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

[Listening]

ONCE MORE:

'WEIRD, NOT ONE CON HAS YET ANSWERED

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

IF OBAMA'S ECONOMY IS SO BAD, ONLY 10+ MILLION JOBS CREATED SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010, WHY DID BUSH AND COMP LOSE 1.2+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS? LOL

Has nothing to do with the OP.

You immediately derailed the thread because it's all about you and your narrow-minded view of he world.

Shove it sideways.

OP has been disproved, over and over and over

Nice to see you are such a Koch licker though..

There is nothing to disprove. She was asking for opinions.

Or are you that stupid.

You simply decided to derail the thread because you somehow think you are worth worrying about.

I don't recall seeing anything about Koch in any of my posts.

Or are you just projecting your fantasies.

 

[Listening]

Gee......what happened to the OP?

Dudpeepee bored her to death.

 

[auditor0007]

In my world people have money....but they also have guns. Understand?

Indeed I do. In fact, there's still a chance that the Keynsian bubble being built now through our big spending fiscal and monetary policies could be the biggest bubble we've seen yet in our history. And if it bursts, those guns are going to mean a lot.

I believe it will burst - just as all bubbles do. I just can't tell you exactly when.

Outside of a small tech bubble, there really is no bubble right now. On top of that, we are on the verge of having a very substantial baby boom that will drive the economy for the next fifteen to twenty years in a very big way.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee......what happened to the OP?

Dudpeepee bored her to death.

Is that right?

 

[Listening]

Why? Red staters need more welfare?

Yes, the democrats in the red states have become more demanding as of late.

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

For someone who claims to deal in facts, you are pretty stupid to think that there is meaning in this post.

The implication here is that the people who voted for Romney are the ones getting food stamps.

But you can't prove that unless you can show that nobody in those districts voted for Obama.

And if there was a substantial Obama vote, there is nothing to say that most of them are not the food stamp collectors.

Maybe the folks voting for Romney are tired of seeing all these people around them living off of others.......

You don't know.

But you somehow want to link the two which is pure bullshit.

And indicative of the way you play with facts.

 

[EconChick]

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.

Got the crap kicked out of me? LMAO. I started the personal attacks? What I started was a deliberate attempt to keep this thread civil. It's there for all to see.

It's easy for anyone to see that you're lying about this, just like you're lying about the economy.

I'll let the posts speak for themselves.

 

[EconChick]

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.

How many times do I have to tell you DaddyO has left out the assumptions and plenty of other data??????? So much for your sig line.

 

[EconChick]

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.

How many times do I have to say I was looking for a discussion the way Londoner was doing his posts? I also made it abundantly clear in my first post I didn't want this to be yet another wonky exchange like the Economy threads.

And how many times did I have to post that did not mean NO numbers. Londoner had plenty of numbers in all his posts.

Either you have reading comprehension problems or you were just interested in derailing the thread or spamming it, which you libs did.

 

[EconChick]

Listening is merely issuing the same ad homs from the far right when they cannot compete with the evidence and the analysis.

Americans do feel confidence in the economic situation, that is clearly what the evidence shows.

If the fucking far right would quit glooming and dooming the GOP would easily win the Senate.

You mean like the big drop in the stock market today? You realize that's the beginning of the stock market's either slow or quick drop in coming months don't you? And you know it's because everyone knows the whole propping up of the stock market was artificial, right???

 

[EconChick]

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?

Dummy? Thanks for continuing to make my point that you libs start and continue the name calling. Now, to be honest, I kinda like dummy. Antonyms are the best. But I just want to point it out for the record.

Now for the actual substance.

How long has Obummer been president? 67 months or so, right????

Why haven't you posted your "PROOF" for 67 months?

The Bureau of Lab Statistics has been taking a beating about their bias since 2012 and it has finally gotten their attention. So you dig up a few of the recent months as if that's the same as the past 67 months. That's called a FAIL.

But for most of O's reign, they've been biased one way.


Now I do credit you for catching my dyslexia. I was thinking about BLS when we were talking about GDP from the BEA.

The BEA hasn't been as bad as BLS, however, here's a quiz for you.

What GDP did BEA start with for Quarter 1 of this year before they had to revise DOWNWARD? And tell me what number THAT was before they had to revise DOWN again to MINUS 2.9%??

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Dummy? Thanks for continuing to make my point that you libs start and continue the name calling. Now, to be honest, I kinda like dummy. Antonyms are the best. But I just want to point it out for the record.

Now for the actual substance.

How long has Obummer been president? 67 months or so, right????

Why haven't you posted your "PROOF" for 67 months?

The Bureau of Lab Statistics has been taking a beating about their bias since 2012 and it has finally gotten their attention. So you dig up a few of the recent months as if that's the same as the past 67 months. That's called a FAIL.

But for most of O's reign, they've been biased one way.


Now I do credit you for catching my dyslexia. I was thinking about BLS when we were talking about GDP from the BEA.

The BEA hasn't been as bad as BLS, however, here's a quiz for you.

