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

[4est_4est_Gump]

When will we get back to the pre-Democrat Congress of '06 economy?

Why do you set the bar so low for President Obama?



Affirmative Action?

 

[mercury14]

No you didn't.

No you didn't.

You're cherry-picking your start point and ignoring the fact that we were purposely panicked into a lower state than we would have hit naturally for political gain by Democrats eager to win an election.

Also you have again delved into the system/sophism/fallacy of "every" economist.

The start point is the worst part of the recession.

I didn't literally mean "every", Mr. Situationally dense. I consume a lot of business news on a daily basis and I have yet to encounter a nonpartisan analyst who believes there hasn't been a recovery based on GDP and jobs.

 

[mercury14]

Why do you set the bar so low for President Obama?



Affirmative Action?

Because he inherited the greatest recession since the 1920s. He walked into office and got a jobs report ten days later saying we lost 700,000 jobs in a single month and GDP was at a shocking -6.4%. So like most Americans, I throw him a fucking bone.

Bush gets no bone since he was in office for close to a decade leading up to this sucker, mostly with a Republican legislature pushing his policies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

When will we get back to the pre-Democrat Congress of '06 economy?

Why do you set the bar so low for President Obama?



Affirmative Action?

Race card much?

Oh that's right...YOU can do that coz you're a victim....a VICTIM, DAMMIT!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A fair number of economists are pointing out that the "recovery" is a grand illusion, but you don't read them because you cannot have that be true or it would undermine your defense of the indefensible.

Is it really okay for Wall Street to be Fed subsidized while the common man, the man President Obama says he is for even as he parties with Wall Street types, cannot get a job, or has to take several lesser jobs and leave his family (virtually) behind?

Is it not a form of patronization to say, well, it's the best he can do seeing how things were so bad, yet things have been this bad, you make a specious claim, because I remember a couple of occasions when things were this bad, Carter and the .com bust and in both cases in was Capitalism that saved the day, not the policies of too bog to fail and government "benefit."

What a fair amount of economists say is that the illusion is about to have its curtain pulled back...

The difference between us is that I've been proving it instead of just saying it while watching you, with amusement, dismissing any thought out of your comfort zone as c&p indicative of nothing...

 

[BotanyBoy]

What has Obama increased spending on aside from the stimulus which was 1/3 tax breaks?

Who said anything about Obamanator? not I...

I honestly don't blame him for the economic shit storm of 08 and don't see what else he could have done as "oh well party's over folks we are out of money, fuck for it." just might have gotten him lynched, much less re-elected.

No merc....the finger I point, not only for our economic issues but the degradation of our civil liberties and government service points many years into the past. I have stated this several times, but your blind partisanship must have sub consciously omitted that from you memory, and that's cool I'm not judging. I understand how important it is for some to rush to the defense of their political icons. Carry on with you worship

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

U.S. producer prices rose 0.1% in June from May, surprising economists who were expecting a 0.5% decline. Excluding the food and energy components, prices were up 0.2%, in line with expectations.
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/wp-content/blogs.dir/24/files/2012/07/obama_unexpectedly_thumbnail_6-30-11-3.jpg

 

[RobDownSouth]

A fair number of economists are pointing out that the "recovery" is a grand illusion, but you don't read them because you cannot have that be true or it would undermine your defense of the indefensible.

Appeal to Bandwagon logical fallacy. Also used by AJ to debunk Global Climate Change.

The difference between us is that I've been proving it instead of just saying it while watching you, with amusement, dismissing any thought out of your comfort zone as c&p indicative of nothing...

The difference between you and Merc is that Merc uses data and long-term trends to support his arguments, while you use single data points and anecdotal evidence to support yours.

THAT, more than anything else, is why virtually nobody with an ounce of common sense takes you seriously. In the big tent of ideas, you're the star attraction in the sideshow freak exhibit.

 

[mercury14]

A fair number of economists are pointing out that the "recovery" is a grand illusion, but you don't read them because you cannot have that be true or it would undermine your defense of the indefensible.

Is it really okay for Wall Street to be Fed subsidized while the common man, the man President Obama says he is for even as he parties with Wall Street types, cannot get a job, or has to take several lesser jobs and leave his family (virtually) behind?

Is it not a form of patronization to say, well, it's the best he can do seeing how things were so bad, yet things have been this bad, you make a specious claim, because I remember a couple of occasions when things were this bad, Carter and the .com bust and in both cases in was Capitalism that saved the day, not the policies of too bog to fail and government "benefit."

What a fair amount of economists say is that the illusion is about to have its curtain pulled back...

The difference between us is that I've been proving it instead of just saying it while watching you, with amusement, dismissing any thought out of your comfort zone as c&p indicative of nothing...

Show where you proved this.

The difference between you and Merc is that Merc uses data and long-term trends to support his arguments, while you use single data points and anecdotal evidence to support yours.

He'd love to use trends but they don't support his argument. So he has to distort with fractured, out of context data points that he pastes from random right wing propaganda.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

A Democrat one pushing the country the final two years over the edge of the abyss.

I agree, the Dems didnt see this shitstorm coming and did little to stop it. But the roots of this thing go back before the took congress... And the GOP shares blame because they also did little to stop it during that time and their Republican president signed off on congress' actions.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Isn't this wonderful? Is this why we founded the country?

Americans Will Work More than 6 Months to Pay Cost of Gov't in 2012
By Sabrina Gladstone

(CNSNews.com) – This year, Americans have to work until July 15 to pay for the burden of government, more than six months.

In a new report, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated that Americans will spend a total of 197 days toiling to pay for the cost of government.

"Cost of Government Day is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burden imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels," reads the report.

The report, Cost of Government Day, shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

"From a different perspective, the cost of government makes up 54.0 percent of annual gross domestic product (GDP)," reads the report. "What's more, the largest tax hike in the nation's history is scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 unless Congress acts to protect taxpayers. If this tax increase is allowed to hit, COGD [Cost of Government Day] could permanently be pushed back into August and beyond."

(Correction: This news story initially stated that the time needed to pay for total federal spending -- not all costs -- would exceed 7 months in 2012 when, in fact, the report shows that the cost of government day is July 15, approximately 6.5 months into the year.)

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/americans-will-work-more-6-months-pay-cost-govt-2012

http://www.costofgovernment.org/files/files/COGD2012_hi res.pdf

SO!!!
http://kencourse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hotfuzzgreatergood.jpg

 

[mercury14]

Isn't this wonderful? Is this why we founded the country?

Americans Will Work More than 6 Months to Pay Cost of Gov't in 2012

1) Cut the military

2) Cut Medicare/Medicaid.

3) Cut retirement payments to seniors who earned them, including military vets.



Which one are you going with? Because cutting little things like WIC or whatever aren't going to matter. These three items are where the money is going.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

1) Cut the military

2) Cut Medicare/Medicaid.

3) Cut retirement payments to seniors who earned them, including military vets.



Which one are you going with? Because cutting little things like WIC or whatever aren't going to matter. These three items are where the money is going.

There is a truly simple solution...If everyone over the age of 65 would simply be so kind as to kill themselves then good bye deficit hello surplus.

 

[mercury14]

There is a truly simple solution...If everyone over the age of 65 would simply be so kind as to kill themselves then good bye deficit hello surplus.

Soylent Green.

Oops forgot to mention social security.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There is a truly simple solution...If everyone over the age of 65 would simply be so kind as to kill themselves then good bye deficit hello surplus.

Unfortunately, that's not a viable option, as the over-65 demographic is the hate-filled core of the Republican party.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Unfortunately, that's not a viable option, as the over-65 demographic is the hate-filled core of the Republican party.

BWWWAHHHAAAAA

For you to call anyone hate filled.

You are the most vile hate filled person on lit!

Miles broke you

 

[koalabear]

Stocks rally on hopes for big US banks

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Stocks rally on hopes for big US banks

Too big to fail and bailed out loses $6B and that's a sign of confidence because they made $5B...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Always have an excuse ready, er, uh, rightful explanation...

July 14, 2012
The Obama Way: Selling Failure as Success

By Lawrence Wolfe
Bob Dylan once wrote, "There's no success like failure [we learn from our mistakes], and failure is no success at all." So what has Mr. Obama learned from his mistakes? Admitting to no mistakes during the past three years, "success" is exactly the way the Obama administration explains away the more than 5 trillion taxpayer dollars that have so far been spent. While "success" is most often measured by its return, benefit, or gain, with no way to prove otherwise, this administration chooses to measure its success by "how much worse the recession might have been" if they had not spent the $5 trillion. In fact, as we get closer to the election, these same experts are now telling us that the $5 trillion they spent actually saved the world from another Great Depression. They base this conclusion, of course, on...well, their failure. How noble. Having gained nothing from our $5 trillion somehow proves that they were right to spend it and save us all from "much worse."

The last time such success was measured by the depth of its failure was The Great Depression. As my friend Alan the Liberal recently told me, "if there's one thing we learned from the Great Depression, it's that we need to spend more." The fact is that in 1933, unemployment was 18%. By 1938 (just prior to the WWII draft), despite billions of dollars injected into the economy via the First New Deal, the National Recovery Act, the various federal work programs, and the Second New Deal, unemployment was 12.5%, while the federal government, through its various work programs, was employing an additional 10.5%. Despite all the government spending, unemployment had effectively increased. Compare that to the Marshall Plan, during which some $26 billion, or 10% of our GDP at that time, was spent through private industry. Unemployment during those years (1946 to 1952) ranged between 3.9% and 5.3%, despite millions of our servicemen and women returning home from the war and joining the work force.

Barak Obama, in 2008, won the presidency on the platform that (among other things) he understood the country's economic problems and, more importantly, knew how to solve them. Three-plus years later, the administration is now telling us that "The economy turns out to have been far worse ... than we knew at the time," "we are moving in the right direction," and that he now "needs more time to fix the economy."

