Economy grows for the third straight quarter

[rightwinger]

Recovering is a better term than growing. The recovery is also spotty at best. Even admistration officals are quick to point out jobs need to recover before it is really progress. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

I don't have a hard time understanding any of that.

I do understand, however, that unemployment is always the last thing to recover after any recession. It took 2 1/2 years for unemployment to start it's recovery for Reagan.

At the moment, unemployment has already dropped. Not by much, but it's an improvement nonetheless. That's a full year sooner than Reagan.

What I do have a hard time understanding is why anytime good news comes out, right-wing folks are quick to say that it's all some kind of charade, or find an excuse as to why "it won't last". It's like you're intentionally trying to stop the recovery from happening by undermining consumer confidence.

Now, I can see why you don't want Obama to succeed, but do you really want the US economy to go down again just to make a point???

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

 

[Immanuel]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

Yes, that is true. And this is a rational approach.

However, there are some people here, and elsewhere, that ascribe to the Anne Coulter method of revisionist history.

In this school of thought, Roosevelt prolonged the Depression. In their alternate reality, if we had only ascribed to free market principles, everything would have definitely recovered much faster.

Of course they ignore the fact that Roosevelt only took office 2 1/2 years after the market crash, and that we had been ascribing to free market principles up until that point, which is how we got INTO the depression in the first place.

 

[rightwinger]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

Mark it down Immie....

Some are already starting to chime in with "The economy would have recovered anyway" and "The economy would have recovered faster without Obama"

The same people who are able to discard month after month of improving economic data while clinging to hope that the economy can still crash before the election

 

[caddis]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

I believe that has been the contention all along. Can you point to some specific things the OA has done to IMPROVE the economy? Can you explain how adding a trillion dollars in debt is better overall for our nation? How has nationalizing health care which reduces corporate earnings further, good for the economy?

 

[Immanuel]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

Yes, that is true. And this is a rational approach.

However, there are some people here, and elsewhere, that ascribe to the Anne Coulter method of revisionist history.

In this school of thought, Roosevelt prolonged the Depression. In their alternate reality, if we had only ascribed to free market principles, everything would have definitely recovered much faster.

Of course they ignore the fact that Roosevelt only took office 2 1/2 years after the market crash, and that we had been ascribing to free market principles up until that point, which is how we got INTO the depression in the first place.

I maintain that the free market system would have corrected itself. I believe in the system. Whether it would have done so as fast or not, I cannot say, but the economy runs in cycles. There is no way to prevent that.

What we (or our government does) may affect the cycles to some extent, but it does not change the fact that every downturn will be followed by an upswing.

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

Mark it down Immie....

Some are already starting to chime in with "The economy would have recovered anyway" and "The economy would have recovered faster without Obama"

The same people who are able to discard month after month of improving economic data while clinging to hope that the economy can still crash before the election

I'm still waiting to see the "good news" of this recovery. I have not felt it. Having my job eliminated in January because of the economy hasn't helped at all, and the fact that there is not a lot of activity in the job market (at least not in my field) is not helping my mood these days. I've been a bit testy lately!

I've read you guys preaching this good news, but from my perspective, the economy sucks right now. I'm not blaming President Obama, because like I said, a downturn is economic reality, but I can't wait for some real positive news. By the way, I won't trust such news coming from the lips of an administrative lackey or the media. I want to see it with my own two eyes.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

I believe that has been the contention all along. Can you point to some specific things the OA has done to IMPROVE the economy? Can you explain how adding a trillion dollars in debt is better overall for our nation?

When it goes to directed stimulus, it provides capital to help business thrive. Just like the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to help the economy by adding to the deficit, but increasing capital available for economic growth.

How has nationalizing health care which reduces corporate earnings further, good for the economy?

1. Health Care was not "Nationalized", nor was there ever a plan for "Nationalizing Health Care" on the table.

2. How does the reform they actually did put in place "reduce corporate earnings", specifically?

 

[Immanuel]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

I believe that has been the contention all along. Can you point to some specific things the OA has done to IMPROVE the economy? Can you explain how adding a trillion dollars in debt is better overall for our nation?

When it goes to directed stimulus, it provides capital to help business thrive. Just like the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to help the economy by adding to the deficit, but increasing capital available for economic growth.

How has nationalizing health care which reduces corporate earnings further, good for the economy?

1. Health Care was not "Nationalized", nor was there ever a plan for "Nationalizing Health Care" on the table.

2. How does the reform they actually did put in place "reduce corporate earnings", specifically?

I have to disagree with you on point number one.

It is on the table. The President spoke about it during the election and he has not changed his mind. It is probably the one "campaign promise" I expect him to try to keep.

He was smart enough to know that it would not have flown in the first pass. He cut his plan in half and I think he is way ahead of his schedule to bring about Nationalized Health Care within 15 years.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

I maintain that the free market system would have corrected itself. I believe in the system. Whether it would have done so as fast or not, I cannot say, but the economy runs in cycles. There is no way to prevent that.

