Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wall Street isn't the economy.
Boiking sucks on the economy...Only Wall Street banksters and his mindless zombie fluffer tools could argue differently.
As has been said before the stock market is doing well right now because the Fed is holding interest rate at near zero basically forcing people to put their money in the market.
It's a castle built on sand.
Democrats tried to do something about that you idiot. Gawd but you're dumb. Its called BCRA & McCain strongly supported it.
Democrats tried to do something about that you idiot. Gawd but you're dumb. Its called BCRA & McCain strongly supported it.
1) yes, McCain did support McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
2) we have free speech in this country so you can't limit spending on speech very much
3) If you want to end corruption you have to end big government. Now even you can understand why our Founders sought to end big government!!
"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence".-Thomas Jefferson
A liberal actually lacks the IQ to understand the basic idea of America. It's so sad.
We have what they[our Founders] wanted. Always have. Strong government well suited to the times.
Wall Street isn't the economy.
Boiking sucks on the economy...Only Wall Street banksters and his mindless zombie fluffer tools could argue differently.
As has been said before the stock market is doing well right now because the Fed is holding interest rate at near zero basically forcing people to put their money in the market.
It's a castle built on sand.
It can't go on for much longer because it's essentially a bubble ready to burst as soon as interest rates start going up.
This is a stimulus program built on smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.
We have what they[our Founders] wanted. Always have. Strong government well suited to the times.
can you say why you feel they wanted strong government when the government they created and presided over was less than 1% of the size of our current government on a per capita basis??
There were two major, and many minor, debates invested in assembling the Constitution.
First was between the Federalists, who wanted, unlike Europe, a strong Federal Government over the various colonies or states, and the anti-Federalists, who wanted, like Europe, a weak union of state governments. The Federalists won.
Second was between those that thought that, like Europe, a monarchy was the only way to garner sufficent respect for the country. Their argument was lost to those who argued that a republic was the only way to avoid the abuses that they had experienced from King George.
After the Constitution was approved as the bylaws for our government, it was ammended to establish a few areas of life that the government was forbidden to legislate within, the Bill of Rights.
In retrospect there were two major flaws in their design. It allowed slavery and was not a democracy as the right to vote was determined by each state, and none required universal suffrage.
The slavery issue was solved by the 13th Ammendment in 1865 and universal suffrage, completing our journey to democracy, was established in 1920.
So, the founders established a framework for government that we've never deviated from. It has been kept modern through the years by following the founders procedures. It is widely regarded as a successful early model modern government.
I personally regard it still as world class. A long way from perfect as all manmade precepts are, but unexcelled.
From Forbes.com:
Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession.
Recall 2009. Things looked pretty bleak economically.
But the outlook has changed dramatically in just 4 years. And it has been a boon for investors, as even the safest indices have yielded a 250% return (>25% annualized compound return
Additionally, unemployment and consumer confidence trends have reversed direction and are improving:
Since this coincides with President Obamas first term, I asked the authors of Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, (available on Amazon.com and which I reviewed in my October 11, 2012 column,) to capture their opinions on how much Americans should attribute the equity upturn, and improved economic prospects, to the President as we enter his second term.
Interview with Bob Deitrick, co-Author Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (BBBB):
Q- Bob, how much credit should Americans give President Obama for todays improved equity values?
BBBB Our research reviewed American economic performance since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board Chairman Republican Marriner Eccles. We observed that even though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And relatively quickly.
Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.) But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance.
Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should. Because the President deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership.
The auto rescue plan has worked. American car manufacturers are still dominant and employing millions directly and in supplier companies. Wall Street reform has been painful but it has re-instated faith amongst investors. The markets are far more predictable than they were four years ago, as VIX numbers demonstrate greater faith and less risk.
Even for small investors, such as those limited to their 401(k) or IRA investments, the average annual compound return on stocks under President Obama has been more than 24% since the lows of March, 2009. This is a better result than either Clinton, Reagan or FDR who were the prior winners in our book.
Q- Bob, what policies do you think were most important toward achieving todays new highs?
BBBB Firstly, lets review just how bad things were in 2009. In 2000 America was completing the longest bull market in history. But by the end of President Bushs tenure the country had witnessed 2 stock market crashes, and the DJIA had fallen 58%. This was the second worst market decline in history (exceeded only by the Great Depression,) and hence the term Great Recession was born.
In 2000, at the end of Clintons administration, the Consumer Confidence Index was at a record high 140. By January, 2009 this index had fallen to an historic low of 25.3. Comparatively, when Reagan took office at the end of the economically weak Carter years the Confidence Index was still at 74.4! Today this measure of how people feel about the country is still nowhere near 2000 levels, but it is almost 3 times better than 4 years ago.
Significantly, in 2000 America had a budget surplus. By 2009 surpluses were long gone and the country was racking up historic deficits as taxes were cut while simultaneously outlays for defense skyrocketed to cover costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, banks were on the edge of failing due to unregulated real estate speculation and massive derivative losses.
Today the Congressional Budget Office is reporting a $200B decrease in the deficit almost entirely due to increased revenue from a growing economy and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bushs administration and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) Americas debt problem seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.
We can largely thank a fairer tax code, improved regulation and consistent SEC enforcement. Also, major strides in health care reform something no other President has accomplished has given Americans more faith in their future, and an increased willingness to invest.
The Fed, Wall Street insiders and their political toadies, up to including those squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania.Out of all the charts you choose to show that this economy/recovery is a success, and you choose stock market indexes and consumer confidence vs. unemployment rate?
Who backed this project in stupidity?
But it is to the Bankers that OWN Obama. That's why Bernanke has added 1 Trillion Dollars to the Balance Sheets of Banks:Eat shit dickless.Fraudball's right.The House Repubs even passed his Jobs Act!!! Oh wait
, they tabled it.
Fuck off Fraudball
Wall Street still isn't the economy.
Thanks To QE Bernanke Has Injected Foreign Banks With Over $1 Trillion In Cash For First Time Ever | Zero Hedge
Excuse me, that's 1.5 Trillion:
Bernanke: There Was No 'Secret' Bank Bailout, And It Was Only $1.5 Trillion - Forbes
See, the Fed COULD use that 1 Trillion Dollars and forgive Student Debt which is 1 Trillion Dollars but as you can see, Americans don't mean SHIT to them.
You see Obama attacking the Banks or the IRS in any way? Nope.
There's a reason for that.
cries out the thread headline offered by Handsome Tranny/SimplyAssholic.Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?
What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?
It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.
They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.
What is our actual rate of unemployment COUNTING those who have been discounted because they have given up?
It would be 8% (The U-4 measure ) Though why you would want to count people who aren't trying to work, and couldn't be hired no matter how many jobs are available (because they're not trying to be hired) is a mystery.
They're important to look at as part of overall health and as possible future workers, but they're not unemployed and can't tell us what the labor market is actually like, only what they thought it was like when they quit looking.
I'm one of those no longer looking for work. I call it retired.
Holy Cow...how blind-stupid can some people be?
Bush was a terrible economic President...Obama is almost a 100% carbon copy of Bush's policies...to the tee.
So where is the "Could Bush be the best economic President" thread?
