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

[Dad2three]

Yeah, Nixon's/Fords wage and price controls hurt him right? Then OPEC. Of course we can see how Reaganomics created MUCH smaller increase in private sector employment compared to Carter, of course Reagan ALSO ramped up the debt by tripling it right? lol

Hell... it was Carter and Volcker who made it possible for Reagan to rely on Morning in America to win in 1984. Reagan didn't do anything except ride the recovery from Volcker's moves at the Fed to break stagflation and reduce interest rates once the Fed induced recession had done it's job.

Funny how that works.

The Reagan years provide enough momentum for Clinton to balance the budget.

We use their names....but it is just when they were in the White House.

Like Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Obama ever created (or lost) a job themselves.

 

[Listening]

Hell... it was Carter and Volcker who made it possible for Reagan to rely on Morning in America to win in 1984. Reagan didn't do anything except ride the recovery from Volcker's moves at the Fed to break stagflation and reduce interest rates once the Fed induced recession had done it's job.

Funny how that works.

The Reagan years provide enough momentum for Clinton to balance the budget.

We use their names....but it is just when they were in the White House.

Like Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Obama ever created (or lost) a job themselves.

You should change your moniker to rapeandicecream

 

[Listening]

Yeah, Nixon's/Fords wage and price controls hurt him right? Then OPEC. Of course we can see how Reaganomics created MUCH smaller increase in private sector employment compared to Carter, of course Reagan ALSO ramped up the debt by tripling it right? lol

And you keep jacking off to government numbers.

Nobody can do anything without the government.

You are an ass.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Keynes had his head up his ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The correct way to say it would be "The Untold Story Of How Clinton's and Bush's Budgets Destroyed The American Economy"

 

[EconChick]

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.

Ya see? Every time I try to have an INTELLECTUAL discussion about our country's economic situation ....as in how are we helping or hurting 350 million people.... you just can't go there, can you? You have to take it back down a personal fight or the gutter.

So you wanna a personal fight Fakey? Fine. YOU I will talk to like the snake that you are.

No, I am not rewording it for me, dumbass. I'm rewording it for any liberal who wants to try to have a less contentious discussion. I clearly PERSONALLY believe it's malaise, idiot.

And no, the population's confidence is not high. Early in this thread we showed the contradiction in the July report from JUST ONE ORGANIZATION ALONE, you clod. There are other surveys that don't agree.

More importantly you can just walk out onto the street just about anywhere in America and see you're smoking crack.

So BUSTED once again on all accounts, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

(1) You are not having an intellectual discussion: you are making an assertion with little or faulty evidence and demand everyone accept it without question..

(2) I
No, I am not rewording it for me, dumbass. I'm rewording it for any liberal who wants to try to have a less contentious discussion. I clearly PERSONALLY believe it's malaise, idiot.

And no, the population's confidence is not high. Early in this thread we showed the contradiction in the July report from JUST ONE ORGANIZATION ALONE, you clod. There are other surveys that don't agree.

More importantly you can just walk out onto the street just about anywhere in America and see you're smoking crack.

So BUSTED once again on all accounts, Fakey.

Yep, you are busted and have failed all accounts, econchick.

(1) You are not conducting an intellectual discussion, because you have made a faulty assertion with very little and poor evidence, yet you demand everyone accept it.

Quarrel with those who know better than you, as many of us do, you will end up in the gutter, yes. Be polite, get polite. Be quarrelsome, get stepped on. Hard.

Yes, you are rewording because the original OP is fail.

Yes, you personally, and wrongly, believe it is economic malaise. .

Yes, the population's confidence is high as the evidence does show, and as your evidence is unable to contradict.

Very interesting watching you melt down, econchick. However, political chick melts down more spectacularly. Work on it.

 

[EconChick]

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.'

You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value. Legitimate functions of government, such as the military, are like buying insurance. Buying insurance does not make you richer, it makes you poorer. But it protects what you have.

