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

[koalabear]

57 days til fiscal year 2012 starts...

...and still there is no budget.

Budgets tend to limit spending.

 

[eyer]

Budgets tend to limit spending.

And the absence of them - especially when so long overdue - tends to make the market think these bozos still have no idea...

 

[cebalrai]

And the absence of them - especially when so long overdue - tends to make the market think these bozos still have no idea...

What do you think a new budget would do for the markets?

 

[busybody..]

OUCH: Dow Jones plunges 512 points; but don’t worry, President Obama’s birthday parties unaffected.

“Having just had a discussion with a close friend on the Left, I truly believe that Obama and probably all of the Left think that 3.5% GDP growth year on year is some sort of natural phenomenon and that no matter what they do it will happen. They then proceeded to trash the things that make that 3.5% growth happen.”

Once again, the Robert Heinlein quote:


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

It can’t be repeated enough.

 

[busybody..]

In light of Obama’s “Putting Americans back to work” campaign theme and bus tour, it is worth revisiting Obama’s Catch-2012:

The only way for Obama to stimulate the enormous private sector job growth needed to ensure Obama’s reelection is for Obama to announce he is not running for reelection, which would unleash a wave of investment and economic activity not seen since the Great Depression.

By now, a time-tested truth.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What happened to "the Dow isn't a good indicator of the economy?". Turns out it's only a good indicator when it's going down and the Dems are in power, eh?

*watches the righties rejoice when America does poorly*

Why didn't your TV pundits and "papers" prepare you for this?

I have been telling you for two years what was going to happen, not because I hate Obama, but because I have been studying the underpinnings of Liberty since 9-11.

I even predicted the sell-off telling Jen after the last time we crossed over 12K that we were due a 10% correction.

When are you and U_D going to admit that we, the evil rw, were correct?

Who's focusing on the DOW as the indicator, we've been focusing on reality, and it is in times like this that the DOW becomes a lens that focuses reality for those who don't pay attention, or are locked into a purely partisan economic model, one which fails every single time it is tried.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

the only ones that want America to suffer are YOU, UD, and the thugs like you. the rest of us are hard working American's that want people to work

get off your lazy ass, put down that camel & Budweiser and get busy

Remember, I told you we were due for a 10% correction, but I didn't get that information from TV, I got it from a real-life woman who has had great success in her life as an executive, and now financial planner and analyst.



merc never ever intimated that the Liberal economy was anything but upside.

We've been talking about the double-dip for a year and eleven months with U_D demanding each quarter, "SHOW ME THE DOUBLE DIP!"

Even the NY Times thinks we might finally be there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/b...ay-be-returning.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

CNN backs my lady, in perfect hindsight:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011...eed:+rss/magazines_fortune+(Fortune+Magazine)

We don't want AMERICA to do bad, we want the LOOTERS to FAIL so we can regain our LIBERTY!!!

 

[busybody..]

We don't want AMERICA to do bad, we want the LOOTERS to FAIL so we can regain our LIBERTY!!!

Bingo!

SPIT*









































Did I do dat good?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How come that's not what's being said in actual business news? What they are saying is that cuts in government spending around the world are going to hurt demand. Oops, looks like the public sector does create wealth after all...

Actual business news is news you agree with and dominated by the Left and the views they hold; you have been given alternative views and alternative economic web-sites and every time you put on your partisan party hat and denigrate them not as a valid opposition but as rw ideologues...

They don't have on economists; they mainly have on degenerate stock gamblers.

Can I prove it? Yes. Reality keeps intruding and mirroring what your simply dismissed economists keep saying because you don't like their pro-individual, pro-private sector message, and a lot of us think it is because you are terrified of the private sector and the idea that you might have to leave the cocoon...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

When the market plummeted to around 7K I increased the amount I put into my 401k. When all of the dipshits who shall remain nameless D) were dumping stock at a loss I was buying and made a killing on the way back up.

No, name them.

We've been through this cycle before.

You assume that the right is stupid and that we dumped stocks, but none of us did, we even said we were buying.

Do us all a favor, take some time, and reconcile your politics with economics and the reality of what you read when you come here...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

My wife and I cashed out $108k in capital gains last year. Why wasn't Obama "blamed" for that?

Which is why every time I ask if you are in favor of raising the capital gains tax and sharing in the sacrifice, all I get is *crickets*...




You sound EXACTLY like the people Obama is always talking about, people with money they do not need.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Boehner himself stated that Republicans got 98% of what they wanted with this "compromise".

They own it now and wall Street doesn't seem to happy with what they passed.

They would own it had the Democrats not said no to their budget bills, this was a red-herring issue, our problem was not the fake debt-ceiling date and all the lies told with it, but a government indebtedness that now equals 100% of annual GDP.

Wall Street is not happy with Washington DC, and it is still controlled, not by the Tea Party, but by the National Socialist Worker's Party...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

OH! OH!