"The economy turns out to have been far worse ... than we knew at the time" simply tells us that Mr. Obama never understood the problems to begin with.

"Moving in the right direction"? Despite more than three years and some $2 trillion spent on bailouts, handouts, and so-called stimulus, there are approximately three million fewer people employed today than were employed in 2008. Approximately three quarters of a million fewer women are employed today than were employed in 2008. Several million others have given up looking for employment entirely, gone into retirement, taken permanent disability, or taken jobs in the underground economy. Few if any of these people will ever again contribute to our tax base.

Despite the failure of this administration's policies, Mr. Obama now claims to "need more time." Having no plan in hand while simultaneously claiming that we are moving in the right direction, Mr. Obama is clearly telling us that if he is re-elected, we can expect more deficit spending to pay for the same failed policies over the next four years.

If these three statements tell us anything, they tell us that Mr. Obama campaigned in 2008 with no understanding of the problem, has chosen the old liberal solution of throwing money at the problem while hoping things improve, and worse yet, cannot come up with a new plan because to do so would not only admit failure, but concede that he never had a clue to begin with.

Only in the liberal Democratic world is failure proof of success. We see it not only in the White House, but in Congress, at our universities, and in increases in compensation for fewer hours and less productivity demanded by our municipal unions.

Dylan told us that "There is no success like failure," but in fact, Mr. Obama has learned nothing from his failures during more than three years of on-the-job training. And failure is no success at all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_obama_way_selling_failure_as_success.html

A_J's corollary #9a, “When a Republican does it, an explanation is making an excuse, when a Democrat does it, then an excuse is the rightful explanation.”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I, and others, have given the Obama administration a lot of flack for its early 2009 prediction that its $800 billion stimulus plan would drive the unemployment rate to under 6% by 2012. The fact that unemployment is over 8% might lead one to conclude that those fancy economic models with their Keynesian multipliers were wrong.

But Obama supporters defend the forecast by arguing that White House economists were basing that prediction on incomplete numbers that didn’t reflect the true severity of the downturn. Once the data were revised, White House economists seemingly made more accurate predictions.

For instance, here’s what former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee tweeted the other day when the June jobless report — which showed an 8.2% unemployment rate — was released:

[see link]

Indeed, you can find that forecast in the 2010 Economic Report of the President. And, I guess, we should conclude from that accurate CEA forecast that the $800 billion stimulus really did perform pretty much as expected, right? The White House predicted 8.2% and that is exactly what we got. Score one for Keynes — and the idea the stimulus should have been larger.

But here’s your trouble: In that report, the Council of Economic Advisers also predicted that the U.S. economy would grow by 4.3% in both 2011 and 2012. Instead, the economy grew by 1.7% in 2011 and might not do much better this year — if not worse. (First quarter GDP expanded at 1.9%, and many economists see the second quarter also sub-2%.) As a result, we have a $13.3 trillion economy instead of the $14.3 trillion economy Team Obama predicted (looking at just the underperformance in 2011 and 2012).

And here’s the puzzle: How can GDP growth be less than half of what Team Obama predicted in 2010 for 2011 and 2012, while the unemployment rate is exactly what Team Obama predicted? Less growth should have produced at least a somewhat higher unemployment rate, right?

The answer is almost certainly that White House economists didn’t expect a shockingly sharp drop in the labor force participation rate since they didn’t expect GDP growth to be so miserable. The size of the active workforce as a share of the total population fell from 64.5% in November of 2010 to 63.8% last month even as the economy was slowly expanding.

If Obama economists had known the economic recovery would be so weak the past two years, they might have expected a much, much higher unemployment rate. In November of 2010, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the labor force participation rate would be roughly 65.5% in 2012, even though it saw GDP growth of 1.9% in 2011, accelerating after that. Everything else being equal, a participation rate that high today would translate into a 2012 unemployment rate of 10.6%.

But the impact of such a weak recovery has resulted in a historically weak labor market where so many folks have given up that it has driven the official unemployment rate to 8.2% rather than 10.6%.

Bottom line: The $800 billion stimulus does not seem to have produced the sort of economic growth — less than 2% instead of over 4% — that was predicted, raising serious question about whether another round should be tried, as the White House and some left-of-center economics contend.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/did-the-2009-stimulus-really-perform-just-as-team-obama-expected/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

1) Cut the military

2) Cut Medicare/Medicaid.

3) Cut retirement payments to seniors who earned them, including military vets.



Which one are you going with? Because cutting little things like WIC or whatever aren't going to matter. These three items are where the money is going.

False premise leads to flawed choices.

Zero-base budgeting.

 

[mercury14]

False premise leads to flawed choices.

Zero-base budgeting.

Why is it false?

 

[RobDownSouth]

False premise leads to flawed choices.

Zero-base budgeting.

It's not "false" because you happen to disagree with it, Chief.

Insofar as your beloved "zero-based budgeting", the federal government tried that from Carter through Clinton's first term. The result was an extra layer of management added throughout the federal government tasked with doing cost-benefit analyses of programs on a yearly basis. It was a noble failure.