U
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Funny you are the one that said Bush vetoed nothing. Moron.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
why does Merc think/feel he is kicking everyone's butt?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Merc and UD lost 100 pounds, mostly brain cells apparently.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
what really irks me about them, is how blind they are. and mostly how they follow party lines.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
If it's on the campaign for american progress site, it is gospel.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
CHANGE: Home Sales Hit New Low. “Fewer people purchased previously occupied homes in May, bringing sales down to their lowest level of the year. Home sales sank 3.8 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.81 million homes, the weakest pace since November, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday. Economists say that’s far below the 6 million homes per year sold in healthy housing markets.” And what’s really telling is that some are playing this as good news.
But note this: “Another growing problem is that some sales that are under contract and almost finished are falling apart at the last minute. The Realtors’ trade group has noted that an increasing number of deals have been canceled because an appraisal came in below a negotiated price, scuttling home loans in the process.” Not a sign of a recovering market.
But note this: “Another growing problem is that some sales that are under contract and almost finished are falling apart at the last minute. The Realtors’ trade group has noted that an increasing number of deals have been canceled because an appraisal came in below a negotiated price, scuttling home loans in the process.” Not a sign of a recovering market.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Now Confirmed:
Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression…
But It Did Triple the Deficit
Recent data confirms that the Obama-Pelosi $787 billion stimulus plan did not lift the US out of a depression.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5847&xmpSource=&width=640&height=394&caption=
But, the stimulus did accomplish something…
Obama was able to triple the deficit in one year.
Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in half back in 2009.
Instead he tripled it his first year in office and it’s only getting worse.
http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/Yeags12345/obama-deficit-2011.jpg
Obama Stimulus Did Not Lift US Out of Depression…
But It Did Triple the Deficit
Recent data confirms that the Obama-Pelosi $787 billion stimulus plan did not lift the US out of a depression.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5847&xmpSource=&width=640&height=394&caption=
It has become a common refrain at the White House and among administration supporters that President Obama's aggressive efforts to stimulate growth prevented an economic catastrophe.
"We had to hit the ground running and do everything we could to prevent a second Great Depression," Obama told supporters last week.
Politically, the claim makes sense. Casting the challenge Obama faced as immense can help explain the economy's lackluster performance in the two years since the recession officially ended.
But is it an accurate portrayal of what really happened?
IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.
The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.
Economists weren't predicting a Depression.
White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8% — well below the 10.8% peak during the 1981-82 recession, and nowhere near Depression-era unemployment levels.
The same month, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that, absent any stimulus, the recession would end in "the second half of 2009." The recession officially ended in June 2009, suggesting that the stimulus did not have anything to do with it.
The data weren't showing it, either.
The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.
Monthly GDP, for example, stopped free-falling in December 2008, long before the stimulus kicked in, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (See nearby chart.) Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April.
The stimulus timing is off.
When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door. And that figure's likely inflated, since almost a third of the money was in the form of grants to states, which some studies suggest they didn't spend, but used to pay down debt.
Other programs Obama often touts — Cash for Clunkers, mortgage help, homebuyer tax credits, the auto rescue plans — either came as the recession had ended or was ending or were widely deemed to be busts.
"We had to hit the ground running and do everything we could to prevent a second Great Depression," Obama told supporters last week.
Politically, the claim makes sense. Casting the challenge Obama faced as immense can help explain the economy's lackluster performance in the two years since the recession officially ended.
But is it an accurate portrayal of what really happened?
IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.
The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.
Economists weren't predicting a Depression.
White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8% — well below the 10.8% peak during the 1981-82 recession, and nowhere near Depression-era unemployment levels.
The same month, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that, absent any stimulus, the recession would end in "the second half of 2009." The recession officially ended in June 2009, suggesting that the stimulus did not have anything to do with it.
The data weren't showing it, either.
The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.
Monthly GDP, for example, stopped free-falling in December 2008, long before the stimulus kicked in, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (See nearby chart.) Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April.
The stimulus timing is off.
When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door. And that figure's likely inflated, since almost a third of the money was in the form of grants to states, which some studies suggest they didn't spend, but used to pay down debt.
Other programs Obama often touts — Cash for Clunkers, mortgage help, homebuyer tax credits, the auto rescue plans — either came as the recession had ended or was ending or were widely deemed to be busts.
But, the stimulus did accomplish something…
Obama was able to triple the deficit in one year.
Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in half back in 2009.
Instead he tripled it his first year in office and it’s only getting worse.
http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/Yeags12345/obama-deficit-2011.jpg
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,556
Impressive.