Nothing Obama proposed created value, he simply confiscated money from the economy and proposed spending it. Everything he wanted to spend was taken out of the economy. It's like trying to fill a pool which is half full with a bucket using the water in the pool. You take a bucket of water out of the pool (taxes) then throw it back in (government spending) and wonder why the water level in the pool isn't going up. And of course since government wastes so much money, it's actually worse in that you take a bucket of water out of the pool, dump a bunch of it on the ground and throw the rest back in.

Republican foot dragging helped the economy, it didn't hurt it, for that reason. It stopped Obama from taking buckets of water, dumping some some the ground, and throwing the rest back in. You may now proceed with demonstrating you didn't understand this.

Very well said, Kaz. We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them.

 

[EconChick]

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.

(1) You are not having an intellectual discussion: you are making an assertion with little or faulty evidence and demand everyone accept it without question..

(2) I
No, I am not rewording it for me, dumbass. I'm rewording it for any liberal who wants to try to have a less contentious discussion. I clearly PERSONALLY believe it's malaise, idiot.

And no, the population's confidence is not high. Early in this thread we showed the contradiction in the July report from JUST ONE ORGANIZATION ALONE, you clod. There are other surveys that don't agree.

More importantly you can just walk out onto the street just about anywhere in America and see you're smoking crack.

So BUSTED once again on all accounts, Fakey.

Yep, you are busted and have failed all accounts, econchick.

(1) You are not conducting an intellectual discussion, because you have made a faulty assertion with very little and poor evidence, yet you demand everyone accept it.
Quarrel with those who know better than you, as many of us do, you will end up in the gutter, yes. Be polite, get polite. Be quarrelsome, get stepped on. Hard.

Yes, you are rewording because the original OP is fail.

Yes, you personally, and wrongly, believe it is economic malaise. .

Yes, the population's confidence is high as the evidence does show, and as your evidence is unable to contradict.

Very interesting watching you melt down, econchick. However, political chick melts down more spectacularly. Work on it.

And yet the polls keep dropping like rocks as to your hero's economic performance, LMAO. So much for your proof. So much for you and your delusional allies. You really need to stop smoking that new stuff.

Surely I don't need to drag out the polls and links do I Fakey?

Show me where I demand people accept my belief? I clearly ask for debate about it, moron.

I also clearly show I was bringing the discussion up a notch when you replied like a 2nd grader.

And no, Jakey Fakey, if you think this is a meltdown, you haven't seen anything yet.

When I decide to meltdown, I will drown you in so many stats, you're small mind will spin.

Your post had nothing but lies. Thanks for making it so easy to destroy your credibility all within one post.

 

[EconChick]

Jakey Fakey, the only person other than DaddyO being stepped on hard is YOU darlin.

The American people will show you in 90 days, genius.

Feel free to run your mouth for the next 90 days. I encourage it; I encourage freedom of speech.

And then SLAM. You will be smashed to the ground. You might want to start asking for percocet now, though. There will be a big demand by Dems and the supply will run low.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value.

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

 

[kaz]

You libertarian fuktards

So are we libertarians or Republicans? Can you not make up your mind?

I don't care if you call me a Republican, it just makes me think you're stupid. Then you go back to calling us libertarians. Then we are Republicans again. Are you just stupid? Is that all it is?

I'm still waiting for the example of something I think that is Republican and isn't libertarian.

 

[EconChick]

[You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value.

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value.

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

No what she CLEARLY said was

"Government creates no economic value."

and you said that was 'well said'.

That makes you both ignorant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake: Quarrel with those who know better than you, as many of us do, you will end up in the gutter, yes. Be polite, get polite. Be quarrelsome, get stepped on. Hard.

Yes, you are rewording because the original OP is fail.

Yes, you personally, and wrongly, believe it is economic malaise. .

Yes, the population's confidence is high as the evidence does show, and as your evidence is unable to contradict.