NIGGER DEFENDERS

DOUGH NUT BOI, MUSLIM LOVER, LAWN JOCKEY et all

Are gonna fucking die

ONE HOPES​

Jay Carney: “The White House doesn’t create jobs”




Alternate headline: “Jay Carney helpfully provides GOP with new campaign slogan.”


Carney listed legislative priorities the president believes will create jobs, including an infrastructure bank, the passage of free trade agreements, and tax cuts. But he would not say what was being done to further those goals while Congress takes a month-long vacation.


“The White House doesn’t create jobs,” Carney said, adding “the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation.”


Asked whether the White House could do more, Carney said “there is no silver bullet” to creating jobs — but he didn’t answer the question.


I don’t remember Gibbs being quite so eager to share credit with Congress when unemployment was ticking ever so slowly downward, which the White House naturally attributed to jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus.


I do remember Obama telling Matt Lauer shortly after the stimulus passed that if he hadn’t turned the economy around in three years, he’d be a one-term president. How come he didn’t tell us at the time that “the White House doesn’t create jobs”? Ah well. Now that it’s all but certain the economy won’t rebound in time to hand O an easy win next year, consider this a sneak preview of their new two-pronged campaign message.

Prong one: Republicans are, if not terrorists, close enough to terrorists that they can’t be trusted to govern. And prong two: Responsibility for our ruined economy is much more complicated than you think, average voter!

What about Michelle's expanded staff and the Czars?
__________________
Barry 2012 Says: ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm sure they didn't get 98% of what they wanted. Maybe 50% tops since the Dems got 0% of what they wanted.

Obama got the only thing he wanted, for it to go away until after the election, which it does, for him, now the focus will be on the Democrats who know all they have to do is continue to say no to everything and the military gets cut, their desired outcome, so they get a little of what they want too...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What do you think a new budget would do for the markets?

Give them some stability and the ability to plan long-term, as we keep posting over and over, for most businesses, the amount of money Nancy, Harry, Barry and the Fed is overshadowed by the 4,000 lines of code now being regulated by Sunstein and Sebelius and the fact that they do not know what their costs are going to be in the future, but to classic historians and economists, this is an old, old story being retold with a 21st century flourish...
__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bingo!

SPIT*



Did I do dat good?

Should I have been a bit more classical and went with plunderers?
__________________
"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]

Futures say, it may not be over, may hit 11K...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

With the Dow climbing near 10,000 again what's happened to all of the dire, end of the world ravings of our resident "conservative" economists?

Where is all of this inflation we were warned about? According to reports the Consumer Price Index is down 1.5% overall from last year. Despite Augusts increase in prices, gasoline is still down 30% from the high a year ago.

Despite the dire warnings of some of Lit's resident math wizards the Chinese are still very much interested in buying US Treasury securities.

I guess the sky isn't falling after all.

If we had ever been here before, we would probably know just what to do; wouldn't you?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You could take this article about activist liberal Scientists,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/enlightened_activist_scientists_dim_society.html ,

and replace it with activist liberal economists and it reads pretty much the same.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Class warriors got what they wished for in the first year of the Obama presidency. Now the 2009 tax return numbers are out, and I can update you on the class wars I wrote about last year.

I wrote then, "Tax figures for 2009 are not yet available. I suspect they will show the same pattern: loss of federal revenue due to loss of income at the higher levels."

Well, now tax figure for 2009 are available, and yes, they do show that same pattern.
All numbers below are based on the latest IRS data, specifically Table 1.1. (Note: Table 1.1 is for all tax returns, not just the taxable ones.) The comparisons are between the years 2007 and 2009, capturing the depth of the Great Recession.

The main reason federal revenues were down was that personal incomes were down. Total adjusted gross incomes (AGI) less deficits declined $1.1 trillion, or 12%. However, due to our progressive income tax, the percentage decline in taxes collected was even greater: 22%.

You see, when you get rid of rich people, like class warriors want, you also get rid of the taxes they used to pay. Of the $250-billion drop in personal income taxes, $175B (70%) was due to declines in incomes over $200K. No rich people, no taxes from rich people.

The chart below shows the total incomes of those making over $200K and over $1M per year from 2006 through 2009. The total income on those making over $1M was cut almost in half from 2007 to 2009.

In the Great Recession, the "rich" suffered the most. (For convenience, I use the term "rich" loosely here, simply meaning higher incomes in a given year, not wealth.) The tables below show how the number of "rich," their incomes, and taxes collected from them all declined. These tables also show that the higher the income group, the greater the decline in income and taxes on that income.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/congratulations_class_warriors.html

Randall Hoven
The American Thinker

Another, we told you so moment...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

While Congress was focused on increasing the debt limit and giving Americans the impression that they were actually working towards reducing our debt (which didn’t happen), President Obama and his administration quietly piled on $9.5 billion worthofregulations to job creators…in just one month!

“While Washington and Americans have been focused on the debt ceiling, the Obama administration has continued to roll our more crushing red tape,” a spokesperson for Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) said.

The new regulatory costs include 229 new rules and the finalization of an additional 379 rules, the majority of which came from (no surprise) the EPA, the new healthcare takeover law, and the Dodd-Frank financial takeover law.

