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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Yes, that is meaningful.

They have too flat for too long: banks don't want to share capitol profit with $$$ invested that is going to require a growing interest.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

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.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia?


For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

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.

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

2003 we had a recession? lol

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position

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."


Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW WHICH SIDE WAS RIGHT?

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


"Some of the recovery, some of the expansion, was based on very shaky foundations," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight.

"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."


Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


CLINTON GOT US NEARLY 21% OF GDP IN REVENUES, DUBYA TOOK US TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS, 15% AS HE TOOK US TO TWO UNFUNDED WARS, AND GAVE US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES DOES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


DUBYA LOST 1.2_ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN HIS 8 YEARS

OBAMA HAS 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Full employment? Yeah, Dubya cheering on the Banksters ponzi scheme will do that right? lol THEN IT COLLAPSES!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html



Never in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Weird, a false economy that 's what happened with Reagan too when he ignored regulator warnings and the S&L crisis mainly hit Poppy Bush, weird how Dubya ignored regulator warnings and had a ponzi scheme going too?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

They hit Clinton's 4% lol

 

[Listening]

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.

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.

It means nothing.

When are you going to get a clue ?

The concept is a contradiction.

And your intial claim was for 253 counties. Where is the data on them ?

 

[Listening]

Listening is opining only, giving a point of view.

The facts as presented above contradict his point of view.

I have lived much longer than Listening, and I know of which I speak, where as L does not.

JakeTheFake once again is speaking out his bellybutton.

There are no contradiction because there is no "point of view".

Consumer Confidence is what it is as measured.

That you live in pigshit isn't my problem.

You know nothing about what you speak and you don't know how long I've been around. Another one of your brainfart statements.

 

[Listening]

The record low for US consumer confidence was November of 2008. That's about where Obama had to start from.

And so once again, I'll state that there is no dispute it is getting better.

I'll speculate that either of my dead grandmothers would have gotten the same response (meaning it would have happened without Obama).

It is all relative and on an overall basis it is still low.

JakeTheFake gets all giddy because the pile of pigshit he's in has gotten lower.

Great for him (and for many of us).

It is getting better.

But it ain't great.

Jake's probably never known anything different.

Listen. See if I got this. Obama's at fault if the economy sucks. But your dead grandmother could have overseen the improvement in the economy? That about your position? Fuck you, What a hypocrite.

Looks like Jake's found another butt-buddy.

The economy sucks ? According to who ? Consumer confidence measurements ?

Imagine that ?

ESAD

 

[Listening]

And so once again, I'll state that there is no dispute it is getting better.

I'll speculate that either of my dead grandmothers would have gotten the same response (meaning it would have happened without Obama).

It is all relative and on an overall basis it is still low.

JakeTheFake gets all giddy because the pile of pigshit he's in has gotten lower.

Great for him (and for many of us).

It is getting better.

But it ain't great.

Jake's probably never known anything different.

Listen. See if I got this. Obama's at fault if the economy sucks. But your dead grandmother could have overseen the improvement in the economy? That about your position? Fuck you, What a hypocrite.

L is nothing more than a hypocritical hack and troll on behalf of the far right.

The less to support the point, the more L goes down ad hom alley.

L is a real reactionary troll.

Once again the economy is improving well and Americans are happy about it.

 

[Clementine]

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.

The liberal media keeps saying things are better, but they are talking about Wall Street improving, not Main Street. The same people they vilified and sent buses of angry mobs to intimidate are now how they measure the success of Obama's efforts.

Politicians will never go after the wealthy, at least until they want some campaign money.

Most people judge the state of the economy by their own personal situation. Everyone has less money left over at the end of the month because of the higher prices everywhere, from the grocery store to the gas station. Our money doesn't go as far and things keep going up. Not something to cheer about unless you like seeing the middle class and poor take yet another hit for the sake of the screwed up agenda of the left.

Many have given up finding a good job and either settled for a part time job, a lower paying job or gave up completely. Even though that helps improve the UE statistics, it isn't good by any means. I wish they'd quit pushing statistics as proof of anything because they don't tell the whole story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And so once again, I'll state that there is no dispute it is getting better.

I'll speculate that either of my dead grandmothers would have gotten the same response (meaning it would have happened without Obama).

It is all relative and on an overall basis it is still low.

JakeTheFake gets all giddy because the pile of pigshit he's in has gotten lower.

Great for him (and for many of us).

It is getting better.

But it ain't great.

Jake's probably never known anything different.

Listen. See if I got this. Obama's at fault if the economy sucks. But your dead grandmother could have overseen the improvement in the economy? That about your position? Fuck you, What a hypocrite.

Looks like Jake's found another butt-buddy.

The economy sucks ? According to who ? Consumer confidence measurements ?

Imagine that ?

ESAD

Your ad homs merely gives your argument has less weight.

To the OP, the American consumer is not in a spirit of economic malaise at all.

 

[Listening]

Listen. See if I got this. Obama's at fault if the economy sucks. But your dead grandmother could have overseen the improvement in the economy? That about your position? Fuck you, What a hypocrite.

Looks like Jake's found another butt-buddy.

The economy sucks ? According to who ? Consumer confidence measurements ?

Imagine that ?

ESAD

Your ad homs merely gives your argument has less weight.

To the OP, the American consumer is not in a spirit of economic malaise at all.

You wouldn't know an argument if it bit you in your fat ass.

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

You don't understand the difference.

Have your mother change your diaper and run along.

 

[zeke]

Looks like Jake's found another butt-buddy.

The economy sucks ? According to who ? Consumer confidence measurements ?

Imagine that ?

ESAD

Your ad homs merely gives your argument has less weight.

To the OP, the American consumer is not in a spirit of economic malaise at all.

You wouldn't know an argument if it bit you in your fat ass.

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

You don't understand the difference.

Have your mother change your diaper and run along.

You are fucking DESPERATE to try and make your case. The economy is improving. That is ALL anyone has said. And it is. More people working is a good thing. The fact that it doesn't serve the Republican purpose of trying to convince everyone how bad it is, is besides the point.

 

[Listening]

Your ad homs merely gives your argument has less weight.

To the OP, the American consumer is not in a spirit of economic malaise at all.

You wouldn't know an argument if it bit you in your fat ass.

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

You don't understand the difference.

Have your mother change your diaper and run along.

You are fucking DESPERATE to try and make your case. The economy is improving. That is ALL anyone has said. And it is. More people working is a good thing. The fact that it doesn't serve the Republican purpose of trying to convince everyone how bad it is, is besides the point.

Not really. My case has been made.

The OP asked for opinions on why people don't feel so good about things.

Dudpeepee and JakeTheFake try to derail the thread and say the OP is wrong.

I simply stated it is possible for things to be getting better (which I have always said) but still not be good.

It simple clears the way for the OP to stand....which it does.

In spite of Fake's continual bleating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

Your statement is inherently inconsistent.

Seven year high = good

All time high in Utah = good

And the ad homs' bleating simply means you are sliding off the edge.

 

[Listening]

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

Your statement is inherently inconsistent.

Seven year high = good

All time high in Utah = good

And the ad homs' bleating simply means you are sliding off the edge.

Besides being ignorant, you are arrogant.

I'd never take the time to explain anything to a liar like yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

Your statement is inherently inconsistent.

Seven year high = good

All time high in Utah = good

And the ad homs' bleating simply means you are sliding off the edge.

Besides being ignorant, you are arrogant.

I'd never take the time to explain anything to a liar like yourself.

You are bleating ad homs.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

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.

It means nothing.

When are you going to get a clue ?

The concept is a contradiction.

And your intial claim was for 253 counties. Where is the data on them ?

81% voted for Mittens but it was Dems in the County with the LARGEST PROPORTION who are Dems? lol


Republican Fervency

“If there was no deficit, they would still want to cut this kind of program,” Graham Wilson, the political science department chairman at Boston University, said of Republicans. “They have a fervent ideological belief that government should be cut back.”

More than half of the Owsley County’s population -- 52 percent -- received food stamps in 2011, the most recent yearly number available.


81% VOTED MITTENS, LOL


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

 

[Listening]

That people think things are getting better does not mean people think things are good.

Your statement is inherently inconsistent.

Seven year high = good

All time high in Utah = good

And the ad homs' bleating simply means you are sliding off the edge.

Besides being ignorant, you are arrogant.

I'd never take the time to explain anything to a liar like yourself.

You are bleating ad homs.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah....

STFU