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

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He thinks it's a right wing school of fanaticism.

I'm not sure what he thinks.

I have yet to see a clear picture emerge from his posts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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?

Rolling polls help slow down the rate of change...

A week ago, the nation's lead story had shifted suddenly away from contraception and social issues to GOP attacks on Obama. The "news" story used as the trigger for this shift was a just-released WaPo/ABCNews poll.

Rising gas prices have many voters looking for someone to blame and President Obama appears to be as good a target as anyone, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests, with the president's approval rating falling from 50 percent last month to 46 percent recently.

So wrote Frank James of NPR on the morning of Monday, March 12th, helping to kick-off The President's Great Gasoline Price Spike Media Blitz. On that morning, the strategy for the Blitz was established: Raise awareness of how the President is dealing with higher gasoline prices, and insert into the story the specter of gratuitous, partisan GOP attacks. This strategy allows the media to avoid and obscure the very damaging story of drilling bans and the many other unpopular anti-fossil fuel policies.

To pull this off, a polling report from a credible source was required. Such a report would need to have four elements: a lowered overall approval rating for Obama to create "news," a lead in preference over the GOP rivals to demonstrate superiority and optimism, and a few questions about gasoline prices to link the prices to the dip in the approval rating and show that any expectation that the President is culpable for high prices is unrealistic and foolish. The fourth element is a self-serving title on the cover of the polling report. In this case, it was the strategically perfect "Election expectations move Obama's way, yet rising gas prices fuel GOP pushback."

Notice that the title does not read: "Obama approval dips, gasoline price and energy policies are factors." The poll's questionnaire omitted anything about energy policy. No questions were asked about drilling, leases, taxes, regulation, or perceptions and attitudes toward Obama on energy policies in general. Of course, the red herring question "how much can a president do?" was asked, and the result was subsequently laughed at and flogged to death.

In the White House that morning, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar met with the press to promote the President's energy strategy, the President gave interviews to six local TV stations in battleground states, and Salazar, Steven Chu, and Tom Vilsack held a meeting in the Roosevelt Room with industry representatives and union officials to discuss solar, wind and "renewables."

The President's message for Monday was that gas prices were high, "politicians" were to blame, drill-baby-drill was a chimera, the US was producing oil like never before, our imports are down, and big oil didn't deserve their tax breaks. Strung together in one message, none of it made sense, but remember the objective: use a smoke screen to avoid and obscure the damage incurred by Obama's campaign against American energy consumption.

The message was not new -- he had given this speech in Miami two weeks before -- but the volume was now turned up high. In Miami he had said:

Last week, the lead of one news story said, "Gasoline prices are on the rise, and Republicans are licking their chops." Only in politics do people greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more, and they're licking their chops? And you can bet that since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I'll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We heard the same thing in 2007, when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for thirty years.

On Tuesday morning, The New York Times / CBS News released a new poll. The Times' article placed the plunge in Obama's approval front and center, and suggested mid-way through that this number should be viewed in the context of the gasoline prices. In the 1,160 word story, gasoline prices were mention five times. For example, "The decline in Mr. Obama's approval rating has occurred as Americans are confronted by rising gas prices on filling station billboards and the evening news." It was a good point to make, but the grammatical use of "has occurred as" indicated that the poll did not probe the connection between approval and gas prices. Had they done so, the connecting line would be drawn between the President and his unpopular policies.

Since the article appeared on Tuesday, the President and the press have spotlighted the canard of "people think the president can set the price of oil." The question asked in the Times/CBS poll is: "Is the price of gasoline something a president can do a lot about, or is that beyond any president's control?" The result -- "can do" is 54% -- is perfectly consistent with the last 8 years of polling. The Times did not suggest that this number was high; it was actually higher during the last administration. Yet voter stupidity on this issue is suddenly a rallying cry for the Democrats.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...as_price_spike_media_blitz.html#ixzz1petYkNeH

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A heavily subsidized solar company received a U.S. taxpayer loan guarantee to sell solar panels to itself.

First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand. The underlying issue is how Obama’s insistence on green-energy subsidies and export subsidies manifests itself as rank corporate welfare.

Here’s the road of subsidies these solar panels followed from Perrysburg, Ohio, to St. Clair, Ontario.

First Solar is an Arizona-based manufacturer of solar panels. In 2010, the Obama administration awarded the company $16.3 million to expand its factory in Ohio — a subsidy Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland touted in his failed re-election bid that year.

Five weeks before the 2010 election, Strickland announced more than a million dollars in job training grants to First Solar. The Ohio Department of Development also lent First Solar $5 million, and the state’s Air Quality Development Authority gave the company an additional $10 million loan.

After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.

In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two solar farms in Canada. That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.

But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.

A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the solar farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar’s panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this “export.”

First Solar spokesman Alan Bernheimer defended this maneuver, saying this really was an export, pointing out that First Solar paid sales taxes on the transaction.

But this subsidy undermines the arguments for Ex-Im’s existence. Ex-Im, whose authorization expires May 31, is supposed to be a job creator, helping U.S. manufacturers beat foreign manufacturers by having U.S. taxpayers backstop the financing.

“It is critical that we encourage more American companies to compete in the global marketplace,” Ex-Im Chairman Fred Hochberg said about the First Solar deal, saying the subsidy “will boost Ohio’s economy, create hundreds of local jobs and move us closer to President Obama’s goal of doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014.”

The implication here is that First Solar was “competing” with foreign solar panel makers in order to sell solar panels — to First Solar.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

 

[JohnnySavage]

That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab,


Simply not true. Your gateway pundant has a gross conceptual error in his understanding of how the bank is financed.

Same guy probably wrote the article about Obama giving Brazil $2 billion for oil development

 

[busybody..]

That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab,


Simply not true. Your gateway pundant has a gross conceptual error in his understanding of how the bank is financed.

Same guy probably wrote the article about Obama giving Brazil $2 billion for oil development

you, NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE, HE WHO DOES NOT CARE no longer have a right to post shit

you have become mindless

 

[RobDownSouth]

The trend continues: in the wake of overwhelmingly positive news about the economy, the fringe right here continues to 'poison the well' by salting this thread with thinly disguised hit-piece editorials from biased authors.

It's almost as if the economy doesn't matter at all, we're reduced to arguing about how many angels dance on the head of President Obama's reelection polls.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab,


Simply not true. Your gateway pundant has a gross conceptual error in his understanding of how the bank is financed.

Same guy probably wrote the article about Obama giving Brazil $2 billion for oil development

I think this glosses over the larger point; the efficiency of government investing, no matter the vehicle.

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. The mission of the Bank is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers. The Bank is chartered as a government corporation by the Congress of the United States; it was last chartered for a five year term in 2006.[1] Its Charter spells out the Bank's authorities and limitations. Among them is the principle that Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal. Its current chairman is Fred Hochberg.

Wiki

Nobody but the government was willing to bet on this deal; they bet on it based on an ideology, certainly not practicality, it is the illusion of success...

 

[JohnnySavage]

I think this glosses over the larger point; the efficiency of government investing, no matter the vehicle.


Wiki

Nobody but the government was willing to bet on this deal; they bet on it based on an ideology, certainly not practicality, it is the illusion of success...

The efficiency of government investing... really? Here's an for you.

The biggest customer of the bank is Boeing. Boeing is the US's single largest exporter. You know Who Boeing competes with? Government financed manufacturers in the EU and China.

Stick to your 'free market' ideology in this global marketplace, and all the US will be exporting is the waste packaging materials from products made outside the United States, and financed by other governments. Garbage is one of our currently largest exports, btw.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The efficiency of government investing... really? Here's an for you.

The biggest customer of the bank is Boeing. Boeing is the US's single largest exporter. You know Who Boeing competes with? Government financed manufacturers in the EU and China.

Stick to your 'free market' ideology in this global marketplace, and all the US will be exporting is the waste packaging materials from products made outside the United States, and financed by other governments. Garbage is one of our currently largest exports, btw.

Then shut Boeing down.

Bet you cannot do it. Those idiots live in a system that suppresses innovation and competition through the positive interference of government a fallacy of economics that the bank seeks to emulate. Boeing would be much slimmer and more agile if they had to compete. We do them no favor.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The one and only.
Ryan’s Supply-Side 2012 Budget
By Larry Kudlow
March 20, 2012 3:51 P.M.

There are a lot of really good things in Paul Ryan’s new budget, which is a stark contrast to the Obama budget. Ryan cuts spending by over $5 trillion, lowers the deficit by over $3 trillion, and brings the debt-to-GDP ratio down to 62 percent. All of these are ten-year totals.

Ryan also cuts back on small entitlements, block-granting them to the states. Then, of course, there’s the new and improved Medicare-reform plan.

But what I really like about this year’s Ryan budget is his singular emphasis on pro-growth, supply-side tax reform.

