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

[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?

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.

lol. Your meltdown temperature threshold is really low. Get a grip.

PS. This is an 'economy' thread. There's an 'economy' forum.

 

[EconChick]

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.

News flash. A president doesn't provide jobs in the real economy, he provides an environment that either makes it hard or easy for market forces but he doesn't PROVIDE jobs.

Another clueless statement.

 

[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.

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?

Bullshit on the BLS downward revision comment. You are failing.

Why bring up BLS numbers now anyway. We are talking GDP. Go ahead, school me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Exactly. Anything to keep from talking about what's going on NOW.

Drown us with charts and links from left wing think tanks because he's used to libbies not asking about any of the assumptions in his stats. They just slurrrrrrrrrrrrp it up.

You're the one who brought up Bush as having created so many jobs.

You've yet to tell us how he created them.

 

[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.

lol. Your meltdown temperature threshold is really low. Get a grip.

PS. This is an 'economy' thread. There's an 'economy' forum.

LOL, your IQ is really low. Get a clue.

So an economy has nothing to do with politics idiot?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

lol. Your meltdown temperature threshold is really low. Get a grip.

PS. This is an 'economy' thread. There's an 'economy' forum.

Not when you are a partisan "economist."

Politicizing economics is just par for the course.

As is melting down when facts don't support the ax grinding.

 

[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?

Bullshit on the BLS downward revision comment. You are failing.

Disprove it. You can't because I'm right. You're the failure. If I decide to start playing your game of bury you with stats, you'll run home crying to mommy, so be careful what you wish for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are baloney and as knowledgeable as Edward Baiamonte on the forum.

Honey, gradation is manipulable and can be used for far more than measuring disaster. Now forget your "examples" and give us hard data that supports gloom and doom.

Where did you take your degree: Liberty?

Tell you what Jake. Why don't you STFU too. You've never produced a piece of data to back up your dirty diapers since you've been on the board. When you produce, you can ask others to produce. POS

Yep, you are a POS, Listening. I have no trouble producing evidence as I did above that you ignored, as usual, because your far right delusions have no answer for reality.

I hope we take the Senate, but our party looks as if it is going to let the Dems keep it for the third election in a row when they have lost.

This is not People's fault, little buddy, it is the far right that loses the Senate yet again.

 

[EconChick]

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.

lol. Your meltdown temperature threshold is really low. Get a grip.

PS. This is an 'economy' thread. There's an 'economy' forum.

Not when you are a partisan "economist."

Politicizing economics is just par for the course.

As is melting down when facts don't support the ax grinding.

That's Ms. Meltdown to you. And all economics is biased. Just like you are. Nodog in this fight my ass. You may have the smallest minds fooled, but the rest of us aren't.

All stats are build on assumptions. All assumptions are colored with bias, whether people realize it or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Disprove it. You can't because I'm right. You're the failure. If I decide to start playing your game of bury you with stats, you'll run home crying to mommy, so be careful what you wish for.

You have posted nothing that needs to be disproved because the OP is nonsustainable.

Consumer confidence is at its highest in the country since 2007, and at its highest ever in Utah here, the reddest of states.

We should take the Senate, but if we don't for the third straight election, it can only be far wackobird right's fault. No one else.

 

[EconChick]

Yes, you are baloney and as knowledgeable as Edward Baiamonte on the forum.

Honey, gradation is manipulable and can be used for far more than measuring disaster. Now forget your "examples" and give us hard data that supports gloom and doom.

Where did you take your degree: Liberty?

Tell you what Jake. Why don't you STFU too. You've never produced a piece of data to back up your dirty diapers since you've been on the board. When you produce, you can ask others to produce. POS

Yep, you are a POS, Listening. I have no trouble producing evidence as I did above that you ignored, as usual, because your far right delusions have no answer for reality.

I hope we take the Senate, but our party looks as if it is going to let the Dems keep it for the third election in a row when they have lost.

This is not People's fault, little buddy, it is the far right that loses the Senate yet again.

LAUGH MY ASS OFF. There's drugs for that level of delusion.

All you dumbass liberals came to this thread where I asked everyone to stay civil .....but no, you brainless Libs wouldn't have any of that. You idiots brought it down, so reap what you sow and GFY.

In the meantime the rest of us will have an intelligent conversation.

 

[EconChick]

You have posted nothing that needs to be disproved because the OP is nonsustainable.

Consumer confidence is at its highest in the country since 2007, and at its highest ever in Utah here, the reddest of states.

We should take the Senate, but if we don't for the third straight election, it can only be far wackobird right's fault. No one else.

I can almost rest my case fully on this post alone. LMAO. I can't stop laughing.

Sorry gotta go but I'll be back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell you what Jake. Why don't you STFU too. You've never produced a piece of data to back up your dirty diapers since you've been on the board. When you produce, you can ask others to produce. POS

Yep, you are a POS, Listening. I have no trouble producing evidence as I did above that you ignored, as usual, because your far right delusions have no answer for reality.

I hope we take the Senate, but our party looks as if it is going to let the Dems keep it for the third election in a row when they have lost.

