The Isolated Political Blurt Thread

B5gwEr_IMAAHqCM.jpg
 
I'll second that. They're not the same, and it takes a really big leap in logic (or extremely disingenuous ratings-grabbing by political talk-show types) to connect the two.
 
GDP growth now at 5% per annum pace! Obama is to blame!
 
GDP growth now at 5% per annum pace! Obama is to blame!

Over what interval of time? What is it ytd? What is it now on a rolling 365 day average? What was it 6 years after the Carter Recession?

I can run at a 4 minute mile pace for twenty yards.
 

Public sentiment was already against the "peaceful" protesters a week ago when they stood idly by or participated in calls for cop killing. Those of us that said the violence was coming were ignored, and no one of prominence stepped forward to utter one syllable on the subject.

The "protesters" and those that incited them own the Fergusan riots and these deaths.

Just because you choose to duck responsibility for what was wrought in your movement doesn't mean the cops won't remember your words or your inaction to quell the rhetoric exactly that way.

SeanR had me convinced for a time that the rhetoric was a relief valve. Obviously, not so.

Keep making memes and writing Salon articles and telling yourselves you are not culpable. No cop is listening to a word of your bullshit.
 
Reading Hobsbawm's "Age of Revolutions" , many things are becoming clear. Esp the roots of fascism.
 
Over what interval of time? What is it ytd? What is it now on a rolling 365 day average? What was it 6 years after the Carter Recession?

I can run at a 4 minute mile pace for twenty yards.

Good for you. You can also vomit words at a rate of ten thousand a minute. You want a cookie?
 
Over what interval of time? What is it ytd? What is it now on a rolling 365 day average? What was it 6 years after the Carter Recession?

I can run at a 4 minute mile pace for twenty yards.

Hmmm. I don't recall you asking these questions when it was 2%.
 
Hmmm. I don't recall you asking these questions when it was 2%.

I doubt I would have, because it was less than even that over those intervals, and 2%, even if accepted at its face value, is abysmal during what should be a recovery.
 
So I cant find the raw number on GDP as of 1 jan 14 vs end of quarter.

Last quarter that Rob crowed about was a nice healthy 4.6 % which means it actually grew 1.15% over that quarter only. Bear in mind the previous quarter was a net loss of 2.1% which is more than .5 in real terms for that quarter only. So the number rob crowed about of 4.6% was actually .65% for two quarters or 1.3% for the year average.

Buried in these great (unrevised optimistic numbers) are the revisions for last quarter showing not 4.6% but 3.9% taking our earlier math to 1% for two quarters or 2% annualized growth rate.

If the 5% rate is not revised downwards that brings the year to date growth to 3.25% If we have two quarters of a full 5% growth rate 2014 will end at 4.5%.

So no.

The rate is not 5%.

To hit five percent we would need another 1.75% growth for the fourth quarter or an annualized number of 6% for the 4th quarter which is unlikely.

If I had to hazard a guess for a rolling YTD average it is around 3%.

The end of year figure will be higher than that, but will be revised down and quietly be unreported at around 3-3.5%.

Keep in mind low oil prices will increase profits and make things affordable for consumers but taxes collected will be down, profits in that sector down and GDP contributions for that sector down.

Low oil is a boon to the economy but it will be two quarters before that is felt.

So yes. Thanks, Obama...indeed.
 
The U.S. Commerce Department on Tuesday revised third-quarter GDP growth to 5 percent, the fastest pace in 11 years and up from the previous estimate of 3.9 percent. Analysts had expected a revision to 4.3 percent growth.


Or in a few hundred fewer words.:rolleyes:
 
The U.S. Commerce Department on Tuesday revised third-quarter GDP growth to 5 percent, the fastest pace in 11 years and up from the previous estimate of 3.9 percent. Analysts had expected a revision to 4.3 percent growth.


Or in a few hundred fewer words.:rolleyes:

You do realize that an annualized growth rate for one quarter is not the annual rate of growth or did that get by you?

Is this a new game for you where you pout about my brevity or lack of past expansive explanation, then whine when I take the words required to explain something that you are asking about?
 
Over what interval of time? What is it ytd? What is it now on a rolling 365 day average? What was it 6 years after the Carter Recession?

I can run at a 4 minute mile pace for twenty yards.

NEVAR give this administration ANY credit. NEVAR.
:rolleyes:
 
You do realize that an annualized growth rate for one quarter is not the annual rate of growth or did that get by you?

Is this a new game for you where you pout about my brevity or lack of past expansive explanation, then whine when I take the words required to explain something that you are asking about?

Note I used the phrase pace of growth per annum earlier. And I wasn't asking or needing you to explain anything.
 
You do realize that an annualized growth rate for one quarter is not the annual rate of growth or did that get by you?

Is this a new game for you where you pout about my brevity or lack of past expansive explanation, then whine when I take the words required to explain something that you are asking about?

It's the single best one-quarter of growth in the past 11 years but you cannot be seen giving ANY credit where credit is due because if you do Vetty won't like you anymore.

#WhatMattersMost
 
So I cant find the raw number on GDP as of 1 jan 14 vs end of quarter.

Last quarter that Rob crowed about was a nice healthy 4.6 % which means it actually grew 1.15% over that quarter only. Bear in mind the previous quarter was a net loss of 2.1% which is more than .5 in real terms for that quarter only. So the number rob crowed about of 4.6% was actually .65% for two quarters or 1.3% for the year average.

Buried in these great (unrevised optimistic numbers) are the revisions for last quarter showing not 4.6% but 3.9% taking our earlier math to 1% for two quarters or 2% annualized growth rate.

If the 5% rate is not revised downwards that brings the year to date growth to 3.25% If we have two quarters of a full 5% growth rate 2014 will end at 4.5%.

So no.

The rate is not 5%.

To hit five percent we would need another 1.75% growth for the fourth quarter or an annualized number of 6% for the 4th quarter which is unlikely.

If I had to hazard a guess for a rolling YTD average it is around 3%.

The end of year figure will be higher than that, but will be revised down and quietly be unreported at around 3-3.5%.

Keep in mind low oil prices will increase profits and make things affordable for consumers but taxes collected will be down, profits in that sector down and GDP contributions for that sector down.

Low oil is a boon to the economy but it will be two quarters before that is felt.

So yes. Thanks, Obama...indeed.

  • Consumer spending is up.
  • Investment is up.
  • Imports are down.
Yet still you whine.

I've said this before, but President Obama could personally cure cancer today, and tomorrow you would be lamenting the loss of good high paying oncologist jobs in America that occurred on Obama's watch.
 
Note I used the phrase pace of growth per annum earlier. And I wasn't asking or needing you to explain anything.

So why are you still crowing about a 5% per annum growth rate when I just demonstrated it is 3% for this year?
 
So why are you still crowing about a 5% per annum growth rate when I just demonstrated it is 3% for this year?

Not crowing, just noting that the fastest "pace" in eleven years is a good thing. Even you can grasp that.
 
Public sentiment was already against the "peaceful" protesters a week ago when they stood idly by or participated in calls for cop killing. Those of us that said the violence was coming were ignored, and no one of prominence stepped forward to utter one syllable on the subject.

The "protesters" and those that incited them own the Fergusan riots and these deaths.

Just because you choose to duck responsibility for what was wrought in your movement doesn't mean the cops won't remember your words or your inaction to quell the rhetoric exactly that way.

SeanR had me convinced for a time that the rhetoric was a relief valve. Obviously, not so.

Keep making memes and writing Salon articles and telling yourselves you are not culpable. No cop is listening to a word of your bullshit.

mariah-carey-clapping-gif.gif


More self-centered yap.

I sincerely doubt that anyone "convinces" you of anything. You know everything before everyone else does and your mind is already made up, even if you aren't telling others what you think they don't know. So what's to "convince?"

Just keep staying in your lane where you're comfortable and stay out of ours.

And it's spelled FERGUSON, know-it-all. At least get something right when being the smartest person in the room, eh?

fashion_nod.gif
 
It seems the RWCJ fails at that spelling every time.

How do you fuck up the spelling of a town that's been the center of news worldwide for virtually the last third of the year?

And these schmucks live on the fucking internet, to boot.
 
If there were grants and set aside programs awaiting to give you a hand up based on past injustices that had nothing to do with you or anyone in our immediate family, check your privilege.

If you 'qualified' for cash and prizes based merely on the failure to thrive of yourself or your family of origin, check your privilege.

If there are entire teams of government lawyers with an unlimited budget for legal expenses just waiting for your toll-free call, should anyone unjustly impede your progress, check your privilege.

If you have a built in excuse to blame your personal failures on others, check your privilege.

If you feel privileged to assume privilege of others based strictly on the color of their skin, check your privilege.
 
Back
Top