Working with Dave Camp, Ryan has laid out a great blueprint for Mitt Romney and the whole Republican party. In particular, while listening to the budget meister at a small luncheon for conservative journalists and think-tankers in Washington on Monday, what I heard again and again was an emphasis on economic growth.

This is not to say Ryan is not worried about spending, deficits, and debt, which of course he is. But his reform message to limit government really spends a lot of time on tax simplification, ending cronyist carve-outs and loopholes, and of course dropping the personal and corporate rates.

Growth solves a lot of problems. All those GDP ratios for spending, deficits, and debt look a lot better when the GDP denominator is rising rapidly. Not through inflation, but through new incentives to promote real growth.

Unfortunately, the first cut of the Ryan budget is based on CBO static estimates of growth and revenues. That is a budget-committee obligation. But I’m told that on Thursday we will get a different set of numbers based on dynamic scoring of lower tax-rate incentives. I’m guessing the growth difference is 3 percent static and 4 percent dynamic. Dropping tax rates as much as Ryan does, which reminds me of Reagan-era tax reform, could probably produce even more growth. Therefore, the budget could be balanced in a much shorter period of time with much lower debt ratios.

Let’s see what the second set of numbers brings.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Then shut Boeing down.

Bet you cannot do it. Those idiots live in a system that suppresses innovation and competition through the positive interference of government a fallacy of economics that the bank seeks to emulate. Boeing would be much slimmer and more agile if they had to compete. We do them no favor.

They can't compete, because the global playing field isn't level.

I know you are out there in fly-over land, but until you get the interwebs on your talking boxes, let me give you an advanced warning... we are balls deep in a global economy. Capital moves around the world with the push of a button.

...and the horse died so you won't be getting your Sear's and Roebuck's catalog this month.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They can't compete, because the global playing field isn't level.

I know you are out there in fly-over land, but until you get the interwebs on your talking boxes, let me give you an advanced warning... we are balls deep in a global economy. Capital moves around the world with the push of a button.

...and the horse died so you won't be getting your Sear's and Roebuck's catalog this month.

I suggest you read Bastiat on protectionism and tariffs.

The effects have been known since the 1850s.

I'll bet it was on a test...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How Obamanomics retards any recovery...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-broken-window-company/?singlepage=true

 

[RobDownSouth]

How Obamanomics retards any recovery...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-broken-window-company/?singlepage=true

Good ole AJ, bashin' unions once again.

"It's always the union's fault" is a core tenet of the Glibertarian pseudophilosophy.....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Factory activity in China fell for the fifth-straight month in March, according to a private survey, suggesting momentum in the world's No. 2 economy may be slowing down.




Walmart expecting another recession?

Looks like we're headed to 13K...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yet ANOTHER 4-Year-LOW For Jobless Claims

LINK

4est_4est_Gump expected to convene emergency meeting of America Haters society once Vetteman wakes up from his nap.

 

[koalabear]

"The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, declined 1,250 to 355,000.

So only 355,000 people lost jobs."

 

[richard_daily]

He thinks it's a right wing school of fanaticism.

Nah, that would be the "Skool of Rush Limbaugh".

 

[RobDownSouth]

"The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, declined 1,250 to 355,000.

So only 355,000 people lost jobs."

You conveniently left out the next sentence..
"Initial claims dropped 5,000 between the February and March survey periods, suggesting another month of solid job gains."

BTW, send any money to your spiritual brother George Zimmerman's defense fund yet? I think you can contribute at Letshuntniggers.com

 

[koalabear]

You conveniently left out the next sentence..
"Initial claims dropped 5,000 between the February and March survey periods, suggesting another month of solid job gains."

BTW, send any money to your spiritual brother George Zimmerman's defense fund yet? I think you can contribute at Letshuntniggers.com

and you failed to mention how many lost their extensions because the unemployment rate is dropping, maggot.

 

[RobDownSouth]

and you failed to mention how many lost their extensions because the unemployment rate is dropping, maggot.

Strawman. Extensions weren't mentioned in the article. You're just trying to draw attention away.

 

[koalabear]

Strawman. Extensions weren't mentioned in the article. You're just trying to draw attention away.

Now why wouldn't the article mention that, maggot.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now why wouldn't the article mention that, maggot.

Can't stand economic good news, can you?

Keep trying to redefine the news to what you wish they'd said, and then bash them for the position you've assigned them.

 

[koalabear]

Can't stand economic good news, can you?

Keep trying to redefine the news to what you wish they'd said, and then bash them for the position you've assigned them.

Keep your head up UD's ass, at least it hides your face.