No wait it's more funny than impressive. You do realize for example anything done to the deficiet effectively happens in one year right? That this isn't something that builds?
U
unregistered
Guest
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Hey Merc! Check out this White House transcript of the President's remarks on the economy, especially those about job creation. Notice how the audience laughed...they don't believe your shit either:
From the text of the transcript:
"As a consequence of that swift, decisive, and sometimes difficult period, we were able to take an economy that was shrinking by about 6 percent and create an economy that is now growing, and has grown steadily now over many consecutive quarters. Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.) We have an auto industry that, for the first time in a very long time is profitable, and the Big Three automakers actually gaining market share, and not only gaining market share, but also gaining market share in the cars of the future so that they’re actually competing in compact cars and sub-compact cars and electric cars and hybrids."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/20/remarks-president-dnc-event-0
He surely wasn't referring to the Volt.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Hey Merc! Check out this White House transcript of the President's remarks on the economy, especially those about job creation. Notice how the audience laughed...they don't believe your shit either:
From the text of the transcript:
"As a consequence of that swift, decisive, and sometimes difficult period, we were able to take an economy that was shrinking by about 6 percent and create an economy that is now growing, and has grown steadily now over many consecutive quarters. Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.) We have an auto industry that, for the first time in a very long time is profitable, and the Big Three automakers actually gaining market share, and not only gaining market share, but also gaining market share in the cars of the future so that they’re actually competing in compact cars and sub-compact cars and electric cars and hybrids."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/20/remarks-president-dnc-event-0
they were ALL RACISTS
U
unregistered
Guest
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
He doesn't have a clue what he's referring to. Is it even possible to calculate the market share of the Volt?
The Government is the #1 buyer of the Volt.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Dear Koaladipshit,
No I did not say that. Please use your reading comprehension skills you learned in the second grade. Thank you.
Mercury14
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
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.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
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.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
clearly this is 100% untrue by any standard!
U
unregistered
Guest
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Seriously? I hook you up with Moody's, IHS, and Macroeconomic Advisors - and you give me a Heritage link? Not just a Heritage link but their opinion page?
Are you even capable of thinking rationally?
Let's review.
1) You're sucking cock on Heritage blogs. Right and AJ are stuck up the NRO's asshole.
2) I refer you to non-partisan sources. I never use left-wing sources because they make as much sense as right wing ones. Independent sources give real info unfettered by political objectives.
3) You say that I'm the one who's guilty of not thinking. :eek
Sorry Vette, a thinking person uses quality, vetted sources for their information. (hint: you're not doing that)
Last edited:
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Everyone knows you can't, Moron. All partisan shit, all the time. Center for american progress poster boy, just like your twin UD.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Nigger Maff
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – 55 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy.
"This simplification will stop people from falling into coverage gaps and may cause some to be newly eligible for Medicaid and others to no longer qualify," said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
But states have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that just these sorts of federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans are pushing for a rollback of federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.
Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.
Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to be associated with a health care program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that all Americans carry medical insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.
The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that Obama's law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level. Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote much of the health care law, said if the situation does become a problem there's plenty of time to fix it later.
"These changes don't take effect until 2014, so we have time to review all possible cases to ensure Medicaid meets its mission of serving only the neediest Americans," said Erin Shields.
But Republicans already see a problem.
Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said adding early retirees will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.
"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."
The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.
The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – 55 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy.
"This simplification will stop people from falling into coverage gaps and may cause some to be newly eligible for Medicaid and others to no longer qualify," said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
But states have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that just these sorts of federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans are pushing for a rollback of federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.
Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.
Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to be associated with a health care program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that all Americans carry medical insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.
The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that Obama's law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level. Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote much of the health care law, said if the situation does become a problem there's plenty of time to fix it later.
"These changes don't take effect until 2014, so we have time to review all possible cases to ensure Medicaid meets its mission of serving only the neediest Americans," said Erin Shields.
But Republicans already see a problem.
Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said adding early retirees will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.
"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."
The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.
The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.
U
unregistered
Guest
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Funny how I didn't source anything partisan. So let me get this straight: someone who sources a left-wing entity is guilty of partisan spin. And someone who sources independent/non-partisan entities is also guilty of left-wing spin. But if they reference right-wing sources it's objective thinking?
I sourced only independent sources. Vette, just go on fucking record saying that you think Moody's, IHS, and Macro all are left wing shills. Yes, Moody's whose chief economist worked in multiple Republican administrations and was John McCain's economic adviser for years. And of course ALL of these firms are dragged onto the floor of congress to testify for both parties.
Go ahead, say it and back up your accusations with evidence. I can't wait to hear what your evidence is!
- Status
Similar threads
