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

[RobDownSouth]

I do to (sic), what of it. Romney only fucked up Mass. Obamaloney fucked up teh country.

^^^
http://www.bitlogic.com/images/theodenbutthurt.jpg

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

^^^
http://www.bitlogic.com/images/theodenbutthurt.jpg

looool

 

[fuckwaffle]

^^^

^^^ The hater from the south checks in with his hate for everyone who doesn't agree with him.

 

[Busybody]

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/09/466x256xObamaTweet036.jpg.pagespeed.b.ic.gXfN2rI5cG.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If we're doing so fine, as I have discovered after three pages of pure tripe...



Why is the Presidential race not over, locked up and in the bag?

 

[mercury14]

If we're doing so fine, as I have discovered after three pages of pure tripe...



Why is the Presidential race not over, locked up and in the bag?

Where in these three pages are you reading that the economy is doing fine?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My President told me.


My guess would be in the tenor and the tone of "We didn't wreck that..."

Of course, there's very little "We fixed that."

After nearly four years now, Bernake is announcing yet another patch to hold us over another month or two...

I know, I know, it's time to throw out the rolling average thingy and say from the very worst to the very best, look how good we did! So what if we never got to 300K a month in job creation, at least they weren't ALL 95K, we had some good months in there, why it's going to take us years upon years upon years to turn this thing around, after all, look how long the Great Depression lasted and look at Japan! If you study Japan, you know that stimulus and multipliers take a long time to work their magic! So, with everything considered and how bad it could have really have been, we're doing just fine...

Aren't we merc?

 

[mercury14]

My President told me.

So nobody here said things were fine then? Monday 6:30 AM on on the east coast and AJ's already ascribing liberals positions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I did, in fact, infer that from the vehemence of the unoriginal cut&pastes and soundbytes being employed against the evil General...,

General Republican Philosophy.

And we are doing fine. Our President said it.

How is that ascription?

That's a claim,

staked!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Eine Kleine Ascription von der liberalen Politik

The Democrats’ GM Fiction
The Editors, NRO
September 10, 2012

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)

We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.

Fiction???

When TV is reality?

Who are you going to believe? Democrats or their lying critics?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Wir sind fein!

Obama Doubled the Jobs Deficit
There are 86,000 fewer jobs today than when he took office.
Bob Beauprez, NRO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

President Obama has spun the latest jobs report in a desperate effort to keep his own job, stressing to voters that August saw modest job growth in the private sector. What the president won’t say is that the growth is measured only against the previous month’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and that 86,000 fewer jobs exist in America today than when he took office in January 2009. Moreover, whatever modest jobs growth the president can claim in recent months is dwarfed by the increase of the work-force population.

During the Obama administration, the jobs deficit has doubled — that is, the gap between the actual number of jobs and the number we would expect in a historically “normal” economy with the current size of the U.S. population.

Forget “forward.” Obamanomics has resulted in an economy that has been sliding downhill fast.

As the accompanying table based on Labor Department statistics indicates, the total age-eligible work-force population has increased by more than 8.8 million people since January 2009. Typically two-thirds of the age-eligible population enters the work force, so the increase in the work-force population for this period would normally be about 5.9 million. Obama likes to take credit for “creating” 4.5 million jobs since the economy hit bottom in late 2009 — a figure too low for the expanding age-eligible population and also deceptive, as the number of jobs created during the Obama administration has fallen short of the number of jobs lost.

The real measure for any president leading an economic recovery is how quickly the economy returns to “normal” — how long it takes for the jobs deficit to be eliminated. The table clearly shows that, far from filling the jobs-deficit hole, Obama’s policies have only deepened it.

When Obama took office in January 2009, the jobs deficit was 5.5 million. The jobs deficit then worsened dramatically through the summer of 2011, eventually exceeding 11.2 million. The economy showed some life in late 2011 and early 2012 but then started sliding backward again with a series of dismal monthly economic reports. The disappointing September report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the jobs deficit has climbed again to 11.2 million — twice the deficit Obama inherited.

...

While jobs in proportion to population have not increased, various other Labor Department statistics document “growth” in some categories that the president would like voters to ignore.

Today, after three and a half years of Obama’s non-recovery recovery, 495,000 more Americans are unemployed than when he took office. More than 8.4 million could work but aren’t looking for a job. The number of people, 6.957 million, who want a job but can’t find one has increased by more than a million. The number of workers, 8 million, who have settled for a part-time job because of the rotten economy remains stuck at twice the level we would see in a normal economy.

