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

[mercury14]

A better version of the post.

Go ahead and quote me where I said the glut in the housing market is Bush's fault. Or admit you're a liar.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Go ahead and quote me where I said the glut in the housing market is Bush's fault. Or admit you're a liar.

First quote me where I said you said it was Bush's fault or stop lying...

 

[mercury14]

First quote me where I said you said it was Bush's fault or stop lying...

You didn't say it. Jen said it and you posted your approval of her comment.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You didn't say it. Jen said it and you posted your approval of her comment.

Read with comprehension and not searching for enemies to bash there Sir Merc-a-lot...

What I did was gently admonish Jen by cleaning up the hateful rhetoric in her post, not approve of it.

Slow down and think about things lest you begin to sound like LT...

Don't be so quick to use the "L" word.

 

[mercury14]

Read with comprehension and not searching for enemies to bash there Sir Merc-a-lot...

What I did was gently admonish Jen by cleaning up the hateful rhetoric in her post, not approve of it.

Slow down and think about things lest you begin to sound like LT...

Don't be so quick to use the "L" word.

My apologies then. I cleaned up Jen's hateful rhetoric by iggying her and it caused me to misinterpret your post. Mostly though Jen has just spammed the same three or four posts for a couple years now and I'm bored to death.

 

[Beco]

And Obama inherited the problem from the previous administration.

That wont stop righties from blaming Obama anyway. Their criticism doesn't have to use logic of course.

We blame Obama because he's got the job. I read this all the time here. Every President inherites. The fact is, the economy is sinking now, stock market included....why? Libya alone is costing billions...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We blame Obama because he's got the job. I read this all the time here. Every President inherites. The fact is, the economy is sinking now, stock market included....why? Libya alone is costing billions...

Yeah and when Booosh was in office you blamed the Congress.

Shit, you nimrods were blaming Obama BEFORE he got the job, because "Industry was anticipating his actions."

 

[Beco]

Yeah and when Booosh was in office you blamed the Congress.

Shit, you nimrods were blaming Obama BEFORE he got the job, because "Industry was anticipating his actions."

He's lived up to everything I thought he'd be....

 

[busybody..]

here is something else NIGGER poromised and delivered!


http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=37789207&posted=1#post37789207

 

[busybody..]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Jz7fA1GTk4E/TfKX3zEWz0I/AAAAAAAADSA/uIYHppthIJM/s400/Cartoon+-+Bush%2527s+Fault.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

We blame Obama because he's got the job. I read this all the time here. Every President inherites. The fact is, the economy is sinking now, stock market included....why? Libya alone is costing billions...

Billions aren't really a lot of money when you're talking about this level of th game. I suspect that even though we don't hear about it the fact that the worlds second biggest economy is still recovering from (and likely adjusting to) a legendary earthquake and nuclear fall out. That has to have put a significant dent in their pie which impacts our pie. We do export, just because we import more than we export doesn't mean we don't export.

 

[busybody..]

Billions aren't really a lot of money when you're talking about this level of th game. I suspect that even though we don't hear about it the fact that the worlds second biggest economy is still recovering from (and likely adjusting to) a legendary earthquake and nuclear fall out. That has to have put a significant dent in their pie which impacts our pie. We do export, just because we import more than we export doesn't mean we don't export.

but we DIDNT cut Bush slack for 9/11 and Katrina, did we?

and yet

his unemployment was ONLY 6% max

 

[busybody..]

Obamanomics on trial: Dick Durbin admits that this is now Barack Obama’s economy

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, appeared on MSNBC and spoke that which has so far been unspeakable for Democrats. He admitted that this is now Barack Obama’s economy and the voters will rightfully hold him accountable for it.

Spoken like a man who doesn’t face reelection until 2014 and won’t have to worry about getting swept away in the coming 2012 landslide.

That gives him two years to make a comeback. And with the Republicans propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Durbin’s probably pretty safe.

 

[koalabear]

He's lived up to everything I thought he'd be....

and more.......

 

[busybody..]

Fantasy land?

NO!


PROTECTING THE NIGGER


‘Fantasy Land’


Earlier today, David Gregory, the moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, called out Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, for spinning the Obama administration’s economic record.

After reading a troubling list of economic facts, Gregory asked Wasserman Schultz why Americans should “trust” Democrats and President Obama on the economy.

Democrats should be trusted, Wasserman Schultz said, since “we were able to, under President Obama’s leadership, turn this economy around.”

“Whoa, whoa,” Gregory chuckled. “Let me just stop you there. Clearly, the economy has not been turned around. You just saw the numbers.”


Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, sitting beside Wasserman Schultz, said that congresswoman was “living in fantasy land

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

My apologies then. I cleaned up Jen's hateful rhetoric by iggying her and it caused me to misinterpret your post. Mostly though Jen has just spammed the same three or four posts for a couple years now and I'm bored to death.

Accepted.

 

[busybody..]

Obamanomics on trial: Dick Durbin admits that this is now Barack Obama’s economy

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, appeared on MSNBC and spoke that which has so far been unspeakable for Democrats. He admitted that this is now Barack Obama’s economy and the voters will rightfully hold him accountable for it.

Spoken like a man who doesn’t face reelection until 2014 and won’t have to worry about getting swept away in the coming 2012 landslide.

That gives him two years to make a comeback. And with the Republicans propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Durbin’s probably pretty safe.

DICK meet bus

BUS meet DICK

How is the view from under the bus, DICK?

 

[Beco]

and more.......

It's "and more" part that has me worried...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Fantastic news for the Obamanomics crew...





Futures indicate that we might climb above that psychologically important 12,000 benchmark as we head into the summer of recovery!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

HOPE! for some "Transformative Change" from Obama!

Six weeks of stock market losses, poor jobs data, high prices in food and energy have the Obama administration casting about for policy methods by which they can get the economy going again.

As I predicted, on June 2nd in Obama's Nuclear Option on Economy, they’ve become so desperate that they are even considering tax cuts on evil corporations.

Since previous methods to gin up the economy are off the table, such as more stimulus spending and another round of monetary easing by the Federal Reserve Bank, the administration has nowhere else to go but cutting taxes.

After axing his top economic advisor last week, word from the White House is that Obama is considering a method of stimulus that would have been an anathema two years ago, but has been long favored by conservatives: cutting corporate payroll taxes.

The advantage in cutting employer-side corporate payroll taxes is that it stops penalizing employers for adding workers, while freeing up money that already resides in the payroll line item on a company’s P&L.

In fact conservatives made a strong case for a payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees in 2009 in lieu of stimulus spending controlled by the government.

"I'd have a payroll tax holiday for a year or two that would put taxes in the hands of everybody who has a job, whether they pay income taxes or not," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News in January of 2009 . "And, of course, businesses pay the payroll tax too, so it would be both a business tax cut and individual tax cut immediately."

But Obama’s political allies on the left quickly shot down the notion:

“A payroll tax holiday does not score well on this front — too little of the benefit goes to lower-income households struggling to make ends meet,” wrote the left-wing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, playing the rich versus poor game, “and too much goes to higher-income taxpayers, who are likely to save a significant fraction of any new resources they receive.”

Instead, Congress voted for an $800 billion targeted stimulus plan that went into the kind of government programs that put our economy in the hotseat to begin with.

...

Frankly, I don’t think even a large comprehensive tax cut, like suspending the payroll tax, will be enough to save an Obama presidency.

Instead, I think a cut will provide a “read my lips” moment, as in “Read my lips: No new tax cuts,” that will alienate Obama supporters and show the rest of America how flawed his administration’s policies have been.

But a tax cut would help his successor create a new American economic boom and go a long way toward fixing some of the structural problems with the U.S. economy.

It will put tax policy front and center of public policy debate.

And when taxes are discussed, conservatives generally win.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/06/13/tax_cut_talk_shows_obama_desperation
__________________
Sideshow Barry Barker 2012 Says: "It's NOT the economy, Stupid!" It's the Birthers! The Tea Party! SARAH PALIN!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What do Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich have in common?

Don’t look now, but many on Obama’s economic team is abandoning ship and heading for the exits. Austan Goolsbee’s, who recently resigned from his post as the White House economic advisor after less than a year, is just the most visible defection. Obama’s economic team is headed for the doors and following the lead of the more senior economic advisors. Christine Roemer, Larry Summers and Peter Orszag were the first to abandon Obama’s economic team as it became painfully obvious that their policies on job creation had failed. These are the same advisors that assured Americans that a huge expansion of entitlements, an historic increase in the size of government, almost doubling of the national debt by $5 trillion, while hobbling small businesses with a new thicket of regulations, would actually result in economic expansion and job growth across the nation.

Not only were these presidential advisors wrong, but disastrously so. Rarely has a group failed so spectacularly. Thus, Americans should not be surprised that many of the lower levels of Obama’s National Economic Council team (Sarah Cannon, Eric Lesser, Bryan Jung, Kyle Watkins, Pascal Noel) are also abandoning the sinking Obama ship. This mass exodus of Team Obama’s economic advisors is a stunning vote of no confidence in the President’s economic policies. Obama needs to consider this: When all of your staff give up, they are telling you that there is something flawed in the current approach that doesn’t work. Personnel is policy.

Mr. Obama’s supporters certainly understand that when key staffers depart en masse, they are essentially fleeing a losing endeavor and are hoping to get out before recriminations for failure have a chance to permanently tarnish personal reputations. No one wants to be part of a losing team, and, before the stench of defeat has a chance to permanently cling, they leave.

Curiously, this is the same argument that Obama’s supporters are using to characterize the recent defections from Newt Gingrich. Yet, when it comes to finding a rationale for why the entire Obama economic team has bolted for the doors, the Administration is essentially telling us that “there is nothing to see here…just move along”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/luri...declares_no_confidence_in_policies/page/full/

Another troubling fact to consider is that many of Obama’s economic team are leaving to join academia. Surely, if these folks believed in the Obama rhetoric, wouldn’t at least one of them go into the private sector? Since these are the folks that worked overtime to convince Americans that their economic policies would help job growth and promote small business development, why isn’t even one of Obama’s departing staff moving out to start up a small business and effectively demonstrate conviction in their ideas with actual deeds?

On the other hand, had Obama fired his economic team—that would have been a good thing. Firings would have shown that Obama realized that their advice had been flawed, that Obama recognized that the country was worse off than when he took office, and that he was trying to do something about it. For example, in 1985, David Stockman didn’t think that cutting taxes would grow the economy. Reagan did, so he fired Stockman, and it turns out Reagan was right. The economy under President Reagan boomed.

But make no mistake, the Obama’s Economic Policy is a shambles and the mass defection of all of his economic policy advisors is sending Americans a clear message of the chaos within the White House. Obama has churned through three different economic advisors in a short period of time and likely will burn through a few more. (During Reagan’s 8 years in office, he had a total of three.)

__________________
Paddy O’Bama Says: Move along! Nothing to see here! I'm always Wright, I'm never wrong!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

When Government Jumps the Shark

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/

Long but excellent read.

Some excerpts:

In my last post, I wrote about “Fanniegate“, the scandalous goings on by well connected Democrats that trashed the nation’s financial system. It was not that Republicans didn’t join the fun or that Republican malefactors of great wealth weren’t abusing the public trust in other ways. The moral and intellectual meltdown of the American elite is a robustly bipartisan affair and there is plenty of mud to throw at all sides.

But Fannie Mae represents a special problem for the Democratic Party and Democratic ideas. It is not just a vitally important institution led by prominent Democratic figures and part of a broader Democratic patronage network; Fannie Mae is one of the original New Deal institutions and the vision it was intended to serve stands at the heart of the concerns of the Democratic Party of the 20th century.

The fall of Fannie Mae is bigger than just another politicos run wild scandal. It stands as one of several signs that our current way of life is reaching its limits and that big changes are on the horizon. The Fanniegate debacle tells us that the progressive ideal is in the process of jumping the shark.

...

Progressivism held out the hope that capitalism, democracy and history itself could all be tamed by competent professional management. Victorian capitalism had been brutal, disruptive, competitive. Society became more unequal even as living standards gradually rose. Democracy was irresistible, but the masses were uneducated. The modern progressive era was born at times of great violence and upheaval. World War One, the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, World War Two, the invention of nuclear weapons and the start of the Cold War: it was against this background that progressives sought to turn modern life into something safe and tame.

I cannot blame four generations of progressive intellectuals for trying to make life a little less brutal and unpredictable, nor should we overlook the successes they had. Nevertheless, the Fonz has left the building; the progressive paradigm today can no longer serve as the basis for sound national policy.

...

In the first stage of a government program, there’s a terrible social problem that has people wringing their hands. Not enough kids are going to college. Middle class families can’t get home mortgages. The river keeps flooding the town. Sick old people who have worked all their lives are eating cat food in the hobo jungle.

The government offers a solution that will fix the problem at a relatively modest cost. It is the hero cutting the heroine loose from the railroad tracks as the train approaches. It is the Lone Ranger riding into town to fix the bad guys. The government program in this early stage is the Great White Hope: once we get it up and running, people believe, life is going to get better.

Often it does, and a well established and functioning government program makes itself very popular in the next phase. Retirees are cashing Social Security checks, and the cost to those still working is very low. More creditworthy families are building homes because federal market makers are enabling banks to lend more; more homes make for more construction jobs. Life is getting better — and as most people count them the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. In this second stage of life, the Great White Hope becomes the Great White Father in Washington, benignly scattering benefits among an adoring population.

...

In the third stage, the law of diminishing returns sets in. The Army Corps of Engineers has built all the really useful flood control dams, but there is a large bureaucracy committed to building more — and there is a large private sector lobby of dam construction firms that want new business. Perversely, as the value of new projects diminishes, the political forces pushing new projects grow stronger. Bureaucrats rewrite the guidelines, cost-benefit analysts start fudging the numbers to make bad projects look good, and the dam lobby pressures Congress to keep that money flowing regardless of those whiners and complainers mewling about environmental problems and other drawbacks.

At this point the program enters the third stage of life: it is now a Great White Elephant. It is a large and expensive program that does less and less good at a higher and higher cost. Fannie Mae stops helping creditworthy borrowers get affordable mortgages through simple and straightforward processes. Federal housing policy becomes increasingly complex as new layers and levels of subsidy and promotion are tacked on. As the incentives become increasingly misaligned, the country begins to over invest in housing; consumers start buying more house than they need because government support makes housing an attractive investment.

...

Little by little, mission creep sets in. A powerful cluster of interests organizes around the government program. The real estate lobby looks for ways to extend Fannie Mae’s guarantees to more people. Programs and subsidies become steadily more complex, less comprehensible. Successive waves of ‘reform’ generally make things worse as the special interests focus with increasing power and skill on warping the programs to meet their needs and goals.

The fourth stage of life comes when the Great White Elephant morphs into a Great White Shark: a man-eating terror of the deep that ruthlessly attacks anyone who gets in its way. At this stage the government program has moved beyond being wasteful and has become unsustainable. Fannie Mae goes from providing mortgages to creditworthy households to providing vast numbers of mortgages to uncreditworthy households, poisoning the financial system with bad loans. Medicare is unsustainable in the medium term and hugely expensive day to day — even as the procedures and regulations of Medicare warp investment decisions across the entire health care system.

...

The problem today is that we are looking not just at one or two government programs that have succumbed to elephantiasis or turned into sharks; the progressive complex of social and economic policy as a whole has reached this point. Today many of our New Deal and Great Society programs are either elephants or sharks. They either lead us to misallocate scarce resources in ineffective ways or they threaten us with ruin by becoming politically untouchable budget busters.

Progressivism itself, and not simply the individual government programs it spawns, is moving through the same cycle of life. The most urgent social problems that progressivism set out to solve have been dealt with. Child labor and lynch mobs are no longer common in the United States. The greatest natural and scenic treasures of the country are protected by the National Park system. Food is much less dangerous, buildings are better built, cars are safer, the air and water is in better shape and the charismatic megafauna (big interesting animals) have been saved from extinction. Many more people have much more access to education today than was true 100 years ago; ditto for lifesaving medical treatment.

...

The fierce commitment of progressive lobbies today to dysfunctional institutions and programs has brought matters to a crisis stage; the progressive legacy is morphing from white elephant to shark. Fierce attacks on anyone seeking to reform dysfunctional institutions combine with unreasoning devotion to unsustainable entitlements. “Progressives” today are too often grimly determined to achieve two incompatible ends: an indefinite expansion of entitlements and benefits on the one hand — and the preservation and even the extension of inefficient organizations and methods on the other. Everyone must have a college education, but the archaic and inefficient organization of universities cannot be touched. Public services must be vastly expanded, but every effort to rein in pensions and benefits for government employees, or to trim the size of the public labor force through greater efficiency, must be fought to the bitter end.

Unfortunately, the process doesn’t stop here. When enough progressive programs have become both unsustainable and untouchable, we move to the final stage. It is bad enough when a government program becomes a shark; it is much, much worse when a social paradigm as a whole jumps past the shark stage. A cluster of unsustainable but untouchable policies and institutions sooner or later reaches the point when it no longer threatens the country with ruin at some indefinite point in the future: imminent ruin stares us direct in the face.

That is part of what happened in Ireland, Greece and Portugal, and what may yet happen in Italy and Spain. Disastrous government policies became more politically entrenched even as they became more unsustainable until quite suddenly, they could not be sustained and the whole system came crashing down.

When that happens, what crashes is not just one program. A whole system, a whole social contract falls apart. And if the crashes in these peripheral European economies shook the EU and the world economy, a full scale meltdown in the United States would likely be a shock as profound as the 1929 meltdown. It wouldn’t just be an economic disaster for the United States; it would likely be a historical disaster leading to crisis, upheaval and war around the world.

That fifth and final stage — which one hopes we will never see — takes the transformation one fateful step farther. No longer just a great white shark, the progressive ideal would become a great destroyer, a mythical figure like the Great White Whale in Moby Dick. To pursue the whale is madness; Captain Ahab, despite warnings and omens, persists on his insane pursuit of the uncatchable ideal, the untameable beast. Disaster and bankruptcy loom on every side; still the captain continues inexorably on his course. In the end, when something cannot go on for ever, it comes to a stop. The whale turns on the ship and smashes it to pieces in the sea.

...

We are approaching the time when the false promises can no longer be sustained. There is a little time left. We have not, I think, quite jumped the shark yet. Reform is still possible, though the great white sharks thrashing around our boat are formidable — and hungry.

We can still act to conserve the essential accomplishments of the progressive era while preparing to move beyond it. But only aggressive and accelerating reform can make that happen. It needs to begin soon. The money is running out.

The political battles to change course and to tame or kill the sharks gone rogue will be tough, but winning that battle is much better than losing it — or out of cowardice failing to fight it. Jaws was a scary movie, but it had a much happier ending than Moby Dick.

The United States must tame and reform the programs and ideas gone rogue that hammer at the sides of our boat. We must impose our will on the fiscal chaos before the chaos works its will upon us.

The American government must not jump the shark.

Walter Russell Mead

 

[busybody..]

NIGGER PROTECTORS wont get this

IN CANADA, a different sort of “unexpectedly” appears: “Canada’s jobless rate unexpectedly declined in May to the lowest since January 2009 as the economy added workers for the seventh time in eight months.” Hmm. What could explain the difference? . .

Germany has lowest unemployment in decades

WHY?

Why not the US?

 

[koalabear]

NIGGER PROTECTORS wont get this

IN CANADA, a different sort of “unexpectedly” appears: “Canada’s jobless rate unexpectedly declined in May to the lowest since January 2009 as the economy added workers for the seventh time in eight months.” Hmm. What could explain the difference? . .

Germany has lowest unemployment in decades

WHY?

Why not the US?

You voted for fundamental change, you are getting it.

 

[mercury14]

Fantastic news for the Obamanomics crew...





Futures indicate that we might climb above that psychologically important 12,000 benchmark as we head into the summer of recovery!

Is 12,000 higher or lower than when you were crying about it being 9,700?