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

[JakeStarkey]

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

econ bubbles has been trying to have it both ways: forget the stats, don't forget the stats; forget the confidence, don't forget the confidence.

bubbles is being popped, and she is freaking out.

 

[Listening]

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

This thread was derailed from the start by people wanting to blather about the trajectory of consumer confidence.

That trajectory was, in the opinion of some, a direct contradiction to the opinion of the OP that things are not going gangbusters.

Despite repeated attempts to get it on track, this number (which gives a pretty poor grade on a relative basis) has been bleated about as if it were something special.

Someone posts a refutation and the left get's it's collective tiny little dick caught in it zipper.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

******* TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. ******* brilliant!!!!

And there we have it folks.

D23 is a tax and spend liberal. PERIOD.

That has never worked and it's not working now.

AS opposed to a cut taxes and RAMP up spending like Dubya/GOP?

 

[Listening]

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

econ bubbles has been trying to have it both ways: forget the stats, don't forget the stats; forget the confidence, don't forget the confidence.

bubbles is being popped, and she is freaking out.

The only thing that is being popped is the board zit (you).

You are the one bleating the so called contradiction.

You and DudPeePee have derailed the thread from the start.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

econ bubbles has been trying to have it both ways: forget the stats, don't forget the stats; forget the confidence, don't forget the confidence.

bubbles is being popped, and she is freaking out.

The only thing that is being popped is the board zit (you). You are the one bleating the so called contradiction. You and DudPeePee have derailed the thread from the start.

Look at bubbles who is a weather vane on this. She's freaking.

L, we have demanded evidence to meet the OP: she has failed.

 

[Siete]

That's an odd post in this thread, especially from its author, given that the first 3 words of the thread were the command to

"forget econ stats"

econ bubbles has been trying to have it both ways: forget the stats, don't forget the stats; forget the confidence, don't forget the confidence.

bubbles is being popped, and she is freaking out.

The only thing that is being popped is the board zit (you).

You are the one bleating the so called contradiction.

You and DudPeePee have derailed the thread from the start.

derailed ? you misspelled debunked.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm going to put this in the most simplistic terms I can possibly come up with to get down to your level.

You are incapable of doing what we call "weighting."

It means you take 30, 50, 1000 variables....pick one....and you weight them all equally. That's as inaccurate as claiming the ocean is made of bubblegum. Yet you do it in post after post after post.

You'd never get past GO in the real world.

Real world? Dubya caused 80%+ of the damage the US had 2001-2009

Obama, acting like a Repugnant many times, is responsible for about 30% of the negative (coddling GOPers for 5+ years, drones, agreeing to keeping tax low on those $200,000+ households, sequester, etc) crap that's happened!


How's THAT for weighted?

Bush was responsible for almost all of what happened between 2001 to 2007. Except of course the 9/11 attack. If you say he's responsible for that again I will flat out call you out as someone suffering from drug addiction, retardation, or dementia.

From 2007 to 2008 everyone takes a piece of the blame for the crash.

In other words, Bush can't be blamed for the impact 911 had on the economy and he only takes a portion of the blame for the crash.

Obama on the other hand, had control of the whole budget. If he wanted to end the wars, he should've brought our troops home immediately.

And while we're on that subject, I am the opp of that damn pacifist. I believe that if you do it, do it with overwhelming force and get it over with. Don't drag it out. Or get the hell totally out.

If O had gotten totally out right away, I would not have agreed, but I would've at least respected the decisiveness.

But instead that idiot has done the absolute worse thing he could do. He threw more troops in for nothing but political reasons but had no intent of really fighting.

So no, I don't give him a pass on the cost of the wars occurring in his tenure. If he had pulled everyone out immediately, I would in that case agree that all war expenditures were Bush's.

But that's not what O did.

Same with TARP. He could've reversed it if he really disagreed with it. But Dems and Rep's both inside the beltway agreed to it.

So you don't understand how to weight properly in the least.

"Bush was responsible for almost all of what happened between 2001 to 2007"

Weird I though he was Prez until Jan 2009?


" Except of course the 9/11 attack."



Yeah, 40+ warnings from CIA and other intelligence agency's, without having a SINGLE high level meeting on terrorism means Dubya shouldn't take blame *SHAKING HEAD*


On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.




In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html


EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST MORE OF YOUR SWILL

 

[Dad2three]

You have no facts. You have no empirical evidence. You have nothing. Democrats have nothing!! Obama has failed out almost everything.


