Thanks to Obama Policies, DOW is up 8,000 points from Bush debacle

[Sallow]

you are flat out effing nuts....seriously....

Clinton left Bush a $250 billion SURPLUS
Bush left Obama a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT

Thanks a lot ....

And yet Obama would absolutely relish and hint of an economy as good as Bush's. He's just that incompetent.

Well maybe he should do what Bush did. Drop interest rates to zero and start 2 wars..

Oh wait.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Though the economy is growing steadily, Americans are being hampered by weak pay, higher taxes and tepid hiring. Sluggish overseas economies are also slowing sales for U.S. retailers. It's a picture the Federal Reserve will weigh in deciding whether to scale back its bond purchases as soon as next month.

Seems you are finally getting to understand the wreckage Bush and the Republicans left our country in.

Only "steady" recovery is possible from this wreckage - there is no quick fix for the damage Bush and Republicans did to the economy.

There's no recovery... unless you consider 1% GDP recovery.. I guess in liberallalaland this is the new norm...

 

[auditor0007]

Cisco has had a problem for 15 years - I think they are the next Research In Motion.

In this strong, recovering economy, there are 1,000 strong performers to every Cisco.

Home building, Auto, and retail sales are off the charts!

Things are slowly getting better and they will continue to do so, but we're not going to see anything dramatic overnight. Your enthusiasm is a bit over the top.

 

[Sallow]

And how's that going?

Deficit is going down.

Catch up.

stop being a sheep- think for yourself, just once a month? try???

the monies assigned to be spent and the forecast of revenue, equal deficit spending if the out is bigger than the in...get that?

the assigned monies scheduled to go out the door, IF they don't, OR we take in more than was forecast, the deficit only 'goes down' in that we didn't spend the 1 trillion forecast.....right now, the deficit, IF the assigned $$ is spent and we are hit par on collections, is $759 from 1 trillion...read asterism's post again, very slowly.....verrrrry slowly.....

Read what?

The OP is correct no matter how you slice it. Deficit is going down, and fast.

Faster than if Simpson/Bowles was implemented.

And you guys are STILL BITCHING.

Gotta love it.

Obvious HACK is Obvious.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And the debt too! Don't forget about that big debt reduction we have going....

 

[Kimura]

Falling like a stone?

FY 2014*: $744 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion


US Federal Deficit Definition - plus charts and analysis

A 50% reduction from what Bush and Republicans handed Obama, is certainly "dropping like a rock"

But those who created the $1.4 trillion debacle are convinced they could reduce it much faster.

Of course .....

Reminds me of all the German generals who advised us how we could run over the Soviet Union after WWII.

During the Clinton Administration, the private sector went into the negative while the government sector went into surplus.

If the government is in surplus, it’s taking in more money than its spending, which has the opposite effect of stimulus. Under Clinton, the trade deficit rapidly increased, making (X-M) a drag on GDP. We saw the trade deficit take away from GDP as the government sector was taking in more money from the private sector than it was spending so to speak. This left us with nothing more than private consumption to compensate. If we look at the numbers during this time period, household debt started to significantly increase as Clinton’s horrendous trade policies and budget negatively affected GDP. The end result was households increasing debt loads to finance consumption.

I’m curious if you agree with this basic overview and analysis.

 

[Sallow]

you are flat out effing nuts....seriously....

Clinton left Bush a $250 billion SURPLUS
Bush left Obama a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT

Thanks a lot ....

That surplus under Clinton had negative consequences for the private sector. It resulted in the the first recession of the 21st century. The surplus caused the domestic private sector to accrue more indebtedness to finance consumption which created instability in the private sector.

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

 

[Edgetho]

Liberals ended the Republican recession in the U.S.

And Liberals ended the Conservative recession in Europe.

Thankfully ....

Stupid little *****.

Congress has the 'power of the purse' and dimocraps took control of Congress in 2006 and held it until 2010 when we took back only half of it.

Look at when the Republicans in Congress (finally) asserted themselves with the Sequester they forced the Stuttering Clusterfukk into back in January.

THAT is when the economy started to improve.

The Country is growing mostly because of efforts by Bernanke to pour One TRILLION DOLLARS a year into the economy combined with pent up demand from the recession.

the Stuttering Clusterfukk has the HIGHEST AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT since the Great Depression. MILLIONS of people have given up hope and dropped out of the work force, opting instead for Food Stamps and Welfare.

And it can't keep going this way.

Check out Europe.

We're next. You're just too stupid to see it.

When the economy collapses and The People put a Republican in Office to fix things, the cuts will ******* amaze you.

There will be no choice.

 

[auditor0007]

Though the economy is growing steadily, Americans are being hampered by weak pay, higher taxes and tepid hiring. Sluggish overseas economies are also slowing sales for U.S. retailers. It's a picture the Federal Reserve will weigh in deciding whether to scale back its bond purchases as soon as next month.

Seems you are finally getting to understand the wreckage Bush and the Republicans left our country in.

Only "steady" recovery is possible from this wreckage - there is no quick fix for the damage Bush and Republicans did to the economy.

While certain Bush policies made the crash worse, we were headed there for quite some time. Bush really had little to do with it. If any one single individual played a big role, it was Greenspan. He kept interest rates too low and this allowed much of the crap that happened in the housing market to happen. That being said, if he had not, we would have seen this economic collapse during the Bush years. It was inevitable, especially with the baby boomers cutting back on their spending as they began to downsize.

I get so tired of everyone blaming politicians for natural occurrences in the economy.

 

[Kimura]

Clinton left Bush a $250 billion SURPLUS
Bush left Obama a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT

Thanks a lot ....

That surplus under Clinton had negative consequences for the private sector. It resulted in the the first recession of the 21st century. The surplus caused the domestic private sector to accrue more indebtedness to finance consumption which created instability in the private sector.

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Deficit is going down.

Catch up.

stop being a sheep- think for yourself, just once a month? try???

the monies assigned to be spent and the forecast of revenue, equal deficit spending if the out is bigger than the in...get that?

the assigned monies scheduled to go out the door, IF they don't, OR we take in more than was forecast, the deficit only 'goes down' in that we didn't spend the 1 trillion forecast.....right now, the deficit, IF the assigned $$ is spent and we are hit par on collections, is $759 from 1 trillion...read asterism's post again, very slowly.....verrrrry slowly.....

Read what?

The OP is correct no matter how you slice it. Deficit is going down, and fast.

Faster than if Simpson/Bowles was implemented.
And you guys are STILL BITCHING.

Gotta love it.

Obvious HACK is Obvious.

Oh, snap! I non-sequitur to add in here too. You are on a roll today, Shallow! ON A ROLL!!!

 

[oldfart]

meanwhile, back in reality....

August 16, 2013, 10:09 AM

Economists cut their expectations for 2013 U.S. economic growth but lifted hiring forecasts for the rest of the year, according to a survey of forecasts released Friday.

The third-quarter survey of 41 forecasters done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia shows the consensus view on gross domestic product expects growth of 1.5% for all of this year, down significantly from 2.0% expected when the survey was last done in May.

and lets remember these are the same blokes who this time last year, forecast 2.7% for q4 of 2012, it came in at- .1...thats POINT 1% as in one tenth......
q1 2013?- 1.8% downgraded by a full third to 1.3%.....q2 2013?- 1.7%....

OK, a few points here. The Philly Fed survey is of econometric forecasting firms, not individual economists. In another string a poster made some snide remarks about economists in ivory towers who are not accountable for their "ideas". If you don't think forecasting firms live and die by their track records, I have a bridge you should be interested in.

Back in the early sixties an econometrician promulgated Fiedler's Four Rules of Forecasting:

1. It's very difficult to predict, especially the future.
2. Every time you make a prediction, you know you are wrong. You just don't know in which direction.
3. He who lives by the crystal ball learns to eat ground glass.
4. If you ever hit it on the button, never let them forget it!

Quarter-by-quarter forecasting is incredibly volatile and often wrong, but it's the best that can be done with the state of the art. They really try to get it right, and if anybody can do it better I am sure they will gain market share fast.

A large part of the problem is that there are lags between when things happen and when we find out they happen. This was most painfully apparent in early 2009 when the economy was tanking far faster than anyone thought even possible. The whole "with stimulus the unemployment rate will top out at only 8%" debacle was the result. Forecasters have to guess what is happening that they don't even know about and assume that players are going to do what they traditionally have done in similar circumstances. If you were a forecaster today, would you assume that the debt ceiling will be raised or not? It makes a difference. Fiedler's crystal ball seems like good imagery.

So don't read too much into these results and certainly don't bet the farm on them.

 

[DailyPolitrix.]

Bartending and waiting jobs PT are not indicators of a strong economy. Means tons of unemployed people scraping together money to go eat and drown in their sorrows.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Clinton left Bush a $250 billion SURPLUS
Bush left Obama a $1.4 trillion DEFICIT

Thanks a lot ....

And yet Obama would absolutely relish and hint of an economy as good as Bush's. He's just that incompetent.

Well maybe he should do what Bush did. Drop interest rates to zero and start 2 wars..

Oh wait.

Interest rates didn't go to zero until the housing bubble burst, Shallow. And now we have, yep! 7 or 8 proxy wars and still one raging occupational war!

Thanks, Obama!!

 

[Edgetho]

HERE is why the economy is 'improving'

A third round of quantitative easing, QE3, was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11–1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities. Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero "at least through 2015."[44][45] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program that allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.[46] Because of its open-ended nature, QE3 has earned the popular nickname of "QE-Infinity."[47] On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month.

On June 19, 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a "tapering" of some of its QE policies contingent upon continued positive economic data. Specifically, he said that the Fed would scale back its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month during the upcoming September 2013 policy meeting.[49] He also suggested that the bond buying program could wrap up by mid-2014.[50] While Bernanke did not announce an interest rate hike, he suggested that if inflation follows a 2% target rate and unemployment decreases to 6.5%, the Fed would likely start raising rates. The stock markets dropped approximately 4.3% over the three trading days following Bernanke's announcement, with the Dow Jones dropping 659 points between June 19 and 24, closing at 14,660 at the end of the day on June 24

What's gonna happen when that stops?

^^???????^^

 

[Edgetho]

Bartending and waiting jobs PT are not indicators of a strong economy. Means tons of unemployed people scraping together money to go eat and drown in their sorrows.

Dire Youth Unemployment Growing Worse | Fox Business

Gee, I just feel so gosh-darn sorry for these obama voters.

Not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

meanwhile, back in reality....

August 16, 2013, 10:09 AM

Economists cut their expectations for 2013 U.S. economic growth but lifted hiring forecasts for the rest of the year, according to a survey of forecasts released Friday.

The third-quarter survey of 41 forecasters done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia shows the consensus view on gross domestic product expects growth of 1.5% for all of this year, down significantly from 2.0% expected when the survey was last done in May.

and lets remember these are the same blokes who this time last year, forecast 2.7% for q4 of 2012, it came in at- .1...thats POINT 1% as in one tenth......
q1 2013?- 1.8% downgraded by a full third to 1.3%.....q2 2013?- 1.7%....

OK, a few points here. The Philly Fed survey is of econometric forecasting firms, not individual economists. In another string a poster made some snide remarks about economists in ivory towers who are not accountable for their "ideas". If you don't think forecasting firms live and die by their track records, I have a bridge you should be interested in.

Back in the early sixties an econometrician promulgated Fiedler's Four Rules of Forecasting:

1. It's very difficult to predict, especially the future.
2. Every time you make a prediction, you know you are wrong. You just don't know in which direction.
3. He who lives by the crystal ball learns to eat ground glass.
4. If you ever hit it on the button, never let them forget it!

Quarter-by-quarter forecasting is incredibly volatile and often wrong, but it's the best that can be done with the state of the art. They really try to get it right, and if anybody can do it better I am sure they will gain market share fast.

A large part of the problem is that there are lags between when things happen and when we find out they happen. This was most painfully apparent in early 2009 when the economy was tanking far faster than anyone thought even possible. The whole "with stimulus the unemployment rate will top out at only 8%" debacle was the result. Forecasters have to guess what is happening that they don't even know about and assume that players are going to do what they traditionally have done in similar circumstances. If you were a forecaster today, would you assume that the debt ceiling will be raised or not? It makes a difference. Fiedler's crystal ball seems like good imagery.

So don't read too much into these results and certainly don't bet the farm on them.

And the problem there is that policy tends to get establsihed off these forcasts. So I guess it should be extremely evident now why central planning is a terrible idea. Probably the worst idea some humans ever concocted.

 

[drivebymedia]

What's gonna happen when that stops?

The economy will be on a firm footing after the Bush/Republican debacle - and will continue to grow.

 

[drivebymedia]

Bartending and waiting jobs PT are not indicators of a strong economy. Means tons of unemployed people scraping together money to go eat and drown in their sorrows.

Bush outsourced 8 million low wage, unskilled jobs ... I guess he felt the same way, that these jobs are irrelevant ?

 

[Kimura]

That surplus under Clinton had negative consequences for the private sector. It resulted in the the first recession of the 21st century. The surplus caused the domestic private sector to accrue more indebtedness to finance consumption which created instability in the private sector.

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268