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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Read the BLS report and judge for yourself.

I think you're confusing Henry (Hank) Paulson (Bush's TreasSec) with John Paulson (hedge fund manager.) Bit of a difference.

Not really when one looks at what actually happened...

But next time, if you want to be really specific, as with the numbers you wish to present as proof of the Obama magic, then please be specific on who you are talking about because even going back and looking at it, it still reads the same to me...

And it's the sitting NY Senator who created the derivative swap and then went right into selling them short knowing they would fail.

Enough egg for everyone's face, but somehow, it's only Bush's fault and Obama and the Democrats "gain."

As for the report,

Why should I read it? I'd be arguing with a class of people who haven't and would still dispute any conclusions I reached as "Republican LIES!"

For the past two years as I've been reading everything I could get my hands on to understand Obama and the New-Left Democrat Party, all the Democrats in the world have been consistently saying the same damned thing, "I don't need to read it, I know what's in it..."

__________________
"The disconnect between what Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it....* reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both. The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false... cloak of moral superiority. The pretense of moral superiority dissolves before all the expedient deceptions used to sell the health-care agenda. "
Robert J. Samuelson
Economist and long-time pundit for the WaPo and Newsweek

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

*laughing* he DID get confused!

Oh well, we're talking about a man who routinely uses the words "fascism" "socialism" "communism" and "Nazism" interchangeably....

Every single one of those "-isms" when stripped of the facade sits upon a basic Marxist "Model-A" economic underpinning...



In uneducated Democratic layspeak, "they all know better than the market."
__________________
It is popular today to blame capitalism for everything that displeases. Indeed, who is still aware of what he would have to forego if there were no "capitalism?" When great dreams do not come true, capitalism is charged immediately. This may be a proper procedure for party politics, but in Scientific discussion, it should be avoided.
Ludwig von Mises
A Critique of Interventionalism (1929)

 

[RobDownSouth]

Thinkin' is HARD!

"why should you read it" indeed, AJ!

Simply wait for American Thinker to come out with their talking points on the matter, and cut and paste!

No muss, no fuss, no sticky residue!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Livin' in a binary world....

Every single one of those "-isms" when stripped of the facade sits upon a basic Marxist "Model-A" economic underpinning...

In uneducated Democratic layspeak, "they all know better than the market."

Classic Rand Paul Libertarian doublespeak.

"The Market is Always Perfect...The Government is Always Evil. In Ron Paul's name we pray, durrrrrrrp!"

Why Libertarianism is Juvenile

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Real men accept the responsibility for what occurs on their watch.

Now, onto the next "BRILLIANT" point that you think you are scoring and has you "premptively jumping up and down in victory" as per the Sun Tzu that you've never read...,

Show us any one single post where I have endorsed one of the Pauls or said one positive thing about one of the Pauls...

And which branch of the Libertarian party are they in?

That's right stupid, they're REPUBLICANS.

Good Gawd, I swear you're on a mission to frighten people so fucking bad as to the nature of the true stupidity of the Democrat collective that they vote Republican...

You have to be a plant, maybe even potted.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=34182222&posted=1#post34182222




Markets matter to SOME people...




They must be the remedial "Austrian" economists.

 

[firespin]

No little Firespun. I was addressing the myth Vetteman was perpetuating that the jobs that were lost are being replaced somehow with "gubmint jobs". In typical fashion, you would much rather decide that I said something completely different then proceed to beat your lovingly constructed straw man to smithereens.

I'll try to restrain myself to using only one or two syllable words when I know you're going to try to interpret my meaning. It may save us both some time.

Nice try, but no.

Most of the stimulus dollars that affected jobs outside the federal government went to states to preserve state and local jobs. Plus of course federal govenment agencies were completely unaffected, and in many cases federal jobs were aded.

"Counter to the predictions put forward a year ago by the Administration, when it claimed that "more than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector," U.S. companies employed 3.9 million fewer workers in January 2010 than they did one year earlier. Public employment bucked the trend, staying constant even as governments contended with sharply reduced tax revenues. While the jobs held by those 22 million public workers helped support many families, the "stimulus" failed to trigger private sector employment growth."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/26/they_dont_call_it_stimulus_no_more_98394.html

Here's a colorful chart for Zumi:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/perry.jpg

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Nice try, but no.

Most of the stimulus dollars that affected jobs outside the federal government went to states to preserve state and local jobs. Plus of course federal govenment agencies were completely unaffected, and in many cases federal jobs were aded.

"Counter to the predictions put forward a year ago by the Administration, when it claimed that "more than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector," U.S. companies employed 3.9 million fewer workers in January 2010 than they did one year earlier. Public employment bucked the trend, staying constant even as governments contended with sharply reduced tax revenues. While the jobs held by those 22 million public workers helped support many families, the "stimulus" failed to trigger private sector employment growth."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/26/they_dont_call_it_stimulus_no_more_98394.html

Here's a colorful chart for Zumi:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/perry.jpg

Continually goalpost moving aren't you Firespun? Who said anything about stimulus funds? I was addressing this mythical statement specifically.

