B-Man Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 That's one great big massive load of ignorant horseshit. Repetitive horseshit at that One can only assume that he is attention seeking now. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Repetitive horseshit at that One can only assume that he is attention seeking now. . you guys been reading your own posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 you guys been reading your own posts? Did you even read what he wrote? Your stupidity is so entertaining. I have some stuff you should read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_in_the_Hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 you guys been reading your own posts? Tell me about Trident missiles again, Brandon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 What are you talking about?? What did GDP average under the Republican, tax cutting Bush? Do you know? Repetitive horseshit at that One can only assume that he is attention seeking now. . At least he isn't saying all recessions will end in 2 years unless a Democrat is in office, you twit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What did GDP average under the Republican, tax cutting Bush? Do you know? What? Why would you average the GDP over eight years? What purpose does that serve? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What did GDP average under the Republican, tax cutting Bush? Do you know? At least he isn't saying all recessions will end in 2 years unless a Democrat is in office, you twit One can always depend on little Davey to misrepresent what has occurred, he is proof that a sharp tongue does not mean you have a keen mind. Some advice Davey while you're working on your next vacuous response, please don't let your mind wander, it's far too small to be let out on its own. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Did you even read what he wrote? Your stupidity is so entertaining. I have some stuff you should read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_in_the_Hat you're right. Why should I post links to sites with notations and sources attached to them when I am trying to prove a point? I should just do what you guys do and post a link to a right wing blog. Edited February 17, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 you're right. Why should I post links to sites with notations and sources attached to them when I am trying to prove a point? I should just do what you guys do and post a link to a right wing blog. Gallup: Unemployment 9%, Underemployment 19% The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January. … Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup’s unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup’s Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx Who would of thunk it, I guess Gallup is in the conspiracy theory business as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx Who would of thunk it, I guess Gallup is in the conspiracy theory business as well. I just want to reiterate what I said about six weeks ago, when everyone was gushing over the holiday numbers: talk to me in March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) High Real Unemployment Data Reflect Poorly On Obama No matter how they try to push the narrative of recovery, the raw numbers can't fool anyone except those who want to be fooled. Employers are not hiring because they are scared stevestojanless of social-economic mandates and over-regulation (that adds ~$12K+ in tax/overhead responsibility before a wage is paid) makes it impossible to add more people. When the only solution in the administration's Bag of Tricks is to raise taxes even more... like the limbo bar, we have yet to see how low this thing can go. What they're selling as "good economic news" is 99-weekers being kicked off the unemployment insurance rolls. But still, they're churning these out every month as if this is evidence of Recovery rather than a canard. Edited February 18, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Remember though. This isn't real. It's all just a conspiracy by the MSM to make Obama look better If we were to take the number of people who did file for unemployment, divide it by the Number of jobs lost + loss of GDP - Romney's IQ and carry the 4 you'll find out that more people left the work force this past month so the fact that the economy produced more jobs is bunk. OMG! Even the White House is in on the "conspiracy" game with their own Economic report. White House officials are trying to downplay the growing political damage caused by a shrinking federal statistic: the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have jobs. The increasingly visible statistic shows that roughly 11 million working-age Americans are being excluded from the nation’s formal tally of 13.75 million unemployed Americans. Today’s 2012 Economic Report of the President attempts to bury the statistic in a 448-page blizzard of statistics, jargon and reassuring comparisons. “In the last 23 months, businesses have created 3.7 million jobs,” says the upbeat report, released at 4 p.m. on a Friday afternoon by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Democrats are touting downward ticks of the formal unemployment rate to 8.3 percent, but Republicans are making an increased effort to highlight the painfully low employment participation rate. A new chart produced by the Republican Study Committee shows the downward jumps of that job-participation rate, even after President Barack Obama deployed his trillion-dollar stimulus in February 2009, and after Obama declared the summer of 2010 a “Recovery Summer.” “I expect you will be seeing this chart on the House floor during debates, it will be shown at town hall meetings and in district events,” committee spokesman Brian Straessle told The Daily Caller. Amid the optimistic text in today’s economic report, the detailed tables reveal a sharp statistical decline. In 2000, 64.4 percent of working-age Americans had formal jobs, either full-time or part-time, according to Table B-35 on page 361. That was the measure’s high water mark. The ratio drifted down to 63.0 percent in 2007 before hitting the skids in the 2008 recession that was largely caused by federal real-estate policies. By October 2009, five months after the recession technically ended, the ratio hit bottom at 58.5 percent, where it remained two years later in December 2011. Given the nation’s working-age population of 240.5 million, that 4.5 percent drop means that roughly 11 million Americans have fallen out of the workforce. They are excluded, however, from the nation’s formal unemployment rolls — which document only 13.75 million unemployed Americans. By excluding those non-working Americans, the White House can claim that the formal unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent in January 2012, down from a peak of 10 percent in 2009. But that 8.3 percent rate only include unemployed Americans who have looked for a job in the four weeks before a sample is taken. It does not include the more than 11 million Americans who have given up looking for jobs or who have quit the workforce entirely. Despite the Obama administration’s optimistic statements and the artificially low unemployment rate, he said, “we don’t have the sharp pick-up that we see in many recoveries, such as the [Ronald] Reagan recovery in the 1980s.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/white-house-economic-report-hides-sharp-drop-in-number-of-working-americans/#ixzz1mknRmRbt Yaaay for 8.3% Unemployment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 What? Why would you average the GDP over eight years? What purpose does that serve? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? If Maggox is going to complain about GDP under Obama, I will show how overall Bush, EVEN WITH THE GOOD YEARS, wasn't anything to write home about That's all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If Maggox is going to complain about GDP under Obama, I will show how overall Bush, EVEN WITH THE GOOD YEARS, wasn't anything to write home about That's all I suggest you show it. This board never tires of seeing you get your ass handed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Considering that we came out of a huge recession, 3 years into the recovery we should be experiencing growth much stronger than what we are seeing today. It is much more likely to see GDP growth at higher levels coming out of a recession as opposed to see GDP levels in a sustained period of normal activity. GDP growth is measured vs the prior quarter. So if you have low levels of economic activity, the odds of seeing a larger descrepancy (in other words higher GDP) from one quarter to another is much higher. The deeper the recession, the higher the likelyhood of seeing sustained high GDP quarters that follow. If you look for instance under the Reagan recession of 1982... We had a recovery of approximately 2 years that averaged over 6.5% GDP. The reason why we had such robust growth rates was one, it was a pretty large hole that we had come out of and two the deeper the holes the more pentup demand there are for goods and services following these down periods. Edited February 18, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Considering that we came out of a huge recession, 3 years into the recovery we should be experiencing growth much stronger than what we are seeing today. It is much more likely to see GDP growth at higher levels coming out of a recession as opposed to see GDP levels in a sustained period of normal activity. GDP growth is measured vs the prior quarter. So if you have low levels of economic activity, the odds of seeing a larger descrepancy (in other words higher GDP) from one quarter to another is much higher. The deeper the recession, the higher the likelyhood of seeing sustained high GDP quarters that follow. If you look for instance under the Reagan recession of 1982... We had a recovery of approximately 2 years that averaged over 6.5% GDP. The reason why we had such robust growth rates was one, it was a pretty large hole that we had come out of and two the deeper the holes the more pentup demand there are for goods and services following these down periods. 