Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[Dad2three]

And Dad2three, I want you to tell me how much of a financial impact you think the 9/11 attack had on the economy.

That thing where Dubya ignored over 40 high level warnings and even said this:

Aug. 6, 2001, PDB

Bush to briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

9/11 cost US about 1% drop in GDP the next quarter. Dubya's left office when the economy shrunk 9%+ the last quarter

Seriously idiot? Your posts are getting dumber all the time.

Let me ask members of this board: Anyone out there that backs up Daddyo's conspiracy theory? Let's see how many people raise their hand, other than 1 or 2.

As for just a 1% drop in the next quarter's GDP, no wonder your analysis and stats are so baseless. Go research the airline industry and its many tentacles genius.

Conspiracy? lol

We all know about the August 5, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S."

However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later, according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all! They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat!


INCOMPETENCE?

VP Rice? Bush/Rice ignored 40 Bin Laden attack warnings.


The 9/11 attacks aggravated the 2001 recession, which started in March 2001. The economy had contracted 1.3% in the first quarter, but had bounced up 2.7% in the second quarter. The attacks made the economy contract 1.1% in the third quarter, extending the recession.


9/11 Attacks Economic Impact


I'LL NOTE AGAIN, AS OTHERS HAVE, ALL YOU HAVE ARE OPINIONS, AND EVERY ASSHOLE HAS ONE OF THOSE!

 

[Dad2three]

How will the dems explain the loss of the senate ?

I can hardly wait.

Ask Prez Mittens

 

[Dad2three]

the economy is growing for the rich, that is what the economic data tells us. Obama apologists point to the market and say, see the economy is improving. well for the rich it is. how many living hand to mouth on entitlements are invested in the market? facts are, the poor have gotten poorer. retired have gotten poorer. government tries to convince us their is no inflation, yet costs are rising steadily.

here's an interesting article that explains what is really going on


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-poorest-shoppers-putting-discount-143818396.html

America's Poorest Shoppers Are Putting Discount Stores Out Of Business


Discount stores are slowly dying.

Yesterday, Dollar Tree announced it would buy Family Dollar, a chain that is in the process of closing hundreds of stores and firing workers.

Other discount stores have been struggling as well, writes Heidi Moore at The Guardian. Fashion discounter Loehmann's filed for bankruptcy, while Wal-Mart's sales have declined for the past five quarters.

"There’s just not enough money deployed by American families to keep all the discount chains in business," Moore writes.

Dollar stores saw their heyday during the recession, when middle-class shoppers came to buy smaller, cheaper packages of household necessities like toilet paper.

While middle-class shoppers have enjoyed economic recovery, America's poorest consumers have not, write Paul Ziobro and Shelly Banjo at The Wall Street Journal.

Conservative policy

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Yo genius, income inequality has gotten worse under Obama.

For a moron supposedly with a Econ degree, you sure are ignorant

YES, Weird how after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies they left Obama a hole almost as large as Harding/Coolidge left for FDR to clean up!

 

[Dad2three]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Post 2 and you derailed it....asshole.

STFU

WEIRD, NOT ONE CON HAS YET ANSWERED

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp GOP Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

About the 100th time you've posted this string of bullshit.

There are rules against spam.

Weird how conservatives HATE data and links that refute their world views based on distortions, lies and misrepresentation!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

You stupid asshole.

Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job.

You pricks just don't get it.

Obummer campaigned on "We don't need four more years of GWB".

Right now we are six more years of Mr Dumbass.

But despite the fact that what Bush did was wrong..you somehow see Obama as being O.K to do the same stupid shit.

"Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job."


EXCEPT THEY VOTED FOR HIM TWICE, Then McSame and then Mittens, ALL you have the same policies. Weird

 

[Dad2three]

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

"...According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Uuuuhhhmmmm....the 250.

Yeah, we saw that lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does anyone else find it odd that the author of this thread wants to analyze American sentiment on the economy,

but insists in the OP that no economic facts and figures be a part of that analysis?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

Bush 'provided' the jobs, eh? Very funny.

It's right there in your face. Can't you read English? Maybe you have comprehension issues?

Jobs being created during a presidency and a president 'providing' jobs are two different things.

Do you need that explained to you? Here's a clue: Cause and effect.

 

[zeke]

Does anyone else find it odd that the author of this thread wants to analyze American sentiment on the economy,

but insists in the OP that no economic facts and figures be a part of that analysis?

I know what you mean. A self professed economist with multiple degrees wants to ignore charts and graphs and concentrate on "feelings". Don't tell her professors.

Well lets face it, fact and figures don't really support the position of Repubs.

Like Dad23 says, you Repubs got what you wanted under Bush, where are the jobs and the economic success to back up the claims of what would happen IF only Bush got what he wanted?