So as President Obama and his liberal allies complained that enough wasn’t being done to stimulate job growth during the debt debate, we find out that they were actually working to make it even harder to create jobs. The President has also indicated – for the Nth time – that he will now “pivot” towards creating jobs.

http://heritageaction.com/2011/08/more-regulation/
http://www.usnews.com/news/washingt...stration-added-95-billion-in-red-tape-in-july

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The U.S. government is not broken; it is dysfunctional. That is, it functions, but in an unhealthy way, a way that needs to be corrected. And that dysfunction was the direct cause of the debt-ceiling "crisis."

Unlike most state governments, the federal government has no mechanism that prevents prolonged deficit spending. Congress and the president can spend more than the government takes in, forever, or at least until no one will lend to the government anymore.

Thomas Jefferson recognized this flaw immediately.

"No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am," he wrote to President Washington in 1792. "This exactly marks the difference between Colonel Hamilton's views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid to-morrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the Legislature."

To Senator, and former House Speaker, Nathaniel Macon, Jefferson wrote in 1821, "There does not exist an engine so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us."

Jefferson thought a perpetual public debt was so injurious to liberty that he theorized a way of preventing one generation from passing a debt on to the next. In a letter to John Eppes in 1813, he wrote, "What is to hinder (the government) from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I answer." Each generation would be limited to accumulating only the debt that it could pay off before it died, he theorized.

"Suppose that a majority, on the first day of the year 1794, had borrowed a sum of money equal to the fee-simple value of the State, and to have consumed it in eating, drinking and making merry in their day; or if you please, quarrelling and fighting with their unoffending neighbors."

If that generation tried to pass that debt to the next generation, "Every one will say no," Jefferson wrote, "… the laws of nature impose no obligation on them to pay this debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this has not yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, and ought to be acted on by honest governments."

Jefferson's theory notwithstanding, this "law" has yet to be acknowledged by our government, much less written into the Constitution or our statutes. With no restraint on the accumulation of long-term debt, Jefferson's worst fears have been realized. Our politicians have figured out that they can benefit themselves by borrowing excessively and passing the bill to the next generation, which is exactly what they have done. The current debt is more than $14 trillion, or nearly $47,000 per U.S. citizen. Jefferson would be appalled.

That "perpetual debt," as Jefferson called it -- not the recent "crisis" caused by taking the debt ceiling seriously -- is our government's real dysfunction, and what must be fixed if we are to reclaim the liberty that comes, as Jefferson knew, from being freed of the "torment" of perpetual indebtedness.

Andrew Cline
The American Spectator

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Watch the celebrations today with 9.1% unemployment; once again, all the indicators are turning positive and employment is that all-important lagging indicator...




We'll probably hit 12K today...






Obama to hit 50% approval by Monday's polls.

 

[RightField]

"War" against incomes

For three years we've had a war waged by the democrats against the Rich. Apparently, according to the statistics that AJ has shown above, the "war" by the democrats has been a success for them, they've significantly reduced the number of "rich" in the US.

What are the ramifications of this?

First, the "war" was not really against the "Rich" who are wealthy like John Kerry (who married into a fortune of about $500 M), it was against people who make incomes over $200k. The people who make $200K are upper middle class who tend to be older, experienced, knowledgeable and enterprising - the "shaker's and movers" who make an economy cook. They are the "strivers"...the ones who want to be rich, but haven't necessarily made it (some have, some haven't).

The democrats have waged war on the "strivers" with predictable results. There are now far fewer of them and the result is far less tax revenue even though tax rates haven't changed and far less economic activity. The democrats "won"...and in doing so they've destroyed the vibrancy of our economy.

To be fair, the democrats thought that their war on the vibrant would lead to greater wealth distribution as if the company leader, investor or other "striver" would somehow hire more employees or pay them more even though market forces (taxes, regulation, legal) were aligned against them. They make this mistake frequently, for example, they think that the government can interfere with regulations and taxes and every other inhibition conceivable and by some miracle, profits will remain the same and the "shakers and movers" would decide to spread the wealth on their own even though market forces don't support that (the philosphy of "why don't we pay teachers $300k/yr each because they're important")...(we just can't afford it and market forces say we can get plenty of teachers who love teaching for appropriate market-based-rates).

The second ramification is that our tax rates are so progressive that the "strivers" who make over $100k pay virtually all the taxes and when the ranks of those that make over $100k and $200k are significantly reduced, the net tax revenue is severely reduced as well. Who is going to pay the taxes now...the Democrats have increased spending by more than $1 Trillion a year over what Bush spent....but now there's less revenue to cover all that new spending...what do the dems suggest next? "Ignore it" seems to be the message I got from them on the debt discussions.

In reality, the situation they've caused is a significant reduction in economi activity and the worst job market we've seen in a generation. This is particularly difficult for young people (who supported Obama en masse) because they can't find jobs.

You reap what you sow. Vote the democrats out, their philosophy is bankrupt and won't ever work.