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

[mercury14]

My mistake, I meant 22 million federal gov't employees.

There aren't 22 million federal employees.

 

[phrodeau]

Gee, you guys must be right. The military doesn't need a new and better power source, and it's complete folly for the Feds to waste money on the energy sector.

Bozos.

 

[phrodeau]

I did make an error earlier. I suggested that koalabear had used his brain. Silly really.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My mistake, I meant 22 million federal gov't employees.

Still wrong, you stupid son of a bitch. Off by one order of magnitude...that's PatriotMath™ territory.

Here's something to chew on:
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1981 under Saint Reagan — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 under Barack Obama — 2,840,000

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

LINK

 

[Busybody]

Abbott and Costello and “What’s the Real Unemployment Rate”?



If you haven’t seen Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First?” routine, then you are missing a comic classic. I wonder how long it took them to write and rehearse it. “They performed the routine hundreds, maybe thousands of times in vaudeville theaters and on the set of the 1945 film ‘The Naughty Nineties.’” Someone has taken the “Who’s On First?” give-and-take and did a little thing with unemployment figures. I’d love to see this in a video. It could become a classic:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 8%

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 8%.

ABBOTT: 8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 8% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.



COSTELLO: But they are ALL unemployed!

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking. If you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment rolls, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Of course!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 8%. If you counted them ALL it would be 16%. He doesn’t want anybody reading about 16% unemployment.

COSTELLO: Would that would be tough on his reelection?

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Does that mean there are two ways to bring down the unemployment rate?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have Obama’s supporters stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Obama!


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7733/a...ats-the-real-unemployment-rate/#ixzz2AR3e6qV5

 

[Wok]

I want one of those cushy government jobs that pay all the money and benefits. Where do I sign up?

 

[Busybody]

I want one of those cushy government jobs that pay all the money and benefits. Where do I sign up?

STFU, DIRTBAG, DOUCHE

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

‘Anti-Business’ Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900

By Pat Garofalo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Oct 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that this charge is nonsense.

In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tax2_large.gif

Even if corporate profits under Obama are compared to the 2008 peak — in order to erase the effect of the financial crisis — “average annual corporate profit growth under President Obama is 6.8%,” or nearly three times as large as it was under President Reagan. Both Presidents Bush actually oversaw corporate profit declines during their terms. Meanwhile, real GDP growth per capita is far higher under Obama than it was under either Bush administration.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/

 

[jeninflorida]

Still wrong, you stupid son of a bitch. Off by one order of magnitude...that's PatriotMath™ territory.

Here's something to chew on:
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1981 under Saint Reagan — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 under Barack Obama — 2,840,000

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

LINK

and the more government workers, the better the economy is

 

[jeninflorida]

wow, you are giving SeanR a run for his money. smoking the obama juice, isn't it kind of early?

‘Anti-Business’ Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900

By Pat Garofalo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Oct 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that this charge is nonsense.

In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tax2_large.gif

Even if corporate profits under Obama are compared to the 2008 peak — in order to erase the effect of the financial crisis — “average annual corporate profit growth under President Obama is 6.8%,” or nearly three times as large as it was under President Reagan. Both Presidents Bush actually oversaw corporate profit declines during their terms. Meanwhile, real GDP growth per capita is far higher under Obama than it was under either Bush administration.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/

 

[RobDownSouth]

I want one of those cushy government jobs that pay all the money and benefits. Where do I sign up?

I took the MARTA train in Atlanta recently, if you get off at the Peachtree Center (N1) station there's a large federal employment center as you exit the station on the right.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Most from overseas operations that Obama is trying to bring to an end. No cigar. Never trust a Garofalo.

Well we kinda have our options. Try to bring those jobs back, or tax the rich. They clearly aren't creating jobs on their own.

 

[unregistered]

 

[pete]

Well we kinda have our options. Try to bring those jobs back, or tax the rich. They clearly aren't creating jobs on their own.

tax the rich, ok. then what?

i'm curious how taking rich people's money will somehow make my mortgage go down, increase my home's value, increase my take-home pay or make the sun shine brighter on my back yard?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

tax the rich, ok. then what?

i'm curious how taking rich people's money will somehow make my mortgage go down, increase my home's value, increase my take-home pay or make the sun shine brighter on my back yard?

