PDA

View Full Version : Minus Eight And Still Dropping



Teetop
07-09-2009, 06:48 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/SlYc72XqfyI/AAAAAAAAFwY/TY-zIY78N9k/s400/rasmussen7909.jpg

edit to add;

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-approval-index.jpg

PoliCon
07-09-2009, 06:55 PM
people seem to be finally waking up . . . .

megimoo
07-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter,
Eight miles high and falling fast.
It landed foul on the grass.
The players tried for a forward pass,
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast.

Texas Terrier
07-09-2009, 08:20 PM
people seem to be finally waking up . . . .

About time

Should have seen it when Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth".

megimoo
07-09-2009, 10:14 PM
About time

Should have seen it when Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth".Some did !

Apocalypse
07-09-2009, 11:48 PM
people seem to be finally waking up . . . .
Still a long ways to go, and too much damage will be done before that happens.

Even thou his Strongly Approve is now lower then his Strongly Disapproves, his over all Job Aproval ratings remain positive and that is what many supports will be bragging about.

Teetop
07-09-2009, 11:59 PM
Still a long ways to go, and too much damage will be done before that happens.

Even thou his Strongly Approve is now lower then his Strongly Disapproves, his over all Job Aproval ratings remain positive and that is what many supports will be bragging about.

Let them....

3 words;' One hit wonder.

Japandroid
07-10-2009, 04:03 AM
3 words;' One hit wonder.
Not until Republicans find somebody who can beat him.

lacarnut
07-10-2009, 04:30 AM
Not until Republicans find somebody who can beat him.

Anyone can beat him if the economy goes south which it will continue to do. This dumb ass does not realize that the job situation will not improve until he quits talking about tax increases on business (cap & trade, health care). You liberals are too stupid to understand that reducing taxes is what will spur the economy. Even a monkey can understand that.

FlaGator
07-10-2009, 05:25 AM
A economy tanking in spite of a promised recovery and back peddling on when the stimulus pack will actually start showing a positive effect tends to wake people up.

lacarnut
07-10-2009, 02:09 PM
A economy tanking in spite of a promised recovery and back peddling on when the stimulus pack will actually start showing a positive effect tends to wake people up.

Along with 500,000 folks on average getting laid off every month. With the Obummer stimulus and tax plan, I look for unemployment to be in the 15% range within the next year. The malaise days of Jimmy Carter are coming back.

Japandroid
07-11-2009, 03:26 AM
I'd just like to point out that the mess we were in 6 months ago had no intentions of getting significantly better anytime soon. Businesses are scaling back and it's not because they are paying higher taxes, it's because they are seeing substantially less revenue. Remember what people were saying when this thing was at it's absolute worst. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/03/news/economy/nabe_survey/index.htm)

BadCat
07-11-2009, 10:02 AM
I'd just like to point out that the mess we were in 6 months ago had no intentions of getting significantly better anytime soon. Businesses are scaling back and it's not because they are paying higher taxes, it's because they are seeing substantially less revenue. Remember what people were saying when this thing was at it's absolute worst. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/03/news/economy/nabe_survey/index.htm)

We're not there yet, genius.

And your boy is going to get blamed for it when we get there.

Japandroid
07-11-2009, 09:02 PM
We're not there yet, genius.

How do you know?

Rockntractor
07-11-2009, 09:06 PM
How do you know?

It would be nice if you were actually seeking knowledge!

PoliCon
07-11-2009, 11:15 PM
We're not there yet, genius.

And your boy is going to get blamed for it when we get there.

He's not just going to GET the blame - he'll have earned it.

lacarnut
07-12-2009, 12:21 AM
I'd just like to point out that the mess we were in 6 months ago had no intentions of getting significantly better anytime soon. Businesses are scaling back and it's not because they are paying higher taxes, it's because they are seeing substantially less revenue. Remember what people were saying when this thing was at it's absolute worst. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/03/news/economy/nabe_survey/index.htm)

He was hired to fix it; not to blame the previous administration. He has failed miserably. Unemployment has almost doubled going from 5.5 to 9.5%. He is a dumb ass whose policies of higher taxes (cap and trade and health care) will stifle business from hiring. All the government spending in the stimulus bill will do little to jump start the economy and slow down the downward spiral of people losing their jobs. Here is a clue for YOU; business hates uncertainty and they will not invest capital when they think government is going to poke them for more taxes.

