hellava Oconomy we got going on here

[puppylove_sugarsteel]

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

Been living at investopedia Ex? Anybody with any business acumen wouldnt be spewing your plagiarized, verbatim and silly references. Give it up buttfuck.

 

[2001400ex]

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

Been living at investopedia Ex? Anybody with any business acumen wouldnt be spewing your plagiarized, verbatim and silly references. Give it up buttfuck.

Let me translate what you just said "I have no fucking clue what you said, so instead of actually putting thought into a response, I'm gonna just spew a bunch of shit."

 

[puppylove_sugarsteel]

I figured you wouldnt get it it Ex. Further proves my point .

 

[HoustonHusky]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

 

[RaceBannon]

Don't forget Reagan policies worked. Obama's haven't.

We already covered the phony unemployment numbers. You weren't there and you're just a hack now so never mind. Obama is great. All is well.

Lol, you don't like he numbers so they are phony. How did I know that was your answer. Really it's just embarrassing for you.

The subject is the lack of growth not your phony unemployment numbers. It's not embarrassing for me at all. I'm not an Obama hack

 

[RaceBannon]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

So who is embarrassing hondo? These are the numbers you avoided

 

[2001400ex]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

I'm on a phone so I can't respond to everything. Yes I meant PE ratio, not EPS.

Companies like Microsoft and apple are issuing bonds because their cash is overseas due to the tax structure.

Of course it's FS to correlate the economy solely to the stock market, I've already said that, talk to the OP on that one.

We have had 5 YEARS of growth, I didn't say 20 quarters. Look at why the GDP went down, and look at the GDP the next quarter. Not one economist talked recession, which is two straight quarters of decline.

For the economy, it isn't perfect. There's good and bad parts to it. If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes. Yeah they don't have jobs now. Yes that's very simplified, I don't have the time right now to provide a proper response.

For those charts, yes the recovery wasn't as good or as quick, but also notice a couple things. One, this recession was much stronger than the others. Two, you see each recovery was less strong than the previous. Don't you think that over time, as our economy has gotten bigger, it makes it harder to expand quickly?

Lastly, show me one comment where I have supported Obama. I have pointed out facts to refute bullshit. Because there are a lot of lies spewed around here. Your post was above average. However I do question why you are trying to paint the economy as being horrible. When it's not.

 

[2001400ex]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

So who is embarrassing hondo? These are the numbers you avoided

What's embarrassing is your lack of any contribution. Nice job jumping on his back. You do have something in common with KimFS.

 

[RaceBannon]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

So who is embarrassing hondo? These are the numbers you avoided

What's embarrassing is your lack of any contribution. Nice job jumping on his back. You do have something in common with KimFS.

My contribution was telling your dumb ass that Reagan far out performed Obama

I was right. You're an Obama hack

Water is wet

 

[HoustonHusky]

Ok...so you meant PE ratio...you're still wrong. Go look up the numbers yourself...historically its around 15, right now its over 20.

It has nothing to do with oversees earnings and everything to do with a) borrowing on the REALLY cheap and b) borrowing to incur debt to lower their taxes.

The OP didn't make any FS statement about booming in 2010...he said "Makes you wonder where EPS would be if we didn't have record LBB's since interest rates have been artificially frozen at zero, doesn't it, Honda." And as both he did and I did in a previous link (here again)...if interest rates weren't so artificially low to the point that companies wouldn't be issuing debt just to buy back shares the EPS numbers would have been horrible the last couple of years. You are the one that ran into lala land from that comment. Sad part is companies should be spending that money on actually growing their businesses, but they don't trust the current policy and economy enough to do so and they instead plow their money into buying back shares. Which is part of the reason why the stock market has been going up while the broader economy still blows. Scary part is one of the main sectors where huge capital investments have been going on is oil/shale gas, and that's grinding to a stop right now.

The economy blows. The stock market is doing great so those of us with experience in specialized fields are fine, but for the US as a whole it blows. I know you think everyone who doesn't have a 4 year degree, 401K and other money in the stock market are "meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes", but that ain't true. Even for the newly educated its not true...hell, only 65% of college grads are employed, and only 36% of them are in full-time, permanent jobs. Median income and household net worth is actually down under Obama...as damning a stat as there should be. I love how liberals look down on the majority of Americans as being awful people and something they aren't all while trying to "help" them.

Yet another stat to be proud of in this economy...more people have left the work force under Obama than found new jobs. The employment numbers reported now are lies...if you think unemployment is under 6% I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

This recession was much stronger than previous? More FS statements...go look at the economy under Jimmy Carter 1 and get back to me...it blew monkey balls and was way worse than '07. Inflation alone was something like 12% his last two years.

An for the last...recoveries haven't gotten progressively milder:

Maybe you meant to say your expectations in the economy got milder with O in charge?

 

[2001400ex]

Ok...so you meant PE ratio...you're still wrong. Go look up the numbers yourself...historically its around 15, right now its over 20.

It has nothing to do with oversees earnings and everything to do with a) borrowing on the REALLY cheap and b) borrowing to incur debt to lower their taxes.

The OP didn't make any FS statement about booming in 2010...he said "Makes you wonder where EPS would be if we didn't have record LBB's since interest rates have been artificially frozen at zero, doesn't it, Honda." And as both he did and I did in a previous link (here again)...if interest rates weren't so artificially low to the point that companies wouldn't be issuing debt just to buy back shares the EPS numbers would have been horrible the last couple of years. You are the one that ran into lala land from that comment. Sad part is companies should be spending that money on actually growing their businesses, but they don't trust the current policy and economy enough to do so and they instead plow their money into buying back shares. Which is part of the reason why the stock market has been going up while the broader economy still blows. Scary part is one of the main sectors where huge capital investments have been going on is oil/shale gas, and that's grinding to a stop right now.

The economy blows. The stock market is doing great so those of us with experience in specialized fields are fine, but for the US as a whole it blows. I know you think everyone who doesn't have a 4 year degree, 401K and other money in the stock market are "meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes", but that ain't true. Even for the newly educated its not true...hell, only 65% of college grads are employed, and only 36% of them are in full-time, permanent jobs. Median income and household net worth is actually down under Obama...as damning a stat as there should be. I love how liberals look down on the majority of Americans as being awful people and something they aren't all while trying to "help" them.

Yet another stat to be proud of in this economy...more people have left the work force under Obama than found new jobs. The employment numbers reported now are lies...if you think unemployment is under 6% I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

This recession was much stronger than previous? More FS statements...go look at the economy under Jimmy Carter 1 and get back to me...it blew monkey balls and was way worse than '07. Inflation alone was something like 12% his last two years.

An for the last...recoveries haven't gotten progressively milder:

Maybe you meant to say your expectations in the economy got milder with O in charge?

Now we are getting somewhere. Someone is actually attempting to post facts. Congrats.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

You were quoting GDP, so here are the recessions:

2008 - 18 months - 4.3% decline
2001 - 8 months - .3%
1990 - 8 months - 1.4%
1982 - 16 months - 2.7%
1980 - 6 months - 2.2%
1974 - 16 months - 3.2%
1970 - 11 months - .6%

For the OPs statements, read the fucking title to the thread. Yes he clearly made reference to the economy.

Nice reaching by saying I'm talking down on others. If you can read, I was pointing out the fact that SOME people with college degrees are doing well. Others not so much. And the typical blue collar job that built this country is hard to find right now. Mostly because we are transitioning to a technology based economy. My buddy who used to work at Microsoft said they are hiring people right out of college for $100k a year because they need people.

Yes if you look at chart of the recoveries in your first post, recoveries have gotten progressively slower, it's right there in the charts. But it all depends on what stats you want to use.

Is the economy great? No. Is it good? Yes. Unemployment is using the exact same formula under Reagan. So yes those stats are comparable. There are many positive aspects to this economy and many negative parts. But to say the economy is shitty is just plain dumb.

 

[Tequilla]

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

Ok. A few of many.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:

(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".

I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...

Companies like Microsoft and apple are issuing bonds because their cash is overseas due to the tax structure.

Companies with cash to back up results are issuing bonds because interest rates are at historically low levels and as such it is giving free money to companies who can earn a greater return on it (i.e. growing revenues greater than expenses - which at low interest rates doesn't require much work to be able to do).

IF the reason for these bonds was because of exposure in cash overseas, then instead of issuing bonds, they'd be investing in FX hedges to protect unwanted fluctuations in their cash balances.

 

[HoustonHusky]

Where to start...I'll keep it shorter than I could:
1) "Nice reaching by saying I'm talking down on others.". Your previous comments: "If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
I don't think I need to add anything other than the fact if they were making it under the table they wouldn't have been counted as employed to begin with (Brilliant thought there...)

2) I don't know if you know that you are lying or you actually believe the crap you say. Unemployment is not calculated the same way now as it was under Reagan...its changed, most importantly in 1994 when people looking for work for more than a year were taken out of the calculation (they weren't a big number back then...now under Obamanomics their numbers have grown dramatically). Add on top of that under Reagan very few people were removed from the employment roles due to disability...now it is, what, 20 million and growing rapidly on disability (and therefore not counted and not part of the workforce). Add to that there were far fewer under-employed people then there are now and....you end up with a sad sap lying about unemployment to carry water for Obama.

