Federal Reserve: Americans $9 Trillion Richer...

[The Rabbi]

The GDP does not tell us how Americans are doing.

It informs us how the economy is doing.

They're not remotely the same thing.

If you want to know how Americans are doing look to the indices that descibe their plight.

Bankruptsies, foreclosures, emplyment statistics, suicides, crime stats, give us a clearer picture of what's happening on Main Street than the GDP ever did.

Employment is alway the last thing to recover.

It will come back.

Yes, after Obama is voted out of office.

 

[Sundial]

if this keeps up we will be looking good by November huh?

Yep. By November even Republicans will have to admit things are getting better. They'll switch from "the economy sucks because Obama is president" to "the economy has nothing to do with who is president!"

 

[Contumacious]

That ONLY tells me that the fuckers have been busy PRINTING MONEY>

That figure would be significant If we still had REAL DOLLARS REDEEMABLE IN GOLD AND SILVER.

The Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than counterfeit money.

.

If you want to get rid dollars, send them to me.

Life in Hell: German Weimar Hyperinflation

From 1922-1923 the German people suffered under the torture of hyperinflation. The snippets below help the reader to begin to understand the hell the average German citizen experienced:

In September 1922, a loaf of bread cost 163 marks. One year later in September of 1923, this figure had reached 1,500,000 marks. A few months later at the peak of hyperinflation, November 1923, a loaf of bread eventually cost an inconceivable 200,000,000,000 marks!

People were paid by the hour and rushed to pass money to loved ones who hurriedly bought whatever they could before the paper notes lost their purchasing power.

.

 

[8537]

The GDP does not tell us how Americans are doing.

It informs us how the economy is doing.

They're not remotely the same thing.

If you want to know how Americans are doing look to the indices that descibe their plight.

Bankruptsies, foreclosures, emplyment statistics, suicides, crime stats, give us a clearer picture of what's happening on Main Street than the GDP ever did.

Employment is alway the last thing to recover.

It will come back.

Yes, after Obama is voted out of office.

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

 

[The Rabbi]

Employment is alway the last thing to recover.

It will come back.

Yes, after Obama is voted out of office.

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?
At this point in Reagan's presidency the economy was producing 1M new jobs a month. No "swing" needed.
We have the worst job creation in history, thanks to Obama's policiies.

 

[Chris]

Yes, after Obama is voted out of office.

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?
At this point in Reagan's presidency the economy was producing 1M new jobs a month. No "swing" needed.
We have the worst job creation in history, thanks to Obama's policiies.

No, the worst job creation in history was George Bush....

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Even the chart doesnt support your absurd assertion.
Obama is the worst president since Chavez, with similar policies.

 

[8537]

Yes, after Obama is voted out of office.

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

 

[Chris]

No. Even the chart doesnt support your absurd assertion.
Obama is the worst president since Chavez, with similar policies.

 

[Chris]

 

[Sundial]

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

By comparison, the net number of jobs created while George W was president was approximately -1,000,000.

 

[Chris]

Retail sales up 16%

Auto sales up 13%

Pending home sales up 10%

The train is leaving the station...

 

[The Rabbi]

There has been a net swing of nearly a million hires per month since Obama took office.

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

So easy to cherrypick. Reagan's economy at ths point in his tenure was creating 1M a jobs. Obama's is creating 150k. 150k job creation in a recovery sucks by any measure. I realize you have to dress that up somehow to make it look better. But no lipstick will cover that pig.
And your racial comments are unwelcome.

 

[8537]

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

So easy to cherrypick. Reagan's economy at ths point in his tenure was creating 1M a jobs.

No, it wasn't. I gave you the actual numbers: 23,000 in October of this point in his term, 321,000 in November.

And your racial comments are unwelcome.

That's OK, your claim that black people are incapable of leading was unwelcome as well - but it helps put some perspective around your dislike of Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

So easy to cherrypick. Reagan's economy at ths point in his tenure was creating 1M a jobs.

No, it wasn't. I gave you the actual numbers: 23,000 in October of this point in his term, 321,000 in November.

And your racial comments are unwelcome.

That's OK, your claim that black people are incapable of leading was unwelcome as well - but it helps put some perspective around your dislike of Obama.

Yes, you cherrypick numbers. Reagan was creating many more jobs at this point in his term than Obama is. And Reagan didn't have to blow the U.S. credit card to do it.
I never claimed blacks are incapable of leading. You are too stupid to understand the difference between what i actually claimed (and was never disproven btw) and your caricature understanding of it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

By comparison, the net number of jobs created while George W was president was approximately -1,000,000.

incorrect..TRY THE bureau OF LABOR STATS.

 

[auditor0007]

Than When Obama Took Office:

Title: Total Net Worth - Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations
Series ID: TNWBSHNO
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Release: Z.1 Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Quarterly, End of Period
Units: Billions of Dollars
Date Range: 1949-10-01 to 2011-04-01
Last Updated: 2011-10-12 4:16 PM CDT
Notes: This data comes from the Z.1 Flow of Funds release of the Board of
Governors. This series appears in Table B.100. For further information
see the information provided in the guide to the Flow of Funds at
Flow of Funds Guide - Home.

Year______Total Net Worth

2009-01-01 $49523.62 <--- Obama Takes Office
2009-04-01 50625.60
2009-07-01 53360.65
2009-10-01 54239.35
2010-01-01 55465.57
2010-04-01 54203.25
2010-07-01 55360.19
2010-10-01 57788.52
2011-01-01 58873.09
2011-04-01 $58730.14 <---- Most Recent Data

Difference = $9.2 Trillion.

Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/TNWBSHNO.txt

so, this apparently has no calculation for net liabilities etc...because I cannot see how the public is nine trillion richer.


how did they calculate this figure, exactly?

and of course that begs the question, then what are the 99% squawking about?

This is really pretty funny on so many levels. First of all, almost all of that gain came from Wall Street as the Dow went from around 8000 in January of 2009 to over 12,000 today. That is an increase of 50%. Here is the funny part; guess who owns most of the stock?

 

[Chris]

So easy to cherrypick. Reagan's economy at ths point in his tenure was creating 1M a jobs.

No, it wasn't. I gave you the actual numbers: 23,000 in October of this point in his term, 321,000 in November.

And your racial comments are unwelcome.

That's OK, your claim that black people are incapable of leading was unwelcome as well - but it helps put some perspective around your dislike of Obama.

Yes, you cherrypick numbers. Reagan was creating many more jobs at this point in his term than Obama is. And Reagan didn't have to blow the U.S. credit card to do it.
I never claimed blacks are incapable of leading. You are too stupid to understand the difference between what i actually claimed (and was never disproven btw) and your caricature understanding of it.

Reagan doubled the National Debt.

Liar, liar, pants on fire...

 

[Chris]

Obfuscation. What is a "job swing"?

It's the change in number of jobs created each month. That amount as swung from -800,000 when Obama took office to an average of +150,000ish in the past 10 months.

That's a net swing of +950,000 jobs per month.

at this point in the Reagan administration, the economy had swung from creating 321,000 the month he took office to creating 23,000 in October of 1983 and 640,000 in November of that year. That's a swing of 300,000 jobs if you use the larger of the two figures.

And that's not obfuscation. It's fact. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable fact for you because it demonstrates a favorable comparison between a black man (who can't lead, of course) and Reagan.

By comparison, the net number of jobs created while George W was president was approximately -1,000,000.

Good one.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan had Dems to work with, who actually compromise and care about the country over party. And there was no BS Pub propaganda machine or Grover Norquist to poison the atmosphere. A disgrace, dittoheads- cheering for the greedy bloated Pub rich and against prosperity.