2 year thing again, really? You and B-idiot seem to think we should all just go along with your arbitrary measures. No thanks, this isn't 1982 and Reagans recession was already being fixed by Carters fed policy and lower oil prices and he didn't have to worry about low housing prices. But you actually think that Obama with this housing situation should be killing Bush's GDP simply because Bush's economy was so bad? That's your argument? You speak of pent up demand, but the whole point is that the housing market is wildly over saturated, so demand is going to take years to catch up, no matter what Obama does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 2 year thing again, really? You and B-idiot seem to think we should all just go along with your arbitrary measures. No thanks, this isn't 1982 and Reagans recession was already being fixed by Carters fed policy and lower oil prices and he didn't have to worry about low housing prices. But you actually think that Obama with this housing situation should be killing Bush's GDP simply because Bush's economy was so bad? That's your argument? You speak of pent up demand, but the whole point is that the housing market is wildly over saturated, so demand is going to take years to catch up, no matter what Obama does. I can't help that you decide to ignore and say " na na na na I can't hear you" when time after time, CEO's, small business polls and economists continue to cite regulations as a factor that inhibits growth and job hiring. That is your fundamental problem. Until you allow yourself to be objective, you will never see things as they truly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can't help that you decide to ignore and say " na na na na I can't hear you" when time after time, CEO's, small business polls and economists continue to cite regulations as a factor that inhibits growth and job hiring. That is your fundamental problem. Until you allow yourself to be objective, you will never see things as they truly are. Sure, eliminating regulations would making businesses happy, for awhile. Happy? might even increase employment for awhile, but it would balance itself out eventually. But your GDP argument is out there, your two year measurement is off mark and blatantly self serving and the idea that if Romney was President the economy would be soaring at 6.8% GDP or whatever is laughable. What was Bush's average GDP anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sure, eliminating regulations would making businesses happy, for awhile. Happy? might even increase employment for awhile, but it would balance itself out eventually. But your GDP argument is out there, your two year measurement is off mark and blatantly self serving and the idea that if Romney was President the economy would be soaring at 6.8% GDP or whatever is laughable. What was Bush's average GDP anyway? What is this "average GDP" ****? Why would you take the average of the GDP over eight years to prove anything? I do not think that means what you think it means. [/inigo Montoya] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sure, eliminating regulations would making businesses happy, for awhile. Happy? might even increase employment for awhile, but it would balance itself out eventually. But your GDP argument is out there, your two year measurement is off mark and blatantly self serving and the idea that if Romney was President the economy would be soaring at 6.8% GDP or whatever is laughable. What was Bush's average GDP anyway? First off, I don't want to be defending Bush, because I didn't agree with half the stuff he did. But to answer your question, he entered office in 2001, the tech bubble busted and 9/11 occured right when he stepped into office. So from mid 2002 to mid 2006 he had an average GDP growth rate of close to 3.5% and then the bubble began to burst. Anyone who rationally looks at the events and/or doesn't take a partisan approach understands that Bush didn't create the Financial bubble, it had been in the makings for many many years. Who do you think repealed Glass Steagall? Where were the loans being originated? Did Fannie and Freddy play a role? Does the Federal Reserve share some of the blame? unscrupulous mortgage underwriters, what were there roles? What about the ratings agencies? What about US housing policies, did they not push banks to get as many people into homes as possible? How about consumers, yes the poor consumers, the people who decided to leverage up and buy second and third homes at pie in the sky prices that they knew they couldn't afford. Weren't they complicit along with the mortgage writers in lying on their apps? What about Wall Street? Didn't they go unchecked by creating exotic financial vehicles that leveraged the entire shitbomb to what it was? This disaster was gonna happen, no matter who was president. But that's not the point Dave, for the third time, and this will be the last time I say this, comparing an economy GDP growth rate vs an economy coming out of a major recession is ludicrous. Economies, generally speaking, just coming out of recessions should have a much higher GDP growth rates than economies that are in normal sustained periods. Also, where have I ever said to eliminate all regulations? I believe in regulations, I believe they can be prductive for our society, I believe they CAN help promote sustainability. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all regulations are created equal. Regulation born out of populism tends to be poorly written pieces of legislation. They can't be forced, they have to be well thought out and vetted over and over. I will borrow a quote "Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts