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

[klippert]

doom and gloom

Who need a doom and gloom thread... just watch brrrr'nanky.... and you'll have all he economic doom and gloom you need... maybe you'll see more riots in Greece... that is always cool

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuck...why-the-jobs-situation-is-worse-than-it-looks

READ IT AND WEEP.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You haven't learned not to listen to Meme and it's selective interpretations yet?
Here's the CBO report.

Which tells us that when President Obama took over the White House the economy was in deep trouble and it cost a shit-ton of money to keep it from decaying even more.

Tell us something we don't already know.

That's one side of the story, that we had to throw a shit-ton of money at the decay, the Keynesian side. The other side of the story is the one we've been telling, the one that leads to a lack of recovery as it has repeatedly done in the past worldwide, where ever tried.

We are still decaying as admitted to yesterday by Bernake.

The CBO released another report just yesterday highlighting the depth of our debt bomb.
__________________
"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

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

From another thread about the Great Obama "stimulus:"

Oops, every independent analytical firm said it worked.

Prove that statement.

Define "worked."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There cant be a recovery until supply starts to meet demand. And that situation doesnt exist in the economy, certainly not where it matters.

Obama can fudge the numbers all he wants, but in 2012 every American is gonna be an expert about his own prosperity and confidence in Obama to protect him from wild & crazy niggers and predatory Republican bankers.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Did the stimulus create jobs?

Daniel Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank has just released what might be the first real evidence-based effort to resolve this question. One apparent problem with drawing inferences from the experience of the past couple years is that we have only one experiment to look at. But Wilson points out that in some sense, we have 50 separate experiments because stimulus spending differed substantially across states. You can potentially learn a lot from 50 experiments.

Unfortunately, they’re not controlled experiments, because stimulus funds were not allocated randomly. States with particularly weak economies probably got more Medicaid funds. States with bloated and inefficient bureaucracies might have been slow to complete necessary paperwork and hence slow to receive funds. If those weak economies or shamblng bureaucrats also had an effect on job growth, then the experiments are not clean.

But fortunately there are substantial components of the funds that were distributed according to objective formulas (demographics, number of highway miles, and so forth). Wilson makes competent use of these components, together with standard econometric techniques, to zero in on the subset of stimulus spending that can be considered effectively random. Now that he’s got his fifty more-or-less controlled experiments, he also controls for other confounding variables that could plausibly affect state-by-state economic growth. All of which is the right way to do this.


As Wilson points out, his appears to be the first attempt along these lines. Previous studies fall into two broad categories. First, there are the model-based approaches that forecast employment both with and without the stimulus (so that they’re testing not the observed effects of the stimulus, but its forecasted effects). Second, there are the survey-based approaches that require recipients of stimulus money to report the number of jobs they created or saved. Aside from all the obvious ways in such reports are likely to be inaccurate, they account only for the first-round effects of the stimulus, ignoring any second-round jobs created, ignoring effects on consumer spending, and ignoring God knows what else.

Wilson’s bottom lines:

The number of jobs created or saved by the spending is about 2.0 million as of March, but drops to near zero as of August.

The effects varied enormously among sectors. The biggest impact was in construction, where we saw a 23% increase in employment (as of August 2010) relative to what it would have been without the stimulus.

It mattered a lot how the money was spent. Spending on infrastructure and other general purposes had a large positive impact

Aid to state government to support Medicaid may have actually reduced state and local government employment. This seems a little surprising. It might be driven by the fact that these funds come with strings attached, requiring state and local governments to meet so many burdens that they’re led to cut spending and employment in non-Medicaid areas.

None of this will give unmitigated aid and comfort to ideologues of any stripe. And none of it is definitive, because no single study is ever definitive. But it’s a welcome start toward figuring out what really happened over the past couple of years.

I will add only that “Did the stimulus create jobs?” is not at all the same question as “Was the stimulus a good idea?”. But it’s an important question in its own right, and I’m glad someone’s finally trying to answer it in a sensible way.