Obama cannot honestly claim that jobs have increased relative to the size of the population, nor can he say that his policies are returning the U.S. to a normal economy. We are sliding backward. In August 2009, Obama crowed from the Rose Garden that he had “rescued our economy from catastrophe” and that the recovery was on. Three years — and three failed “recovery summers” later — the Labor Department’s data tell a different and damning story.

 

[mercury14]

I did, in fact, infer that from the vehemence of the unoriginal cut&pastes and soundbytes being employed against the evil General...,

General Republican Philosophy.

And we are doing fine. Our President said it.

How is that ascription?

That's a claim,

staked!

Stop making things up. Or at least have a cup of coffee first... Damn.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who knows, maybe the aircraft carrier can launch a miracle kamikaze flight, a "Divine Wind" that blows in the leaves of the FALL of RECOVERY...



Maybe he can get 51% of the Nation to adopt the "NEW NORMAL!"



Hope & Chains 2012!

 

[mercury14]

Obama Doubled the Jobs Deficit
There are 86,000 fewer jobs today than when he took office.
Bob Beauprez, NRO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

Articles that blame Obama for the recession aren't to be taken seriously though.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Stop making things up. Or at least have a cup of coffee first... Damn.

He said we're doing fine, and by "we," I don't mean you, I mean those of us in the Private Sector, not "privy" on the Public Dole...


The Private Sector is doing fine, it's you who are hurting, it's you who needs more of our money, it's you who President Obama fights more against those ugly, bitter, greedy rich!

This, I cannot make up! He who built it all has told me thus!

 

[mercury14]

The Democrats’ GM Fiction
The Editors, NRO
September 10, 2012



Fiction???

When TV is reality?

Who are you going to believe? Democrats or their lying critics?

Which investor was willing to lend GM a dime?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Articles that blame Obama for the recession aren't to be taken seriously though.

So bad news is wrong news. We get that. Only good news and TV are reality...



Un-Spinning Jobs Numbers
Randall Hoven, the lying not to be read, The American Thinker, which is nothing short of lies, propaganda and misinformation.
September 10, 2012

I detect some confusion in the electorate regarding jobs numbers. Obama claims he created 4.5 million private-sector jobs. His critics claim he lost 4 million. Are we better off than four years ago? Fact-checkers, shockingly, aren't helping us sort this out very well. So let me try.

Usually, the numbers you hear are technically correct -- they would pass a raw fact check. But the numbers are not comparable apples-to-apples and not necessarily meaningful. It all depends on your starting point and what you are really comparing.

Look at this chart, which is the total number of private sector jobs over the last five years.

[see charts: http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...cles/../2012/09/un-spinning_jobs_numbers.html ]

Source: St. Louis Fed, FRED series USPRIV.

Your choice of starting point obviously makes a big difference, since the economy lost 8.9 million private-sector jobs in two years. The table below shows the various answers you would get, depending on how you define things.



Total Non-Farm Jobs

Private-Sector Jobs

From last peak (Jan '08)

-4.7 million

-4.2 million

Four years ago (Sep '08)

-3.0 million

-2.4 million

Inauguration (Jan '09)

-261 thousand

+415 thousand

From trough (Feb '10)

+4.1 million

+4.6 million

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out why the White House likes to count (a) private-sector jobs and (b) only since hitting bottom in February 2010 (the "last 30 months," at this point). That is the largest positive number in the above table. It's as simple as that.

Obama uses a cute trick: if you start counting from only once things started getting better, then things got better. And things always got better at some point after every U.S. recession in history.

What is "right"? That's a very good question. I always prefer to compare apples to apples. How does Obama's recovery compare to other recoveries?

Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and start counting at the low point in private-sector jobs. After all, that is how he is doing it. How does his 30-month-post-trough pace compare to other recessions?

Date of trough in private sector jobs

President during next 30 months

Net increase in private sector jobs (millions)

Percentage increase

Oct 1949

Truman

+4.97

+13.5%

Aug 1954

Ike

+3.52

+8.4

Jun 1958

Ike

+2.16

+5.0

Feb 1961

JFK/LBJ

+2.57

+5.7

Nov 1970

Nixon

+5.25

+9.1

Jun 1975

Ford/Carter

+7.14

+11.6

Jul 1980

Carter/Reagan

-0.46

-0.6

Dec 1982

Reagan

+8.16

+11.2

Feb 1992

Bush 41/Clinton

+5.94

+6.6

Jul 2003

Bush 43

+5.02

+4.6

Feb 2010

Obama

+4.63

+4.3

In my opinion, the right-most column represents the fairest comparison. We are using the same measure Obama uses: private-sector job increases over the 30 months from the low point associated with a recession. And since the number of total private jobs varied from 37 to 115 million over those years, a percentage change is a more fair comparison than absolute numbers.

So how does Obama stack up against other recession-recovery presidents? The worst except for Jimmy Carter. That's because, in Carter's case, a second recession started within that 30-month window.

(In Jimmy's defense, he holds the all-time record for private-sector jobs created within any 30-month window: 8.7 million in his first 30 months in office. That is even better than Reagan's 8.3 million after his tax cut in 1983. The best 30-month window under Clinton was 7.3 million. Obama is bragging about a number that is barely half of Carter's.)

Even in absolute numbers, Obama's 4.6 million is worse than the recoveries under Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, and Truman.

There is a reason this is called the worst "recovery" in history. And, by the way, we haven't recovered yet.

Since World War II, we have averaged a recession about every 6 years (in fact, every 69 months). If you define "complete recovery" as exceeding the number of private-sector jobs prior to the recession, we have "completely recovered" from all post-war recessions except one -- this one.

In all post-war recessions prior to 1990, private-sector jobs recovered within 27 months or less of the pre-recession peak. The two Bush recoveries took longer: 36 and 54 months, respectively. In Obama's case, we are 55 months away from the pre-recession peak in private-sector jobs, and counting. And we have another 4.2 million jobs to go! At the current pace, it will take 82 months to "completely recover."

As you can see in the chart below, most recessions form a "V" in terms of private sector jobs. That is, the jobs came back about as quickly as they went away. In 9 of the 10 previous pre-war recessions, private jobs had completely recovered within 14 months of bottoming out. In the 10th recession (Bush 43's recovery), complete recovery was 23 months post-trough.



But look at the last recession in this chart, Obama's recovery. It is the only one that is not roughly symmetric. The recovery is much slower than the decline. We're at 30 months post-trough, and nowhere near complete recovery. The pace of this recovery is the slowest of all post-war recessions.

At our current pace, we should be completely recovered by the end of 2014. If so, that would be the longest time to recover from a recession in our history. And that's if we're lucky. The last recession started in December 2007. If averages hold up, the next one will start in 2013.

It's possible, even likely, that this will be the first time in history that another recession starts before private-sector jobs completely recover from the last.

 

[mercury14]

He said we're doing fine, and by "we," I don't mean you, I mean those of us in the Private Sector, not "privy" on the Public Dole...


The Private Sector is doing fine, it's you who are hurting, it's you who needs more of our money, it's you who President Obama fights more against those ugly, bitter, greedy rich!

This, I cannot make up! He who built it all has told me thus!

You said people here posted in the last three pages that the economy is doing fine. You got caught making things up again. Man up and take responsibility for your posts for once.

 

[mercury14]

So bad news is wrong news. We get that. Only good news and TV are reality...



Un-Spinning Jobs Numbers
Randall Hoven, the lying not to be read, The American Thinker, which is nothing short of lies, propaganda and misinformation.
September 10, 2012

Blaming Obama for the recession is pure stupidity on your part. Or are you going to backpedal again and say this is one of those articles that you C&P but don't believe in?

You realize you're going to American Thinker ultra-conservative opinion pieces for your "no-spin" information, right? I've heard it's not always the best source for such things. What do you think?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You said people here posted in the last three pages that the economy is doing fine. You got caught making things up again. Man up and take responsibility for your posts for once.

I already did propaganda breath.

All you have is this tawdry childish game you play because you cannot talk up your party's economic polity and financial acumen...

So, you do nothing but try to rattle various opposition posters with infantilized, parsed attacks on slight errors of rhetoric so that you do not have to focus on the larger errors of:


“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
Barack Obama, The Today Show February 1, 2009.

"We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

If you ask me, I think what we're experiencing isn't in fact closer to a "growthless" recovery than to a jobless one. Because GDP started to grow more than a year and a half ago, but with the exception of just a couple of quarters, growth has not been noticeably above its trend rate of about 2-1/2 percent a year. I don't rejoice at the news that we added 216,000 jobs in March. About a hundred thousand of that 216,000 is needed every month just to keep up with the growth in the labor force. At this rate of job growth, it would take most of the decade to replace the eight 8-1/2 million jobs that were lost in the recession.
Christina Romer
Chairwoman of Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisors

We tried our plan, AND IT WORKED!!!

Recovery you can believe in!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Blaming Obama for the recession is pure stupidity on your part. Or are you going to backpedal again and say this is one of those articles that you C&P but don't believe in?

You realize you're going to American Thinker ultra-conservative opinion pieces for your "no-spin" information, right? I've heard it's not always the best source for such things. What do you think?

Did I blame Obama, or is that ASCRIPTION???




You may be a real man and apologize now.

 

[mercury14]

Did I blame Obama, or is that ASCRIPTION???




You may be a real man and apologize now.

You posted an article that blames Obama for the recession. Do us all a favor and put AJ-APPROVED or AJ-DISAPPROVED at the end of your C&Ps.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Your response time shows that you didn't take the time to read it.



Let's try this: I demand quotes.

I think you just don't want to man up...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The administration’s sole support for its contention that there has been meaningful job market improvement on its watch rests on one carefully chosen statistic: “The economy has now added private sector jobs for 30 straight months, for a total of 4.6 million jobs during that period.”

That claim is incorrect. It is true that the Establishment Survey at the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that private-sector employers had 4.63 million more workers in August than they did in February 2010 after seasonal adjustments. However, the BLS’s separate Household Survey tells us that the ranks of the unincorporated self-employed, all of whom are certainly private-sector participants, shrank during that time by 440,000 to a seasonally adjusted 9.46 million, knocking down the administration’s cherry-picked number by 9.5%. (The BLS doesn’t seasonally adjust its figures for the far smaller cadre of those who are self-employed but incorporated; their respective raw values in February 2010 and August 2012 were virtually identical.)

Qualitatively, the job market decay is all around us. The following stats only scratch the surface of the ugliness (all figures are seasonally adjusted):

Full-time employment only increased by 43,000 in August. It’s down (yes, down) by 902,000 since March, and by over 1.4 million since Obama took office.

562,000 fewer married men and 700,000 fewer married women were employed in August than were when the recession officially ended in June 2009.

22% of the 3.47 million private-sector jobs created since the recession’s end have been at temporary help services.

What about what the new jobs created actually pay? The National Employment Law Project recently reported that “Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession (job) losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth. Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.” The leftists at the NELP wouldn’t state the obvious, so I will: Their research proves that the Obama administration’s economic policies are gutting the middle class.
President Obama’s failed stimulus program, brutally expensive and common law-shredding auto company bailouts, bankrupt “green energy” initiatives, and other exercises in “fundamentally transforming” the economy have extended a deep recession which predominantly traces its origins to decades of dangerous Democrat-driven housing policies, pervasive fraud against Wall Street and investors at Democrat crony-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and 2008 campaign promises by Obama and fellow Democrats which the nation’s entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors correctly saw as threats. The president’s and fellow party members’ bully-pulpit hostility directed at the productive (“You didn’t build that“), the regulatory regime’s unprecedented overreach, and the prospect of ObamaCare’s disruptive implementation have created an atmosphere of chilling uncertainty virtually guaranteeing that the nation’s economic malaise will continue as long as they control the levers of power.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/43-months-of-depressing-misery/?singlepage=true

 

[mercury14]

I already did propaganda breath.

No you didn't. And I'm not the one spamming a tsunami of pasted propaganda this morning. Do me a favor and read your own posts or something.

All you have is this tawdry childish game you play because you cannot talk up your party's economic polity and financial acumen...

Sure I can, as much as it's worth. But you're not trying to have that conversation - you're playing games with Thinker propaganda and quotes instead of actual policy. You avoid talking about substance (policy) and masturbate to the same sound bytes every morning that you've been masturbating to since 2009.

So, you do nothing but try to rattle various opposition posters with infantilized, parsed attacks on slight errors of rhetoric so that you do not have to focus on the larger errors of...

"Slight errors of rhetoric"? Um, no not even a little bit. You rolled out of bed and immediately started off with a sweeping Straw Man argument and then went from there. That's not a slight error, it's a core fallacy that invalidated your entire debate. Then you outright refuse to take responsibility for it, minimizing what you did to the point that you pretend your essential logical fallacy is unassailable.

Your logic is terrible and you're not arguing in good faith. Go to work and start over tomorrow. You're off to a shit start this week but maybe you can turn it around later in a day or two.