Who Wants To Celebrate?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dunce thinks the unemployment rate is really around 5%...you can't fix stupid

Agreed.

These people honestly believe they have something wonderful in this despicable dishonest creep in the white house.
You really think they are capable of knowing right from wrong?

You're going to offer *moralization* as the basis for ignoring employment numbers.

Wow.

The unemployment particular is but one item, and by no means, the best example. Although I absolutely buy into it's a bullshit measure for many reasons you should know are out there. This economy is not well, sorry to burst your hopes.

But my comment was more about all the other issues and beliefs that liberals espouse and conservatives or Christians denounce. I call it right vs wrong. You can call it your opinion vs my opinion if it makes you feel better.

You wish to discuss right and wrong? Regarding beliefs?

More a failed attempt to deflect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As if the president had anything to do with it

It's called a natural economic cycle. We've had recessions in the past and we will have them again

One has to wonder why this particular recovery has been so slow compared to others in the past

 

[LoneLaugher]

As if the president had anything to do with it

It's called a natural economic cycle. We've had recessions in the past and we will have them again

One has to wonder why this particular recovery has been so slow compared to others in the past

One has to wonder? Really? Why?

We know why this recovery has been slow. Why don't you?

 

[turzovka]

Turk, your personal apocylypse fetish doesn't have the slightest relevance to our economy. Unemployment is lower now than it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Use any measure of unemployment you like.

Post#6 here has many indicators as does the OP#1 that lay waste to your suggestions. Is it all a Fraud?

You really cannot impress me by telling me the economy is in good shape because of your doctored unemployment figures. You sure cannot give me a molecule’s worth of second thoughts on what I think of Barack simply because of a couple of figures. Let’s be serious here. Nor will I ever think for one second this economy is in anything but dire straits with a $20 trillion federal deficit --- for starters!

 

[turzovka]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

By the way --- well documented miracles of profound proportion separates the true religion from the others. But I will leave that for another day.

 

[Faun]

Turk, your personal apocylypse fetish doesn't have the slightest relevance to our economy. Unemployment is lower now than it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Use any measure of unemployment you like.

Post#6 here has many indicators as does the OP#1 that lay waste to your suggestions. Is it all a Fraud?

You really cannot impress me by telling me the economy is in good shape because of your doctored unemployment figures. You sure cannot give me a molecule’s worth of second thoughts on what I think of Barack simply because of a couple of figures. Let’s be serious here. Nor will I ever think for one second this economy is in anything but dire straits with a $20 trillion federal deficit --- for starters!

"doctored unemployment figures."

 

[Skylar]

Turk, your personal apocylypse fetish doesn't have the slightest relevance to our economy. Unemployment is lower now than it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Use any measure of unemployment you like.

Post#6 here has many indicators as does the OP#1 that lay waste to your suggestions. Is it all a Fraud?

You really cannot impress me by telling me the economy is in good shape because of your doctored unemployment figures. You sure cannot give me a molecule’s worth of second thoughts on what I think of Barack simply because of a couple of figures. Let’s be serious here. Nor will I ever think for one second this economy is in anything but dire straits with a $20 trillion federal deficit --- for starters!

And who says that the employment numbers are 'doctored'? Is it your moralizing again?

 

[Skylar]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

Or a rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter of truth, right, wrong, or employment numbers.

Which, of course, you aren't.

 

[turzovka]

Turk, your personal apocylypse fetish doesn't have the slightest relevance to our economy. Unemployment is lower now than it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Use any measure of unemployment you like.

Post#6 here has many indicators as does the OP#1 that lay waste to your suggestions. Is it all a Fraud?

You really cannot impress me by telling me the economy is in good shape because of your doctored unemployment figures. You sure cannot give me a molecule’s worth of second thoughts on what I think of Barack simply because of a couple of figures. Let’s be serious here. Nor will I ever think for one second this economy is in anything but dire straits with a $20 trillion federal deficit --- for starters!

"doctored unemployment figures."

Why expose yourself like that?

Your naivete measures in the "to be pitied" range on the scale.

 

[turzovka]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

Or a rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter of truth, right, wrong, or employment numbers.

Which, of course, you aren't.

Oh, but I am. Aristotle said the words of one expert over that of a thousand laymen.

And when it comes to Christianity and all its revelation, I thank God for allowing me to become so learned. Meanwhile I am sure you would accept the layman label.

 

[Faun]

Turk, your personal apocylypse fetish doesn't have the slightest relevance to our economy. Unemployment is lower now than it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Use any measure of unemployment you like.

Post#6 here has many indicators as does the OP#1 that lay waste to your suggestions. Is it all a Fraud?

You really cannot impress me by telling me the economy is in good shape because of your doctored unemployment figures. You sure cannot give me a molecule’s worth of second thoughts on what I think of Barack simply because of a couple of figures. Let’s be serious here. Nor will I ever think for one second this economy is in anything but dire straits with a $20 trillion federal deficit --- for starters!

"doctored unemployment figures."

Why expose yourself like that?

Your naivete measures in the "to be pitied" range on the scale.

You couldn't even wait until I stopped laughing at you for your last post before doubling down on stupid?

 

[Conservative65]

The jobs report is in and it's a good one. We saw 242,000 jobs created in February. That's a strong number. Numbers for December, 2015 and January, 2016.

This is good news, folks.

Happy Friday!

Because you're the ultimate Obama ass kisser, you already had planned to say that before the report came out and it didn't matter what it said.

When the freeloaders on food stamps get below what the numbers were before Obama was President and the debt drops below where it was before January, 2009, let me know.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

Or a rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter of truth, right, wrong, or employment numbers.

Which, of course, you aren't.

Oh, but I am. Aristotle said the words of one expert over that of a thousand laymen.

And when it comes to Christianity and all its revelation, I thank God for allowing me to become so learned. Meanwhile I am sure you would accept the layman label.

Oh, but you're not. You're expressing your subjective opinion about the world around you. And you're more than welcome to do so.

But your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. As subjective is not objective.

Which is why you citing yourself is such an inadequate source on Unemployment Numbers.

 

[turzovka]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

Or a rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter of truth, right, wrong, or employment numbers.

Which, of course, you aren't.

Oh, but I am. Aristotle said the words of one expert over that of a thousand laymen.

And when it comes to Christianity and all its revelation, I thank God for allowing me to become so learned. Meanwhile I am sure you would accept the layman label.

Oh, but you're not. You're expressing your subjective opinion about the world around you. And you're more than welcome to do so.

But your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. As subjective is not objective.

Which is why you citing yourself is such an inadequate source on Unemployment Numbers.

Look. You are the one trying to tell us Obama is good for this nation. And you think you are wise?

Let's leave the religion aside for today, but more than happy to discuss down the road.

And this faun character... His or her LOL retorts are not exactly intimidating me. But if it provides them with some kind of enjoyment, glad to have assisted.

 

[Faun]

Of course you do, Turk. Based on your insistence that your religious beliefs define reality. But every religious person makes the same claims. And most of them explicitly contradict you.

Why must they be wrong and you right? Why do any of you have to be right?

You don't. You merely assume you are. And your assumptions define neither morality nor 'right and wrong'. And certainly have jack shit to do with unemployment numbers.

I am going to give you a break and not elaborate on any of this today. But your response here surely shows real signs of ignorance, or more likely, indifference. I just cannot understand your type.

Or a rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter of truth, right, wrong, or employment numbers.

Which, of course, you aren't.

Oh, but I am. Aristotle said the words of one expert over that of a thousand laymen.

And when it comes to Christianity and all its revelation, I thank God for allowing me to become so learned. Meanwhile I am sure you would accept the layman label.

Oh, but you're not. You're expressing your subjective opinion about the world around you. And you're more than welcome to do so.

But your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. As subjective is not objective.

Which is why you citing yourself is such an inadequate source on Unemployment Numbers.

Look. You are the one trying to tell us Obama is good for this nation. And you think you are wise?

Let's leave the religion aside for today, but more than happy to discuss down the road.

And this faun character... His or her LOL retorts are not exactly intimidating me. But if it provides them with some kind of enjoyment, glad to have assisted.

And I thank you for the entertainment you provide.

 

[Skylar]

Look. You are the one trying to tell us Obama is good for this nation. And you think you are wise?

I'm the one stating simply that unemployment numbers are lower now than they were when he took office. A lot lower.

You're the one coming up with one bizarre excuse after another to reject that simple fact. You've moralized. You've made up conspiracies. You've spoken of 'doctored numbers'. None of which you could actually back up.

......and unemployment numbers are still lower now than they were when Obama took office. A lot lower.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As if the president had anything to do with it

It's called a natural economic cycle. We've had recessions in the past and we will have them again

One has to wonder why this particular recovery has been so slow compared to others in the past

One has to wonder? Really? Why?

We know why this recovery has been slow. Why don't you?

Yeah Obama's policies

Please don't whine about obstructionism Obama owned Congress for 2 years and after that his butt boy in the senate blocked bill after bill from going to the floor for a vote

 

[LoneLaugher]

As if the president had anything to do with it

It's called a natural economic cycle. We've had recessions in the past and we will have them again

One has to wonder why this particular recovery has been so slow compared to others in the past

One has to wonder? Really? Why?

We know why this recovery has been slow. Why don't you?