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/11/16/did-the-stimulus-work/

 

[MeeMie]

CBO:
Federal Spending Will Soon Exceed Spending During Parts of WWII


The CBO’s newly released 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook forecasts that federal spending will soon exceed spending during parts of World War II. In 1942, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) (Table 1.3).

Less than 25 years from now (in 2035), according to the CBO, federal spending would equal 27.4 percent of GDP under current law, and 33.9 percent of GDP under changes to current law “that are widely expected to occur.”

In comparison, between the end of World War II and the year that President Obama was inaugurated, federal spending averaged 19.6 percent of GDP.

Such unprecedented spending would be driven almost entirely by entitlement programs.

The CBO writes, “In the…longterm projections of spending, growth in noninterest spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is attributable entirely to increases in spending on several large mandatory programs”—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare (which, in addition to spawning taxpayer financed “exchanges,” would add more than 20 million people to the Medicaid rolls).

The CBO adds that, under the scenario in which “widely expected” changes to current law would occur, health care costs would rise from 5.6 percent of GDP this year to 10.4 percent of GDP in 2035. The CBO writes, “Such rates of growth cannot continue indefinitely, however, because if they did, total spending on health care would eventually account for all of the country’s economic output — an implausible outcome.”

The CBO has projected that President Obama’s budget would actually increase federal spending versus current law.

In comparison, it has projected that the Paul Ryan-authored budget passed by the House of Representatives would reduce federal spending to 20.75 percent of GDP by 2030 and 18.75 percent by 2040 — or about 8 to 14 percent of GDP less than under the CBO’s projections for where we’re otherwise headed.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Most of what we write about the effects of stimulus are just that, "an attempt to gain knowledge." A bureaucrat writes down some numbers. Reporters and bloggers find flaws. Econometric models estimate the effects, but those models were used to propose the policy put in place. It's not likely those models would go back and say the proposed plan didn't work: Econometric models aren't built to do that: If the model has as a premise that future government spending will create jobs, it isn't going to tell you that past government spending did not. Meanwhile, those in political opposition will look to find contradictions when none really exist. (GDP growth can lead employment growth.) And people get angrier and cynical.

There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know. It might have worked; it might not have. What we know is there are between three and four million fewer jobs than a year ago, and the deficit is larger. We want to know more. We are trying to know more. And if the volume of studies since 2000 of the Great Depression are any indication, we'll still want to know more a century from now.

http://www.scsuscholars.com/2010/02/what-we-dont-know.html

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression. In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.


The real job losses are greater than the estimate of 7.5 million. They are closer to 10.5 million, as 3 million people have stopped looking for work. Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate; some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America's greatest strength. Just think: Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

The most recent statistics are unsettling and dismaying, despite the increase of 54,000 jobs in the May numbers. Nonagricultural full-time employment actually fell by 142,000, on top of the 291,000 decline the preceding month. Half of the new jobs created are in temporary help agencies, as firms resist hiring full-time workers.

Today, over 14 million people are unemployed. We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression. Nearly seven people in the labor pool compete for every job opening. Hiring announcements have plunged to 10,248 in May, down from 59,648 in April. Hiring is now 17 percent lower than the lowest level in the 2001-02 downturn. One fifth of all men of prime working age are not getting up and going to work. Equally disturbing is that the number of people unemployed for six months or longer grew 361,000 to 6.2 million, increasing their share of the unemployed to 45.1 percent. We face the specter that long-term unemployment is becoming structural and not just cyclical, raising the risk that the jobless will lose their skills and become permanently unemployable. [See a slide show of the 10 best cities to find a job.]

Don't pay too much attention to the headline unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. It is scary enough, but it is a gloss on the reality. These numbers do not include the millions who have stopped looking for a job or who are working part time but would work full time if a position were available. And they count only those people who have actively applied for a job within the last four weeks.