What we (or our government does) may affect the cycles to some extent, but it does not change the fact that every downturn will be followed by an upswing.

Oh, I believe that also, though I have no idea how long it would have taken, and think that Roosevelt did in fact help matters along, especially with his policies leading up to and including World War II.

But of course, I cannot say with any certainty that another approach would not have eventually worked, as I would have no factual comparison basis for such a claim.

But the true Coulterites are convinced that the Hooverian approach would have created a recovery much faster than the Roosevelt approach. A point they of course have no way of proving.

What I base Obama's performance on is purely a comparison between him and Reagan, as they were thrust into very similar situations as Presidents.

If Obama does better or as well as Reagan, which he seems to be doing, then I will count him as doing a pretty good job.

That is impossible to know without an alternate dimension.

I might say, it could have recovered faster and I might even be able to make a case for it, but saying it would have recovered faster is impossible to know, just as your saying it would not have recovered as fast is impossible to know.

Immie

Mark it down Immie....

Some are already starting to chime in with "The economy would have recovered anyway" and "The economy would have recovered faster without Obama"

The same people who are able to discard month after month of improving economic data while clinging to hope that the economy can still crash before the election

I'm still waiting to see the "good news" of this recovery. I have not felt it. Having my job eliminated in January because of the economy hasn't helped at all, and the fact that there is not a lot of activity in the job market (at least not in my field) is not helping my mood these days. I've been a bit testy lately!

I've read you guys preaching this good news, but from my perspective, the economy sucks right now. I'm not blaming President Obama, because like I said, a downturn is economic reality, but I can't wait for some real positive news. By the way, I won't trust such news coming from the lips of an administrative lackey or the media. I want to see it with my own two eyes.

Immie

My firm just started hiring again. Thank god, because I was doing way too much work, lol.

 

[Immanuel]

I maintain that the free market system would have corrected itself. I believe in the system. Whether it would have done so as fast or not, I cannot say, but the economy runs in cycles. There is no way to prevent that.

What we (or our government does) may affect the cycles to some extent, but it does not change the fact that every downturn will be followed by an upswing.

Oh, I believe that also, though I have no idea how long it would have taken, and think that Roosevelt did in fact help matters along, especially with his policies leading up to and including World War II.

But of course, I cannot say with any certainty that another approach would not have eventually worked, as I would have no factual comparison basis for such a claim.

But the true Coulterites are convinced that the Hooverian approach would have created a recovery much faster than the Roosevelt approach. A point they of course have no way of proving.

What I base Obama's performance on is purely a comparison between him and Reagan, as they were thrust into very similar situations as Presidents.

If Obama does better or as well as Reagan, which he seems to be doing, then I will count him as doing a pretty good job.

Mark it down Immie....

Some are already starting to chime in with "The economy would have recovered anyway" and "The economy would have recovered faster without Obama"

The same people who are able to discard month after month of improving economic data while clinging to hope that the economy can still crash before the election

I'm still waiting to see the "good news" of this recovery. I have not felt it. Having my job eliminated in January because of the economy hasn't helped at all, and the fact that there is not a lot of activity in the job market (at least not in my field) is not helping my mood these days. I've been a bit testy lately!

I've read you guys preaching this good news, but from my perspective, the economy sucks right now. I'm not blaming President Obama, because like I said, a downturn is economic reality, but I can't wait for some real positive news. By the way, I won't trust such news coming from the lips of an administrative lackey or the media. I want to see it with my own two eyes.

Immie

My firm just started hiring again. Thank god, because I was doing way too much work, lol.

Where do you live?

Are they hiring accountants yet?

I promise not to tell them that I am the "infamous" Immie.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

I have to disagree with you on point number one.

It is on the table. The President spoke about it during the election and he has not changed his mind. It is probably the one "campaign promise" I expect him to try to keep.

He was smart enough to know that it would not have flown in the first pass. He cut his plan in half and I think he is way ahead of his schedule to bring about Nationalized Health Care within 15 years.

Immie

I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

 

[rightwinger]

This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"

I believe that has been the contention all along. Can you point to some specific things the OA has done to IMPROVE the economy? Can you explain how adding a trillion dollars in debt is better overall for our nation? How has nationalizing health care which reduces corporate earnings further, good for the economy?

OK....

Lets go back to Jan 2009. The economy was in deep recession bordering on depression. The Market was in a panic assuming a banking industry collapse. $17 trillion in personal wealth had been lost in the Recession. GM and Chrysler were collapsing. The world economy was in a panic because of the pending US economic collapse.

So what did the Obama administration do?
First thing was to assure the world that the US Government, the wealthiest and most powerful government on earth would stand behind the banks. Thes bailouts were accompanied by the US demanding collateral in return for the loans. This stopped the panic and the Stock Markets started recovering immediately (70% increase)
Keep in mind, the recovery hinged on capital investment. The US Government was the only entity with sufficient funds to spark a reversal in the economy. The $800 billion stimulous sent a message that the US was buying and investing in itself.
GM and Chrysler were bailed out which protected the critical backbone of US Manufacturing. Both are now showing signs of recovery and paying back their loans.

THAT is what the OA did to IMPROVE the economy

 

[Vast LWC]

I maintain that the free market system would have corrected itself. I believe in the system. Whether it would have done so as fast or not, I cannot say, but the economy runs in cycles. There is no way to prevent that.

What we (or our government does) may affect the cycles to some extent, but it does not change the fact that every downturn will be followed by an upswing.

Oh, I believe that also, though I have no idea how long it would have taken, and think that Roosevelt did in fact help matters along, especially with his policies leading up to and including World War II.

But of course, I cannot say with any certainty that another approach would not have eventually worked, as I would have no factual comparison basis for such a claim.

But the true Coulterites are convinced that the Hooverian approach would have created a recovery much faster than the Roosevelt approach. A point they of course have no way of proving.

What I base Obama's performance on is purely a comparison between him and Reagan, as they were thrust into very similar situations as Presidents.

If Obama does better or as well as Reagan, which he seems to be doing, then I will count him as doing a pretty good job.

I'm still waiting to see the "good news" of this recovery. I have not felt it. Having my job eliminated in January because of the economy hasn't helped at all, and the fact that there is not a lot of activity in the job market (at least not in my field) is not helping my mood these days. I've been a bit testy lately!

I've read you guys preaching this good news, but from my perspective, the economy sucks right now. I'm not blaming President Obama, because like I said, a downturn is economic reality, but I can't wait for some real positive news. By the way, I won't trust such news coming from the lips of an administrative lackey or the media. I want to see it with my own two eyes.

Immie

My firm just started hiring again. Thank god, because I was doing way too much work, lol.

Where do you live?

Are they hiring accountants yet?

I promise not to tell them that I am the "infamous" Immie.

Immie

LOL, I live in NYC, but accountants seem to have been the one group they never fired in the first place. Sorry 'Bout that. If they were hiring accountants, I'd give you a heads up.

 

[Immanuel]

I have to disagree with you on point number one.

It is on the table. The President spoke about it during the election and he has not changed his mind. It is probably the one "campaign promise" I expect him to try to keep.

He was smart enough to know that it would not have flown in the first pass. He cut his plan in half and I think he is way ahead of his schedule to bring about Nationalized Health Care within 15 years.

Immie

I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Oh, I believe that also, though I have no idea how long it would have taken, and think that Roosevelt did in fact help matters along, especially with his policies leading up to and including World War II.

But of course, I cannot say with any certainty that another approach would not have eventually worked, as I would have no factual comparison basis for such a claim.

But the true Coulterites are convinced that the Hooverian approach would have created a recovery much faster than the Roosevelt approach. A point they of course have no way of proving.

What I base Obama's performance on is purely a comparison between him and Reagan, as they were thrust into very similar situations as Presidents.

If Obama does better or as well as Reagan, which he seems to be doing, then I will count him as doing a pretty good job.



My firm just started hiring again. Thank god, because I was doing way too much work, lol.

Where do you live?

Are they hiring accountants yet?

I promise not to tell them that I am the "infamous" Immie.

Immie

LOL, I live in NYC, but accountants seem to have been the one group they never fired in the first place. Sorry 'Bout that. If they were hiring accountants, I'd give you a heads up.

Never mind! I have no intention of moving to NYC... it snows there.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

 

[Immanuel]

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

Addendum:

And quite frankly, I think if the plan that passed earlier this year works as proposed then he has effectively provided Universal Coverage. I also don't have a problem with the idea of Universal Coverage. I do, however, have a problem with mandated coverage.

It is the second step that bothers me, because I am convinced that the second step is Nationalization and I don't trust bureaucrats (bureaucrats, not politicians) to do it right.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

I do not have the link handy and I am sure that you have seen the Youtube video that I would have pulled up anyway. He said, Universal, I won't question that, but he described nationalized.

And yes, it would have been a bad choice of phrases. He knew that so he didn't say "Nationalized". He said, Universal.

I never said he was an idiot.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

I do not have the link handy and I am sure that you have seen the Youtube video that I would have pulled up anyway. He said, Universal, I won't question that, but he described nationalized.

And yes, it would have been a bad choice of phrases. He knew that so he didn't say "Nationalized". He said, Universal.

I never said he was an idiot.

Immie

You gotta love these CON$ervative mind-readers. CON$ are free to change anyone's words as they please because CON$ know that they were thinking.

September 5, 2008
RUSH:*** He didn't use those words, but that's what he meant

October 4, 2007
RUSH:* We're dealing here with the potential loss of meaning when others get to say what other people meant. This is a dangerous direction that we're headed in."

October 21, 2008
RUSH:** He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant.

October 3, 2007
RUSH:* We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others.* What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

He used the term..."single payer healthcare system"....what...EXACTLY...does that mean to you?