Then figure out how best to redistribute it and what programs we want to use and how and why. It doesn't make your mortgage go down, neither does having a high paying job. However the less you have to pay or in some cases save to to care for yourself the less you have to spend on other shit. It doesn't directly increase your home's value, but if you had a little bit of spare time to do those repairs you've been putting off or pay for some landscaping it would. It could increase your take home pay if we thought the most effective method was just to give to you. We'd be better off investing in better schools so that our kids are the ones going to Harvard though. It would be better spent on getting infrastructure improved.

Take everything they have a run the government for 6 months, then what about next year?

Let me see if I have this right. We take roughly 35% of what they make NOW and have run the country, albeit at a deficit since the 80's and now it we took it all it wouldn't last six months? You gotta explain how that crazy crazy math works.

 

[Adre]

Yes they do, and assuming that jobs can be brought back here with the same result without creating a more suitable business climate is just an uninformed Democrat talking point.

Precisely. I also prefer the uninformed Republican talking points.

 

[jeninflorida]

except the problem with redistribution is that....its a short one time fix. those that chose to live off welfare will still be living off welfare

wealth redistribution is a mistake...always has been....always will be.

people chose to live on welfare.

Then figure out how best to redistribute it and what programs we want to use and how and why. It doesn't make your mortgage go down, neither does having a high paying job. However the less you have to pay or in some cases save to to care for yourself the less you have to spend on other shit. It doesn't directly increase your home's value, but if you had a little bit of spare time to do those repairs you've been putting off or pay for some landscaping it would. It could increase your take home pay if we thought the most effective method was just to give to you. We'd be better off investing in better schools so that our kids are the ones going to Harvard though. It would be better spent on getting infrastructure improved.



Let me see if I have this right. We take roughly 35% of what they make NOW and have run the country, albeit at a deficit since the 80's and now it we took it all it wouldn't last six months? You gotta explain how that crazy crazy math works.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

First you have to explain you're lack of reading comprehension. I said if you take ALL they have you'd be able to run the government for about six months, but then they'd have nothing to steal next year. Get it?

That doesn't sound like utter bullshit to you? Not that anybody is suggesting taking 100%, people are suggesting currently taking roughly 39% of their income but if your saying if we took all their assets it would only last six months well who the fuck cares? When has anybody start talking about siezing assets and not taxing income?

 

[pete]

let's take a closer look.

Then figure out how best to redistribute it and what programs we want to use and how and why.

so, you're talking about adding gov't programs to "figure out" how to redistribute. who do you think knows money management best, goverment workers or the private sector? (that's a rhetorical question, btw)

It doesn't make your mortgage go down, neither does having a high paying job. However the less you have to pay or in some cases save to to care for yourself the less you have to spend on other shit.

the less i have to pay? why would i be paying less?
and i'm not paying less to care for myself, my healthcare costs have gone up, thanks to your buddy BO.

It doesn't directly increase your home's value, but if you had a little bit of spare time to do those repairs you've been putting off or pay for some landscaping it would.

IF i had spare time. which i don't. but it's a lovely thought.

It could increase your take home pay if we thought the most effective method was just to give to you.

so, taking from the rich to give to me directly. even though they're already paying a higher % of their income in taxes. that's some incentive to succeed in america: "do well in school, and make more money so we can take it and give it to those who didn't work as hard as you!"

We'd be better off investing in better schools so that our kids are the ones going to Harvard though.

we've invested billions and billions and billions in schools. schools don't make better pupils, teachers do. and the teacher unions always fight whatever program comes down the pipe, and refuse to fire the no-goods among them. it's not an issue of money.

It would be better spent on getting infrastructure improved.

that's not bad. but rich people money will be a cup of water in that swimming pool of need.

yeah, ok, you sold me. let's milk those rich fuckers for all they're worth!

 

[RobDownSouth]

let's take a closer look.
i'm not paying less to care for myself, my healthcare costs have gone up, thanks to your buddy BO.

Yeah, your health care costs NEVER EVER went up under Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Dubya. But hey, as soon as Obama took office, they skyrocketed.

 

[mercury14]

Obama full of shit as usual:


Average GDP Growth Less than Half of What Obama Predicted
9:00 AM, OCT 26, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/average-gdp-growth-less-half-what-obama-predicted_657832.html

Nice propaganda. Obama came into office and the recession immediately turned out to be FAR worse than Obama or anyone else predicted. So as the facts changed, so did the assessment of the situation. The White House's assessment of the state of the economy in January 2009 was far too rosy, just like everyone else's (blame Obama for that if you want but be consistent and blame the GOP as well). The inaccuracy of the estimation on GDP wasn't because of a flawed view of economic policy nearly as much as it's because of a bad take on where the economic baseline would be.