What GDP did BEA start with for Quarter 1 of this year before they had to revise DOWNWARD? And tell me what number THAT was before they had to revise DOWN again to MINUS 2.9%??

No quizzes. You have failed the class already. You ought to be contrite.

GDP numbers get revised in both directions now....as they always have....regardless of administration. You were full of shit when you said it yesterday ( with the BLS numbers too ) ..and you are full of shit today. Your dopey claim that they ONLY GET REVISED DOWN with this administration is unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

[deltex1]

Today was a day of malaise.

 

[EconChick]

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?

Dummy? Thanks for continuing to make my point that you libs start and continue the name calling. Now, to be honest, I kinda like dummy. Antonyms are the best. But I just want to point it out for the record.

Now for the actual substance.

How long has Obummer been president? 67 months or so, right????

Why haven't you posted your "PROOF" for 67 months?

The Bureau of Lab Statistics has been taking a beating about their bias since 2012 and it has finally gotten their attention. So you dig up a few of the recent months as if that's the same as the past 67 months. That's called a FAIL.

But for most of O's reign, they've been biased one way.


Now I do credit you for catching my dyslexia. I was thinking about BLS when we were talking about GDP from the BEA.

The BEA hasn't been as bad as BLS, however, here's a quiz for you.

What GDP did BEA start with for Quarter 1 of this year before they had to revise DOWNWARD? And tell me what number THAT was before they had to revise DOWN again to MINUS 2.9%??

No quizzes. You have failed the class already. You ought to be contrite.

GDP numbers get revised in both directions now....as they always have....regardless of administration. You were full of shit when you said it yesterday ( with the BLS numbers too ) ..and you are full of shit today. Your dopey claim that they ONLY GET REVISED DOWN with this administration is unsubstantiated bullshit.

I see you're scared to death to post all 67 months of Unemployment numbers. You should be scared. Granted the subject was GDP (which comes from BEA) but the fact an agency under Obama has had such a pronounced bias with economic stats was my point.

ANDDDDDDDDDDDDDD, back to GDP numbers from BEA ....BEA really fucked up the GDP number last quarter.

I keep waiting for you to post just how badly they fucked it up till they finally admitted the economy CONTRACTED for almost 3 percentage points. It took two revisions.

I notice you were afraid to post that too.

So you're the one that needs to be contrite. Get a clue. You keep showing your ignorance.

 

[EconChick]

Today was a day of malaise.

Wow, look at that, Deltex! A post that actually relates to my OP. LOL.

Yes, bad day. Bad signals being sent by the stock market. You notice the libs are really perplexed.

They thought the 4%....which really nets to just 1% for the year.....was something to get ecstatic about....when the rest of us knew it meant Yellin would have to start backing off stimulus and the crack party is over.

 

[Erand7899]

Gentlemen, could I ask a favor. If you've read many of my posts, you'll see I like wallowing in the mud as much as anyone. Liberals give me the same visceral reaction because having been one in my youth, I know from where they pull many of their poor arguments.

Let's see if we can get back on track and try to stay relatively civil And I know it's asking a lot for both sides.

First, I am not a liberal. Just because I recognize Bush for the gigantic retard he is does not make me a liberal. I am, in fact, old school conservative. And I am more than happy to go toe to toe with you any day about the economic situation. I have probably written more words about it in the past six years than you have in your entire life. I am well aware of the root causes and who is to blame.

Basically, EVERYONE is to blame. But the hacks would like us to believe it was the negroes and the CRA. That's always a dead giveaway someone is an idiot, when they blame the CRA.

There were many factors involved in the housing market meltdown, and the Community Reinvestment Act was one of them. Government money, federal, state and local, fueled the housing bubble, and put tens of thousands of people into houses they could not afford to live in. Massive money chasing a limited supply means a rapid increase in price. That is economics 101.

Other Americans were living high on the hog by spending the steadily growing equities that the bubble was creating. They were maxing out credit cards and expecting to pay them off with the next refinance. The market meltdown left these people high and dry, with debt that they could not pay, and mortgage payments they could barely afford.

Credit disappeared, buying ceased, and the recession occurred. Bush didn't have a damn thing to do with it. The housing market meltdown also caused a financial crisis, but that is another story for another time.

 

[Erand7899]

Weird conservatives somehow think the debt rung up under Obama, AFTER Dubya put US in a HUGE FKKNG HOLE, is somehow his fault? Yet Ronnie tripled US debt, and that was OK?

]

Great example of twisting, manipulating, disingenuous talk of numbers.

Reagan added about 1.7 trillion of debt himself over his 8 years. Obama has already added 5.8 trillion of debt over his tenure. By the time he leaves it will probably be at least 6.5 trillion that just he himself added to the current 17 trillion. But I'll go with the more conservative number for you.

So let me spell it out again.

Reagan = 1.7 T
Obama = 5.8T

This isn't like comparing 1.7 million dollars and 5.8 million dollars.

We're talking about trillions!!!!


It is an unrefuted, unequivocal, undeniable fact that Obama is the biggest fucking spender in our history.

So stop trying to lie about it.

Doctorate huh? Static dollars? lol

Ronnie tripled US debt, thanks to him in 12 years, Poppy Bush/Reagan quadrupled debt


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12 trillion since then.

Three months after Bush took office, the economy went into recession. The economy had been virtually flat for the entire last year of the Clinton term, and the rosy projections of the Clinton Whitehouse were pure wishful thinking. Your premise is false, and consequently everything based on your premise is false.

The ideology worked. The Bush tax cuts ended the recession, and the economy began to grow again. Another recession in 2003 was also ended with the help of tax cuts, and the economy was close to full employment when the 2007 recession hit.

Compare that to the five and one half years of an economy dragging along the bottom, that we are experiencing now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listening is merely issuing the same ad homs from the far right when they cannot compete with the evidence and the analysis.

Americans do feel confidence in the economic situation, that is clearly what the evidence shows.

If the fucking far right would quit glooming and dooming the GOP would easily win the Senate.

You mean like the big drop in the stock market today? You realize that's the beginning of the stock market's either slow or quick drop in coming months don't you? And you know it's because everyone knows the whole propping up of the stock market was artificial, right???

Excellent, you are responding to meaningful data for a change.

Good.

Now let's if it is profit taking, scaredy stockholders, a market correction, or something bad.

But you are on the right track. Let's see how the market and the jobs report go tomorrow.

 

[EconChick]

Listening is merely issuing the same ad homs from the far right when they cannot compete with the evidence and the analysis.

Americans do feel confidence in the economic situation, that is clearly what the evidence shows.

If the fucking far right would quit glooming and dooming the GOP would easily win the Senate.

You mean like the big drop in the stock market today? You realize that's the beginning of the stock market's either slow or quick drop in coming months don't you? And you know it's because everyone knows the whole propping up of the stock market was artificial, right???

Excellent, you are responding to meaningful data for a change.

Good.

Now let's if it is profit taking, scaredy stockholders, a market correction, or something bad.

But you are on the right track. Let's see how the market and the jobs report go tomorrow.

The thing to look at is what happens to interest rates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great example of twisting, manipulating, disingenuous talk of numbers.

Reagan added about 1.7 trillion of debt himself over his 8 years. Obama has already added 5.8 trillion of debt over his tenure. By the time he leaves it will probably be at least 6.5 trillion that just he himself added to the current 17 trillion. But I'll go with the more conservative number for you.

So let me spell it out again.

Reagan = 1.7 T
Obama = 5.8T

This isn't like comparing 1.7 million dollars and 5.8 million dollars.

We're talking about trillions!!!!


It is an unrefuted, unequivocal, undeniable fact that Obama is the biggest fucking spender in our history.

So stop trying to lie about it.

Doctorate huh? Static dollars? lol

Ronnie tripled US debt, thanks to him in 12 years, Poppy Bush/Reagan quadrupled debt


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12 trillion since then.

Three months after Bush took office, the economy went into recession. The economy had been virtually flat for the entire last year of the Clinton term, and the rosy projections of the Clinton Whitehouse were pure wishful thinking. Your premise is false, and consequently everything based on your premise is false.

The ideology worked. The Bush tax cuts ended the recession, and the economy began to grow again. Another recession in 2003 was also ended with the help of tax cuts, and the economy was close to full employment when the 2007 recession hit.

Compare that to the five and one half years of an economy dragging along the bottom, that we are experiencing now.

Erand, until you put your talking points into context and nuance, no one should waste time in responding much more to you than this.

You completely ignored a war waged on a credit card with principal and interest that came due in 2007 and 2008.

 

[EconChick]

Great example of twisting, manipulating, disingenuous talk of numbers.

Reagan added about 1.7 trillion of debt himself over his 8 years. Obama has already added 5.8 trillion of debt over his tenure. By the time he leaves it will probably be at least 6.5 trillion that just he himself added to the current 17 trillion. But I'll go with the more conservative number for you.

So let me spell it out again.

Reagan = 1.7 T
Obama = 5.8T

This isn't like comparing 1.7 million dollars and 5.8 million dollars.

We're talking about trillions!!!!


It is an unrefuted, unequivocal, undeniable fact that Obama is the biggest fucking spender in our history.

So stop trying to lie about it.

Doctorate huh? Static dollars? lol

Ronnie tripled US debt, thanks to him in 12 years, Poppy Bush/Reagan quadrupled debt


We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12 trillion since then.

Three months after Bush took office, the economy went into recession. The economy had been virtually flat for the entire last year of the Clinton term, and the rosy projections of the Clinton Whitehouse were pure wishful thinking. Your premise is false, and consequently everything based on your premise is false.

The ideology worked. The Bush tax cuts ended the recession, and the economy began to grow again. Another recession in 2003 was also ended with the help of tax cuts, and the economy was close to full employment when the 2007 recession hit.

Compare that to the five and one half years of an economy dragging along the bottom, that we are experiencing now.

Which is backed up by looking at how low unemployment numbers got until the crash.