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

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

This thread is like whack-a-mole where the moles are all conservative dipshits who don't know how to debate a point.

Vetteman pops up with a Heritage blog that he wants to say is an objective source - WHACK! Down he goes. And that's about the best argument conservatives are making here. I miss Firespin. He was the one rightie that respected objective data. These chuckleheads he left behind are pure bush league. (pun intended)

I've said this before. I believe Firesipin would laugh at these naysayers and idiots.

Uhmm, Merc, has it ever occured to you to just sit back, take a look around, and figure out for yourself what the fuck is going on???

Yes, we understand there remains an education problem in the USA.

 

[mercury14]

Ahahahahaha.....the blindest of the three blind mice has spoken.

Still dodging basic questions with personal attacks?

"Personal attacks are the last refuge of an idiot" - Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[cebalrai]

What makes you think it's objective? I'll wait.

Shit, did you ever ask what made you think the Heritage Foundation is objective? You know, since their mission statement says they exist to promote right wing ideas and all? THAT is what you call objective, huh?

I think Moody's is objective because neither party accuses them of bias. Both use this firm to make their points because they're objective. Also they make their living off of being neutral - if they swung one way or another they'd be a failure.

Regardless as was posted earlier their chief economist was on staff for republicans for years. Just think how EXCITED you'd be right now if you learned that this guy was the economist for a Democrat. You'd piss your pants. But here you are trying to prove that a Republican is full of liberal bias towards democrats. I don't think you've thought this through, Vette.

No, Moody's is just business analysis, there's no ideology. Of course who the fuck am I talking to? You're the one that claims that "We exist to promote conservative policy" still doesn't mean there's any idological bias.

 

[cebalrai]

You dish out the personal attacks on a grand scale and cry when they are returned. Big baby,

Fuck, at least he does it while making a point. You just have all these posts for no other reason than 5th grade insults. I mean, you're even worse than jenny in this respect.

 

[mercury14]

What makes you think it's objective? I'll wait.

So wait a minute let me know if I'm hearing you right. You're saying that the Heritage Foundation is NOT biased. Despite their mission statment saying their whole reason for existing is to promote right-wing ideology... And they're entirely funded by conservatives....

And that Moody's IS biased despite a sterling reputation and no accusations of such by people from either side of the spectrum? Moody's does business analysis. They're independent and have no funding or idealogical ties to either party. Also they's an analytical firm (Moody's Analytics is their full name), and do not exist to advise on policy.

You're having a bad day again Vette. Go to bed.

 

[busybody..]

"The fiscal stimulus was quite successful in helping to end the Great Recession and to accelerate the recovery." Page 14.

What is it I'm claiming it says that's not accurate?

Listen up and listen good

Your inaccurate portrayal of what is in the report

(that is not only outdated, written BEFORE the extent of the STIM PAK was know, based on inaccurate CONJECTURE, that you didn't read in its entirety, that is contradicted by CURRENT data)

Will work well with the unthinking on LIT, like LOOKATDICK and LAWNJOCKEY et al


But it doesnt work with those that are reality based in fact

So sell your crap to crap buyers

The bottom line, which is obvious to all and has been said by all, including as I linked, by FAT BITCH and HO! as well

IT DIDNT WORK

 

[busybody..]

So wait a minute let me know if I'm hearing you right. You're saying that the Heritage Foundation is NOT biased. Despite their mission statment saying their whole reason for existing is to promote right-wing ideology... And they're entirely funded by conservatives....

And that Moody's IS biased despite a sterling reputation and no accusations of such by people from either side of the spectrum? Moody's does business analysis. They're independent and have no funding or idealogical ties to either party. Also they's an analytical firm (Moody's Analytics is their full name), and do not exist to advise on policy.

You're having a bad day again Vette. Go to bed.

so FREEDOM of choice and American values is BIASED?

YOU OUTA BE STRUNG UP RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR PALI RELATIVES

 

[busybody..]

Orwell's 1984 has come true again

Oops!


W.H. flags Drudge-mocked transcript


By JULIE MASON | 06/21/11 4:52 PM Updated: 06/21/11 4:55 PM
http://images.politico.com/global/politico44/062111_transcript_courtesy_283_regular.jpg

When laughter turns to applause: Welcome to the White House White House
Close The Drudge Report Tuesday morning cheekily linked to an official White House transcript of President Obama's remarks from a fundraiser the night before, which noted the audience laughing at his jobs claims.

"Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.)" said Obama per the transcript, emailed to reporters Monday night at around 11:30 p.m.

It did seem a little strange -- because why would Obama supporters laugh at job creation? But the matter prompted some informal wagering within the press corps on the over-under for how long it would take the White House to put an end to the laughter -- especially after the link appeared at the top of the heavily trafficked Drudge site.

At 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday, the corrected transcript appeared: Laughter changed to applause, and noted with an asterisk. The White House declined comment on the record.

Jen Bendery of the Huffington Post, print pooler for the DNC event at the Mandarin Oriental, said she heard applause, too.

"It was just applause, really," Bendery said. "I'm guessing the stenographer accidentally plugged in the parenthetical laughter instead of the parenthetical applause."

 

[cebalrai]

Listen up and listen good

Your inaccurate portrayal of what is in the report

(that is not only outdated, written BEFORE the extent of the STIM PAK was know, based on inaccurate CONJECTURE, that you didn't read in its entirety, that is contradicted by CURRENT data)

Will work well with the unthinking on LIT, like LOOKATDICK and LAWNJOCKEY et al


But it doesnt work with those that are reality based in fact

So sell your crap to crap buyers

The bottom line, which is obvious to all and has been said by all, including as I linked, by FAT BITCH and HO! as well

IT DIDNT WORK

So now your song changes from "the independent analysis says that the stimulus didn't work" to "there never was independent analysis in the first place".

Gawd you're bad at this.

 

[busybody..]

So now your song changes from "the independent analysis says that the stimulus didn't work" to "there never was independent analysis in the first place".

Gawd you're bad at this.

can it CLOWN!

go PISS in your GF's eyeball!

 

[busybody..]

http://www.moonbattery.com/greatest-president-evah.jpg

 

[busybody..]

Lets IGNORE reality and BASH the source!

Conservative critics have long alleged that the Obama administration is systematically hampering our economy through excessive regulation and by creating needless uncertainty. The administration's sorry record is circumstantial support for this critique, but the Heritage Foundation supplies hard evidence via Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks. For example, Dennis Lockhart, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:

We've frequently heard strong comments to the effect of "my company won't hire a single additional worker until we know what health insurance costs are going to be."

And Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said:

Before the recent mid-term election, most all of my business contacts claimed that taxes, regulatory burdens and the lack of understanding in Washington of what incentivizes private-sector job creation were inhibiting the expansion of their payrolls. They felt stymied by a Congress and an executive branch that have appeared to them to be unaware of, if not outright opposed to, what fires the entrepreneurial spirit. Many felt that opportunities for earning a better and more secure return on investment are larger elsewhere than here at home.

It is a sad day when investors have more confidence in China and Brazil than in the United States, but that is the climate that Barack Obama's startling economic ignorance has created.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[busybody..]

so the quotes from Fed Presidents are either MADE up or maningless

as are the stats!

 

[cebalrai]

Conservative critics have long alleged that the Obama administration is systematically hampering our economy through excessive regulation and by creating needless uncertainty.

So much uncertainly that the Dow climbed a staggering 4,000 points.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The lying spinster strikes again! How come you edited out the parts of your article you didn't like? Such as this:

Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi studied the relative contribution of Obama's $830 billion stimulus compared with TARP and the Fed's "financial-market policies." While the economists credit Obama's stimulus for helping end the recession when it did and keeping unemployment [1.5%!!!!] lower than it would have been, they concluded that TARP and the Fed's actions were "substantially more effective" at saving the economy from ruin.

Except when you read the actual report which I posted here yesterday, Moody's said the opposite - that the stimulus was a much larger factor than TARP. So not only are you a liar, your source is a liar as well. Seriously, go back and click my link to the report and read it yourself.

Conjecture. You cannot prove it because it did not happen the same way you cannot prove that if we had done nothing, the world would have come to a standstill.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

So now your song changes from "the independent analysis says that the stimulus didn't work" to "there never was independent analysis in the first place".

Gawd you're bad at this.

so why don't you jump on the Merc and JoeisaBagFullofNuts in saying that News Corp and Microsoft are responsible for creating jobs. I think we all can agree that Obama is a compete failure when it comes to job creation

but what do we expect from Obama, he has never been in the private sector or held a read job

since is an attorney, the only thing obama knows how to do is steal money from x, and hand it over to y

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Your entire response is goalpost moving. The fact is that the vast majority, if not all significant independent economic analysis says that the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs and was very effective in preventing a second Great Depression.

All you have to counter objectivity is partisan spin. But as I pointed out, you're a religious thinker. You abhor rational thought because it threatens what you so badly want to believe.

No, you are wrong. You cannot say that no jobs were created because capital was introduced into the system and then turn around and resume shouting about how adding borrowed money to the system did create jobs.

That is more the hallmark of "religious" thinking.

If that money was used to light cigars only, then those cigars had to be replaced, and if I followed the logic of Obamanomics, then there are at least some jobs "saved" in that act. But since the money was not burned or stuffed into a mattress, one has to assume that it was put back into the pool of investment capital, thus at least "saving" jobs (a brand new metric for a faltering President) if not actually creating some jobs. In another way of looking at it, if that money, was not all that important to the economy, why has this administration put the strong-arm on Switzerland to help us find cash hidden from putative tax law?

The repeated claim that he created millions of jobs has the logical flaw of ignoring the fact that those jobs might have been created quite outside of any of his actions if we return to your demand theory and revisit the idea that the population is continuing to grow and then we can also wonder and posit, had he done nothing and not interfered with the markets, would he have not retarded the natural job growth that has followed every other recession save this one and FDRs...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Conservative critics have long alleged that the Obama administration is systematically hampering our economy through excessive regulation and by creating needless uncertainty. The administration's sorry record is circumstantial support for this critique, but the Heritage Foundation supplies hard evidence via Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks. For example, Dennis Lockhart, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:

We've frequently heard strong comments to the effect of "my company won't hire a single additional worker until we know what health insurance costs are going to be."

And Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said:

Before the recent mid-term election, most all of my business contacts claimed that taxes, regulatory burdens and the lack of understanding in Washington of what incentivizes private-sector job creation were inhibiting the expansion of their payrolls. They felt stymied by a Congress and an executive branch that have appeared to them to be unaware of, if not outright opposed to, what fires the entrepreneurial spirit. Many felt that opportunities for earning a better and more secure return on investment are larger elsewhere than here at home.

It is a sad day when investors have more confidence in China and Brazil than in the United States, but that is the climate that Barack Obama's startling economic ignorance has created.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-busyb-b-b-b-b-body, they get a TAX CREDIT when they hire!



SEE! Obama gave you wingnuts tax cuts and it didn't do ANYTHING, so your tax cut theory is as "t'in as dis playin' cahd."
__________________
Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. Give me a chance, one chance. Let me question the first witness. If after that point, you don't think that I'm the best man for the job, fire me then and there. I'll leave quietly, no grudges. All I ask is for that one chance. I think you should give it to me.

 

[cebalrai]

Conjecture. You cannot prove it because it did not happen the same way you cannot prove that if we had done nothing, the world would have come to a standstill.

Oh so independent economic analysis is a fraud now? And "conjecture"? But the NRO, Thinker, and Heritage are not ? Moody's is just making things up? When did that happen? Conservatives have not leveled these accusations against this firm - it's just you because you're DESPERATE.

And it's a Republican chief economist at Moody's making this stuff up? Because he wants to make democrats look good? You didn't think this through at all, did you?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

from a business side there is a real lack of confidence in Obama. on top of that many CEO's will not pull the trigger to hire people due to the uncertainty in the market and consumer confidence.

In my opinion, this years Christmas consumer season will have a big sign for consumer confidence. last year people spent money, due to being tried of the recession and doom and gloom from the media. this year, jobs are still scarce and that might stop consumers from spending.

the economic wheel is stuck right now and until things start to move, CEO's will not mass hire or expand.

in the real world CEO's are demanding more for less

No, you are wrong. You cannot say that no jobs were created because capital was introduced into the system and then turn around and resume shouting about how adding borrowed money to the system did create jobs.

That is more the hallmark of "religious" thinking.

If that money was used to light cigars only, then those cigars had to be replaced, and if I followed the logic of Obamanomics, then there are at least some jobs "saved" in that act. But since the money was not burned or stuffed into a mattress, one has to assume that it was put back into the pool of investment capital, thus at least "saving" jobs (a brand new metric for a faltering President) if not actually creating some jobs. In another way of looking at it, if that money, was not all that important to the economy, why has this administration put the strong-arm on Switzerland to help us find cash hidden from putative tax law?

The repeated claim that he created millions of jobs has the logical flaw of ignoring the fact that those jobs might have been created quite outside of any of his actions if we return to your demand theory and revisit the idea that the population is continuing to grow and then we can also wonder and posit, had he done nothing and not interfered with the markets, would he have not retarded the natural job growth that has followed every other recession save this one and FDRs...

 

[cebalrai]

The repeated claim that he created millions of jobs has the logical flaw of ignoring the fact that those jobs might have been created quite outside of any of his actions if we return to your demand theory and revisit the idea that the population is continuing to grow and then we can also wonder and posit, had he done nothing and not interfered with the markets, would he have not retarded the natural job growth that has followed every other recession save this one and FDRs...

The report agrees with you accounts for that. And it STILL concludes that we were +2.7 million jobs over where we'd be without the stimulus.

Try reading the report dumbass. It's clear you have not, otherwise you wouldn't say shit like this.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The report agrees with you accounts for that. And it STILL concludes that we were +2.7 million jobs over where we'd be without the stimulus.

Try reading the report dumbass. It's clear you have not, otherwise you wouldn't say shit like this.

and Enron had slick marketing material, point is there is a disconnect between what consumers are feeling vs the slick obama white papers on the economy