Include those others and the real number is a nasty 16 percent. The 16 percent includes 8.5 million part-timers who want to work full time (which is double the historical norm) and those who have applied for a job within the last six months, including many of the long-term unemployed. And this 16 percent does not take into account the discouraged workers who have left the labor force. The fact is that the longer duration of six months is the more relevant testing period since the mean duration of unemployment is now 39.7 weeks, an increase from 37.1 weeks in February. [See a slide show of the 10 cities with highest real income.]

The inescapable bottom line is an unprecedented slack in the U.S. labor market. Labor's share of national income has fallen to the lowest level in modern history, down to 57.5 percent in the first quarter as compared to 59.8 percent when the so-called recovery began. This reflects not only the 7 million fewer workers but the fact that wages for part-time workers now average $19,000—less than half the median income.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuck...why-the-jobs-situation-is-worse-than-it-looks


Now Merc, again, DEFINE "WORKED!"

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

CBO:
Federal Spending Will Soon Exceed Spending During Parts of WWII


... [/SIZE]

Partisan lies from Boehner...

He should cry!

 

[busybody..]

NIGGERS

UD and MO CURRY will

Scream

BUT

MOODY's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yesteryears reports

How cute

Meanwhile in teh REAL WORLD

U.S. initial jobless-benefits claims climb to 429,000
​

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You fucking LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would have been WORSE without the "saved" jobs hanging in there!









__________________
Barry Says: You have that one nailed A_J!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let's drive them crazy now...

June 23, 2011
Inflation climbs to 3.6% in May. Palin was right!

On June 15, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the inflation data for May. If you didn't hear about the new data, you are not alone -- the mainstream media buried the story. Why? Inflation hit 3.6% in May, even though gasoline prices actually fell that month. Inflation has been rising since November, as shown in the graph below:

[see chart here] http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/inflation_climbs_to_36_in_may_palin_was_right.html

These rising prices were largely caused by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's rapid expansion of the U.S. money supply, known as QE2 (Quantitative Easing 2). But inflation wasn't supposed to get this high. Back in November, Bernanke told his fellow central bankers that the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee (FOMC) was aiming for an inflation rate no higher than 2%. Specifically, he said:

This policy tool will be used in a manner that is measured and responsive to economic conditions. In particular, the Committee stated that it would review its asset-purchase program regularly in light of incoming information and would adjust the program as needed to meet its objectives. Importantly, the Committee remains unwaveringly committed to price stability and does not seek inflation above the level of 2 percent or a bit less that most FOMC participants see as consistent with the Federal Reserve's mandate.

Bernanke is like a driver who steps on the brakes, then floors the gas pedal, then steps on the brakes again, then floors the gas pedal again. His tenure at the Federal Reserve has been marked by the erratic swings in the U.S. money supply, shown in the graph below:

[link above]

From May 2010 to May 2011, Bernanke had his pedal to the metal. He grew M1 (the amount of money in cash and in checking accounts) at a 13.4% rate. Due to lag time, this didn't get inflation climbing rapidly until February. Now that inflation has gotten started, it may be hard to stop because it can get a momentum of its own.

Back in November, Governor Palin took on QE2 and President Obama's defense of it. Her predictions have turned out to be correct. When making her case against QE2, she argued that it could cause inflation, but would not much help U.S. net exports and business investment, the two factors needed to grow the U.S. economy.

Indeed, worsening net exports (exports minus imports) have been keeping the United States stuck in its current economic stagnation. When imports go up relative to exports, Americans get more debt and lose jobs, whereas when exports go up, relative to imports, Americans get more income and gain jobs. The decline in net exports may be slowing or preventing the U.S. economic recovery.
Bernanke hoped that QE2 would weaken the dollar which would turn U.S. net exports around. But Palin predicted that any positive effects would be temporary. In November she wrote:

Will driving the dollar down in this way do anything to boost U.S. exports? The short answer is not really. A weaker dollar will temporarily boost exports by making our goods cheaper to sell; but inevitably other countries will respond in kind, triggering the kind of currency wars economists are warning us about.

