Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come back when you have to deal with the debt and negative economic effects of that debt to preach to me about what you feel is correct..
It's not a question of what I feel to be correct.
It is a question of what I know to be correct.
The 1930's economic routemap is the way out of this worldwide mess.
The alternative strategy of the govt doing nothing isn't a runner.
You think that things are bad now - if the govt did nothing your country would be rightly ****ed.
No suprise here. The funny money boom lasted much longer than previous episodes. the bust will be proportional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob
actually Obama has been in office for only 9 months so by your math 22-9=13 months and who was responsible for the red line basically taking a dive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
Well I presume the inference is that Obama has made the issue worse which is simple stupidity if believed. If I throw you on a ski jump you aren't going to change direction 1/2 way down. your path was predetermined for you when companies couldn't compete, when you shopped at Walmart, When out of greed you bought too many homes you couldn't afford., when you were drug into a war you couldnt afford, when you still choose to buy gas guzzling cars and SUV's and on and on.
There are many reasons that pointed us towards a weak economy. businesses are collapsing and theat will continue.. remem,ber these are the companies employing you and yourt neighbors, but you aen't going to them to keep them afloat and the house of cards fall.
It is no more Obama's fault than any other Joe on the street. Here is my prediction... I think you will se more of a drop over the next 2 years but some sectors of the economy will recover first and point us towards a better employment future. .... housing and banking will be first to recover, insurance and companies that provide things to babies and children..... seems we are having a baby boom. So towards the end of Obama's first term ( of 2) we will begin to see improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie
Misleading. First, the recession started in December of 2007, officially. So President Obama's term started at 15 months, not 12.
But the bigger problem is that employment is a lagging indicator. It will be the last economic statistic to turn around. President Obama knows this, as do economists and most people who are paying attention. Presenting employment as an indicator of improvement in the economy in this fashion is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indurain
The entire world - not just the USA - has imploded economically.
The fact of the matter is that Obama's policies are correct.
The 1930's recession shows us that investment by the govt is essential in a recession like this.
The private sector won't/can't step in to the breech.
Suggest you familiarise yourself with John Maynard Keynes, David Blanchflower etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
10.5 months - he took office in January, it's now November.
The libs blame Bush for 9-11 and all that happened and that was when he was in less than 9 months. Can't have it both ways you know.
All of you are essentially making the same argument which can be debated to have some points of truth. However, you are all missing the obvious point. Regardless of the cause or precipitating factors -
IT WAS OBAMA WHO PUBLICLY, EXPLICITY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES (STIMULUS) WOULD PREVENT UNEMPLOYMENT FROM RISING ABOVE 8%.
In other words, he freaking LIED.
OR
If you accept the weak counter argument given by Bumbling Biden that "well we simply under estimated how bad it really was" - then all that means is that they have no freaking clue what they are doing.
Either case does not bode well for our economic future.
All of you are essentially making the same argument which can be debated to have some points of truth. However, you are all missing the obvious point. Regardless of the cause or precipitating factors -
IT WAS OBAMA WHO PUBLICLY, EXPLICITY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES (STIMULUS) WOULD PREVENT UNEMPLOYMENT FROM RISING ABOVE 8%.
In other words, he freaking LIED.
OR
If you accept the weak counter argument given by Bumbling Biden that "well we simply under estimated how bad it really was" - then all that means is that they have no freaking clue what they are doing.
Either case does not bode well for our economic future.
And I know of a few large local companies that have purposely laid people off due to the 'economy', but are still making record profits. It's nothing but an excuse to get rid of workers and make the employees still there work twice as hard and if they slack even a little bit, they threaten to fire. In this economy, many people I know are working 2 or more peoples jobs for their same salary (or less!) just to keep their position.
This economy sucks right now, I know this. But employers are taking advantage of it by forcing their employees to work even harder for less money under the threat of not having their job tomorrow.
As for jobs... I know that where I work the stimulus has DIRECTLY employed many people. Construction is big, they're improving our runway at our county airport with funds from the stimulus. We were planning on waiting a few more years to update our runway and taxiways at the airport, but we were able to do it now because of that government money.
If you want to get technical, the recession officially started December 2008, December 2007 was an increase in the GDP.
So out of the loop. GDP is but one of a number of variables that are examined in determining the official start point of a recession. In this case, the official start point was without any doubt whatsoever December of 2007, because the National Bureau of Economic Research (the people who make the official call) said so.
Take it up with the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, its their chart and they indeed report on the GDP.
So you think Bloomberg, CNN, and a blog poster holds more credibility than the USBEA? Explains so much..
There is no such thing as USBEA. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. It is always just BEA.
BEA prepares the estimates of the US National Income and Product Accounts, one part of which is GDP. BEA has nothing whatsoever to do with determining when a recession begins or ends. As noted above, those determinations are made by NBER. Here is their release concerning the start of the current recession...
And I know of a few large local companies that have purposely laid people off due to the 'economy', but are still making record profits. It's nothing but an excuse to get rid of workers and make the employees still there work twice as hard and if they slack even a little bit, they threaten to fire. In this economy, many people I know are working 2 or more peoples jobs for their same salary (or less!) just to keep their position.
This economy sucks right now, I know this. But employers are taking advantage of it by forcing their employees to work even harder for less money under the threat of not having their job tomorrow.
Spot on JetJockey. I myself had to pick up the slack for 2 "lost jobs".
The jobs themselves were not lost..the people were let go.
Sucks bigtime and they know that jobs are slim and people are not apt to quit so quick.
IT WAS OBAMA WHO PUBLICLY, EXPLICITY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES (STIMULUS) WOULD PREVENT UNEMPLOYMENT FROM RISING ABOVE 8%.
In other words, he freaking LIED.
No such thing happened. The transition staff (Romer and Bernstein) released a projection showing that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus package than without. Because the projection was done based on November 2008 data -- when unemployment was 6.7% -- the scale on a graph in that paper shows unemployment peaking at about 8% with a stimulus and at a little over 9% without. At the time, private sector analysts were projecting that 2009 unemployment would peak at between 8% and 8.25%. There was no promise, guaranty, or prediction of anything at all in that projection paper.
There was no promise, guaranty, or prediction of anything at all in that projection paper.
Guess that means there's no way we should ever trust anything that comes out of this administration then. Regardless of whom the actual mouthpiece may be, it will always just be explained away as a "projection", not a promise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
