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

[garbage can]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (GYT'-nur) says many Americans will face hard times for a long time to come.

He says President Barack Obama rescued the United States from a second Great Depression and will keep working to strengthen the economy. But Geithner says will be some time before many people feel like the country is recovering.

Geithner tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that it's a very tough economy. He says that for a lot of people "it's going to feel very hard, harder than anything they've experienced in their lifetime now, for a long time to come."


Its not our fault...and we have saved you from worse. Re-elect us and then we'll really fix it good!

Yes, yes, I really know the problem we have here.

If Bush hadn't fucked up this country sooo bad, the trillion in shovel ready jobs, would have worked.

 

[mercury14]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (GYT'-nur) says many Americans will face hard times for a long time to come.

He says President Barack Obama rescued the United States from a second Great Depression and will keep working to strengthen the economy. But Geithner says will be some time before many people feel like the country is recovering.

Geithner tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that it's a very tough economy. He says that for a lot of people "it's going to feel very hard, harder than anything they've experienced in their lifetime now, for a long time to come."


Its not our fault...and we have saved you from worse. Re-elect us and then we'll really fix it good!

Yeah maybe we should have done nothing. Then you'd just bitch about unemployment being 12%, and how Obama should have done something.

 

[busybody..]

Yeah maybe we should have done nothing. Then you'd just bitch about unemployment being 12%, and how Obama should have done something.

FREAK OF NATURE!

 

[moman75]

Yeah maybe we should have done nothing. Then you'd just bitch about unemployment being 12%, and how Obama should have done something.

What a moronic comment...straight from WH talking points. If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

 

[koalabear]

What a moronic comment...straight from WH talking points. If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

mercmoron is known for those comments.

 

[mercury14]

What a moronic comment...straight from WH talking points. If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

Nope, straight from the Fed (which AJ quoted), Moody's, CBO, Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors. Don't believe what the WH says, go look for independent analysis. I hear the WH saying crap all the time under every administration, but it's not objective since they have an agenda. Therefore you'll never see me quoting them.

You've fallen into the same brain-dead trap the rest of the righties here have: that news sources with an explicitly conservative agenda are somehow not biased towards the conservative agenda. It's just quality, objective news in your mind. Meanwhile, sources with no agenda (ie professional analysis firms) is somehow under the control of liberals and cannot be trusted. Even when their chief analyst is a Republican who served as McCain's chief economic advisor for years.

Meanwhile, you find it within your miserably hypocritical self to give a pass to any righties who parrot right-wing talking points taken straight from Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the NRO, etc - often verbatim. Those people somehow aren't guilty of commenting straight from partisan talking points, are they?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Yeah maybe we should have done nothing. Then you'd just bitch about unemployment being 12%, and how Obama should have done something.

The numbers suck, and whatever the administration is doing is not working. Did it avert a worse crisis? Possibly. Is it creating growth? Nope.

Let's give him an A on aversion and and F on growth creation, and all agree that a C is a crappy grade on something as important as our domestic economy.

 

[mercury14]

Yes, yes, I really know the problem we have here.

If Bush hadn't fucked up this country sooo bad, the trillion in shovel ready jobs, would have worked.

Hypocrites.

Conservatives whine extensively about how Keynsian economic policy "has never worked and will never work" (Rightfield quote). Then you flip flop to high fucking heaven and talk about how great "shovel-ready" infrastructure spending is for jobs and the economy, which is a major tool in the Keynsian toolbox.

You moan, bitch, and hollar about the evils of Keynsianism, despite 8 years of Bush and the Republican party instituting a wide range of Keynsian policies.

Favoring spending over savings? TARP bailouts? Tax cuts as targeted fixes for a slowing economy? Tax rebates and tax subsidies for specific industries? The stimulus plans Bush and the Republicans gave us? Mailing out those stimulus checks? These are all Keynsian economic policies which conservative Republicans were responsible for.

Then they bitch that Obama uses Keynsian economic policy. Hypocrisy at its finest!

 

[mercury14]

The numbers suck, and whatever the administration is doing is not working. Did it avert a worse crisis? Possibly. Is it creating growth? Nope.

Let's give him an A on aversion and and F on growth creation, and all agree that a C is a crappy grade on something as important as our domestic economy.

I agree largely. The great recession was of a much greater scale and severity that $300 billion in tax cuts + $500b in spending could cancel out. And the housing backlog from the foreclosure crisis means were going to see limited growth until we get through it. And that's going to take at least 2-3 years. It's also something that neither the president nor the Fed can do a whole heck of a lot about.

 

[moman75]

Hypocrites.

