More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Mac1958]

.

Bond yields took another beating today.

Not good.

We need a few more weeks of employment growth and a couple of months of clear GDP growth.

.

 

[Rocko]

My 1,000 acre farm has been feeding 14,000 of them without a problem with just 2 of us farming 2 months of the year. It ain't an enormous burden so I don't mind carrying them another year.

The average cornfield delivers more than 15 million calories per acre each year (enough to sustain 14 people per acre, with a 3,000 calorie-per-day diet.)

good; give til it hurts leftard

give more

I did give til it hurt bad back when I used to buy seed from Romney's Pay to Play Cronies Monsanto. I would grow the corn & sell it for $2/bushel. But if I wanted to replant it Monsanto made me pay them $200/bushel. Now they can kiss my ass. I get cheap non-GMO Stine Liberty seed that yields more than their over priced crap.

Yeah, well, you know, I think Monsanto might feed just a few more people than your farm.

 

[Rocko]

WASHINGTON POST: Fewest Americans in 7 years seek unemployment aid

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in seven years last week, a sign the job market is steadily improving.

Weekly unemployment benefit applications dropped 24,000 to 297,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That’s the fewest since May 12, 2007. The four week average, a less volatile measure, dipped 2,000 to 323,250.

Applications are a proxy for layoffs, so the decline is evidence that employers are cutting fewer jobs. Weekly applications topped 650,000 in March 2009, during the Great Recession.

Fewer people are also receiving benefits each week. The number of recipients fell to 2.67 million, the fewest since Dec. 1, 2007, when the recession began.

That's because when unemployment wasn't extended if left a whole lot of people ineligible. If democrats had their way we would have a billion people on UE.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Three days later, the Dow dropped 167 points on inflation worries. How's that prosperity looking now, Sallow?

 

[KissMy]

Three days later, the Dow dropped 167 points on inflation worries. How's that prosperity looking now, Sallow?

Bond yields fell, Gold fell, US Dollar got Stronger. Where is the inflation dumbass????

 

[Google]

This is bizarre. The Federal Reserve is pumping money into the stock market through its Quantitative Easing program--which it began under its emergency powers which apparently will never end--meanwhile wages are stagnant, record number of people are out of the work force, record number are on government assistance, horrible economic growth.

Average Americans that are living in this economy intrinsically understand that reality does not match the soaring stock market. Literally, the wealthiest Americans are the only ones flourishing under this administration and this is something the leftists on the board believe is a cause to celebrate.

Facts prove projections are bullshit fantasy.

Are you saying that these predictions for massive, uncontrolled debt are incorrect?

You need to look back at past projections of national debt, if anything these stats are way too conservative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Three days later, the Dow dropped 167 points on inflation worries. How's that prosperity looking now, Sallow?

Bond yields fell, Gold fell, US Dollar got Stronger. Where is the inflation dumbass????

In producer prices, dumbass.

They rose 0.6%. Investors are worried that rise may have been passed on to consumers.

Inflation hawks may finally have something to crow about. The Labor Department said producer prices popped 0.6 percent in April, good for the biggest jump since September 2012. Economists had modeled for a softer increase of 0.2 percent.


Investors will get to see whether or not producers passed those higher prices down to customers on Thursday when the government releases its consumer price index.

​

No new records: Dow drops 100 points | Project Economy - KCCI Home
​

 

[KissMy]

Facts prove projections are bullshit fantasy.

Are you saying that these predictions for massive, uncontrolled debt are incorrect?

You need to look back at past projections of national debt, if anything these stats are way too conservative.

We were running a surpluses when Clinton was president & projections were for so much continued surplus that Bush decided to "give the money back to the people with tax cuts", got rid of pay as you go, handed out prescription drugs, exploded government employee pay, exploded size of government & never vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats took congress.

Projections are total bullshit. This country, it's currency, deficits, inflation, economy, job loss & the markets were an absolute train-wreck when Obama took over. Now deficits are falling, gold falling, government shrinking, dollar rising, stocks rising, employment rising, economy growing.

 

[Google]

Facts prove projections are bullshit fantasy.

Are you saying that these predictions for massive, uncontrolled debt are incorrect?

You need to look back at past projections of national debt, if anything these stats are way too conservative.

We were running a surpluses when Clinton was president & projections were for so much continued surplus that Bush decided to "give the money back to the people with tax cuts", got rid of pay as you go, handed out prescription drugs & never vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats took congress.

Projections are total bullshit. This country, it's currency, deficits, inflation, economy, job loss & the markets were an absolute train-wreck when Obama took over. Now deficits are falling, gold falling, dollar rising, stocks rising, employment rising, economy growing.

That is fine. Predictions are oft times incorrect. What makes you think that the national debt will not continue to grow?

Also, "give the money back" to the people who paid the taxes is pretty damn accurate statement. What is bizarre is "tax cuts add to the national debt", meaning allowing American workers to keep more of their own money is a government expenditure--that all money is essentially the government's and they just let you keep what they decide.

During "Clinton's surplus"--the result of BALANCING THE BUDGET achieved by a GOP-controlled Congress--the country still had trillions in national debt.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

 

[sealybobo]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.

I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never ******* once too responsibility for the mess they ******* caused. Eat a dick.

Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.

 

[Google]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.

I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never ******* once too responsibility for the mess they ******* caused. Eat a dick.

Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.

Every tax payer got a tax cut. That is a fact. Government revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew--just as it did under JFK and Reagan when they cut taxes across the board.

Who is benefiting under this administration?

 

[Google]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.

I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never ******* once too responsibility for the mess they ******* caused. Eat a dick.

Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.

Hateful hypocrite interjecting your contempt of religion into a discussion that doesn't concern it at all.

 

[Vigilante]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.

I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never ******* once too responsibility for the mess they ******* caused. Eat a dick.

Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.

Once they drink the KOOL-AID, their brains rot....

Let’s examine the popular message that the Bush tax cuts somehow have favored the wealthy and are a significant contributor to our current escalating Federal budget deficit. That claim has been made so often by politicians and endlessly repeated by the media that it must be true; but is it? Let’s look at the facts.....

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.

And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."

Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.

I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never ******* once too responsibility for the mess they ******* caused. Eat a dick.

Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.

A President can't do much about spending when he is in a lame duck session, now can he? Democrats took both houses in 2006, took office in 2007, then from then on the spending went on from there. Be reminded Democrats played a role in getting the Iraq War (another source of spending) going. A majority of them voted for it in the Senate in 2002. I am only 26 years old, thus I was in high school when Bush was in office. So, I didn't have a real opinion on the man.

Moreover, the mess they caused is the mess YOU refused to clean up. How can you lecture anyone about spending recklessly when your party has watched as the deficit soared almost $7 trillion since Obama took office?

And I beg your pardon? I don't eat dicks, I eat facts. Sit down.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

We aren't in a stock market bubble.

Stocks are over-valued, however.

I'm hoping for a 30% correction.

The hell you say?

Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?

How do you figure?

 

[Vigilante]

We aren't in a stock market bubble.

Stocks are over-valued, however.

I'm hoping for a 30% correction.

The hell you say?

Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?

How do you figure?

 

[Sallow]

Are you saying that these predictions for massive, uncontrolled debt are incorrect?

You need to look back at past projections of national debt, if anything these stats are way too conservative.

We were running a surpluses when Clinton was president & projections were for so much continued surplus that Bush decided to "give the money back to the people with tax cuts", got rid of pay as you go, handed out prescription drugs & never vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats took congress.

Projections are total bullshit. This country, it's currency, deficits, inflation, economy, job loss & the markets were an absolute train-wreck when Obama took over. Now deficits are falling, gold falling, dollar rising, stocks rising, employment rising, economy growing.

That is fine. Predictions are oft times incorrect. What makes you think that the national debt will not continue to grow?

Also, "give the money back" to the people who paid the taxes is pretty damn accurate statement. What is bizarre is "tax cuts add to the national debt", meaning allowing American workers to keep more of their own money is a government expenditure--that all money is essentially the government's and they just let you keep what they decide.

During "Clinton's surplus"--the result of BALANCING THE BUDGET achieved by a GOP-controlled Congress--the country still had trillions in national debt.

To your first point. No. Not really. People elected people to spend money. They weren't like "No..don't give my state that package to make submarines!" or "No..we don't want to build Airplanes'. Everyone accepted the spending. Even the famous "Bridge To nowhere". Sarah Palin didn't give that money back to the Federal government. She used it.

Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.

 

[Rozman]

We aren't in a stock market bubble.

Stocks are over-valued, however.

I'm hoping for a 30% correction.

The hell you say?

Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?

How do you figure?

What exactly is bill trying to tell us here?
His hands spread that far apart means what exactly...
Will Hillary let us know?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.

Man, the 'shrooms must have been something back on the 1990s.