Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[Vigilante]

61% of Americans think economy won't recover until 2017..... thank you Obumanation!

CNNMoney poll: Americans think economy won't recover until 2017 or later - Jun. 6, 2014

 

[JakeStarkey]

61% of Americans think economy won't recover until 2017..... thank you Obumanation!

CNNMoney poll: Americans think economy won't recover until 2017 or later - Jun. 6, 2014

Excellent article and worth thinking about.

We must never, ever let the Congress like the one we had from 1994 to 2006 work hand in hand with business again.

 

[Vigilante]

61% of Americans think economy won't recover until 2017..... thank you Obumanation!

CNNMoney poll: Americans think economy won't recover until 2017 or later - Jun. 6, 2014

Excellent article and worth thinking about.

We must never, ever let the Congress like the one we had from 1994 to 2006 work hand in hand with business again.

Yes, you hit that foul ball right out of the park!

The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy

Bill Clinton is giving the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight.

The idea is to make people feel nostalgic for the last time when the economy was really booming, and hope that some of that rubs off on Obama.
However, in the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.
Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.
The story that Gasparino tells is basically: Liberal Bill Clinton thought he could use government to make everyone a homeowner and so naturally this ended in disaster....


Read more: How Bill Clinton's Balanced Budget Destroyed The Economy - Business Insider

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."

Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.

United States 1920's.

The Forgotten Depression of 1920 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily

 

[Listening]

You are ******* DESPERATE to try and make your case. The economy is improving. That is ALL anyone has said. And it is. More people working is a good thing. The fact that it doesn't serve the Republican purpose of trying to convince everyone how bad it is, is besides the point.

Sure, the economy is improving.

You can also say a person making a salary of $15,000 getting a 10 cents an hour raise is improving.

Yet in the big scheme of things we both know that person is pretty bad off.

So let's reword it.....do you think the American people think Obama's economic policies have been effective enough?

OK, we reword it because the OP has failed: thank you for that admission.

Since the population's confidence is at a seven year high, sure.

No, you derail it because the OP was just asking for opinions.

But this is always about you.

Dick.

 

[Listening]

Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.

Let's move on.

Anyone who pays attention to your sorry posts is a moron.

 

[Listening]

Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.

Let's move on.

I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?

Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.

You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.

One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.

We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.

No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster.

The only think you go on doing for a long time is playing with your self.

 

[Listening]

You're asking the wrong questions.

Your questions should be:

What was the extent of the adverse effect republican foot-dragging had on the economic recovery?

Given the fact of republican foot-dragging, can an accurate assessment be made of the Administration's economic policies?

Do conservatives understand that the Administration's economic policies can only be comprehensively implemented with the co-operation of Congress, something Congressional republicans have refused to do?

And can there be an accurate, objective, non-partisan assessment of the president's economic policies well before the end of his time in office.

The last question is rhetorical, as of course its answer is 'no.'

But that's no different for any other president. When Bush took the WH, Clinton's economy had hit the trough that Bush had to reverse. Then Bush got hit with the impact of 9/11 on the economy. I never see a liberal explain how that unfairly weighed on Bush's numbers. And anyone who says it was a 1% quarter impact is way off.

There were people who were worried that because it hit when we were so heavily leveraged during the trough of a business cycle that it almost collapsed us.

No one makes excuses for what Bush had to do to recover not only economically but to combat an enemy. That's never discussed.

The thing is.....yes, we were pulling out of a crisis and a recession when Obama took the reins...but on the other hand, there were signs we were starting to recover from the recession only a few months into O's tenure.

The other problem is that Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders.

DISCUSS WHAT?

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.


In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



" Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders."

LOL

Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush[/B].the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

David Stockman....????

 

[Listening]

Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.

Let's move on.

I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?

Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.

“There are some very important problems that don’t get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to.” Bill Gates

IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?

Can you fart out any more fallacies ?

First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?

Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.

The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.

 

[Dad2three]

But that's no different for any other president. When Bush took the WH, Clinton's economy had hit the trough that Bush had to reverse. Then Bush got hit with the impact of 9/11 on the economy. I never see a liberal explain how that unfairly weighed on Bush's numbers. And anyone who says it was a 1% quarter impact is way off.

There were people who were worried that because it hit when we were so heavily leveraged during the trough of a business cycle that it almost collapsed us.

No one makes excuses for what Bush had to do to recover not only economically but to combat an enemy. That's never discussed.

The thing is.....yes, we were pulling out of a crisis and a recession when Obama took the reins...but on the other hand, there were signs we were starting to recover from the recession only a few months into O's tenure.

The other problem is that Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders.

DISCUSS WHAT?

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.


In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



" Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders."

LOL

Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush[/B].the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

David Stockman....????

So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks

 

[Listening]

Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."

Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.

BullShit.

 

[Dad2three]

I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?

Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.

“There are some very important problems that don’t get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to.” Bill Gates

IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?

Can you fart out any more fallacies ?

First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?

Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.

The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.

Right, because in nations with low Gov't spending, their economies are booming right? lol

 

[Listening]

So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks

What's to refute.

Stockman was pissed when he got told to shut up about tax cuts and then hoped they failed as he predicted. They didn't.

He lost credibility with anyone except dicks like you.

 

[Listening]

“There are some very important problems that don’t get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to.” Bill Gates

IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?

Can you fart out any more fallacies ?

First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?

Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.

The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.

Right, because in nations with low Gov't spending, their economies are booming right? lol

Sure, and Rape and Ice Cream sales can be correlated too.

And you call conservatives simple minded.

 

[Dad2three]

I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?

Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.

You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.

One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.

We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.

No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster.

The only think you go on doing for a long time is playing with your self.

You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gopv't? HMM

 

[Dad2three]

Can you fart out any more fallacies ?

First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?

Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.

The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.

Right, because in nations with low Gov't spending, their economies are booming right? lol

Sure, and Rape and Ice Cream sales can be correlated too.

And you call conservatives simple minded.

Tell you what, to help this simple minded liberal, give me ONE state or nation to EVER use libertarian economics successfully EVER?

 

[Dad2three]

So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks

What's to refute.

Stockman was pissed when he got told to shut up about tax cuts and then hoped they failed as he predicted. They didn't.

He lost credibility with anyone except dicks like you.

You mean when Reagan had to increase revenues 11 times AFTER he cut them for the rich AND still took in less money than Carter who had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8 years? lol

 

[Listening]

You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.

One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.

We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.

No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster.

The only think you go on doing for a long time is playing with your self.

You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gopv't? HMM

You liberal asswipes have got your lips so glued to Obama's dick that you don't know how to look at anything except what the government does. Heaven forbid that OTHER forces should ever affect things.

Clinton didn't do much of anything except allow the GOP to run the show.

Dubya and his congress did nothing except spend money like drunken sailor on activities with no value (except to make people like Dian Feinstein's husband richer.

So, keep try to correlate that ice cream and rape. You look more stupid everytime you post.

 

[Dad2three]

Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."

Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.

United States 1920's.

The Forgotten Depression of 1920 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily

"United States 1920's."

lol

1921 and All That


Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.

Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[Listening]

So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks

What's to refute.

Stockman was pissed when he got told to shut up about tax cuts and then hoped they failed as he predicted. They didn't.

He lost credibility with anyone except dicks like you.

You mean when Reagan had to increase revenues 11 times AFTER he cut them for the rich AND still took in less money than Carter who had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8 years? lol

Yeah.....that's the whole picture.

That's why Carter got re-elected taking 49 states without campaigning while Reagan got tossed after his first term.....

Oh, Wait.........