Problem with Obama is that he is doing the opposite of what needs to be done. Cut taxes for individuals and business; business will expand and consumers will start to spend. Pretty simple; even an idiot should be able to understand. Now the bumbling fools are talking about a second stimulus when only 15% of the 800 billions dollars has been spent. We can not spend our way out of this mess and government is not the answer. That is what is so f. up about the deranged policies of liberals.

SAMSPADE
07-12-2009, 01:55 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/SlYc72XqfyI/AAAAAAAAFwY/TY-zIY78N9k/s400/rasmussen7909.jpg

edit to add;

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-approval-index.jpgTo hear the democrats Obama has an approval rating of 72%.

lacarnut
07-12-2009, 10:38 AM
I have heard from several pundits that Obama and his Admin. are in full blown panic mode. Their policies are not working to fix the economy and stave off unemployment. Saw Geithner trying to bullshit the Congress that the stimulus is working exactly like it is supposed to. No wonder Obama's negatives are a minus 8. It is onlly going to get worse because these fools do not know what the f. they are doing. The more Obama and his band of retards get on TV and state that the economy is worse than they thought; believe me it will get worse if they do not do the opposite of what they are doing and start cutting taxes. Even an idiot should be able to understand that.

Nubs
07-12-2009, 11:49 AM
"The economy was worse than we thought"
"We giuessed at the number"
"Unemployment will be no worse than 8%, if you give us this money"
Did not read TARP bill
Did not read Stim 1 bill
"Stim 1 will produce results immediately"
"Stim 1 will take months to work"
"Stim 1 will take years to work"
"I will give 95% of Americans a tax break"
"I will increase taxes on those making $250k and above"
"I will increase taxes on those making $200k and above"


Wow, what's not to like. Time to change the mantrs from " Yes we can" to "No we haven't"

PoliCon
07-12-2009, 10:00 PM
actually - it climbed back up to -7 . . . .

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 05:27 AM
Anyone can beat him if the economy goes south which it will continue to do. This dumb ass does not realize that the job situation will not improve until he quits talking about tax increases on business (cap & trade, health care). You liberals are too stupid to understand that reducing taxes is what will spur the economy. Even a monkey can understand that.


That may be true, but the Republicans had BETTER put up someone with character, fiscal discipline, a strong foriegn policy AND a respect for our Constitution - or it is all over.

mrmeangenes
07-14-2009, 09:53 AM
Anyone can beat him if the economy goes south which it will continue to do. This dumb ass does not realize that the job situation will not improve until he quits talking about tax increases on business (cap & trade, health care). You liberals are too stupid to understand that reducing taxes is what will spur the economy. Even a monkey can understand that.

I take it you are one of those who thinks Reagan's tax cuts revived an ailing economy "back in the day".

I'm very much inclined to doubt it !

What Reagan did was to stimulate the economy by pumping 200 Billion deficit dollars into military spending : "corporate welfare" if you will.

There was a lot of precedent for doing so: Truman with the GI Bill; Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway program; Kennedy with the Space Race.Carter with the 2 part Chrysler bailout.( Second part was the award of a huge contract for a turbine-powered battle tank the Army very definitely did NOT want.):rolleyes:

lacarnut
07-14-2009, 10:56 AM
I take it you are one of those who thinks Reagan's tax cuts revived an ailing economy "back in the day".

I'm very much inclined to doubt it !

What Reagan did was to stimulate the economy by pumping 200 Billion deficit dollars into military spending : "corporate welfare" if you will.

There was a lot of precedent for doing so: Truman with the GI Bill; Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway program; Kennedy with the Space Race.Carter with the 2 part Chrysler bailout.( Second part was the award of a huge contract for a turbine-powered battle tank the Army very definitely did NOT want.):rolleyes:

I take it you do not understand the huge amount of deficit that is being racked up by the current administration. The deficit ending Sept 30, 2008 totaled 484 billion dollars. Since then the deficit is over 1 trillion dollars; the total will be 1.84 trillion dollars for this fiscal year. The deficit for2009/2010 is estimated to top 1 trillion dollars.

Since you did not address my post, I will take it that you are a flaming liberal or someone that is more concerned with the past than the future. This President is going to spend us into bankruptcy. You got that.

As far as Regan spending spree on the military, he had to build it back up because Jimmy Carter decimated the military with spending cuts. Like most of these nutty Democrats, the first thing they want to start cutting is military weapon systems. BTW, I would rather the government use our tax dollars on military spending "corporate welfare" which creates jobs and tax revenues than dole it out to welfare mothers and the lazy that contribute nothing to the economy or society or other touchy, feely programs.

3rd-try
07-14-2009, 11:02 AM
I take it you are one of those who thinks Reagan's tax cuts revived an ailing economy "back in the day".

I'm very much inclined to doubt it !

What Reagan did was to stimulate the economy by pumping 200 Billion deficit dollars into military spending : "corporate welfare" if you will.

There was a lot of precedent for doing so: Truman with the GI Bill; Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway program; Kennedy with the Space Race.Carter with the 2 part Chrysler bailout.( Second part was the award of a huge contract for a turbine-powered battle tank the Army very definitely did NOT want.):rolleyes:


Of course you're exactly right. I mean when has a giant leap in energy costs (cap and trade) and generally higher taxes not improved the economy? Oh happy days. He may even do better than Jimmy Carter. I know, I miss the daily misery index, don't you?

mrmeangenes
07-14-2009, 03:55 PM
...or not.

I take it you know very little of the "stimulus" money has actually been spent . It takes a LONG time for money to go from Congress into those "shovel-ready" projects; and,predictably, people kvetch and moan at every step of the way.

Congress could have done a "Herbert Hoover" : just left everything to fester until it was almost impossible to recover.

As is, it will be tough going , and, I suspect, there are some on both sides of the aisle who hope everything falls apart, so they can seize power.

lacarnut
07-14-2009, 05:04 PM
...or not.

I take it you know very little of the "stimulus" money has actually been spent . It takes a LONG time for money to go from Congress into those "shovel-ready" projects; and,predictably, people kvetch and moan at every step of the way.

Congress could have done a "Herbert Hoover" : just left everything to fester until it was almost impossible to recover.

As is, it will be tough going , and, I suspect, there are some on both sides of the aisle who hope everything falls apart, so they can seize power.

You talk about Reagan deficits and then run away like a good little liberal piss-ant. I take it you do not know what you are talking about. In 6 months, less than 15% of the stimulus money has been spent. How many more months is it going to take. This moron in the W.H. was supposed to have his plan up and running on day one. Last month 500,000 workers were laid off with more to come. If the cap and trade bill passes even Obama admits that jobs will be lost. Those green shoots will turn brown; how insane is that.

I don't want him to fail; I know he will because tax increases will stifle job creation. That's it in a nutshell. Even a dummy like you should understand that.

I also take it you know very little about the state of the economy. Government is not the answer. Fools in the democratic party think it is but it's "The Private Sector Stupid" that is the driving force behind this economy.

mrmeangenes
07-14-2009, 05:20 PM
Oh yeah ? Just as it was in the 1929 Depression ??

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20090601-Herbert-Hoover-American-History-Presidents-Economy-The-Great-Depression-Roaring-Twenties-Hoovervilles-Unemployment.shtml

Flaming liberal that !

lacarnut
07-14-2009, 05:33 PM
Oh yeah ? Just as it was in the 1929 Depression ??

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20090601-Herbert-Hoover-American-History-Presidents-Economy-The-Great-Depression-Roaring-Twenties-Hoovervilles-Unemployment.shtml

Flaming liberal that !

Are you queer for Hoover or just like to live in the twilight zone. Wake up dumb ass; the Magic Negro's policies are going to bankrupt this country.

BTW, a 10 year old could have given a better response than yours.

mrmeangenes
07-14-2009, 06:12 PM
Are you queer for Hoover or just like to live in the twilight zone. Wake up dumb ass; the Magic Negro's policies are going to bankrupt this country.

BTW, a 10 year old could have given a better response than yours.

Classy response: classic misdirection,classic attack on the messenger-and a little "Magic Negro" tossed in for seasoning.

Oh-oh-oh ! You are so masterful !!! (Not)

lacarnut
07-14-2009, 07:00 PM
Classy response: classic misdirection,classic attack on the messenger-and a little "Magic Negro" tossed in for seasoning.

Oh-oh-oh ! You are so masterful !!! (Not)

If you want to talk about deficits and the economy, bring it on. However, liberals like you want to post an opinion and then go hide when challenged. You are too stupid to have a discussion about the facts. Your boy is going to drive this economy and country into the ground. Even a flaming liberal should be able to see that.

3rd-try
07-14-2009, 07:07 PM
...or not.

I take it you know very little of the "stimulus" money has actually been spent . It takes a LONG time for money to go from Congress into those "shovel-ready" projects; and,predictably, people kvetch and moan at every step of the way.

Congress could have done a "Herbert Hoover" : just left everything to fester until it was almost impossible to recover.

As is, it will be tough going , and, I suspect, there are some on both sides of the aisle who hope everything falls apart, so they can seize power.


"Shovel ready" I just love these new phrases. Actually, I'm very aware of how little of the stimulus money has been put to work. I'm also aware this was not forecast as being part of the plan when it was being pushed. Remember the CEO of Caterpillar who, according to Obama, would be rehiring the workers that had just been laid off as soon as the bill passed? There have been 2 more rounds of layoffs since.

There's another school of thought that thinks Hoover's inaction was preferable to FDR's action, BTW. Though that issue isn't really pressing at the moment.

If Obama can manage to pull off another money grab, we'll likely see the majority of the current holdings being spent in '010. You can't beat throwing money toward fence-sitting voters. If the next round is defeated, a big chunk will still be on hand in '012. Seems cynical? Sorry, but that's what our political machine has degraded to. And, don't think I'm only accusing the Dems. I'm seeing some who scream bloody murder toward each other while on the (cough) job, and then have dinner and drinks together in the evenings. I think the majority in DC are outraged on command depending on the audience. Basically, we the people aren't represented. In my opinion Obama and company represents the worst of the lot, but by no means am I charged up over any in that lot.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 08:08 PM
I take it you are one of those who thinks Reagan's tax cuts revived an ailing economy "back in the day".

I'm very much inclined to doubt it !

What Reagan did was to stimulate the economy by pumping 200 Billion deficit dollars into military spending : "corporate welfare" if you will.

There was a lot of precedent for doing so: Truman with the GI Bill; Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway program; Kennedy with the Space Race.Carter with the 2 part Chrysler bailout.( Second part was the award of a huge contract for a turbine-powered battle tank the Army very definitely did NOT want.):rolleyes:


As an economist, I can tell you that the tax cuts are EXACTLY what brought us out of the Carter recession.

The economic school that says what you are claiming happend it the Keynesian school. Yet according to their own theory, if this was a demand driven recovery, nominal demand rate would have risen dramatically yet that is NOT what happened at all - instead it fell.

If your point were accurate, inflation would also have gone off the charts, yet it too, fell. Go look at all of the Keynsians (including the idiot Krugman) who predicted massive inflation because of Reagan's policies.


Also if massive spending actually had a stimulative effect, why did economic growth slow DOWN after Reagan's term ended and George Bush Sr. enacted both spending increases and tax increases???

Why are we currently in a recession if massive spending were the answer??? George W. Bush spend like a drunken sailor.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 08:14 PM
In addition,

If the $ from the stimulus plan has not yet been spent(and it has not been), why do we need another one, and why was it an EMERGENCY to pass the first one???

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 08:16 PM
In addition again, the Reagan tax cut were the genesis for many of the companies (or projects from existing companies) that produced so many jobs in the 1990's.

3rd-try
07-14-2009, 08:56 PM
CS, since you're in the biz...
I heard Rush speaking on this. His take is Obama has no delusions of this money grab actually improving our economic situation. Says he's not concerned with repayment...Something on the order of "any idiot with a calculator knows better" Well, I happen to agree with this in that I see nothing that has an abstract prayer of resulting in economic recovery. The opposite is apparent. Everything he's fired up about will hurt us even more. How do you see it?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 09:05 PM
CS, since you're in the biz...
I heard Rush speaking on this. His take is Obama has no delusions of this money grab actually improving our economic situation. Says he's not concerned with repayment...Something on the order of "any idiot with a calculator knows better" Well, I happen to agree with this in that I see nothing that has an abstract prayer of resulting in economic recovery. The opposite is apparent. Everything he's fired up about will hurt us even more. How do you see it?

Ever since last August, when the price of oil dropped dramatically, I have been predicting a recovery starting this summer.

Since the spending and taxing plans have now been revealed, I don't think there will be much of a recovery, maybe a leveling off or a weak recovery, but nothing all that significant. Next year and beyond, IF the spending is not stopped, we can look forward to a long period of stagflation. (very slow economic growth, with high inflation)

PoliCon
07-14-2009, 09:24 PM
In addition again, the Reagan tax cut were the genesis for many of the companies (or projects from existing companies) that produced so many jobs in the 1990's.

You realize don't you that facts are kryptonite to Keynesian economics . . . .

lacarnut
07-14-2009, 09:40 PM
Ever since last August, when the price of oil dropped dramatically, I have been predicting a recovery starting this summer.

Since the spending and taxing plans have now been revealed, I don't think there will be much of a recovery, maybe a leveling off or a weak recovery, but nothing all that significant. Next year and beyond, IF the spending is not stopped, we can look forward to a long period of stagflation. (very slow economic growth, with high inflation)

I am confused. If we have stagflation and prices do not rise that much, inflation would not be a problem would it?. If people are pulling their horns in, spending less and saving more, how would that affect inflation? In other words, what series of events would cause high inflation? I am also befuddled by the dollar holding up to other currencies while the printing presses here are going full blast.

Rockntractor
07-14-2009, 09:48 PM
I am confused. If we have stagflation and prices do not rise that much, inflation would not be a problem would it?. If people are pulling their horns in, spending less and saving more, how would that affect inflation? In other words, what series of events would cause high inflation? I am also befuddled by the dollar holding up to other currencies while the printing presses here are going full blast.

Most of the european countrys have worse economies than we do now.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 10:45 PM
I am confused. If we have stagflation and prices do not rise that much, inflation would not be a problem would it?. If people are pulling their horns in, spending less and saving more, how would that affect inflation? In other words, what series of events would cause high inflation? I am also befuddled by the dollar holding up to other currencies while the printing presses here are going full blast.

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods.

People will not be pulling in their horns that long. There are needs to be met and eventually people will spend again. That will take a while to appear though.

What we are seeing now is the cutback in production as companies try to get rid of inventory and conserve cash. Eventually, the excess inventory will be gone and with all of the money that Obama is throwing out there, there will be too much cash chasing those scarce goods.

People get it wrong when they say government cash does not stimulate spending - it absolutely does, but the consequence when that money is borrowed is that there is less money for private industry to operate - and therefore the goods are not being produced at the rate they otherwise would be produced at (fewer people hired). The few goods that are available then go for a premium - which is the definition of inflation.

Eventually everything seeks equilibrium and it works it's way out, but the question is at what level.

If government spending is the stimulus, we get inflation and slow growth out of the recession.

If tax cuts are the stimulus, we get increased investment (if that is what the tax cuts were targeted at) and fast growth out of the recession - and long term results as the businesses started as a result of investment incentives grow and produce jobs. (By fast we mean a year to two years)

If we target the income tax you will get an even quicker burst of economic activity that CAN shock the system back to life (if consumer confidence is restored) but this will not spur any real long term investment and the return is often short-lived. This is what we saw with the first Bush tax cut - the second tax cut is what really helped the economy, the first one simply offset 9-11.



That is a long (and probably not so eloquent) way of saying, increased spending without an equal increase in GDP IS inflation.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-14-2009, 10:54 PM
I am confused. If we have stagflation and prices do not rise that much, inflation would not be a problem would it?. If people are pulling their horns in, spending less and saving more, how would that affect inflation? In other words, what series of events would cause high inflation? I am also befuddled by the dollar holding up to other currencies while the printing presses here are going full blast.


I see I misread your statement.

Stagflation is low economic growth and HIGH inflation. Prices DO rise rapidly.

The only offsetting factor I can see on the horizon is oil prices - right now fears of recession are keeping the speculators betting that prices will fall - and they are helping them to do so. However, as soon as things DO level out, and they eventually will, oil will skyrocket - UNLESS we have increased the supply enough to meet the demand. I don't see that happening.

lacarnut
07-15-2009, 12:15 AM
I see I misread your statement.

Stagflation is low economic growth and HIGH inflation. Prices DO rise rapidly.



At the present time, are we not in a period of stagflation? It seems that prices are not going up. Business are not expanding and are laying off employees. I assume that goods will increase in price when scarcity sets in. Do you agree that gold will shoot up if and when inflation rears its ugly head. I have gotten out of the stock market; gold seems like a good bet provided inflation rises.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2009, 12:09 PM
At the present time, are we not in a period of stagflation? It seems that prices are not going up. Business are not expanding and are laying off employees. I assume that goods will increase in price when scarcity sets in. Do you agree that gold will shoot up if and when inflation rears its ugly head. I have gotten out of the stock market; gold seems like a good bet provided inflation rises.


Stagflation REQUIRES that prices go up. It is part of the definition - rising prices and stagnant economic growth.

We have the stagnation part down pat - check that - actually that would be an improvement.


Properly categorized right now we are in a recession - NEGATIVE economic growth and even some DEflation (depending on what time period you are looking at)


Historically gold HAS risen in times of high inflation. I AM currently invested in the stock market right now, but my stock strategy is actually against the grain of most advisers (of which I am NOT one). Of the money I do have invested, I have in only a very few, select companies that I have carefully screened. I am not well diversified right now as I expect the broad markets to either tank or remain stagnant. Of course I am not exposed all that much in the stock market anyway so I am not really risking that much.


PLEASE bear in mind that I am NOT a qualified investment adviser - I am an economist. There are some things I know that apply in the investment world, but they are not exactly the same.

lacarnut
07-15-2009, 12:34 PM
Stagflation REQUIRES that prices go up. It is part of the definition - rising prices and stagnant economic growth.

We have the stagnation part down pat - check that - actually that would be an improvement.


Properly categorized right now we are in a recession - NEGATIVE economic growth and even some DEflation (depending on what time period you are looking at)


Historically gold HAS risen in times of high inflation. I AM currently invested in the stock market right now, but my stock strategy is actually against the grain of most advisers (of which I am NOT one). Of the money I do have invested, I have in only a very few, select companies that I have carefully screened. I am not well diversified right now as I expect the broad markets to either tank or remain stagnant. Of course I am not exposed all that much in the stock market anyway so I am not really risking that much.


PLEASE bear in mind that I am NOT a qualified investment adviser - I am an economist. There are some things I know that apply in the investment world, but they are not exactly the same.

Thanks, I got my stagflation and deflation reversed.