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

[richard_daily]

Have you been chewing on fungus infected slippers again? Poor lil Chihuahua, not getting enough attention today.

Coward.

 

[koalabear]

Coward.

Look an internet hero Chihuahua.

 

[richard_daily]

Look an internet hero Chihuahua.

I'm not the one talking about a fake ass revolution behind the safety of my keyboard... that would be you and yours.

 

[koalabear]

I'm not the one talking about a fake ass revolution behind the safety of my keyboard... that would be you and yours.

What revolution would your deranged Chihuahua brain be referring to.

 

[richard_daily]

What revolution would your deranged Chihuahua brain be referring to.

The one where you pretend that you're going to "take the country back"...

No one believes you, because you have no teeth... you're an old wrinkled dog that needs to get put down for it's own good (hooray for death panels!!!).

 

[koalabear]

The one where you pretend that you're going to "take the country back"...

No one believes you, because you have no teeth... you're an old wrinkled dog that needs to get put down for it's own good (hooray for death panels!!!).

Show me a link where I said I was going to take the country back. Chihuahua.

 

[mercury14]

There are 150 who will say do not raise it without spending conditions;

150 Economists Back US Republicans in Debt Fight

Published: Wednesday, 1 Jun 2011 | 6:26 AM ET


More than 150 economists back U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's call to match any increase in the debt limit with spending cuts of equal size, according to a letter released by the Republican leader's office Wednesday.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/43234290

Stop dodging. The subject is not raising it at all as a means to control the deficit, per the Tea Party Republicans in the House. Show me one economist that supports their dumbshittery.

 

[mercury14]

The market wasn't open yesterday.

Stocks tumble on global debt woes
World markets slide after Friday's weak reading on consumer sentiment and results of European bank stress tests. Halliburton reports a 54% jump in earnings. Gold prices soar.


Updated: 07/18/2011 11:36 ET
DOW 12,328.55 -151.18

Where's today's update? You accidentally forgot to report that the Markets had their best since early March. Funny how the stock market doesn't matter. Unless it's going down.

 

[koalabear]

Where's today's update? You accidentally forgot to report that the Markets had their best since early March. Funny how the stock market doesn't matter. Unless it's going down.

Nice UD rolleyes, maggot. I guess it going up doesn't matter either, no update from you, MORON.

 

[mercury14]

Nice UD rolleyes, maggot. I guess it going up doesn't matter either, no update from you, MORON.

Just sayin', it's time for you to do your daily stock market update. Get to it, hypocrite.

 

[RightField]

Some good news today. I guess the street is a little relieved that Obama is going to negotiate and not take us into default.

Wall Street up on profits, Apple surges late
By Ashley Lau | Reuters – 4 hrs ago...
..
The Dow Jones industrial average was up 202.11 points, or 1.63 percent, at 12,58 …

Article: Stocks rebound on earnings, debt-limit proposal
5 hrs ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks recorded their best day since March on Tuesday after strong corporate results and renewed hope for an agreement in Washington on thorny budget issues boosted investor confidence.

Quarterly numbers from technology bellwether International Business Machines Corp and Coca-Cola lifted technology and consumer shares in the first heavy week of second-quarter results. IBM gained 5.7 percent, leading the Dow's gainers.

 

[mercury14]

Some good news today. I guess the street is a little relieved that Obama is going to negotiate and not take us into default.

Obama has been negotiating all along, saying for weeks that Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and defense are all on the table. Republicans are the ones saying they'll never budge on their stance, remember? Have they been saying all this time they're willing to give a little and raise taxes? Or wait, Republicans dont negotiate because they have "principals".

Meanwhile, you're spinning the piss out of the story since you know full well that the "gang of six" plan is part of the reason for the uptick (and higher than expected profits). If anything the street is relieved that there may be a few Republicans who are willing to raise taxes.

 

[RightField]

Obama has been negotiating all along, saying for weeks that Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and defense are all on the table. Republicans are the ones saying they'll never budge on their stance, remember? Have they been saying all this time they're willing to give a little and raise taxes? Or wait, Republicans dont negotiate because they have "principals".

Meanwhile, you're spinning the piss out of the story since you know full well that the "gang of six" plan is part of the reason for the uptick (and higher than expected profits). If anything the street is relieved that there may be a few Republicans who are willing to raise taxes.

