very social system they maintain.
Ben O'Neill
http://mises.org/daily/5879/Worship-of-the-Mob

Here's the problem with your argument, and in general with your logic.

You provide your hypothesis that your argument is true, and then go on to ramble on with the rest of your post, as if your hypothesis is true, without actually providing any evidence to back it up.

I realize that this is the result of home-schooling, so I can't fault you completely, but seriously....

books, not blogs.

 

[busybody..]

The Congressional Budget Office in a new report:


When [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $831 billion.

By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of March 2012. CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. …

On that basis CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2012 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent,

– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points,

– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million,

– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.3 million to 1.9 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

OK, so without the stimulus, there would be anywhere from 200,000 to 1.5 million fewer people employed right now? That means the current cost-per-job created is somewhere between $4.1 million and $540,000.

 

[richard_daily]

The Congressional Budget Office in a new report:


When [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $831 billion.

By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of March 2012. CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. …

On that basis CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2012 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent,

– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points,

– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million,

– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.3 million to 1.9 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

OK, so without the stimulus, there would be anywhere from 200,000 to 1.5 million fewer people employed right now? That means the current cost-per-job created is somewhere between $4.1 million and $540,000.

Here's the problem with your argument, and in general with your logic.

You're an idiot, who no one cares about.

 

[TexasWife25]

Here's the problem with your argument, and in general with your logic.

You're an idiot, who no one cares about.

dont quote please

 

[busybody..]

Im a IDIOT....yup

No juan cares....yup


BUT

Its CBO, not MY argument.....so what YOU really are saying is

I WILL SUPPORT NIGGER NO MATTER WHAT

Its OK, we know, DUMB DAILY

 

[busybody..]

dont quote please

of course he shouldnt, BLOATED BITCH

reality is a shitter

 

[richard_daily]

dont quote please

I enjoy poking it with a sharp stick every now and then...

 

[RobDownSouth]

"She is absolutely right. Measuring the precise movements of the wealthy is difficult without data. It is even harder to measure the reasons for their movements. And that is why we should take all of these studies for what they are–political talking points with very little supporting data."

From Throb's source.

If anything it shows the Middle-Class fleeing, again, by the statistics presented.

Only the very extremely wealthy can survive.

We do see business flight from places like California though. I also note a common trend that when people flee to lower tax states, the claim is that it is, for places in the NE, the 'consensus' that it is mainly because of weather, but it is my understanding that Southern California has pretty good weather so it might also be the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I do note that most of this argument seems to be taking place on blogs, which we know Throb hates when we use as a basis of argument, yet here he is, immersed in "blogisms."



We did witness a flight recently from France to England.

Think it's the weather?

The above post is a classic example of my little bitch AJ attempting to have it both ways. The situational Native American is speakin' with forked tongue once again.

For starters, this is an instant classic...

"She is absolutely right. Measuring the precise movements of the wealthy is difficult without data. It is even harder to measure the reasons for their movements. And that is why we should take all of these studies for what they are–political talking points with very little supporting data."

From Throb's source.

The above is my little bitch AJ actually AGREEING with me about the primary tenet of my post, namely, there is NO objective proof to back up the Vettebirther's specious claim that millionaires are moving out of state to avoid taxation. Note, however, that my little bitch AJ is framing it in a way to make it appear that I'm somehow incorrect.

Now, let's move the goalposts a bit and apply a specious conclusion:

"
If anything it shows the Middle-Class fleeing, again, by the statistics presented.
Only the very extremely wealthy can survive.

Actually, the article I linked to shows nothing of the sort...and my little bitch AJ supplies his own (completely unsupported) conclusion.

Now let's watch my little bitch AJ put words in someone else's mouth:

We do see business flight from places like California though. I also note a common trend that when people flee to lower tax states, the claim is that it is, for places in the NE, the 'consensus' that it is mainly because of weather, but it is my understanding that Southern California has pretty good weather so it might also be the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The author of the piece speculates that weather might have more to do with millionaire emigration than tax policy. My little bitch AJ then claims that since California has good weather, the author's speculation is therefore invalid for the entire United States! DERP!

Notice how my little bitch AJ makes a grandiose claim about California millionaire emigration but fails to provide data to back up his claim? She's hoping you didn't notice!

I do note that most of this argument seems to be taking place on blogs, which we know Throb hates when we use as a basis of argument, yet here he is, immersed in "blogisms."

The blog notes that there is absolutely NO research to back up either Vetteman's OR the Tax Foundation's claims about millionaire emigration, but my little bitch AJ tries to take me and the blog to task for failing to document the research that there is no research in scholarly journals. Huh?

We did witness a flight recently from France to England.

Think it's the weather?

This whole discussion has been about millionaires moving from one state to another state to avoid taxation. My little bitch AJ knows that she has been dealt a losing hand, so she tries to redefine the discussion to country to country migration...and declare victory!

 

[bra_man69]

Sure did stop KO dead in his tracks...




Where's Throb to scream RW LIES!

Where's throb running like a little bitch that he is.

 

[koalabear]

New jobless claims rise for the 4th straight week, sparking concerns about labor market

 

[cheesehead2]

Surprise?

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Obama and his sycophants continue with the fantasy, backed up with "hairy math" (that's fuzzy squared) that an improving economy is before our eyes.

Is the president responsible for the state of the economy?

 

[koalabear]

Obama and his sycophants continue with the fantasy, backed up with "hairy math" (that's fuzzy squared) that an improving economy is before our eyes.

The economy no longer requires jobs, just debt.

 

[TexasWife25]

"Today’s release of the Chicago Federal Reserve National Activity Index (CFNAI) showed improvement for the national economy with the index increasing from last month to stand at 0.11 while the three month moving average also declined to -0.06."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Paper-Economy/2012/0521/Chicago-Fed-US-economy-improving



"And the answer is yeah, things are getting a little better in a lot of places in this country" - Mitt Romney

 

[unregistered]

 

[TexasWife25]

"the Fed's policy-making committee said although oil and gasoline prices have risen lately, it expects the increase to have only a short-term effect on inflation. The committee expects moderate economic growth over coming quarters and consequently anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline gradually" toward normal levels, the Fed said."


http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-03-13/federal-reserve-meeting/53506980/1

 

[unregistered]

 

[TexasWife25]

You need better analytical skills dear. I will leave you with this to play with. There is no greater economic fear for the future than money flowing into 10 year treasuries that pay less than the rate of inflation. Do you understand what that might mean?

Im going to give you a pass and assume you dont know how patronizing that sounds. But if you pat me on the head and tell me to fetch you a cup of coffee I may have to go angry female on you.