Very interesting watching you melt down, econchick. However, political chick melts down more spectacularly. Work on it.

econchick: And yet the polls keep dropping like rocks as to your hero's economic performance, LMAO. So much for your proof. So much for you and your delusional allies. You really need to stop smoking that new stuff. Surely I don't need to drag out the polls and links do I Fakey? Show me where I demand people accept my belief? I clearly ask for debate about it, moron. I also clearly show I was bringing the discussion up a notch when you replied like a 2nd grader. And no, Jakey Fakey, if you think this is a meltdown, you haven't seen anything yet. When I decide to meltdown, I will drown you in so many stats, you're small mind will spin. Your post had nothing but lies. Thanks for making it so easy to destroy your credibility all within one post.

We are talking about economic confidence by the population, not the population’s feelings of popularly about Obama, thus econchick fail.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you. And your continuing ad homs in lieu of any worthwhile commentary is noted.

Yes, you are melting down. We need you to grow up, accept responsibility for what you are writing, stop shifting the goal lines and so forth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

No what she CLEARLY said was

"Government creates no economic value."

and you said that was 'well said'.

That makes you both ignorant.

Yes, government is an economic generator (consider Halliburton's contracts for the Iraq War as one of thousands of examples in the last decade).

To say it is not reveals a mindset that is philosophical and ignores empirical data and the conclusions therefrom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value.

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

And that's the problem: those talking about 'limited government' never define what that actually means.

What's telling and inconsistent is those advocating for 'limited government' in fact are advocating in many cases for more government and greater government authority – by authorizing government to violate a woman's right to privacy, gay Americans' right to equal protection of the law, and the voting rights of minority Americans.

We're not hearing 'limited government' from most on the right, we're hearing about more laws, more restrictions, more government involvement in the personal lives of Americans and hostility from the right toward the civil liberties of Americans.

 

[EconChick]

Jake: Quarrel with those who know better than you, as many of us do, you will end up in the gutter, yes. Be polite, get polite. Be quarrelsome, get stepped on. Hard.

Yes, you are rewording because the original OP is fail.

Yes, you personally, and wrongly, believe it is economic malaise. .

Yes, the population's confidence is high as the evidence does show, and as your evidence is unable to contradict.

Very interesting watching you melt down, econchick. However, political chick melts down more spectacularly. Work on it.

econchick: And yet the polls keep dropping like rocks as to your hero's economic performance, LMAO. So much for your proof. So much for you and your delusional allies. You really need to stop smoking that new stuff. Surely I don't need to drag out the polls and links do I Fakey? Show me where I demand people accept my belief? I clearly ask for debate about it, moron. I also clearly show I was bringing the discussion up a notch when you replied like a 2nd grader. And no, Jakey Fakey, if you think this is a meltdown, you haven't seen anything yet. When I decide to meltdown, I will drown you in so many stats, you're small mind will spin. Your post had nothing but lies. Thanks for making it so easy to destroy your credibility all within one post.

We are talking about economic confidence by the population, not the population’s feelings of popularly about Obama, thus econchick fail.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you. And your continuing ad homs in lieu of any worthwhile commentary is noted.

Yes, you are melting down. We need you to grow up, accept responsibility for what you are writing, stop shifting the goal lines and so forth.

Laugh My ******* Ass Off, Everybody.

NEWS FLASH. Jakey Fakey thinks economic/consumer confidence has nothing to do with Obama's Unpopularity!!


Holy shit, the more you talk Fakey the more you dig your hole.

First of all, Obama has been popular for 5 years IN SPITE of all the things he's fucked up. Now the masses are finally realizing they backed a loser and that reality is now showing up in the popularity polls.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about popularity polls, I was talking specifically about the polls that rate his performance in each category.

He is WAY DOWN when they're asked about the economy.

Good Lord you're inept.

It must be tough trying to support a loser. I do feel for you.