Yeah Obama's policies

Please don't whine about obstructionism Obama owned Congress for 2 years and after that his butt boy in the senate blocked bill after bill from going to the floor for a vote

You joke.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As if the president had anything to do with it

It's called a natural economic cycle. We've had recessions in the past and we will have them again

One has to wonder why this particular recovery has been so slow compared to others in the past

One has to wonder? Really? Why?

We know why this recovery has been slow. Why don't you?

Yeah Obama's policies

Please don't whine about obstructionism Obama owned Congress for 2 years and after that his butt boy in the senate blocked bill after bill from going to the floor for a vote

You joke.

No more than you

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here's one of the things that slowed the recovery you can thank Obama for

The slow economic recovery explained - AEI

First, a study by Michael Bordo and Joseph Haubrich showed that recoveries after financial crises are actually sharper than other recoveries. After studying 27 recession-recovery cycles since 1882, they concluded that “the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis.” So we should have expected a steep recovery after the sharp 2008–09 recession rather than the stuttering and stalling economy we have experienced.

Also, studies of Dodd-Frank’s effect have shown that the regulatory burdens imposed by that law have been particularly harsh for community banks. The Fed defines community banks as banks with $10 billion in assets or less; 98.5 percent of all US banks fall into this category. A 2012 Government Accountability Office study showed that 7 of the 16 titles in Dodd-Frank had potential adverse effects for these banks, and studies by scholars at George Mason University and Harvard’s Kennedy School have found significant compliance cost increases attributable to Dodd-Frank. “Since the second quarter of 2010,” said the Harvard study, “around the time of [Dodd-Frank’s] passage, we found community banks’ share of [US banking] assets has shrunk drastically—over 12 percent.”

Of course, the regulatory costs to community banks are not a new story; Congress has been attempting to mitigate these costs for years. What is new is the data that shows the effect of these regulatory costs on small business and hence on economic growth.

We are dealing with a part of the US economy that does not get a lot of attention in the media, so some numbers are in order. According to the US Small Business Administration (SBA), a small business is one that has fewer than 500 employees. There were approximately 23 million small businesses in the US in 2012, of which approximately 5 million were employers—amounting to 99.7 percent of all employer firms. The rest are sole proprietorships (mom and pops) that have no formal employees. In contrast, again according to the SBA, 18,500 firms in 2010 had more than 500 employees and were not thus counted as small firms.

Where do these two classes of businesses—large and small—get their financing? Approximately 10,000 firms were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2014, virtually all of them businesses with more than 500 employees. Registration with the SEC means that these firms have access to financing in the capital markets that have been largely unaffected by Dodd-Frank. But small businesses—almost all the 23 million small firms, including 5 million small-business employers—were required to rely primarily on banks for their credit needs.

Thus, we have a peculiarly bifurcated economy. The vast majority of employers need banks for financing, while a small number of large firms has access to credit in the capital markets because they are large enough to register with the SEC and finance themselves through the issuance of bonds, notes, and commercial paper.

This is where the costs loaded on small banks begin to affect US economic growth. Regulatory costs affect small banks more than large banks because the costs are largely fixed and large banks by definition have a bigger asset base over which to spread these costs.

When a small bank is required to hire a compliance officer, that is an employee who is not making loans or producing revenue. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—set up by Dodd-Frank and the bane of small banks—sends out a 1,099-page regulation on mortgage lending, that means a community bank must engage a lawyer to interpret the new regulation, a compliance officer to apply the regulation in individual cases, and a tech firm to retool its mortgage underwriting system. All costs, no revenue, and fewer funds to lend. When a bank examiner criticizes a loan because the bank does not have audited financial statements for a customer who has never missed a payment in 20 years, that forces a bank to revise its business model and change its customer relationships. Again, costs for the bank and less financing for the small business.

If the costs Dodd-Frank has imposed on small banks are hurting small business, we should see a significant difference between the growth rates of small and large businesses since 2010. That is exactly what the data shows. In a Goldman Sachs report published in April 2015 and titled “The Two-Speed Economy,” the authors found that firms with more than 500 employees grew faster after 2010—the year of Dodd-Frank’s enactment—than the best historical performance over the last four recoveries. These firms largely had access to the capital markets for credit. However, jobs at firms with fewer than 500 employees declined over this period, although this group had grown faster than the large-firm group in the last four recoveries.

Here, then, is the source of the slow recovery from the 2008–09 recession. Although 64 percent of net new jobs in the US economy between 2002 and 2010 came from employment by small business, this source of growth has disappeared since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. While larger firms have access to credit in the capital markets, millions of small firms, limited to borrowing from beleaguered community banks, are not getting the credit they need to grow and create jobs.