hellava Oconomy we got going on here
- Thread starter sarktastic
- Start date
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
THIS economy is great if you don't suck at life.
HoustonHusky
New Fish
Wow...it took you research to come up with that? I'm assuming there was lots of *gurgling* involved.
1) Your words, copied again so you can explain how you don't look arrogantly down on most Americans:
"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."
(note, only 32% of 18+ year olds have college degrees, and I'm sure much less have what 2001400ex would consider the "right" degrees)
2) It was not material? Its one of several changes. You are the moron that linked to a website that publishes the following on the data in reports:
NOTE: Revisions to population controls and other changes can affect the comparability of labor force levels over time. In recent years, updated population controls have
been introduced annually with the release of January data. Additional information is online at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
And then were dumb enough to then compare data over different time periods. You can look at labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds if you prefer...its down at Carter-era levels (something for you to be proud of I'm sure).
Either way, your point that Obama's unemployment record can hold a candle to Reagan's is fraudulent, pure and simple, and you seem pretty butt-hurt with the 'yeah, your right but not really' response. Feel free to keep arguing it...as you have found so far its pretty hard when reality is against you. In your fantasy Obama can only dream while you are servicing him of creating the 20+million jobs Reagan created (and note that under Reagan the US population was only 2/3rds of today's and the US GDP was less than half of what it is today, making his numbers that much more impressive).
3) Huh? Its the first time the Great Depression has been brought up...not by me but by you (after your comparisons to other recessions fell apart). In the Depression there was a serious run on banks, something like 9,000 bank failures, and a bunch of other things that aren't in any way, shape, or form related to the last recession or Obama's shitty recovery afterwards. Keep throwing shite in hopes of something sticking.
4) Your words...I'm not typing them for you. You are the one whining that somehow this latest tech revolution is different than all the other historical ones, and that's why Obama's recovery has been so bad.
As for food stamps...as the Foo Fighters might say...one of these humps is not like the other...
And finally, its amazing how much crap you unsuccessfully throw to avoid the original point of the thread, which is that most of the S&P500 growth has been with companies investing both their earned money and issuing debt at historically low interest rates to buy back shares, with a majority (60% per the later link) of the EPS growth due to buyback and not organic growth. That's absolutely horrible, and is one of a huge number of damning facts about the current economy that point to Obama being pretty shitty at his job. Median income is down, and life isn't getting better for the majority of folks.
As far as the economy, there are hundreds of policies to point at, from the stupidity of implementing heavy business regulations (Obamacare) in the middle of a recession (pretty effin stupid whether you like the policy or not) to his regulations on coal, pipelines, etc. to not addressing/fixing Dodd-Frank, stacking the Board of Labor Relations with a bunch of Liberal morons that seem to like causing problems, etc., to walking away from a tax agreement that would have set broad reforms in the overall tax policy and provided a level of certainty to companies and investors. Not to mention his frankly illegal bailout of GM (changing the debt priority order to pay off the unions), etc. Its not one policy, its that businesses hate uncertainty, and that's all they've gotten out of Obama's administration for the last 6 years (except for the green energy folks who have been certain about getting their payouts...), which is why they aren't spending money and the economy isn't growing. If it wasn't for shale gas (something that started before him and which he's been trying unsuccessfully to tap down and it may get kicked to the curb if oil prices stay down) he really would have been Jimmy Carter II.
Its frankly completely stupid to think any one single policy could be pointed to as being the sole reason for 6 years of economic failure or 46+ million on food stamps...and it says something about a person that keeps asking for/thinking that there is one magical thing to point at to either affix all the blame to or to explain away. Look at the results...they have been horrible...and keep gargling away in your attempt to explain those away.
1) Your words, copied again so you can explain how you don't look arrogantly down on most Americans:
"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."
(note, only 32% of 18+ year olds have college degrees, and I'm sure much less have what 2001400ex would consider the "right" degrees)
2) It was not material? Its one of several changes. You are the moron that linked to a website that publishes the following on the data in reports:
NOTE: Revisions to population controls and other changes can affect the comparability of labor force levels over time. In recent years, updated population controls have
been introduced annually with the release of January data. Additional information is online at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
And then were dumb enough to then compare data over different time periods. You can look at labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds if you prefer...its down at Carter-era levels (something for you to be proud of I'm sure).
Either way, your point that Obama's unemployment record can hold a candle to Reagan's is fraudulent, pure and simple, and you seem pretty butt-hurt with the 'yeah, your right but not really' response. Feel free to keep arguing it...as you have found so far its pretty hard when reality is against you. In your fantasy Obama can only dream while you are servicing him of creating the 20+million jobs Reagan created (and note that under Reagan the US population was only 2/3rds of today's and the US GDP was less than half of what it is today, making his numbers that much more impressive).
3) Huh? Its the first time the Great Depression has been brought up...not by me but by you (after your comparisons to other recessions fell apart). In the Depression there was a serious run on banks, something like 9,000 bank failures, and a bunch of other things that aren't in any way, shape, or form related to the last recession or Obama's shitty recovery afterwards. Keep throwing shite in hopes of something sticking.
4) Your words...I'm not typing them for you. You are the one whining that somehow this latest tech revolution is different than all the other historical ones, and that's why Obama's recovery has been so bad.
As for food stamps...as the Foo Fighters might say...one of these humps is not like the other...
And finally, its amazing how much crap you unsuccessfully throw to avoid the original point of the thread, which is that most of the S&P500 growth has been with companies investing both their earned money and issuing debt at historically low interest rates to buy back shares, with a majority (60% per the later link) of the EPS growth due to buyback and not organic growth. That's absolutely horrible, and is one of a huge number of damning facts about the current economy that point to Obama being pretty shitty at his job. Median income is down, and life isn't getting better for the majority of folks.
As far as the economy, there are hundreds of policies to point at, from the stupidity of implementing heavy business regulations (Obamacare) in the middle of a recession (pretty effin stupid whether you like the policy or not) to his regulations on coal, pipelines, etc. to not addressing/fixing Dodd-Frank, stacking the Board of Labor Relations with a bunch of Liberal morons that seem to like causing problems, etc., to walking away from a tax agreement that would have set broad reforms in the overall tax policy and provided a level of certainty to companies and investors. Not to mention his frankly illegal bailout of GM (changing the debt priority order to pay off the unions), etc. Its not one policy, its that businesses hate uncertainty, and that's all they've gotten out of Obama's administration for the last 6 years (except for the green energy folks who have been certain about getting their payouts...), which is why they aren't spending money and the economy isn't growing. If it wasn't for shale gas (something that started before him and which he's been trying unsuccessfully to tap down and it may get kicked to the curb if oil prices stay down) he really would have been Jimmy Carter II.
Its frankly completely stupid to think any one single policy could be pointed to as being the sole reason for 6 years of economic failure or 46+ million on food stamps...and it says something about a person that keeps asking for/thinking that there is one magical thing to point at to either affix all the blame to or to explain away. Look at the results...they have been horrible...and keep gargling away in your attempt to explain those away.
doogsinparadise
New Fish
You're clearly not a classy conservative.
Romney was an elitist
2001400ex
New Fish
Wow...it took you research to come up with that? I'm assuming there was lots of *gurgling* involved.
1) Your words, copied again so you can explain how you don't look arrogantly down on most Americans:
"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."
(note, only 32% of 18+ year olds have college degrees, and I'm sure much less have what 2001400ex would consider the "right" degrees)
Again, read my whole quote. And yes, if you come out of college with a liberal arts, communications, journalism, or history degree, good luck getting a job. That's been true regardless of the economy.
2) It was not material? Its one of several changes. You are the moron that linked to a website that publishes the following on the data in reports:
NOTE: Revisions to population controls and other changes can affect the comparability of labor force levels over time. In recent years, updated population controls have
been introduced annually with the release of January data. Additional information is online at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
And then were dumb enough to then compare data over different time periods. You can look at labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds if you prefer...its down at Carter-era levels (something for you to be proud of I'm sure).
Labor participation is low, what's your point? That means people are choosing not to work.
Either way, your point that Obama's unemployment record can hold a candle to Reagan's is fraudulent, pure and simple, and you seem pretty butt-hurt with the 'yeah, your right but not really' response. Feel free to keep arguing it...as you have found so far its pretty hard when reality is against you. In your fantasy Obama can only dream while you are servicing him of creating the 20+million jobs Reagan created (and note that under Reagan the US population was only 2/3rds of today's and the US GDP was less than half of what it is today, making his numbers that much more impressive).
Except for the fact that Reagan's unemployment was worse than Obama's. That's really gotta chap the ass of a Reagan lover like you. I'm not sure where you get 20 million jobs, but whatever.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
3) Huh? Its the first time the Great Depression has been brought up...not by me but by you (after your comparisons to other recessions fell apart). In the Depression there was a serious run on banks, something like 9,000 bank failures, and a bunch of other things that aren't in any way, shape, or form related to the last recession or Obama's shitty recovery afterwards. Keep throwing shite in hopes of something sticking.
Wait, what? You don't recall how many banks failed in 2008-2011? The difference is the liberal policies created the FDIC and the FDIC negotiated bank sales to take over the deposits. Imagine what would have happened if we just let all the banks fail and everyone lost their money like in 1929-1933. There's a reason Bush pushed TARP.
4) Your words...I'm not typing them for you. You are the one whining that somehow this latest tech revolution is different than all the other historical ones, and that's why Obama'
you don't read well
As for food stamps...as the Foo Fighters might say...one of these humps is not like the other...
Yes, look at 2008 and how food stamps started to sky rocket. You think the shitty economy and people losing 800k jobs a month might have something to do with that hump? Lol wow. Just ignore facts will ya?
And finally, its amazing how much crap you unsuccessfully throw to avoid the original point of the thread, which is that most of the S&P500 growth has been with companies investing both their earned money and issuing debt at historically low interest rates to buy back shares, with a majority (60% per the later link) of the EPS growth due to buyback and not organic growth. That's absolutely horrible, and is one of a huge number of damning facts about the current economy that point to Obama being pretty shitty at his job. Median income is down, and life isn't getting better for the majority of folks.
Except companies still have record profits and record cash on hand. You are spending too much time looking for negative shit you are clearly missing the positives.
...f Labor Relations with a bunch of Liberal morons that seem to like causing problems, etc., to walking away from a tax agreement that would have set broad reforms in the overall tax policy and provided a level of certainty to companies and investors. Not to mention his frankly illegal bailout of GM (changing the debt priority order to pay off the unions), etc. Its not one policy, its that businesses hate uncertainty, and that's all they've gotten out of Obama's administration for the last 6 years (except for the green energy folks who have been certain about getting their payouts...), which is why they aren't spending money and the economy isn't growing. If it wasn't for shale gas (something that started before him and which he's been trying unsuccessfully to tap down and it may get kicked to the curb if oil prices stay down) he really would have been Jimmy Carter II.
Good attempt to actually answer the question,, I applaud you for trying. Do you really think it's Obama's policy that's creating more consumer confidence? Or do you think the discord in the media and politicians that's really creating the low consumer confidence? What do you think one of the driving factors to the economy of the 90s was? Don't you think Clinton and Newt agreeing on shit to pass bills with both conservative and liberal principals might have helped?
Its frankly completely stupid to think any one single policy could be pointed to as being the sole reason for 6 years of economic failure or 46+ million on food stamps...and it says something about a person that keeps asking for/thinking that there is one magical thing to point at to either affix all the blame to or to explain away. Look at the results...they have been horrible...and keep gargling away in your attempt to explain those away.
All you really need to do to assess the economy is look at job growth. The month Obama took over we lost 800k jobs, it's been how many years since we had negative job growth? 5? Is the economy perfect? No. But it's definitely better than it was.
What I really want to know is this. Why are you so desperately looking for ways to prove the economy is shitty?
HoustonHusky
New Fish
We have in this thread...looks like it's gone over your head. Companies aren't investing in growing like they should (the start of the thread), which leads to crappy job growth compared to what it should be (the middle of this thread), to you gurgling away trying to ignore, distract, apologize, and explain it away throughout the entire thread.
We should all just pretend everything is grand now...how dare anyone question otherwise. Why are you so desperate to find excuses for everything related to Obama? They should at least put you on the payroll for your efforts against reality. The thread was started on a point of fact you want to ignore, so why again are you trying to defend the indefensible?
We should all just pretend everything is grand now...how dare anyone question otherwise. Why are you so desperate to find excuses for everything related to Obama? They should at least put you on the payroll for your efforts against reality. The thread was started on a point of fact you want to ignore, so why again are you trying to defend the indefensible?
2001400ex
New Fish
You should review the thread again. It started with the OP saying or economy was shitty cause EPS was growing at a slower rate, which is refuted. Race chimed in and stroked Reagan's ballsack, which I refuted. Then you started in.
If you want to talk about companies not investing much, that's another matter. That part is true, demand is low, consumer confidence is low, so some companies are not making investments. Others are, depending on the industry. Others have the cash so they are investing with actual cash. Look at Boeing, can you say they aren't investing?
I didn't say "everything was grand." There are some negative aspects of this economy. Which I have started multiple times. There are some very positive aspects of the economy too.
You still didn't answer my question. Why are you trying hard to make the economy look like a disaster when it's not remotely a disaster?
You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle*
Again
*gurgle*
Of course the thread was about growth but still
And Houston did show that unemployment reporting has changed since Reagan but still
I never voted for Reagan
We know who has the hero worship here
I said growth
You lose
You lose
HoustonHusky
New Fish
Yeah, you compared with data calculated differently (as the owners of the data itself warned which you ignored) to say something false. And are too dumb to accept it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
Last edited:
GrundleStiltzkin
New Fish
2001400ex
New Fish
OK then, how do you propose that we accomplish both, growing the economy and balancing the budget?
For me, if you read my comments, I haven't said it's sunshine and roses. I did say however, that overall the economy is growing, deficit is reducing, all facts. Of course I want more growth, of course I want a balanced budget. But reality is, we will go through another recession before the country is back on track financially. That's just how the system works.
unfrozencaveman
New Fish
Solid thread - but let it be said
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side