 

[kaz]

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

And that's the problem: those talking about 'limited government' never define what that actually means.

Actually this is the problem, you don't read what I write. I have addressed this literally hundreds of times. You have based on how frequently you respond to my posts have to have read it dozens of times.

So again dimwit. I support these as being the primary functions of government:

The military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources, recognition of property rights.

Those are things that only government can do. Markets are built on recognition of property rights, they cannot create them. You need generally recognized ownership. You can't have competing police departments or military. Roads require too much land to be practical privately and you can't go through 50 toll booths to get to the grocery store and limited resources like water need generally agreed upon usages and distribution or it is just chaos. Not having government do those things reduces and does not expand my liberty. And as a libertarian, I want to maximize it.

What's telling and inconsistent is those advocating for 'limited government' in fact are advocating in many cases for more government and greater government authority – by authorizing government to violate a woman's right to privacy, gay Americans' right to equal protection of the law, and the voting rights of minority Americans.

Idiotic prattle

We're not hearing 'limited government' from most on the right, we're hearing about more laws, more restrictions, more government involvement in the personal lives of Americans and hostility from the right toward the civil liberties of Americans.

What does "the right" have to do with it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jake: Quarrel with those who know better than you, as many of us do, you will end up in the gutter, yes. Be polite, get polite. Be quarrelsome, get stepped on. Hard.

Yes, you are rewording because the original OP is fail.

Yes, you personally, and wrongly, believe it is economic malaise. .

Yes, the population's confidence is high as the evidence does show, and as your evidence is unable to contradict.

Very interesting watching you melt down, econchick. However, political chick melts down more spectacularly. Work on it.

econchick: And yet the polls keep dropping like rocks as to your hero's economic performance, LMAO. So much for your proof. So much for you and your delusional allies. You really need to stop smoking that new stuff. Surely I don't need to drag out the polls and links do I Fakey? Show me where I demand people accept my belief? I clearly ask for debate about it, moron. I also clearly show I was bringing the discussion up a notch when you replied like a 2nd grader. And no, Jakey Fakey, if you think this is a meltdown, you haven't seen anything yet. When I decide to meltdown, I will drown you in so many stats, you're small mind will spin. Your post had nothing but lies. Thanks for making it so easy to destroy your credibility all within one post.

We are talking about economic confidence by the population, not the population’s feelings of popularly about Obama, thus econchick fail.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you. And your continuing ad homs in lieu of any worthwhile commentary is noted.

Yes, you are melting down. We need you to grow up, accept responsibility for what you are writing, stop shifting the goal lines and so forth.

Laugh My ******* Ass Off, Everybody.

NEWS FLASH. Jakey Fakey thinks economic/consumer confidence has nothing to do with Obama's Unpopularity!!


Holy shit, the more you talk Fakey the more you dig your hole.

First of all, Obama has been popular for 5 years IN SPITE of all the things he's fucked up. Now the masses are finally realizing they backed a loser and that reality is now showing up in the popularity polls.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about popularity polls, I was talking specifically about the polls that rate his performance in each category.

He is WAY DOWN when they're asked about the economy.

Good Lord you're inept.

It must be tough trying to support a loser. I do feel for you.

Given that we've proven to you that consumer confidence is UP from where it was when Bush left,

you're not making much of an argument for putting the Republicans back in power.

 

[EconChick]

Here Jakey Fakey, read and wheep.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-poll-WSJ-NBC/2014/06/18/id/577737/

WSJ/NBC Poll: Americans Increasingly Losing Faith in Obama

Even before the recent unrest in Iraq broke out, a majority of Americans lost faith in President Barack Obama’s ability to lead the country, according to the results of a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Sixty-three percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed between June 11 and June 15 told pollsters they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 53 percent disapproved of the way the president was doing his job. Obama’s handling of foreign policy and the economy bode poorly for him, with respective 57 percent and 54 percent disapproval ratings