This is not People's fault, little buddy, it is the far right that loses the Senate yet again.

LAUGH MY ASS OFF. There's drugs for that level of delusion. All you dumbass liberals came to this thread where I asked everyone to stay civil .....but no, you brainless Libs wouldn't have any of that. You idiots brought it down, so reap what you sow and GFY. In the meantime the rest of us will have an intelligent conversation.

Your folks don't get to ad hom without getting more than they give: it is the only way to deal with the far right wackobirds.

You started it, you got the crap kicked out of you, and you cry like a little girl.

I will call you and your wing nuts out when you lie, econchick, count on it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

lol. Your meltdown temperature threshold is really low. Get a grip.

PS. This is an 'economy' thread. There's an 'economy' forum.

Not when you are a partisan "economist."

Politicizing economics is just par for the course.

As is melting down when facts don't support the ax grinding.

That's Ms. Meltdown to you. And all economics is biased. Just like you are. Nodog in this fight my ass. You may have the smallest minds fooled, but the rest of us aren't.

All stats are build on assumptions. All assumptions are colored with bias, whether people realize it or not.

Did you happen to read my signature line?

I don't trust an "intellectual" discussion in which the footnotes (and all nonsupporting data) are overlooked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not when you are a partisan "economist."

Politicizing economics is just par for the course.

As is melting down when facts don't support the ax grinding.

That's Ms. Meltdown to you. And all economics is biased. Just like you are. Nodog in this fight my ass. You may have the smallest minds fooled, but the rest of us aren't.

All stats are build on assumptions. All assumptions are colored with bias, whether people realize it or not.

Did you happen to read my signature line?

I don't trust an "intellectual" discussion in which the footnotes (and all nonsupporting data) are overlooked.

Econchick believes in 'biased economics.' Obviously she is not the scholar she claims to be. She won't get her doctorate with that approach.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Bullshit on the BLS downward revision comment. You are failing.

Disprove it. You can't because I'm right. You're the failure. If I decide to start playing your game of bury you with stats, you'll run home crying to mommy, so be careful what you wish for.

OK. Let's look. Dummy.

Employment Situation Summary

Revised Up for May

Employment Situation News Release

Revised Down For April

Employment Situation News Release

Revised Up For March

Employment Situation News Release

Revised Up For Feb

Employment Situation News Release

Revised Up For Jan

Employment Situation News Release

Revised Up For Dec 2013



Shall I continue?

 

[Listening]

Yes, you are baloney and as knowledgeable as Edward Baiamonte on the forum.

Honey, gradation is manipulable and can be used for far more than measuring disaster. Now forget your "examples" and give us hard data that supports gloom and doom.

Where did you take your degree: Liberty?

Tell you what Jake. Why don't you STFU too. You've never produced a piece of data to back up your dirty diapers since you've been on the board. When you produce, you can ask others to produce. POS

Yep, you are a POS, Listening. I have no trouble producing evidence as I did above that you ignored, as usual, because your far right delusions have no answer for reality.

I hope we take the Senate, but our party looks as if it is going to let the Dems keep it for the third election in a row when they have lost.

This is not People's fault, little buddy, it is the far right that loses the Senate yet again.

Thanks for admitting you are to stupid to get your point across.

You've NEVER EVER produced anything to support any of your lame-assed assertions for as long as I've been on this board.

You were challenged to go into the BullRing and you chose to stick your fat as between your lilly white legs and run.

NEVER.

 

[Listening]

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?

Are you really this stupid ?

This is from post number 2...the post following the OP.

I went back and reread the OP and nowhere does it say the economy was booming under GWB.

That wasn't the point of the thread.

You simply chose to go into your mindless deflection/cut/paste mode and almost immediately derailed the thread.

Why don't you get out of the thread if you are not going to address the OP. Your sorry assed spam is now ignored by most everyone because they are tired of your bullshit.

Nobody's going to answer your question because we are not obligated to jump into whatever direction you think the thread should go.

FO.

 

[Listening]

Yep, you are a POS, Listening. I have no trouble producing evidence as I did above that you ignored, as usual, because your far right delusions have no answer for reality.

I hope we take the Senate, but our party looks as if it is going to let the Dems keep it for the third election in a row when they have lost.

This is not People's fault, little buddy, it is the far right that loses the Senate yet again.

LAUGH MY ASS OFF. There's drugs for that level of delusion. All you dumbass liberals came to this thread where I asked everyone to stay civil .....but no, you brainless Libs wouldn't have any of that. You idiots brought it down, so reap what you sow and GFY. In the meantime the rest of us will have an intelligent conversation.

Your folks don't get to ad hom without getting more than they give: it is the only way to deal with the far right wackobirds.

You started it, you got the crap kicked out of you, and you cry like a little girl.

I will call you and your wing nuts out when you lie, econchick, count on it.

You couldn't win an argument with my dead grandmother.

You've got your head so far up your ass, you look out your bellybutton.

That we can count on.

 

[Listening]

How will the dems explain the loss of the senate ?

I can hardly wait.

Ask Prez Mittens

Why ?

Because you can't.

Got it.