3) In your brilliance you are actually are strengthening my point. The stronger the recession, the more vibrant the bounce-back should be (i.e. look at the recovery after the double-dip in 1980/82, and look at the recovery after the recession in 1973). Keep arguing that this recession was worse...its just a bigger damning of how bad Obama has been for the economy.

4) Wow...you know a guy who could get a job, therefore the economy is grand. I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by that stroke of genius. I'll stick to the food stamp measurement, and for some crazy reason almost 50 million people are currently on food stamps. I'm sure all 46 million plus are happy you think the economy is "good". And under Obama the economy isn't changing to a tech economy, its changing to a part time fast food/service one. Joy.

 

[2001400ex]

Where to start...I'll keep it shorter than I could:
1) "Nice reaching by saying I'm talking down on others.". Your previous comments: "If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
I don't think I need to add anything other than the fact if they were making it under the table they wouldn't have been counted as employed to begin with (Brilliant thought there...)

2) I don't know if you know that you are lying or you actually believe the crap you say. Unemployment is not calculated the same way now as it was under Reagan...its changed, most importantly in 1994 when people looking for work for more than a year were taken out of the calculation (they weren't a big number back then...now under Obamanomics their numbers have grown dramatically). Add on top of that under Reagan very few people were removed from the employment roles due to disability...now it is, what, 20 million and growing rapidly on disability (and therefore not counted and not part of the workforce). Add to that there were far fewer under-employed people then there are now and....you end up with a sad sap lying about unemployment to carry water for Obama.

3) In your brilliance you are actually are strengthening my point. The stronger the recession, the more vibrant the bounce-back should be (i.e. look at the recovery after the double-dip in 1980/82, and look at the recovery after the recession in 1973). Keep arguing that this recession was worse...its just a bigger damning of how bad Obama has been for the economy.

4) Wow...you know a guy who could get a job, therefore the economy is grand. I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by that stroke of genius. I'll stick to the food stamp measurement, and for some crazy reason almost 50 million people are currently on food stamps. I'm sure all 46 million plus are happy you think the economy is "good". And under Obama the economy isn't changing to a tech economy, its changing to a part time fast food/service one. Joy.

1) show my whole quote, where I state that it's more complex than that but I'm on my phone typing this shit.

2) 1994 the U3 was changed. I didn't quote U3. Nice try tho.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/

3) look at the charts YOU posted. And look back at the great depression. When there is a financial meltdown, shit doesn't come back quickly. Consumer confidence is the primary driver is the economy. When you have politicians fighting over bullshit on both sides, it doesn't help the economy. Not to mention all the fear spread about obamacare that turned out to be false.

4) you are missing my point. The last 20 years we have slowly been changing to a tech based economy. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I didn't say he got a job, he has his own business. I said he heard Microsoft is hiring at 100k a year because they can't find employees that are qualified. Read for comprehension.

You keep blasting Obama for welfare and food stamps. Please explain one action Obama has made to increase food stamps. A link to an executive action or signing a bill passed by congress would be great. That's all public record.

 

[RaceBannon]

*gurgle*

 

[2001400ex]

*gurgle*

Pressing

 

[RaceBannon]

Irony

 

[2001400ex]

Irony

Hypocrisy

 

[RaceBannon]

Fail

 

[HoustonHusky]

1) Now its your phone's fault. Anybody but your own fault of course...

2) Let's try this:

You: "Unemployment is using the exact same formula under Reagan"

The Forbes Article: "Most of the public only hears about one of them, the one the BLS refers to as U-3 (7.80% seasonally adjusted (SA) for September)." followed by:
" •In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks."
(add to that those on disability)

You: "I didn't quote U3"

In background from your link to the bls included in other comments about the data:
##CPS redesign implemented in January 1994, including questionnaire changes and updated population controls.
##Revisions to the Current Population Survey Effective January 1994, including a description of questionnaire changes (PDF)
##The CPS After the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens contains the most up-to-date research on the effects of the redesign on major labor force measures

Reality: WTF 2001400ex? Are you really this slow?

3) So now its the Great Depression we are comparing against? Hate to do it against the other recessions you were previously talking about because your arguments don't hold up. Can you even breath while swallowing that much of Obama?

4) So now its that the economy has only evolved in the last 20 years, and the evolution of technology now (vs. before) makes it different. Before that everything was stagnant and all those other guys in charge had it much easier. *gurgle*

He's in charge and set economic policy. That policy has resulted in 46+ million on food stamps. Can't get much simpler than that. Glad to see you are back to the straw man argument of 'give me one bill that caused it all, and if you can't than none of it applies'.

I'll leave you alone so you can get back to *gurgling*...