Other than one "Confidence Report" for one month.... which I pointed out can turn on a dime especially since that was taken before UE went back up and interest rates started to go back up....what OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great?

" OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great"

REALLY? Who claims that? You mean has Obama picked US up from the disaster Dubya/GOP policies left US? YES. Is the US economy SLOWLY BUT STEADILY GETTING BACK TO WHERE CLINTON HAD US? YES

EVERYTHING else you posit is just rabid right wing crap...

You're damn right it's SLOWLY. As in malaise, not exuberance.

My work is done here.

Malaise is a generalized feeling of discomfort, illness, or lack of well-being.

Weird YOUR premise Dubya lost 5 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND Obama has 10+ million under him ALREADY. Malaise?

 

[Dad2three]

Boy ain't that the truth, Listening.

So, we can all dump dozens and dozens of pieces of data that show Americans are not happy with how Obama is running the economy, and the only thing the Fakey Band can come up with is one Confidence Report that I tore apart in one post.

I don't understand....even martians wouldn't be this "thick."

REAL WORLD FACTS FOR YOU BUBBETTE:

Dubya- 1.2+ million jobs in 8 years

Obama 10+ million since hitting the Bush bottom March 2010

Now we're back to third grade math.

The dumbest economist I know would never post what you just posted. It's simpleton-ville.

That's like showing a chart of how many wet dreams you have or don't have every day for several years and claiming that's how many chicks you bag.


There is an ever so small relationship but in the big scheme has nothing to do with each other.

So you DON'T like the chart showing Obama having 10+ million jobs created under him and rather than use a counter argument you use ad homs? Doctorate in economics? lol

 

[Listening]

" OTHER pieces of evidence do you have that the economy is doing great"

REALLY? Who claims that? You mean has Obama picked US up from the disaster Dubya/GOP policies left US? YES. Is the US economy SLOWLY BUT STEADILY GETTING BACK TO WHERE CLINTON HAD US? YES

EVERYTHING else you posit is just rabid right wing crap...

You're damn right it's SLOWLY. As in malaise, not exuberance.

My work is done here.

Malaise is a generalized feeling of discomfort, illness, or lack of well-being.

Weird YOUR premise Dubya lost 5 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND Obama has 10+ million under him ALREADY. Malaise?

Does the RapeAndIceCream bullshit ever end with this asswipe ?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, going to WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE, you'd probably would have preferred another WTC type strike on America, as all good subversive would want...Bring us to our knees! Seems you're just another liberal pacifist, might want to try suicide next time out!

"WAR after being attacked is EXPENSIVE"

******* TRUE, WHAT DID DUBYA DO INSTEAD? CUT REVENUES. ******* brilliant!!!!

Yes, having MORE MONEY in ones pocket wouldn't be the way subversives would try to stimulate the economy...

They'd go for MORE DEBT with an $880 BILLION STIMULUS PACKAGE that did LITTLE to stimulate anything but Democrat, subversive donors!

Yes, you bastards love nothing better than to spend other peoples money on your friends, and to BUY VOTES!

Weird, Dubya tax cuts cost $2+ trillion and Obama stimulus cost $787 BILLION (TO KEEP US OUT OF GOP DEPRESSION 2.0) (40% of that tax cuts, 20% aid to states) which created more jobs?

Dubya lost 1.2+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (or 5 million using Ecodummy's #'s)

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com


You'd think Dubya GUTTING federal revenues by 25%+ of GDP from Clinton's last F/Y budget (where he FINALLY got it back to Carters revenues) the economy should've boomed with all the extra money laying around right? DUBYA EVEN CRANKED UP THE SPENDING. WHAT HAPPENED?

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, you don't know the first thing about statistics, idiot.

Nope, that's all bullshit. You know the saying: there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Back to my trying to teach that third grade math does not apply to the economy. You can't think past the third grade so no wonder it went over your head.

Says the klown working on a Doctorate in Econ using POLLS as her confirmation, lol

There are dozens of threads on this website that have already given the data. I told you I didn't want to turn this into dueling stats. If I wanted that, I would've started a stats duel in the Economy Section.

We could spend thousands of hours throwing competing stats back and forth. As I said in the OP, I wanted to step back from the stats that only confused the average American and debate this based on what people observed in the economy in their communities, in their families, in their states.

The polls are perfectly in keeping with what I said in the OP.

I can't help that you can't read.