These Repubs on here never have an example of Bush success. Because there isn't any success to point out. Unless it is when Repubs think like Democrats.

 

[Listening]

You stupid asshole.

Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job.

You pricks just don't get it.

Obummer campaigned on "We don't need four more years of GWB".

Right now we are six more years of Mr Dumbass.

But despite the fact that what Bush did was wrong..you somehow see Obama as being O.K to do the same stupid shit.

"Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job."


EXCEPT THEY VOTED FOR HIM TWICE, Then McSame and then Mittens, ALL you have the same policies. Weird

Ah, now we see the glory of your shallow stupid thinking exposed.

They voted for him the first time to keep Al Gore from totally screwing up the country. Would Al have been worse that GWB ? At this point, I am unwilling to say.

Had the dems run someone like Hillary in 2004, they might have won. John Kerry (and what a wonderful time we would have had with John Edwards as VP) was a non-starter.

You only get two choices and they both make you vomit, you vote based on how much you fill up the bucket.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Good morning economists! How do we feel about that GDP number? It was pretty good wasn't it? Does this qualify as good news? Let's hear from the economists of USMB.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good morning economists! How do we feel about that GDP number? It was pretty good wasn't it? Does this qualify as good news? Let's hear from the economists of USMB.

You're off topic because the OP doesn't want any 'econ stats' to be a part of this conversation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

You stupid asshole.

Most cons I know detest GWB and the GOP congress he had that did such a lousy job.

That's an interesting claim, given that CONSERVATIVE Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% job approval rating as of December 2008.

 

[EconChick]

Does anyone else find it odd that the author of this thread wants to analyze American sentiment on the economy,

but insists in the OP that no economic facts and figures be a part of that analysis?

Where do I say you CAN'T USE NUMBERS, genius? I just didn't want this to turn into another chart war that the regular folks get bored with.

But instead, what does Dad2three do? He buries the thread with spam. Why do you think every forum out there prohibits it?

And thanks for demonstrating your selective reading. Seeing how thick some of you were, I clarified yesterday that numbers have to be involved but to post in English, not Chartese? Remember???? Remember where I suggested he look at Londoner's posts as a good example????????

I disagree with some of Londoner's posts but he's trying to have a real discussion. And he uses lots of numbers.

Now climb back under your rock.

 

[konradv]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

LOL!!! Translation: Forget the FACTS, let's get all touchy-feely!!!

 

[EconChick]

Good morning economists! How do we feel about that GDP number? It was pretty good wasn't it? Does this qualify as good news? Let's hear from the economists of USMB.

LL, that sure is better than last quarter.

Here's the problem. First of all, it will get revised DOWN and few people will follow that news.

Why do I know? Because under every other president, the BLS did a fairly non-biased job of sometimes over-doing the numbers and under-doing the numbers. That was a sign they were trying to be objective.

But during O's reign, BLS numbers always get revised, if they need to be revised - DOWN.

They don't get revised up sometimes and down sometimes. They always err in one direction, whether on purpose or not, and is a huge political bias for Obama because no one follows the revision. Therefore the public is always left with the bullshit higher number in their heads.

The second problem is this. Even if this 4% doesn't get revised, the absolute best case Obama can make is that for 2014 so far, the economy has only grown a net 1%.

That's because when you take the MINUS 3% of Q1 and the Plus 4% of Q2, it gives you just 1%. Follow me?

 

[EconChick]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

LOL!!! Translation: Forget the FACTS, let's get all touchy-feely!!!

No, dumbass, it means don't come in here and spam the thread with bullshit that clutters the discussion instead of adding to it.

If I were using charts, I'd take the time to explain my assumptions - that's because I'd be interested in a real discussion. But that takes time.

Spam boy can't even be bothered to make his posts readable. They look like fucking RANSOM NOTES with incongruent para structure, sentence structure, font use, etc.

 

[Moonglow]

Rather interestingly, the U.S. remains a haven for the world's money, as well, despite the constant drumbeat over the imminent decline, and or demise, of the U.S. … either as a world power, an engine of global growth, or as a reasonable place to invest one's money.

I have a somewhat contrarian view of the America's future. Not only do I doubt that the United States is in secular decline, but in some respects, it is gaining in stature as the safest haven for world's vast monetary wealth.
In other words, Fortress America is becoming the modern-day version of Old World Switzerland.

US is the new Switzerland?safe haven?commentary

 

[EconChick]

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Post 2 and you derailed it....asshole.

STFU

WEIRD, NOT ONE CON HAS YET ANSWERED

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

I'm happy to answer that at some point but WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER WE HAVE EXHUBERANCE OR MALAISE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW?

It doesn't. Go start your own thread moron.