Conservatives whine extensively about how Keynsian economic policy "has never worked and will never work" (Rightfield quote). Then you flip flop to high fucking heaven and talk about how great "shovel-ready" infrastructure spending is for jobs and the economy, which is a major tool in the Keynsian toolbox.

You moan, bitch, and hollar about the evils of Keynsianism, despite 8 years of Bush and the Republican party instituting a wide range of Keynsian policies.

Favoring spending over savings? TARP bailouts? Tax cuts as targeted fixes for a slowing economy? Tax rebates and tax subsidies for specific industries? The stimulus plans Bush and the Republicans gave us? Mailing out those stimulus checks? These are all Keynsian economic policies which conservative Republicans were responsible for.

Then they bitch that Obama uses Keynsian economic policy. Hypocrisy at its finest!

How could I forget? Of course schlock like you spew is ALWAYS carefully-considered and based only on well-researched facts pulled from the finest, unimpeachable sources.

Obama and his butt buddies could take a dump on your living room floor, tell you it smelled like air-freshener, and you would repeat it and defend it ad infinitum.

:caning:

 

[mercury14]

How could I forget? Of course schlock like you spew is ALWAYS carefully-considered and based only on well-researched facts pulled from the finest, unimpeachable sources.

Obama and his butt buddies could take a dump on your living room floor, tell you it smelled like air-freshener, and you would repeat it and defend it ad infinitum.

:caning:

You have me confused for someone else. Obama has done plenty of things I highly disapprove of. Like extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, he wussed out of a lot of healthcare reform that would have reduced costs, didn't give enough weight to worst-case-scenario for the great recession, he doesn't (openly) support gay marriage.

Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. My thoughts and opinions are my own. I don't read blogs, ever. I get most of my news from Fox News since I live on an overseas military base and that's what they show.

Go straw man someone else, moron.

 

[busybody..]

You have me confused for someone else. Obama has done plenty of things I highly disapprove of. Like extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, he wussed out of a lot of healthcare reform that would have reduced costs, didn't give enough weight to worst-case-scenario for the great recession, he doesn't (openly) support gay marriage.

Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. My thoughts and opinions are my own. I don't read blogs, ever. I get most of my news from Fox News since I live on an overseas military base and that's what they show.

Go straw man someone else, moron.

utter BULLSHIT

LOSER

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I agree largely. The great recession was of a much greater scale and severity that $300 billion in tax cuts + $500b in spending could cancel out. And the housing backlog from the foreclosure crisis means were going to see limited growth until we get through it. And that's going to take at least 2-3 years. It's also something that neither the president nor the Fed can do a whole heck of a lot about.

I don't understand how the housing backlog affects the unemployment rate. Can you explain it to me?

 

[busybody..]

Nope, straight from the Fed (which AJ quoted), Moody's, CBO, Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors. ?

show me

I'll wait

 

[busybody..]

And the housing backlog from the foreclosure crisis means were going to see limited growth until we get through it. And that's going to take at least 2-3 years. It's also something that neither the president nor the Fed can do a whole heck of a lot about.

you have it backwards, LOON POON

the REASON we have a housing backlog is becuase of HORRID economic conditions exacerbated by NIGGEROMICKS

teh backlog could be cleared up in month

as it was in 1990

 

[busybody..]

Can anyone link this for me

and show me if its true?

Cause I doubt that it is

Especially the more recent writings

cause all ive seen is that it made it worse

Originally Posted by mercury14

Nope, straight from the Fed (which AJ quoted), Moody's, CBO, Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors. ?

 

[busybody..]

I don't understand how the housing backlog affects the unemployment rate. Can you explain it to me?

its an interesting question you axe

the DIFFERENCE between CAN DO

and

CANT DO


If we take teh attitude we CANT DO, we await a recovery in housing to make thing better all around

If we take the attitude of CAN DO, we enact policies that alleviate housing problem and lower unemployment and re-energize economy

 

[busybody..]

Great News: Friday's Anemic Jobs Number Are Likely Bogus


You think the abysmal jobs report Friday was bad? Just wait until the inevitable revision of the meager figure of 18,000 jobs saved (or created, as Team Obama is fond of saying).


The Labor Department officially announced that only 18,000 jobs were created during the month of June compared to May's levels. That's considerably below the 157,000 jobs that payroll-processing firm ADP said on Thursday were added by companies in the private sector.

Our economy is said to need at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with people entering the workforce. So even job growth of 150,000 isn't good enough.

Worse, not only are newcomers trying to find positions, but there are also 7.084 million fewer jobs in this economy than there were at the 2008 peak. So people who'd like to get their careers started are competing against millions of experienced job seekers looking to just get back into the game.

Now for the really bad news: that 18,000 gain announced by the government yesterday isn't real.

For one thing, the number of jobs increased in June only because the Labor Department simultaneously revised downward the number of jobs that existed in this country during May. It's like moving the fences at Citi Field so the Mets players can hit more home runs. It might make Jose Reyes feel better, but it doesn't actually make him more powerful.

Without the fence-moving operation in the May employment report, the June number -- yesterday's number -- would have shown a decline of 26,000 jobs.

Then there's another problem with June's employment report. Included in the 18,000 headline number is a guesstimate that 131,000 jobs were created by newly formed -- and, therefore, invisible -- companies.

If you want to send your resume to one of these companies, don't bother. They probably don't exist, and neither do the jobs the government thinks they are creating. These figments of the imagination of the Labor Department's computers will probably disappear when the numbers are checked early next year.

Look even deeper in the June report and you'll see something else you really don't want to know. The more broadly defined U-6 unemployment rate, which includes people who are underemployed, went from 15.8 percent in May to 16.2 percent in June.

These are workers who want full-time jobs but can't find them. And the U-6 figure doesn't even include people who've given up looking for work because they believe it's hopeless.

Since this entire column is filled with bad news, I may as well give it all to you at once: The job numbers are only going to get worse in the months ahead.

 

[busybody..]

Can anyone link this for me

and show me if its true?

Cause I doubt that it is

Especially the more recent writings

cause all ive seen is that it made it worse

Originally Posted by mercury14

Nope, straight from the Fed (which AJ quoted), Moody's, CBO, Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors. ?

Its OK,

I'll wait

I dont expect CRAZED POON to do so

 

[busybody..]

The difference between CANT DO

Blaming the weather, Greece, Japan and Corp Jets

and

CAN DO........

read

Why we want to have Marco Rubio’s baby: “We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers”

Here’s Florida Republican Marco Rubio speaking Thursday on the floor of the United States Senate. We love what he says and how he says it. We love his suit, his hair, his boyish smile.

Oh, crap. This must be what Chris Matthews means when he says Obama gives him a thrill up his leg.

“We don’t need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again.”

 

[mercury14]

I don't understand how the housing backlog affects the unemployment rate. Can you explain it to me?

Sure. With the housing market being abysmal new homes aren't being constructed. Not only that but existing home sales are extremely low as well, value is rock-bottom, and supply is overwhelmingly huge. Banks own so many foreclosed homes right now that they're not even putting some of their inventory up for sale in order to avoid flooding the market even more than it is.

Home sales are a huge part of the economy. This is because, well, think of everything that gets bought in a home. Materials, labor, furnaces, phones, lawnmowers, blenders, silverware, sofas, counter tops, bookshelves, windows, landscaping, concrete, timber, artwork, paint, basically tons of things in the economy are dependent on the demand created by home sales.

With demand for homes being so low and supply being so high, the myriad of companies that sell stuff that goes into a home have no reason to hire, thus the unemployment rate is impacted.

Also there are a whole lot of people who are still in their homes which lost an incredible amount of value. Foreclosures in the neighborhood as well as low overall demand have crushed home values. So what we're seeing is a ton of families with $150,000 + interest mortgages on their home that's only worth $75,000 now. Then when dad gets laid off at work he cant just sell the family's home and move to the next town to look for work. Not at all easily anyway since it's quite difficult for a family with no income to voluntarily take a huge asset loss after they just lost their income. Normally in a recession this isn't a problem, but the Great Recession is uniquely bad.

This make sense?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Sure. With the housing market being abysmal new homes aren't being constructed. Not only that but existing home sales are extremely low as well, value is rock-bottom, and supply is overwhelmingly huge. Banks own so many foreclosed homes right now that they're not even putting some of their inventory up for sale in order to avoid flooding the market even more than it is.

Home sales are a huge part of the economy. This is because, well, think of everything that gets bought in a home. Materials, labor, furnaces, phones, lawnmowers, blenders, silverware, sofas, counter tops, bookshelves, windows, landscaping, concrete, timber, artwork, paint, basically tons of things in the economy are dependent on the demand created by home sales.

With demand for homes being so low and supply being so high, the myriad of companies that sell stuff that goes into a home have no reason to hire, thus the unemployment rate is impacted.

Also there are a whole lot of people who are still in their homes which lost an incredible amount of value. Foreclosures in the neighborhood as well as low overall demand have crushed home values. So what we're seeing is a ton of families with $150,000 + interest mortgages on their home that's only worth $75,000 now. Then when dad gets laid off at work he cant just sell the family's home and move to the next town to look for work. Not at all easily anyway since it's quite difficult for a family with no income to voluntarily take a huge asset loss after they just lost their income. Normally in a recession this isn't a problem, but the Great Recession is uniquely bad.

This make sense?

It makes exactly no sense. You appear to be saying that the backlog of homes is causing employment difficulties. You do realize that the opposite is true, correct? That if people can't find jobs, they can't buy homes...right?

Yes, building houses puts people to work. But you have supply and demand mixed up, and you greatly overestimate the proportion of the work force that is employed by the housing industry. Further, you're confusing future homes--i.e., those yet to be built--with existing homes yet to be bought.

What propotion of the 9.2% unemployed would you say normally work in fields related to homebuilding?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So when I link sources and attribute quotes as a segment of my argument that means I'm trying to make it look like it's "my own research"? You're making even less sense than usual today. Maybe you want to rephrase this?

You're spinning again - or just plain confused. Your admittedly biased, extraordinarily partisan sources may glean data from the bureau of labor statistics now and again, but they cherry pick. They pull the bits of data that support their argument and then leave the inconvenient data alone, never mentioning it. Compare this to objective analysis from say, Macroeconomic Advisors, whose mission is to provide the business community with accurate data about the larger economy. Macro takes the good and the bad data into consideration in order to paint as accurate of a picture as possible. Your NRO and Thinker seek only to paint a picture that appeals as much as possible to conservatives.

Just look at the business model of your sources. They seek to get as many hits and subscriptions as possible from people like you. Doesn't that make you pause... just a little bit?

No you have right wing blogs.

Correct, the team that comes up with PR material for any administration is something to be wary of.

Look, you prove on a consistent basis that your "research" is driven by the blogosphere, all I have to do is listen to the callers of three or four talk radio shows and I quickly get a hint of what you will be talking about the next day, the best and most recent example of when you mirrored the "The Military is a Socialism" meme...

What is the business model of your sources? Is the NY Times in it to lose subscriptions? Well, okay, maybe they are, but the fact of the matter is, you get your news from somewhere and then you blast everything else as right-wing media trying to make a buck...

If you actually look, at that right-wing media, at the risk of redundancy, in those articles they imbed the links to the government numbers.

And here's some of the things government is telling us:

This weekend Turbo TIMMAH! Giethner, we're going to be hurting for a long time.

The extended unemployment is coming to an end
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/b...ay-the-recovery.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Banks about to post slack results; investors no longer willing to make big bets
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/b...-2nd-quarter-results.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Iraq raising sweet light crude prices (war for oil, lmao)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...siness/latest+(Internal+-+Latest+News+-+Text)

My absolute favorite one of the day, France calls for terrorists to negotiate with Momar...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110710

HOW MUCH ARE WE SPENDING ON THAT ONE.

Over on Drudge we see the black middle class losing the ground it has gained.

Imagine that, what with open borders and a soak the rich mentality..

How could that happen?

But, it's not racist, the white middle-class is losing ground too. One has to wonder how long we can engage in redistribution by government before the Left finally realizes that it's not the rich driving away jobs, it's their good intentions and efforts at social justice that are killing our economy...
__________________
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It makes exactly no sense. You appear to be saying that the backlog of homes is causing employment difficulties. You do realize that the opposite is true, correct? That if people can't find jobs, they can't buy homes...right?

Yes, building houses puts people to work. But you have supply and demand mixed up, and you greatly overestimate the proportion of the work force that is employed by the housing industry. Further, you're confusing future homes--i.e., those yet to be built--with existing homes yet to be bought.

What propotion of the 9.2% unemployed would you say normally work in fields related to homebuilding?

Merc's contention is that demand drives an economy and guess what, as I posted earlier yesterday, the government is demanding through coercion that banks make bad loans on homes...




Again! Look out for good times, a regular roaring 20's!

__________________
What class does not solicit the favors of the state? It would seem as if the principle of life resided in it. Aside from the innumerable horde of its own agents, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, the arts, the theatre, the colonies, and the shipping industry expect everything from it. They want it to clear and irrigate land, to colonize, to teach, and even to amuse. Each begs a bounty, a subsidy, an incentive, and especially the gratuitous gift of certain services, such as education and credit. And why not ask the state for the gratuitous gift of all services? Why not require the state to provide all the citizens with food, drink, clothing, and shelter free of charge?

... under the name of the state the citizens taken collectively are considered as a real being, having its own life, its own wealth, independently of the lives and the wealth of the citizens themselves; and then each addresses this fictitious being, some to obtain from it education, others employment, others credit, others food, etc., etc. Now the state can give nothing to the citizens that it has not first taken from them.
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Yes, yes, I really know the problem we have here.

If Bush hadn't fucked up this country sooo bad, the trillion in shovel ready jobs, would have worked.

__________________
Barry 2012 Says: ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)

Gitmo was not as ready to close as we expected.
”Affordable Health Care” was not as affordable as we expected.

"As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year."
Barack Hussein Obama, January, 2011