Right. Confusing. THAT'S why you did it *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Did Obama blah blah blah... QUOTE]

Well, well. NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is out.

Jakey, Dad2three, LL, et. al...I think it's time to hang up your hats as economic prognosticators. You've been way off and here's yet more proof.

64% of Americans unhappy with economy.



Let me say this again. 64% of Americans upset about the economy.



Do you have any idea how bad that is for Obummer?

And by all means, please say that the low numbers for Congress mean the American people DON'T blame Obama for the poor economy. LOL.

Want to go a little deeper? Are they upset because those 'job creators' have the lowest sustained effective tax burden in 80+ years and for some reason, they aren't creating jobs or sharing the growth of GDP the past 30+ years?

Are they upset that the GOP has REFUSED from day one to help Obama pull US out of the hole the GOP/Dubya policies put US in ?

What is the approval ratings of ANY GOPer versus Obama? How about the GOP Congress? 13%? lol

Doctorate? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Watch Jake post something about "data" and how the OP doesn't follow.

This should be fun.

Poll Finds Widespread Economic Anxiety

Respondents in WSJ/NBC Poll Fear Their Children's Generation Will Have Fewer Opportunities—And They Blame Washington Politicians


Still scarred by a recession that ended five years ago, Americans are registering record levels of anxiety about the opportunities available to younger generations and are pessimistic about the nation's long-term prospects, directing their blame at elected leaders in Washington.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that despite the steady pace of hiring in recent months, 76% of adults lack confidence that their children's generation will have a better life than they do—an all-time high. Some 71% of adults think the country is on the wrong track, a leap of 8 points from a June survey, and 60% believe the U.S. is in a state of decline.

What's more, seven in 10 adults blamed the malaise more on Washington leaders than on any deeper economic trends, and 79% expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the American political system.



Congressional Republicans fared even worse, with 54% of adults viewing them negatively and just 19% expressing positive views, a gap of 35 percentage points. Democrats in Congress were viewed negatively by 46% and favorably by 31%, a difference of 15 points.


Sixty-four percent of those polled said they are still feeling some impact from the recession, down from the 71% who said they initially felt effects from the downturn when it began more than six years ago


YES, DESPITE CONSERVATIVES ATTEMPTS TO STOP OBAMA, MORE SEE US DOING BETTER UNDER OBAMA THAN DUBYA!


WSJ/NBC Poll Finds Widespread Economic Anxiety - WSJ

 

[Dad2three]

He's too embarrassed to post in this thread. I warned them to be careful what they wished for.

Hey, btw, we're talking Reagan on the Trickle Down thread for Rabbi....come take a look at how the libs are crashing and burning....

Embarrassed? By ad homs? lol

Sixty-four percent of those polled said they are still feeling some impact from the recession, down from the 71% who said they initially felt effects from the downturn when it began more than six years ago

 

[Dad2three]

Did Obama blah blah blah... QUOTE]

Well, well. NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll is out.

Jakey, Dad2three, LL, et. al...I think it's time to hang up your hats as economic prognosticators. You've been way off and here's yet more proof.

64% of Americans unhappy with economy.



Let me say this again. 64% of Americans upset about the economy.



Do you have any idea how bad that is for Obummer?

And by all means, please say that the low numbers for Congress mean the American people DON'T blame Obama for the poor economy. LOL.

The latest Journal poll of 1,000 adults, conducted between Wednesday and Sunday night, found some signs of improvement in American views of the economy. Half of those polled said the economy is improving, and 49% think the U.S. is still in a recession, down from 58% last summer and 77% in 2008.


WSJ/NBC Poll Finds Widespread Economic Anxiety - WSJ

 

[JakeStarkey]

Econ Chick will now say your numbers don't count.

Count on it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Conservatives agree Bush and his neocons were to far left. It's time to put real conservatives in not these compassionate conservatives.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives agree Bush and his neocons were to far left. It's time to put real conservatives in not these compassionate conservatives.

Yes, since conservative policies worked so well, where?

 

[Agit8r]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Well, we live in a country with economic opportunities. They may not be the same as those one would have found 20 of 30 years ago, but no reason to lose optimism.

And if one doesn't have the faculties to take care of themselves fully, we have just enough socialism to keep them alive, in most cases. Jolly good.

But above all, one shouldn't expect some ubermensch to come solve all of their woes, whether politician or "job-Creator," because superheroes only exist in comics and movies.