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

[Sean Renaud]

You were totally waiting around for that weren't you. Bastard. Oh wait I'll pull a Koala Bear.

I'm the 15000th reply! The OP doesn't count! MWAHAHAHAH

 

[garbage can]

15,000th post in this thread.

Is it okay if I'm 15001..?..


Err...02

 

[mercury14]

Is it okay if I'm 15001..?..

Fail.

 

[garbage can]

Fail.

Bin corrected...........

 

[Sean Renaud]

Lucky me since we both got in the same minute.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Statistical thread analysis now available in post 15,000

 

[Sean Renaud]

Shit I don't even break the top ten. Damn.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All the Democratic Commentators are cheerfully telling us, don't worry about the President's numbers, as gas prices go down this summer, they will rise and he will be reelected...

U.S. gasoline prices jumped 6% in February, and market experts predict they will climb higher because critical refining operations in the Northeast are shutting down.
From New York to Philadelphia, refineries that turn oil into gasoline have been idled or shut permanently because their owners are losing money on them. Sunoco Inc. is expected to close the region's largest refinery in July, taking another 335,000 barrels per day in production capacity off the market.

The East Coast refineries are getting squeezed by the soaring cost of crude oil, the major component in gasoline. The cost of oil has jumped in the past year due to global economic growth and rising tensions between Western nations and Iran, a major producer. Refineries haven't been able to increase their own prices enough to compensate.

The government said Friday that the increase in gas prices had contributed to a 0.4% overall increase in consumer prices in February. Prices at the pump averaged $3.831 a gallon on Friday, according to the AAA, formerly known as the American Automobile Association.

Rising gas prices pose a risk to the economic recovery, which is showing signs of gaining steam after faltering last year.

The surge is putting pressure on President Obama to take steps to tamp down prices, and it threatens to erode credit he may get for an improving jobs market. On Thursday, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said he and Obama had discussed tapping their nations' strategic oil reserves to help alleviate tight oil supplies world-wide. In a speech Thursday, Mr. Obama said "there is no quick fix" for high gasoline prices.

Still, analysts said tapping reserves may do little to resolve the pricing pressure, which is likely to get worse as summer approaches and vacationing Americans hit the highways. Gas usage typically is 3% higher in the summer.

Commodities markets are forecasting rising prices. Gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange are up 22% this year, and settled Friday at a 10-month high of $3.3569 a gallon. Average pump prices tend to follow futures by a few weeks, averaging about 70 cents a gallon more, after taxes and transport costs. Based on futures, retail prices should average above $4 a gallon soon.

Refineries in the Northeast are under financial pressure for two reasons. They have limited access to cheaper, high-grade crude oil produced in the middle of the U.S. because there are not enough pipelines, which is forcing them to pay more for oil from elsewhere, most of it from overseas.

And many of their facilities aren't set up to process lower-grade crude that is cheaper.

As Northeastern refining capacity declines, it will force distributors in the region to buy gasoline from elsewhere, pushing up prices across the country and increasing the likelihood of price spikes, government officials and analysts warn.

"There's now going to be a question if we can get enough gasoline into the East Coast for summer," said David Greely, an energy analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The U.S. Energy Department has warned a shortfall could develop as early as July.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ise-no-relief-in-sight-at-pump/#ixzz1pTHjOywG

There's also still the business of inflated dollars and our suppliers insisting on getting more of them per barrel to make up the shortfall in value, that's econ 101 stuff, even the Fed knows that when you increase the supply of a commodity, the price falls; that's why drilling is simply not the answer.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Gas prices are turrible. Just turrible.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The 4est_4est_Gump plan for the economy.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/could_forrest_gump_plan_our_economy.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... Obama's approval rating in the U.S. plummeted precipitously.

Now, I'm not naïve enough to think that Obama's slide in the polls is due to his outrageous and cowardly policy on Russia. Not that many Americans care what happens in Russia. But more should, and Obama's rating would be even lower if they did.

Here's why: Russian actions are causing American to pay much more at the pump. Russia has consistently supported dictators and terrorism throughout the Middle East because by doing so it can worry the oil markets and cause the price of oil to rise.

Russia's economy depends on oil the way the human body depends on blood. Shortfalls in oil revenue are putting intense pressure on the Russian budget, and there is only so much oil that inefficient Russian systems can pump in a day. This means Russia's only option is to try to boost the price. Helping Syrians kill civilians, or better yet aiding Iranians in killing Americans, is a surefire way to accomplish that.

So Russia is giving support to Iran. Putin might as well go to Tehran and declare, "Ich bin ein Shiite," because he has not only provided Iran with a flood-tide of weapons and nuclear technology, but also stood steadfastly by Iran's side in the diplomatic corridors, warning ominiously against any attempt to use force to block Iran's development of a nuclear device.

If Russia were ruled by a different kind of person, one who stood united with the U.S. against the likes of Iran and Syria rather than giving those rogue nations aid and comfort, Americans might be paying much less for gas right now. The world would be confident that those rogue nations could no more stand against American might than could Iraq. But Russia is ruled by a proud KGB spy who spent his whole life learning how to hate and destroy America, and he has just declared himself president for life. So the world believes that Iran and Syria just might have a chance.

Make no mistake: rising oil prices aren't the only reason why Putin supports terror and tumult against the U.S. all through the Arab world. The other reason is his personal hatred for America and her values, not to mention his delight at the prospect of Americans being butchered and defeated as retribution for their role in bringing down his beloved USSR.

From his earliest days in power, Putin, a lifelong KGB spy, has deplored the collapse of the USSR and sought to revive it. At the winter Olympics, to be held in the Russian city of Sochi in 2014, the Soviet national anthem will play when Russia wins gold. Putin has seized control of history textbooks, local government, mass media, and the national parliament so that today they are all very little different from what they were in Soviet times.

It didn't have to be this way. If Obama had supported freedom and democracy in Russia the way Ronald Reagan had, Putin might have been defeated.

Over the past few months, the world saw over 100,000 Russians amass in Moscow to challenge Putin's authority -- an unprecedented watershed event. And the world saw Obama ignore the protests and side with the Kremlin. Then, instead of growing larger, the protests grew smaller, until now they have almost disappeared, and Putin has romped back into the presidency in a landslide.

And prices at the pump are soaring.

What if instead of pursuing appeasement, Obama had delivered a speech like Reagan gave at the Brandenburg Gate, a speech that soon saw the end of the Berlin Wall? What if Obama had appointed someone who would lose no opportunity to speak out for freedom in Russia as our ambassador -- someone like John McCain, for example -- instead of collaborating with Putin?

What if Obama had given as much aid and comfort to Russian democracy activists as Russia has given to America-haters in Iran and Syria?

If that had happened, Putin might have been shown the exit by empowered, educated, and inspired Russia voters, and right now Russia might be ruled by someone who would work with us to drive down the price at the pump rather than working feverishly to raise it.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/obama_russia_and_gasoline_prices.html#ixzz1pZ4sVFmS

 

[RobDownSouth]

I've noticed that since the economy began recovering, the ratio of editorials to news articles cut-n-pasted as part of America Hater AJ's daily spewnami has gone from 1 editorial to 1 news article to about 5 editorials for every news article.

The situational Native American is obviously suffering.

 

[mercury14]

I've noticed that since the economy began recovering, the ratio of editorials to news articles cut-n-pasted as part of America Hater AJ's daily spewnami has gone from 1 editorial to 1 news article to about 5 editorials for every news article.

The situational Native American is obviously suffering.

I'm struggling to figure out where the right is getting this idea that Obama's poll numbers have "plummeted precipitiously".

The RCP poll aggregator shows his numbers increasing and sitting at overall positive. In October RCP had him at 42.5% and now he's at 47.5%. Fox News' Poll has him at 47% approve, 45% disapprove. Even Rasmussen has Obama's approval at 49%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Where are these people getting their data?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Rush Limbaugh and wishful thinking.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Yes clueless libs it's true:


National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

By Mark Knoller

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/19/chart_620_deficit_120319.jpg

(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Rest here including Obama bullshit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

CBS! That fringe network!

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Leave it to the Commander in Clown to fuck up his own recovery:

First you said there would be no recovery under Obama

Then you said although some thought there was a recovery, they were wrong or lying

Then you said there was a recovery but it had nothing to do with Obama.

Now you call it Obama's recovery.


Make up your mind what narrative you're telling.

 

[koalabear]

Leave it to the Commander in Clown to fuck up his own recovery:

From the Financial Times:

Obama’s tax hikes threaten a new US recession
By Martin Feldstein


"Looking to the future, there are strong headwinds that will make it difficult to achieve a robust recovery. Higher petrol prices will reduce real incomes and cut spending on domestic goods and services. The weaknesses in many European economies will lead to reduced US exports to those countries.
But the most important cloud on the horizon is the large tax increase that will occur next year unless legislation is passed to block it.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under current law, the revenue of the federal government will rise from $2.4tn in the current fiscal year, which ends in September, to $2.9tn in the following fiscal year. That increase of $512bn is equivalent to 2.9 per cent of GDP, bringing federal revenue as a share of GDP from 15.8 per cent this year to 18.7 per cent next year."

The higher revenue would reflect an increase in personal tax rates, higher payroll taxes, as well as higher taxes on dividends, capital gains and corporate incomes. Revenue would continue to rise in future years – as a share of GDP it would increase to 19.8 per cent in 2014 and would stay above 20 per cent for the remainder of the decade.

Rest of article here:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0d0e...links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz1pd4TPC9f

Watch moron post and no one pays attention to him.

 

[patrick1]

Leave it to the Commander in Clown to fuck up his own recovery:

From the Financial Times:

Obama’s tax hikes threaten a new US recession
By Martin Feldstein


"Looking to the future, there are strong headwinds that will make it difficult to achieve a robust recovery. Higher petrol prices will reduce real incomes and cut spending on domestic goods and services. The weaknesses in many European economies will lead to reduced US exports to those countries.
But the most important cloud on the horizon is the large tax increase that will occur next year unless legislation is passed to block it.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under current law, the revenue of the federal government will rise from $2.4tn in the current fiscal year, which ends in September, to $2.9tn in the following fiscal year. That increase of $512bn is equivalent to 2.9 per cent of GDP, bringing federal revenue as a share of GDP from 15.8 per cent this year to 18.7 per cent next year."

The higher revenue would reflect an increase in personal tax rates, higher payroll taxes, as well as higher taxes on dividends, capital gains and corporate incomes. Revenue would continue to rise in future years – as a share of GDP it would increase to 19.8 per cent in 2014 and would stay above 20 per cent for the remainder of the decade.

Rest of article here:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0d0e...links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz1pd4TPC9f

This is an opinion piece. 'The writer is professor of economics at Harvard University and was President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser.' No bias there then.

I wish the UK had your troubles: recovery, economic stimulus, conservatives in disarray.

Instead...Here's a different opinion, written from a neo-Keynesian angle: should George Osborne learn from Barack Obama? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/mar/18/budget-osborne-obama-keynes

Our Chancellor is about to follow the conservative prescription and reduce taxes for the rich while fucking the benefits of many of the poor. Ah me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A differing economic philosophy maybe a bias, but it does not make it incorrect.

The Obama administration knows the negative effect taxes have on an economy, they have proved that twice now (actually thrice, if one examines the offer made by the Republicans during the debt ceiling crises).

He tax increases are not about revenue but issues of "fairness."

It is an economic polity which leads to a lower standard of living. President Obama and his allies are locked into a dying philosophical paradigm and are willing to take yet one more country down to prove this one last attempt will finally get it right.

We on the Austrian side of the fence say screw that; this is not a dying country that has to be managed in its decrepit old age, but a young nation ready to hit its stride if only given a bit of free reign...

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, his figures are incorrect eh?

No Patrick just probably assumes that everyone who comes out of Harvard is a partisan idiot.