Indeed, so far Palin has been correct. QE2's effect upon net exports appears to have been temporary. Although U.S. net exports worsened more slowly in November and December, they resumed their economy-sapping slide in February, as shown in the graph below.

[link above]

Business investment is another key to economic growth, it combines the money spent by businesses on new tools and structures, such as when businesses develop new energy resources or build new factories. When businesses spend money on tools and structures, they put Americans to work making the tools and building the structures. Later, the improved tools and structures give American workers more productive work, resulting in higher wages. Bernanke had hoped that QE2 would stimulate business investment. But, in November, Palin predicted that QE2 would have little effect upon business investment. She wrote:

Will QE2 then at least boost domestic investment? No, again. As I explained in my speech in Phoenix, the reason banks aren't lending and businesses aren't investing isn't because of insufficient access to credit. There's plenty of money around, it's just that no one's willing to spend it. Big businesses especially have been hoarding cash. They're not expanding or adding to their workforce because there's just too much uncertainty created by a lot of big government experiments that aren't working. It's the President's own policies that are creating this uncertainty.

Indeed, as the graph below shows, the rate of growth in real fixed investment slowed in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, despite QE2:

[link above]

Palin argued that QE2 was a dangerous experiment that risked inflation. She urged Obama to instead balance budgets, cut taxes and reduce burdensome business regulation. In November, she concluded:

If the President was serious about getting the economy moving again, he'd stop supporting the Fed's dangerous experiments with our currency and focus instead on what actually works: reducing government spending and boosting business investment through good old fashioned supply side reforms (cutting taxes and reducing overly burdensome regulations). Simply running the printing presses in order to avoid paying off your debts is no way for a great nation to behave.

In May, she added balanced trade to her recipe for economic recovery. After meeting with Donald Trump, she said:

"What do we have in common? Our love for this country, a desire to see our economy put back on the right track," Palin told reporters. "To have a balanced trade arrangement with other countries across this world so Americans can have our jobs, our industries, our manufacturing again. And exploiting responsibly our natural resources. We can do that again if we make good decisions."

The bulk of the U.S. trade deficit (i.e., of our negative net exports) is with China. When Trump was testing the waters for a possible presidential run, he made President Obama's incompetent negotiations with China a cornerstone of his campaign. With Chinese aggregate demand growing rapidly and U.S. aggregate demand stagnant, economists would normally expect the Chinese trade surplus with the United States to be shrinking. But President Obama has let the Chinese government reduce U.S. net exports to China month after month, as shown by the new 12-month lows reached in recent months in the graph below:

[link above]

Obama negotiates with China from a position of weakness. He goes into each meeting ruling out the possibility of the U.S. putting tariffs upon Chinese products, even though the Chinese government has already placed high tariff and other barriers upon U.S. products. The U.S. need not negotiate from a position of weakness. Under world trade rules, it is entitled to impose trade balancing tariffs whenever it is running chronic trade deficits. Our proposal for scaled tariffs would let the United States (and any other country harmed by large chronic trade deficits) achieve higher net exports with or without the cooperation of its trading partners.

The mainstream media pretend that Palin is stupid. But she is actually blessed with a very rare commodity these days - economic common sense. She is the only potential presidential candidate currently advocating the three basic principles that would restore economic stability and long-term growth to the American economy: (1) balanced monetary growth, (2) balanced budgets, and (3) balanced trade.

Howard Richman & Raymond Richman
The American Thinker


Maybe we should go with the Palin Tax Plan?

Sarah Palin Transaction Tax thread
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=722197

 

[MeeMie]

The Missing Money
Thomas Sowell


One of my earliest memories of revulsion against war came from seeing a photograph from the First World War when I was a teenager. It was nothing gory. Just a picture of a military officer, in an impressive uniform, talking to a puzzled and forlorn-looking old peasant woman with a cloth wrapped around her head.

He said simply: "Don't you understand, madam? The village is not there any more."

To many such people of that era, the village was the only world they knew. And to say that it had been destroyed in the carnage of war was to say that there was no way for them to go back home, that their whole world was gone.