Obama put up superficial reductions that didn't start till many years out in the future....nothing really....and you know it. Maybe this latest round is a little better....though I haven't had a chance to read about it yet so I can't tell you what's in it.

Tax rates have been steady for years....it's spending that's gone up...isn't that where the attention should be?

Wasn't Obama the first one to bring up the possibility of default? He used it as a threat...saying "Do it my way or we'll default and it will be your fault". Most people see through that sort of thing, we're not as stupid or as silly as you think we are.

 

[richard_daily]

Obama put up superficial reductions that didn't start till many years out in the future....nothing really....and you know it. Maybe this latest round is a little better....though I haven't had a chance to read about it yet so I can't tell you what's in it.

Tax rates have been steady for years....it's spending that's gone up...isn't that where the attention should be?

Wasn't Obama the first one to bring up the possibility of default? He used it as a threat...saying "Do it my way or we'll default and it will be your fault". Most people see through that sort of thing, we're not as stupid or as silly as you think we are.

Tax rates have been artificially deflated for years... less income coming in = more debt...

 

[RightField]

Tax rates have been artificially deflated for years... less income coming in = more debt...

Rates have stayed the same, but since the democrats have taken over Congress and then the Presidency, the unemployment rate has almost doubled so there are many more people collecting benefits and far fewer paying taxes which does increase the debt. There were also a whole new set of "credits" in which people actually got checks from the IRS even if they didn't pay any income taxes...but instead of calling that "spending" they called it "tax cuts"...it's part of the newspeak....similar to how the dems say "revenue enhancers" when they mean "tax increases".

Nevertheless, the large part of the equation is the massive amount of new spending. The article above points to the large increase in "grants" that go to local and state politicans and democrat support groups for "studies"...an interesting use of taxpayer dollars and method of increasing campaign donations.

 

[mercury14]

Obama put up superficial reductions that didn't start till many years out in the future....nothing really....and you know it. .

Link?

Tax rates have been steady for years....it's spending that's gone up...isn't that where the attention should be?.

No, the attention should be on both spending and taxes.

Wasn't Obama the first one to bring up the possibility of default? He used it as a threat...saying "Do it my way or we'll default and it will be your fault". Most people see through that sort of thing, we're not as stupid or as silly as you think we are.

How come Bill O'Reiley is citing polls (ABC news I believe) that Americans approve of Obama's handling of the ceiling far more than republicans? How come Americans approve of Democrats' handling of the ceiling more than republicans?

 

[mercury14]

Rates have stayed the same, but since the democrats have taken over Congress and then the Presidency, the unemployment rate has almost doubled.

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.6% the last month Bush was in office and we lost -600,000 jobs that month. How is 9.2% "almost double" 7.6%?

If the Dems in congress the last two Bush years wrote bills that you blame for the recession, why did Bush sign them?

 

[richard_daily]

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.6% the last month Bush was in office and we lost -600,000 jobs that month. How is 9.2% "almost double" 7.6%?

If the Dems in congress the last two Bush years wrote bills that you blame for the recession, why did Bush sign them?

It's just more duck and weave... they dont' ever want their team to take an ounce of responsibility for anything... just throw up roadblocks to getting anything done, and when they're in power do their best to take away liberties and freedoms.

 

[RightField]

Link?

No, the attention should be on both spending and taxes.

How come Bill O'Reiley is citing polls (ABC news I believe) that Americans approve of Obama's handling of the ceiling far more than republicans? How come Americans approve of Democrats' handling of the ceiling more than republicans?

It depends on your choice...do you want try to prop up the "blue model" for a little bit longer (see Mead above) and try to preserve the "Nanny" government like they've been doing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy or do you want to revert back to a more dynamic nation with a more dynamic economy like what has been the traditional model in the US. That's the choice. I'm sure that some agree with and some don't. We'll see how it turns out in the next election. As far as I'm concerned, I'll vote to reduce government and give them only enough of my hard earned money to pay for effective and efficient government.

I haven't seen to poll and can't comment, but there are lots of reasons for polls to rise and drop. The Washington Post, as an example, is infamous for large oversampling of liberals to try to make their point. I'll have to take a look when I have time.

There are some of links referring to Obama's initial deficit discussion offerings, though it was so sketchy to be not worth much. I'm sure that you have the time and inclination to go look for them. I believe I quoted several of them already so happy hunting.

 

[RightField]

It's just more duck and weave... they dont' ever want their team to take an ounce of responsibility for anything... just throw up roadblocks to getting anything done, and when they're in power do their best to take away liberties and freedoms.

Why is Obama considering negotiating with the Republicans now?

 

[RightField]

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.6% the last month Bush was in office and we lost -600,000 jobs that month. How is 9.2% "almost double" 7.6%?

If the Dems in congress the last two Bush years wrote bills that you blame for the recession, why did Bush sign them?

Why is Obama negotiating with the Republicans now?

The unemployment rate was 4.6% just before Reid and Pelosi took over the two houses of Congress and started ramping up spending significantly. Too bad too, because Bush, with two Republican Houses, had brought the budget deficit down to $172B.

 

[richard_daily]

Why is Obama considering negotiating with the Republicans now?

I have no love for Obama; but he's been trying to negotiate with them for months... they've been throwing a temper tantrum and demanding everything has to be exactly their way (which is unsustainable and dangerous for this country) for months, and refusing to put anything on the table to discuss.

You must be using some seriously skewed news sources.

 

[mercury14]

It depends on your choice...do you want try to prop up the "blue model" for a little bit longer (see Mead above) and try to preserve the "Nanny" government like they've been doing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy or do you want to revert back to a more dynamic nation with a more dynamic economy like what has been the traditional model in the US. That's the choice.

No that's not the choice. That's the oversimplified spin your extremist sources spoon fed you.

I haven't seen to poll and can't comment, but there are lots of reasons for polls to rise and drop. The Washington Post, as an example, is infamous for large oversampling of liberals to try to make their point. I'll have to take a look when I have time.

Brit Hume was on there commenting that even though there were more liberals than conservatives in the poll (most were independents), even if it was adjusted it wouldn't have changed the results. The poll was something like 43% support Obama, 31% support the Dems, 21% support republicans. Hume said if it was adjusted to include identical numbers of Republicans and Dems that it would only swing 6%-7%, and he went on to comment how Republicans haven't gotten their message out. Basically he was saying Americans haven't heard that Republicans want to cut spending or some such crap.

But you know, when you do random samplings of thousands of Americans that doesn't mean you tamper with it to add in conservatives. If you do, you're not polling Americans anymore.

There are some of links referring to Obama's initial deficit discussion offerings, though it was so sketchy to be not worth much. I'm sure that you have the time and inclination to go look for them. I believe I quoted several of them already so happy hunting.

What? Just a minute ago you had details about the amounts of cuts he was willing to implement as well as their time lines. Then when I ask you to show this you're caught flat-footed with "weeeeell, everything was sketchy so I can't give you the details..."

A little reality for you, neither side of the negotiations is showing their full hand.

 

[mercury14]

Why is Obama negotiating with the Republicans now?

The unemployment rate was 4.6% just before Reid and Pelosi took over the two houses of Congress and started ramping up spending significantly. Too bad too, because Bush, with two Republican Houses, had brought the budget deficit down to $172B.

Why did Bush sign off on this spending? And if he did sign off on it then he shares in its ownership.

And for fuck's sake, you know that when the deficit was $172B (briefly), we weren't in the Great Recession. The baby boomer generation hadn't retired yet, health care costs were less per unit of service, we had to spend less on defense and intelligence (irresponsibly neglecting Afghanistan helped the budget as well as the Taliban), and much of the war and VA costs were not budgeted for and instead deferred to later administrations.

Your comparison is preposterous.

 

[RightField]

Why did Bush sign off on this spending? And if he did sign off on it then he shares in its ownership.

And for fuck's sake, you know that when the deficit was $172B (briefly), we weren't in the Great Recession. The baby boomer generation hadn't retired yet, health care costs were less per unit of service, we had to spend less on defense and intelligence (irresponsibly neglecting Afghanistan helped the budget as well as the Taliban), and much of the war and VA costs were not budgeted for and instead deferred to later administrations.

Your comparison is preposterous.

Excuses excuses.

Bush signed on to democrat spending priorities (faced with both houses controlled by democrats) so it's his fault we had rapidly growing deficits...but now that Obama is President and he had democratic Congresses for his first two years...and even now when they control the Senate and the Presidency and they don't bother to make budgets anymore....it's still Bush's fault. I get it.