Government ranks are swelling and they are safe, while their employers are left to whither.

When you ran off on a tangent and started building your little man of straw, implying that I dismissed the job losses incurred due to the mismanagement of the economy by our former president and his gang of corporate cronies when I hadn't addressed that subject at all.. It's indisputable fact that the vast majority of jobs created have been in the private sector, not government as Vette would have people believe. When you can't refute fact you started ascribing a position that you could then berate.

You seem to be having an almost Cap'n-esque inability to address topics being discussed without careening off in another direction in search of a point to score.

 

[mercury14]

Nice try, but no.

Most of the stimulus dollars that affected jobs outside the federal government went to states to preserve state and local jobs. Plus of course federal govenment agencies were completely unaffected, and in many cases federal jobs were aded.

"Counter to the predictions put forward a year ago by the Administration, when it claimed that "more than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector," U.S. companies employed 3.9 million fewer workers in January 2010 than they did one year earlier. Public employment bucked the trend, staying constant even as governments contended with sharply reduced tax revenues. While the jobs held by those 22 million public workers helped support many families, the "stimulus" failed to trigger private sector employment growth."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/26/they_dont_call_it_stimulus_no_more_98394.html

Here's a colorful chart for Zumi:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/perry.jpg

Way to try passing off a blog of bullshit partisan spin as fact. That article is a steaming pile of crap that might have been written by Glenn Beck. That chart is especially misleading, as it willfully attempts to confuse the reader in terms of correlation and causation. Just like Beck does.

 

[firespin]

Continually goalpost moving aren't you Firespun? Who said anything about stimulus funds? I was addressing this mythical statement specifically.

When you ran off on a tangent and started building your little man of straw, implying that I dismissed the job losses incurred due to the mismanagement of the economy by our former president and his gang of corporate cronies when I hadn't addressed that subject at all.. It's indisputable fact that the vast majority of jobs created have been in the private sector, not government as Vette would have people believe. When you can't refute fact you started ascribing a position that you could then berate.

You seem to be having an almost Cap'n-esque inability to address topics being discussed without careening off in another direction in search of a point to score.

Wrong twice, fishbreath.

You referred to jobs "saved"...that's a construct that refers to government action, i.e. the stimulus. Without some action, there can be no "saving".

The public sector has not suffered net job losses, the private sector has, over the past two years. The change in the last month is interesting but hardly makes up for the last two years. You can't count gains while ignoring losses and say you are making a true comparison. Well, you could, if you're an idiot. Note that I said "if", I'm feeling generous today.

Way to try passing off a blog of bullshit partisan spin as fact. That article is a steaming pile of crap that might have been written by Glenn Beck. That chart is especially misleading, as it willfully attempts to confuse the reader in terms of correlation and causation. Just like Beck does.

The article was written by "Mr. Bittlingmayer, Mr. Havenner and Mr. Hazlett are economics professors at the University of Kansas, the University of California, Davis, and George Mason University, respectively."

That hardly sounds like something that can be ignored by a person of discerning intellect. But I know you don't operate under that constraint.

 

[koalabear]

10,066.57 down -126.82

 

[IrezumiKiss]

10,066.57 down -126.82

[selective whine]

Those numbers means nothing. What about the jobs? Huh? Huh?

[/selective whine]

 

[ghenjia]

[selective whine]

Those numbers means nothing. What about the jobs? Huh? Huh?

[/selective whine]

leading versus lagging indicator

 

[mercury14]

People like to look at the unemployment rate hanging out at 10% and conclude that the stimulus didn't have an effect. The notion that unemployment might have been 12% (and still dropping) without the stimulus tends not to cross people's minds.

 

[firespin]

People like to look at the unemployment rate hanging out at 10% and conclude that the stimulus didn't have an effect. The notion that unemployment might have been 12% (and still dropping) without the stimulus tends not to cross people's minds.

Well, right, because the stimulus didn't put 3 million people to work, and nobody claims it saved anywhere near that many jobs. (Most of the jobs saved were in state and local government, which had very few layoffs compared to the private sector.)

The stimulus mostly ran up the deficit and took money away from the private sector. Oh, and it paid people not to work, too. Can't forget that.

 

[koalabear]

[selective whine]

Those numbers means nothing. What about the jobs? Huh? Huh?

[/selective whine]

*hands you your lantern* Back out by the drive Crayola Boy.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*hands you your lantern* Back out by the drive Crayola Boy.

*takes his cock out from between Koala's lips*

What drive? I live on the shore in the Hamptons, Marsupial Kid. Has the fragrant taste of my creamy seed given you premature Alzheimer's?

 

[koalabear]

*takes his cock out from between Koala's lips*

What drive? I live on the shore in the Hamptons, Marsupial Kid. Has the fragrant taste of my creamy seed given you premature Alzheimer's?

At the WH, next to Bam.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

At the WH, next to Bam.

That's kinda fucked, sorry to hear that. If I were lucky enough to meet the Prez on a day package tour, I wouldn't lose my marbles like that. Maybe you should've cut out all those corn dogs you et up at the Smithsonian beforehand, huh?

 

[koalabear]

That's kinda fucked, sorry to hear that. If I were lucky enough to meet the Prez on a day package tour, I wouldn't lose my marbles like that. Maybe you should've cut out all those corn dogs you et up at the Smithsonian beforehand, huh?

They had corn dogs!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I told you U_D, this is Obama's new normal...




When your schtick is to "get even" with big business and stick it with reparations, the lowering tide does indeed bring down the yachts.



PS - Food prices are rising, including corn the dogs of socialist economic war on the rich...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.
The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

The tax increase is part of a larger bill that has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day. The key provisions are a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year, and expanded unemployment benefits, including subsidies for health insurance, through the end of the year.

The House could vote on the bill as early as Tuesday. Senate leaders hope to complete work on it before Congress goes on a weeklong break next week.

Lawmakers want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills. At least 6 million gallons of crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig exploded April 20 off the Louisiana coast.

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have said they expect BP to foot the bill for the cleanup.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

The Democrat leadership does not live in the world of reality, they are out to lunch, truly gone fishing and have a rapacious appetite for more money...

Remember what Obama said when oil prices spiked under Bush?

His only concern was they they raised so quickly...

His goal is to "fucking RETARD" our economy!
__________________
When I was asked earlier about, uh, the issue of coal. Uhhh, y'know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket....
We would put a cap-and-trade system in place, eh, that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're gonna be charged a huge sum for all that, uh, greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Barack Hussein Obama
Editorial board meeting, San Francisco Chronicle
January 2008

 

[GrumpyOldGoat]

If taxpayers aren't going to pick up the tab, why is the tax increase needed?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let's not forget that investors are beginning to grasp the scope of the new costs for the health care plan that was practically going to create money out of thin air...

For starters, CBO is not the only game in town. In the executive branch, the chief actuary of the Medicare program is supposed to provide the official health-care cost projections for the administration — at least he always has in the past. His cost estimate for the new health law differs in important ways from the one provided by CBO and calls into question every major contention the administration has advanced about the bill. The president says the legislation will slow the pace of rising costs; the actuary says it won’t. The president says people will get to keep their job-based plans if they want to; the actuary says 14 million people will lose their employer coverage, many of whom would certainly rather keep it than switch into an untested program. The president says the new law will improve the budget outlook; in so many words, the chief actuary says, don’t bet on it.

All of this helps explain why the president of the United States would be so sensitive about the release of the actuary’s official report that he would dispatch political subordinates to undermine it with the media.

...

And that’s before the other gimmicks, double counting, and hidden costs are exposed and removed from the accounting, too.

For instance, this week House and Senate Democratic leaders are rushing to approve a massive, budget-busting, tax-and-spending bill. Among its many provisions is a three-year Medicare “doc fix,” which will effectively undo the scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare physician fees set to go into effect in June. CBO says this version of the “doc fix” would add $65 billion to the budget deficit over ten years. The entire bill would pile another $134 billion onto the national debt over the next decade.

If the Obama administration gets its way, this three-year physician-fee fix will eventually get extended again, and also without offsets. Over a full ten-year period, an unfinanced “doc fix” would add $250 to $400 billion to the budget deficit, depending on design and who is doing the cost projection (CBO or the actuary).

...

And the games don’t end there. CBO’s cost estimate assumes $70 billion in deficit reduction from the so-called “CLASS Act.” This is the new voluntary long-term-care insurance program that hitched a ride on Obamacare because it too created the illusion of deficit reduction. People who sign up for the insurance must pay premiums for at least five years before they are eligible to draw benefits. By definition, then, at start-up and for several years thereafter, there will be a surplus in the program as new entrants pay premiums and very few people draw benefits. That’s the source of the $70 billion “savings.” But the premiums collected in the program’s early years will be needed very soon to pay actual claims. Not only that, but the new insurance program is so poorly designed it too will need a federal bailout. So this is far worse than a benign sleight of hand. The Democrats have created a budgetary monster even as they used misleading estimates to tout their budgetary virtue.

There is much more, of course. CBO’s cost projections don’t reflect the administrative costs required to micromanage the health system from the Department of Health and Human Services. The number of employers looking to dump their workers into subsidized insurance is almost certainly going to be much higher than either CBO or the chief actuary now projects. And the price inflation from the added demand of the newly entitled isn’t factored into any of the official cost projections.

James C. Capretta
NRO

Nothing has changed in the way men govern for thousands of years...
__________________
They become apt to take because they wish to spend and cannot do this easily; for their possessions soon run short. Thus they are forced to provide means from some other source. At the same time, because they care nothing for honor, they take recklessly and from any source.
Aristotle

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

If taxpayers aren't going to pick up the tab, why is the tax increase needed?

Well, aside from the fact that our government is broke and can't pay for the cleanup, they want Euro-priced gas in order to force us out of our cars...

But RON! We're ALL Mennonites NOW!