Recently that image came back, in a wholly different context, while seeing pictures of American seniors carrying signs that read "Hands off my Social Security" and "Hands off my Medicare."

They want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are -- and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits.

Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made -- promises that now cannot be kept, regardless of which political party controls the government.

Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more."

Many retired people remember the money that was taken out of their paychecks for years and feel that they are now entitled to receive Social Security benefits as a right. But the way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud.

But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it.

This is not some newly discovered problem. Innumerable economists and others pointed out decades ago that Social Security was unsustainable in the long run, including yours truly on "Meet the Press" in 1981.

But the long run doesn't count for most politicians, since elections are held in the short run. Politicians' election prospects are enhanced, the more goodies they can promise and the less taxes they collect to pay for them.

That is why welfare states in Europe as well as here are facing bitter public protests as the chickens come home to roost.

It has been said innumerable times that nobody already on Social Security will lose their benefits. But it needs to be spelled out emphatically, so that political demagogues will not be able to scare retired seniors that they are going to have the rug pulled out from under them.


Retired seniors have the least to fear from a reform of Social Security, since neither political party is about to take away what these retirees already have and are relying on.


Despite irresponsible political ads showing an old lady in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff, the people who are really in danger of being dumped over a cliff are the younger generation, who are paying into Social Security but are unlikely to get back anything like what they are paying in.



The money that young workers are paying into Social Security today is not being put aside to pay for their retirement. It is being spent today, paying the pensions of the retired generation -- and it can't even cover that in the years ahead.

What needs to be done is to allow younger workers a choice of staying out of a system that is simply running out of money. Nor can the system be saved by simply jacking up taxes on "the rich."

Generations of experience have shown that high tax rates that "the rich" can easily avoid -- through tax shelters at home or by investing their money abroad -- do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that keep the money here and the jobs here.

Since the law does not allow private pension plans to be set up in the financially irresponsible way Social Security is, that is where young people's money should be put, if they ever want to see that money again when they reach retirement age.




Worth repeating again ...

Obamacare would add more than 20 million people to the Medicaid rolls.

President Obama’s budget would increase federal spending versus current law.

Paul Ryan's budget would reduce federal spending to 20.75 percent of GDP by 2030 and 18.75 percent by 2040 — or about 8 to 14 percent of GDP less than under the CBO’s projections for where we’re otherwise headed. And, the proposed changes to entitlements do not effect current retirees; but rather, sets up alternative methods for those under the age of 55 to plan for their retirements in the future.

 

[busybody..]

But MOODY's SAID

We are all OK!

Moody BLUES!​

Meanwhile

THEY FUCKING LIE!

SHOCKER: U.S. Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly. Again!

Plus this: “The previous week’s figure was revised up to 420K from 414K.” Meaning that last week’s “good news” — a slight drop — was essentially bogus. More here, including this: “A Labor Department official said technical problems had resulted in claims for six states being estimated last week.”

 

[busybody..]

So, NIGGER MO CURRY

Touts some shit from Moody BLUE

From OVER a year ago

Lets see reality

OPPS!​

The smartest guys in the room here are the ones who do our statistical research for us at FOX News and FOX Business. Stephen Joachim is one of them. He regularly analyzes reams of data from the U.S. government and elsewhere.

This is what he found out about "the Summer of Recovery" that really never was:

June 17, 2010 -- The White House declares: "This summer is sure to be a Summer of Economic Recovery"

Summer 2010 -- Summer of Job Losses

"The point of my talking to you today is that, although more people are going to be put to work this summer" -- Vice President Joe Biden, June 17, 2010. The job losses came in as follows, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

June: -192,000
July: -49,000
August: -59,000
September: -29,000

Job Creation

"The pace on the ball continues to increase, not decrease, as the Act rolls out in the final -- or this final summer." -- VP Biden, June 17, 2010
* Yes, the economy has added jobs since this statement, but at an average of 72,500 per month over the past 12 months. If this "pace on the ball" as Biden talked about continues.... it will take 93 months [nearly 8 years] to make up the jobs lost since the recession began in Dec 2007.

A Year Later .....

* The country is still plagued by high unemployment (9.1%) and even higher underemployment (15.8%, BLS // 18.6%, Gallup)
* May 2011: Unemployment increases for the second consecutive month
* May 2011: Overall consumer spending drops for the first time in 11 months
* May 2011: New-home construction rose to adjusted annual rate of 560,000 units per year---but still far below the 1.2 million new homes per year that Economists say is needed to sustain a healthy housing market
* Applications for new weekly unemployment benefits have average 434,792 since last summer
* Consumer prices for all goods have increased each month since June 2010
* Cost of food for a family of four, on average, up 5% since last summer
* 6.2 million Americans have been unemployed for 6 months or longer
* Nearly 1 of every 3 people unemployed have been out of work for more than 1 year
* About 25 of mortgage holders nationwide are now underwater -- owe more than their homes are worth
* GDP revised down to a disappointing annual rate increase of 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, (that is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...o-white-houses-summer-recovery/#ixzz1Q6ggJgXh

 

[koalabear]

DOW 11,918.01 -191.66


Stocks tumble on global growth concerns
Jobless claims rose more than expected last week. China and Europe report weakness in manufacturing activity. Global markets decline. Gold and oil prices drop as the dollar strengthens.

http://money.msn.com/market-news/post.aspx?post=6918f1c9-309d-4aec-97b0-06bb538d0def&_nwpt=1

 

[Sonny Limatina]

DOW 11,918.01 -191.66


Stocks tumble on global growth concerns
Jobless claims rose more than expected last week. China and Europe report weakness in manufacturing activity. Global markets decline. Gold and oil prices drop as the dollar strengthens.

http://money.msn.com/market-news/post.aspx?post=6918f1c9-309d-4aec-97b0-06bb538d0def&_nwpt=1

China's getting weaker, the dollar's getting stronger, gas prices are down and the Dow is at 12k. Maybe this refutation thing isn't your strength.

 

[busybody..]

China's getting weaker, the dollar's getting stronger, gas prices are down and the Dow is at 12k. Maybe this refutation thing isn't your strength.

I am starting a thread just for you

You better get there

or

Im gonna GO TO YOUR HOUSE

and

PUT ALL THE WIFE'S BRAS IN THE DRYER and tell her YOU DID IT

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"rise above" you?

An earthworm could rise above you, you piece of racist shit.

 

[koalabear]

US, other nations releasing oil from reserves


"The move is significant as it represents a reach by member countries for the remedy of last resort to high prices," said U.S. energy analyst John Kilduff at Again Capital.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43508263/ns/business-going_green

 

[Luk]

"rise above" you?

An earthworm could rise above you, you piece of racist shit.

Is anyone going to see the man-on-man love thread he starts for Sonny?

 

[busybody..]

US, other nations releasing oil from reserves


"The move is significant as it represents a reach by member countries for the remedy of last resort to high prices," said U.S. energy analyst John Kilduff at Again Capital.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43508263/ns/business-going_green

I had a thread on that weeks ago

saying he will do exactly that

question is

DIDNT HE ALSO SAY THAT DRILLING/EXPLORATION/MORE OIL WONT IMPACT OIL PRICES?

He is desperate

Cause his re-election looks shitty

 

[koalabear]

I had a thread on that weeks ago

saying he will do exactly that

question is

DIDNT HE ALSO SAY THAT DRILLING/EXPLORATION/MORE OIL WONT IMPACT OIL PRICES?

He is desperate

Cause his re-election looks shitty

How many minutes will 60 million barrels last.

 

[busybody..]

This is ONLY for NIGGER MO CURRY

Who is so desperate in protecting the NIGGER he besmirches himself

here is something to read that is recent and destroys your arguments

Please proceed to destroy the reputations of teh persons writing it

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf