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

[NeverEndingMe]

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Ayn Rand

What did Einstein define stupidity as; repeating a failed action with the expectations of a differing result.

No wonder so many economic reports report "Unexpected" results...

the trouble some, is when the obama came into office so many of the young kids were seeing this as a good thing. also, there was this wave of socialism. flog!

but I can understand, we were coming off two bubbles and a market meldown. its simple to understand as the reaction to the obama was a knee jerk reaction. hopefully most of these people have entered the real world (out of college and off mommies check book) and see how the obama has made things worse.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

the trouble some, is when the obama came into office so many of the young kids were seeing this as a good thing. also, there was this wave of socialism. flog!

but I can understand, we were coming off two bubbles and a market meldown. its simple to understand as the reaction to the obama was a knee jerk reaction. hopefully most of these people have entered the real world (out of college and off mommies check book) and see how the obama has made things worse.

Socialists (even on this board) were popping up out of the woodwork saying that Socialism had won and America had chosen Socialism and that the Republican Party was dead for 30 years, 40 years, THE DUST BIN OF HISTORY!

Well call me Rip van Frisco, it's been a peaceful 40 year sleep...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's why I kept telling ol' Firespin that we HAD to elect Obama; America needed a relearning experience...


You have to see Jimmy Carter to believe Jimmy Carter and our youth had no measuring stick; now they have no jobs...


__________________
Obama, you see, is our nemesis. He is a totem, the logical manifestation of a warped media, the reification of some crazy — and arrogant — ideas about redistributive politics, the statist economy, and cultural and social life that permeated American life the last forty years. He is the president with a 1,000 faces that we have all seen at work, on TV, throughout American life, and at some point the odds determined that we had to have a rendezvous with him— perhaps a catharsis to teach us the wages of Keynesian debt, of a social policy contrary to human nature with its equality of result doctrines, of an all-powerful, all-growing unaccountable government, of the now hip ambiguity about past American protocols and history. Obama is the exaggeration of all the dubious ideas that arose since the 1960s — brought to fruition on his watch, delivered by mellifluous cadences by an untouchable persona.

In fact, a Barack Obama was long overdue. Had he not appeared out of nowhere in 2008, we would have surely had to invent him.
Victor Davis Hanson

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

One thing for sure, the new found historical perspective will last for generations.

I don't know, in thread after thread after thread, we see the Left and Democrats, even some of the RINOs panicking over the economy, terrified of the private sector, calling for government to pull even more Capital out of the private sector in order to create jobs which, of course creates more need, more unemployment and more calls for government and more cat-calls against the private sector and Capitalism in general...

... and we slink like alley cats,
tearing down what we attack,
to prove that we are one...
INXS

I worry that Government Education is succeeding in selling government to the masses.
__________________
You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?
A_J, the Stupid

 

[busybody..]

The jobs bill is pretty loaded with things Republicans said they wanted. But they'll vote against it anyway, then turn around and go back to saying they want the things in the jobs bill.

JAMES TARANTO: The Phony War On Unemployment: Even Robert Reich admits Obama’s so-called jobs bill was “never really serious.”

 

[busybody..]

The jobs bill is pretty loaded with things Republicans said they wanted. But they'll vote against it anyway, then turn around and go back to saying they want the things in the jobs bill.

FUCK YOU

Hill Dems pick apart Obama jobs plan
By: Manu Raju
September 14, 2011 04:59 AM EDT

President Barack Obama’s new jobs plan is hitting some unexpected turbulence in the halls of Congress: lawmakers from his own party.

As he demands Congress quickly approve his ambitious proposal aimed at reviving the sagging economy, many Democrats on Capitol Hill appear far from sold that the president has the right anecdote to spur major job growth and turn around their party’s political fortunes.

“Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”

“That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama’s elimination of oil and gas subsidies. “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

“I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discussing proposals to slash the debt by $4 trillion by overhauling entitlement programs and raising revenue through tax reforms. “That’s better than everything else the president is talking about — combined.”

And those are just the moderates in the party. Some liberals also have concerns.

“There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy because you’re taking this contribution out,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, referring to Obama’s proposal to further slash payroll taxes.

Democrats in large numbers will still back the president’s overall jobs package, and when the plan heads for House and Senate consideration, some of these same skeptics will very likely vote to advance the measure. But as details of the plan began to be vetted on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, it was clear that the White House needed to redouble its sales job — or tweak its plan — to force Democrats to fall in line at a pivotal point in Obama’s presidency.

White House officials aren’t ruling out making changes to the bill or compromising with Republicans on pieces of the agenda, and they plan to brief Senate Democrats on Thursday. But following his joint address to Congress last week, Obama, in a feisty speech Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio, again ratcheted up pressure to “pass this bill.”

“Tell them that if you want to create jobs right now — pass this bill,” Obama said. “If you want construction workers renovating schools like this one — pass this bill. If you want to put teachers back in the classroom — pass this bill. If you want tax cuts for middle-class families and small-business owners, then what do you do? Pass this bill.”

The audience shouted back, “Pass this bill!”

But in the halls of Congress, “this bill” was already expected to be modified, pared back significantly or overtaken by the powerful new deficit-slashing supercommittee.

“It’s hard to have an opinion on something you don’t think is going to be the final product,” said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat who faces a tough reelection next year. “I’ve made it clear I’m looking for [tax] cuts, so I’m very hopeful there will be cuts.”


The wide-ranging reaction from Democrats speaks to the dilemma facing Obama as he heads into a tough reelection with the threat of economic recession looming: He needs to show the public that he’s pushing forward a bold and detailed plan to reverse the 9.1 percent unemployment rate, but his low approval ratings have made it harder to push a bill through a deeply divided Congress.

The push to inject cash into the economy has left Democrats stuck between pushing a jobs bill while trying not to add to the deficit.

“Every dollar that is spent on the jobs bill … is not going to be available to Congress to deal with the debt,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “And to me, the top priority of ours should be long-term major debt reduction.”

Lieberman insisted he was still open to backing the Obama plan, but he said the revenue raisers laid out in the plan raise “questions about whether it will be paid for over the long term.”

The new congressional supercommittee, created by last month’s law to raise the debt ceiling, could very well play a large role for the Obama jobs plan, which calls on the panel to find additional cost savings to help pay for it. In an effort to push the committee to find additional cuts in the range of $4 trillion over the next decade, a bipartisan group of senators met Tuesday morning in an effort to push the panel in that direction.

And next week, the White House plans to unveil what Obama says is a long-term deficit-reduction plan — on top of the measures that administration officials say will fully offset the costs of the new jobs proposal over 10 years.

In the jobs plan, Obama proposes to expand payroll tax cuts so employees’ rates would be reduced to 3.1 percent in 2012, down from the original rate of 6.2 percent that helps fund Social Security. A number of tax credits would be extended to businesses that hire workers and purchase new equipment. Billions would be spent on school construction, the hiring of teachers, the enlistment of more first responders, the rebuilding of infrastructure and for construction companies renovating old homes. Unemployment benefits would be extended through 2013.

To pay for nearly $400 billion, the White House would limit to 28 percent itemized deductions for families earning more than $250,000. Some $18 billion would be raised by increasing taxes on income earned by investment funds, another $40 billion would be raised by repealing certain subsidies for oil and gas drilling, and $3 billion would be raised by overhauling how taxes are treated for corporate jets.

Limiting deductions to upper-income families was opposed by all but three senators in the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2009. But some of those who voted against the idea in 2009 say they’d be open to backing it as part of a comprehensive package.

“The president has laid out a package, laid out a way of paying for it, I have no trouble supporting it,” said Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Similarly, while some Democrats worried about the impact further cuts to the payroll tax would have on the Social Security program, and whether it would spur job growth, some like Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said they could swallow it as part of a more sweeping proposal.

But the tax increases clearly have generated concern among a number of Democrats who are calling for broader changes rather than tax hikes on specific industries.

“If we’re going to change something, we got to be sure that we do it in the total [tax reform] package, that they know what the rules of the road are,” said Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).

Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, said it was “frustrating” to see the president single out the oil industry after calling on the congressional supercommittee in last week’s address to Congress to find savings.

“When you start singling out certain industries, there’s an unfairness to it,” he said in an interview. “On the pay-fors, I have a problem.”


© 2011 POLITICO LLC

 

[koalabear]

Stocks falter on tepid US economic data
Reports on business inventories, wholesale prices and retail sales suggest a stagnant economy. China may be willing to purchase eurozone bonds. European markets rise. Oil and gold fall.

11,059.95Down-45.90 -0.41% Real time

 

[koalabear]

Oblamer plugging his jobs plan in S. Carolina.....

You know, the state where his NLRB is trying to keep Boeing out.

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

In the tradition of NIGGERS,

UD

POON

Et Al.....

I axe,

Do you know who ZANDI IS?

Press Man: The Prisoner of Zandi Andrew Ferguson — September 2011 PrintPDFI’ve spent much of my summer trying to dodge Mark Zandi. I pick up my newspaper, I turn on the TV, I tap-tap my iPad, and there he is: explaining the past, divining the future, teasing insights from the tumultuous present. It’s his job. Zandi is not a pundit, exactly. He’s an economist by trade. What he really is, is a go-to guy, one of the most successful go-to guys in journalism history. The need for go-to guys is never less than acute, but this summer, with the failing economy and the debt-ceiling debate, demand has been particularly brisk.

Here’s how the go-to guy works. Let’s say you’re a reporter on a deadline and you need a quote right this minute about how Republicans have rendered Congress dysfunctional. Well then, your go-to guy is Norman Ornstein​, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Perhaps you want to give readers a little historical perspective, something eggheady about, say, how smoothly leaders of both parties used to work together before the lunatics (you know who they are) started running the asylum on Capitol Hill? Quick: get “presidential historian” Douglas Brinkley on the phone before he goes live on the NewsHour! He’ll be sure to tell you, with a wistful air, that Tip O’Neill and President Reagan were always friends after five o’clock.

If it’s the economy you’re writing about, it’s Mark Zandi. He has all the qualities that go into making a go-to guy of the very first rank. He is fluent on television and keeps his sentences short. His demeanor is pleasant. He uses the word “narrative” with abandon—“narrative” being the hottest word in journalism since “transparency”; it’s this year’s “accountability.” And he’s a liberal. All go-to guys are liberals. They can’t be identified as such, lest their authority as disinterested observers be undermined and the reader or viewer begin to get ideas. Ideological fuzziness is good; ideological hermaphroditism is better.

Ornstein, for example, is a moderate liberal, but the think tank that employs him is conservative: the politics of the one combines with the politics of the other to make a purely objective go-to guy who can offer liberal opinions without the label. Douglas Brinkley’s liberalism is deep and abiding, made explicit, to cite one instance, when he published a panting campaign biography of John Kerry in 2003. Yet he has also been chosen, inexplicably, to edit various editions of the papers of Ronald Reagan by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. Reagan breeds with Kerry and Go-To Brinkley is born, a scholar who plays it straight down the middle, listing leftward.

In economics, Zandi is capable of meeting all of a reporter’s go-to-guy needs, so the trade has been careful in obscuring his liberalism. He is a registered Democrat, as he freely admits when asked. But he’s seldom asked. The key to his indispensability is that he once—once—did some work for a Republican. Early in the 2008 presidential campaign, one of John McCain’s economics advisors enlisted Zandi to file a weekly analysis of current economic data for the campaign’s use. He never advised McCain on matters of policy, he never met McCain, and he was never paid for his labor. The real payout, in fame and influence, came after the election.

That’s when President Obama, hoping to rise above petty partisanship and bring the country together, rammed through Congress an $800 billion stimulus bill without a single Republican vote. To cast these uncooperative Republicans as extremists, it was helpful to find other Republicans, outside Congress, who supported Obama’s stimulus.

This proved difficult—until reporters settled on Zandi.

In a news story about Obama’s plans for a big spending bill, in December 2008, the New York Times identified him as a “Republican economist advising Democrats.” In reality, he was a Democratic economist who’d just got done advising a Republican, and “advising” is (probably) not the right word. In any case, the Times was right about one thing: Zandi was very busy advising Democrats, helping to write the stimulus bill, and Capitol Hill Democrats embraced him as warmly as reporters did. In speeches on the House and Senate floors they quoted “the noted conservative economist” and “Republican economist” saying things that any good liberal would agree with. He became a recurring character on the business and news shows on cable TV, filling the role of Reasonable Republican, identified as “an adviser to John McCain” or “an economist who has advised both Democrats and Republicans,” a real pro who had set aside partisanship to endorse President Obama’s common-sense solutions. Nancy Pelosi repeated his name as if it had the power of an incantation.

Zandi had long been an advocate of stimulus, any stimulus, whether its provenance was Republican or Democratic. When President Bush proposed a $150 billion stimulus in the summer of 2008, Zandi said it “was big enough to provide a meaningful economic boost.” In September, when Bush was lamenting he had to violate his free-market principles to save them, Zandi was much more enthusiastic: “Make no mistake: what the government has done will sew [sic] the seeds for I think a very, very sharp recovery.” (A man who says “make no mistake” is always making one.)

You will notice that these statements share two prominent features. First, they’re predictions and, second, they’re wrong. More frequently than most go-to guys, Zandi volunteers not merely subtly shaded opinions, not merely Ornsteinian “context” and Brinklean “perspective,” but bald predictions about how matters will lie a year or two or three from now. Over time, Zandi’s predictions are tested by reality. In August 2006, he told Newsweek that housing prices would bottom out in August 2007. In October 2007, he told the National Association of Home Builders that the bottom would come in late 2008. In April 2009, he told Time magazine that housing prices would bottom out by the end of the year. (“I feel very confident about this,” he said.) Three months later, he told NPR that “by this time next year, the market will have hit bottom.” The market is still looking for its bottom, and so is Zandi, with both hands.

Zandi’s blown predictions are easily retrievable from the Web, especially now that bloggers like the economist Veronique de Rugy and the money manager Barry Ritholz (to both of whom I’m indebted) have made a sport of Zandi-watching. He’s been overtaken by events so often it’s a wonder he doesn’t have tire tracks on the back of his suit coat. The stimulus that he helped design has been, by any layman’s assessment, a spectacular failure, if only because the predictions he made for it—a housing market on the upswing, revived job creation—have failed to come true. Zandi famously defends the stimulus by asserting that it created or saved several million jobs, a claim that is impossible to falsify. But as the conservative economists John Taylor and John Cogan pointed out in these pages, Keynesian calculations like these are nearly tautological. The model used now to identify how many jobs the stimulus created is the same model used back then to predict how many jobs the stimulus would create.

All of which is boring and complicated and none of which makes it into the stories of reporters who rely on go-to guys. The job of the go-to guy transcends accuracy. It is instead to confirm the circular reasoning that underlies so much of modern liberalism. A stimulus will create jobs because that’s what a stimulus does. In a budget standoff, Republicans and not Democrats are stubborn and unyielding, because stubborn and unyielding is how Republicans are. Ask Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Ask Mark Zandi, a Republican economist. The go-to guys are here to help. Always.

 

[koalabear]

Stocks rebound from euro jitters
The Dow is up more than 230 points as hopes build that Europe will solve its banking and debt problems. Geithner sees no chance Europe will let its big banks fail. Tech stocks lead the market. Oil and gold slide.

Be sure to buy, buy, buy

 

[mercury14]

That's why I kept telling ol' Firespin that we HAD to elect Obama; America needed a relearning experience...

Weak economy and all I'm sure your prospects for beating Obama next year are a slam-dunk, right? You have no excuse for not having a 15-point lead right now. But wait!

"Despite pessimism among voters about the economy -- the top issue in the campaign -- Americans rank Obama above all of the candidates vying to be the Republican nominee to run for president in November 2012.

Obama has an eight percentage point advantage over Perry, at 50 percent to 42 percent among registered voters. Among all adults, the result was the same as for Romney -- 51 percent backing Obama and 39 percent behind Perry."

If half of what you say about Republicans is true they should be running away with this race.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama...6.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

You have to see Jimmy Carter to believe Jimmy Carter and our youth had no measuring stick; now they have no jobs...

Jimmy Carter and his job creation record that has outpaced, well... Every single Republican since they started keeping job growth statistics.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

okay, another post by UD/Merc to highlight their ignorance and lack of business knowledge


trick question:
is the economy really doing better?

or

corporate earnings are up due to cost cutting?

It's both. Businesses right-sized for the recession. Meanwhile consumer demand is slowly rising.

Every single economist out there believes that the economy is doing better than when we were in the midst of the recession. The only people who think differently do so because they're playing politics.

 

[koalabear]

Hahahaha...Merc thinks denial is a river in Africa.

When all you have to consult is a maintenance engineer, don't expect much.

 

[koalabear]

It's both. Businesses right-sized for the recession. Meanwhile consumer demand is slowly rising.

Every single economist out there believes that the economy is doing better than when we were in the midst of the recession. The only people who think differently do so because they're playing politics.

Those same economists didn't see the housing bubble. Believe!,MORON.

 

[mercury14]

Hahahaha...Merc thinks denial is a river in Africa.

What's your excuse as to why Republicans aren't running away with this puppy? And are actually polling behind Obama. After all if half of what you say about him is true there's no way any Republican candidate shouldn't be running away with this.

 

[busybody..]

Donald Trump Now Accepting Rent Payment In Solid Gold Form




“So will that be cash, credit, or…gold?”

Many Donald Trump-owned buildings are already gold-plated, gaudy affair, but now Trump’s taking it a step further. He’ll let you pay him for your real estate in gold. A new commercial tenant in Trump’s building at 40 Wall Street just put down a $176,000 security deposit — in gold. That’s right: no check was written or money transferred. Just 3 bars of gold. Why would Trump agree to this peculiar payment option?

Well, he’s using the same excuse he does for everything else: because of Obama.

Trump’s new tenant is Apmex, which happens to be a precious-metals dealer — Apmex stands for American Precious Metals Exchange. So, for the security deposit on their 10-year lease, they asked if they could pay in gold. Though he’d never done deals in gold before, Trump, ever the non-conformist — said yes, in what he sees as a slap in the face to Obama.

Trump tells The Wall Street Journal, ”It’s a sad day when a large property owner starts accepting gold instead of the dollar. The economy is bad, and Obama’s not protecting the dollar at all….If I do this, other people are going to start doing it, and maybe we’ll see some changes.”

By the way, that $176,000? It amounts to just 3 little 32 oz. bars of solid gold — each small enough to hold in your hand.

 

[busybody..]

Weak economy and all I'm sure your prospects for beating Obama next year are a slam-dunk, right? You have no excuse for not having a 15-point lead right now. But wait!

"Despite pessimism among voters about the economy -- the top issue in the campaign -- Americans rank Obama above all of the candidates vying to be the Republican nominee to run for president in November 2012.

Obama has an eight percentage point advantage over Perry, at 50 percent to 42 percent among registered voters. Among all adults, the result was the same as for Romney -- 51 percent backing Obama and 39 percent behind Perry."

If half of what you say about Republicans is true they should be running away with this race.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama...6.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=



Jimmy Carter and his job creation record that has outpaced, well... Every single Republican since they started keeping job growth statistics.

It Begins: Obama Should Quit
This morning, John Fund was on WMAL-AM, the talk radio powerhouse in Washington D.C. He mentioned that nobody in Democratic circles is defending Obama anymore. Buyer’s remorse is everywhere. Essentially, only those actually working for the Administration or Democratic Party, trapped inside the Alamo, are defending the fort now. Anyone can guess when they might start turning the guns on each other, perhaps starting from Foggy Bottom. Fund thought there is a chance that a “committee” of senior Democrats might go to Obama in a few months and tell him it might be best not to run for reelection. Who knows. At least the disappointment would be bi-partisan if that happened, with White House loyalists and the GOP both upset Obama wouldn’t be on the ballot in November.

Then Andrew Breitbart over at the Bigs has the same observation as Fund:

I predict a tectonic shift among American Jews and within the Democratic Party if Obama doesn’t quietly retire. All the spinning in the world can’t spin away the trend of Scott Brown, the Tea Party victory of November 2010, and now the Turner earthquake.

Many Democrats are awakening to the reality that their party has been hijacked by a radicalism completely unfamiliar to their parents’ and grandparents’ Democratic Party.

An internal, partisan civil war is now brewing in that party. What I think tonight is less important than what Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, and the rest of the former, and now defunct, reasonable wing of the Democratic Party is thinking tonight.

Granted, it’s early, and one bad night in Brooklyn does not an LBJ make. But there is no mistaking the sense of failure creeping over this Presidency after so much Hope

 

[richard_daily]

Hahahaha...Merc thinks denial is a river in Africa.

Name a republican president that created more jobs than Jimmy Carter.

 

[koalabear]

Name a republican president that created more jobs than Jimmy Carter.

Name a savage chihuahua, lil Chihuahua.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Name a republican president that created more jobs than Jimmy Carter.

Reagan. Bush, Bush II. PRobably Nixon.

Frodo, Bruce Wayne, Luke Skywalker and Frieza also made the list.

MORON.

 

[busybody..]

DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz Spinning Takes a Turn For The Worse: We Need The Jobs Bill Because Moms Are Late For Football Practice…


She’s out of her mind.

 

[richard_daily]

Name a savage chihuahua, lil Chihuahua.

What is with your obsession with dogs? Are you a furry? It would make sense.

Not into you that way, sorry.


And if you get a chance, let me know if you can find any republican presidents that created more jobs than Jimmy Carter.

Kthnx!