Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[bedowin62]

pretty sure i've asked you this before and you pussied out then too. you say you're an economics major right?


what lagging indicators last 7 years?

 

[bedowin62]

SNAP Costs Falling, Expected to Fall Further ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Here is some more material for you to consider: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.

So there was a 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

So we find that is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

thank God you have other people to do your thinking for you.

what is your definition of lagging indicator's nutjob??

Unemployment is the laggiest of all indicators.

like i said show it loon. i cant wait.

 

[g5000]

pretty sure i've asked you this before and you pussied out then too. you say you're an economics major right?

No, that was EconChick. And boy did we have fun embarrassing the shit out of her with her amazing ignorance of economics.

what lagging indicators last 7 years?

After a serious crash? Unemployment.

It took 13 years for unemployment to return to pre-Great Depression levels, and only because we entered into WWII.

Is there any more education of which you are in need?

 

[g5000]

SNAP Costs Falling, Expected to Fall Further ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Here is some more material for you to consider: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.

So there was a 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

So we find that is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

thank God you have other people to do your thinking for you.

what is your definition of lagging indicator's nutjob??

Unemployment is the laggiest of all indicators.

like i said show it loon. i cant wait.

So you asked all smarmy-like what my definition of a lagging indicator is without knowing what they are? You actually need it shown to you that unemployment is a lagging economic indicator?

Wow!

 

[g5000]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

 

[g5000]

If history is prelude, we will now see bedowin go into meltdown mode...

 

[bedowin62]

pretty sure i've asked you this before and you pussied out then too. you say you're an economics major right?

No, that was EconChick. And boy did we have fun embarrassing the shit out of her with her amazing ignorance of economics.

what lagging indicators last 7 years?

After a serious crash? Unemployment.

It took 13 years for unemployment to return to pre-Great Depression levels, and only because we entered into WWII.

Is there any more education of which you are in need?

yes loon; i need YOU TO EDUCATE YOURSELF in the difference between a recession and a Depression

what a loser you are; so full of yourself you just cant salvage any dignity and slink away while you can.

you could have, but you chose to come back several minutes later with this gem that just proves you're a loser who cant admit when he's said something stupid, you just topped it with more stupidity

 

[g5000]

TA-DAAAAAAAA!

 

[bedowin62]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years. that is clearly what you said earlier when you tried to explain the 13 million more on food stamps heading into obama's eighth year

thanks in advance!!

 

[bedowin62]

TA-DAAAAAAAA!

the hilaroius part about you is that you KNEW i was going to pick your rebuttal apart. so you tried to pre-empt me with this gem

you're so predictable
that's why i best you every time we tangle


every day g5000
every day

 

[bedowin62]

still waiting.................................


use your own source, or another one
anything


lol

 

[bedowin62]

Yea, that's what i thought. Where are the rapid-fire responses now loon???


lol

 

[easyt65]

$2.14
10/19/2015
$2.24
10/20/2015
$2.34
10/20/2015

Why is Walmart charging you 20 cents more in just one day?

The GOP should start a Walmart committee so they can waste even more taxpayer money!

Not saying this is the reason, but can you say 'speculators'? Remember when gas was at it's highest, and the news media reported that Speculators in the Stock Market was driving up the cost?! Supposedly just the idea that the straight of Hormuz would be closed, blocking oil flow out of the Middle East, according to the news, caused the price of a barrel of oil to spike.

 

[g5000]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened the way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

Are there things Obama could have done to shorten the effects? No doubt. But there are also things the Republicans could have done instead of wasting time on umpteen ObamaCare repeals.

One last note. Our unemployment returned to pre-crash levels a while ago. It did not take seven years. In fact, Obama hasn't even been in office for seven years.

Nice try.

Not.

 

[bedowin62]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

 

[BlindBoo]

$2.14
10/19/2015
$2.24
10/20/2015
$2.34
10/20/2015

Why is Walmart charging you 20 cents more in just one day?

The GOP should start a Walmart committee so they can waste even more taxpayer money!

Not saying this is the reason, but can you say 'speculators'? Remember when gas was at it's highest, and the news media reported that Speculators in the Stock Market was driving up the cost?! Supposedly just the idea that the straight of Hormuz would be closed, blocking oil flow out of the Middle East, according to the news, caused the price of a barrel of oil to spike.

Saber rattling?

 

[bedowin62]

if comparisons to the Great Depression were applicable then the last recession would have been called a Depression you dullard. there were even more massive responses to the Depression then there were to the last recession, didnt prevent it from being called a Depression you idiot

 

[Hossfly]

$2.14
10/19/2015
$2.24
10/20/2015
$2.34
10/20/2015

Why is Walmart charging you 20 cents more in just one day?

The GOP should start a Walmart committee so they can waste even more taxpayer money!

The 3 different grades of octane, honey.

 

[Faun]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

 

[bedowin62]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but they do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator; rates change after severe market changes.

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves