E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
With 40 days to go until Election Day, there's fresh economic data. And the numbers -- for President Obama -- are good, bad, and ugly.
First, the good. The Associated Press writes:
The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits plunged 26,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 359,000, a hopeful sign for the job market. It's the lowest level of weekly applications in nine weeks.
Then there's the bad, also per the AP:
The Commerce Department said Thursday that total durable goods orders fell 13.2 percent in August. That's the biggest drop since January 2009 when the U.S. was in recession. Aircraft orders fell by nearly 102 percent, pulling down the headline figure.
Economists tend to pay more attention to core capital goods, which signal investment plans. Those orders rose 1.1 percent. That's the first increase since May, although it follows steep declines in the previous two months.
And then there's the ugly:
The U.S. economy grew at a sluggish 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, held back by the severe drought that reduced farm production in the Midwest. The growth rate was lowered from a previous estimate of 1.7 percent, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
All of these numbers sum up the state of the U.S. economy over the past several months, as well as the challenge here for both Obama and challenger Mitt Romney: The economy is never as good it seems, or as bad. It's somewhere in the middle.
Leave a Comment:
And yet, President Obama has surpassed Willard on the question of who would be better at handling the economy!
Face it, Americans aren't buying the "stench" the Vulture & Voucher are selling...
Even Willard himself conceeded, he would not be capable of fixing the mess the President was left with in ONLY 4 years!
The numbers suck worldwide and America's economy is tied to it. Blaming internal policies is pointless. QE3 is to some extent the attempt to slightly devalue the dollar in order to improve exports. The glitch is that the rest of the world is also in an economic slump.
Keys to economic recovery:
Implement the Fair Tax and abolish the IRS
Stop the Federal Reserve from destroying the dollar any further
Stop the corporate welfare which inhibits competition
Stop the deficit spending and reduce the debt
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front
Romney's Secret Service code name-- Stench.
Ryan's--- Turd Blossom.
Or maybe we'll keep talking about code names, tax returns, birth certificates and religion.
It is pretty pitiful that bad news has to be spun to come up with some glimmer of good. What a failure. Also, not so fast. Look at what this poll says.
43% Expect Better Economy if Romney Wins; 34% Say Same of Obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/september_2012/43_expect_better_economy_if_romney_wins_34_say_same_of_obama
The bad news was on revision of 2nd quarter growth, which ended in June.
I guess those Tea Party folks are happy. Their strategy of blocking stimulus spending on infrastructure and jobs is working for them, but is bad news for regular Americans, especially those looking for jobs.
The President can't speed up recovery without some help from Republicans who control the House. I doubt if that Tea Party crowd will change its tune, so if you want to hear "Happy days are here again", you'll just have to vote for the Democrat running in your Congressional District.
And the Senate has been filibustered to death by the Republican minority. If you want a faster rate of economic growth, you need to vote for the Democrat in your Senate race (if you have a Senate race).
And of course,
OBAMA 2012 .......For America's Future.
Then the president needs to learn how to lead and come to resolution through compromise with Congress. Because if he can't why would you want four more years of one man when the fate of our country is at stake? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The Commerce Department said Thursday that total durable goods orders fell 13.2 percent in August. That's the biggest drop since January 2009 when the U.S. was in recession.
Forward???????????????????
kinda late dont you think? Now its give me 4 more and I promise I'll learn this time.
Yes but the Tea Baggers are. I certainly hope people get to the polls and vote like it's 2008.
The President inherited a huge steaming pile to clean up and if the Weather Vane and Budget Boy get in we are really screwed!
When you have a House controlled by stubborn economic idiots, the government's role in spurring growth is blocked. Romney echoes the Tea Party idiots, deficit is their biggest concern.
Their hero Ronald Reagan almost tripled the national debt during his 8 years due to a series of tax cuts and spending measures designed to get our economy out of recession and speed the recovery. 7 million jobs were created in the 5 years after the 82-83 recession ended. Stimulus worked for Ronald Reagan!
Deficit spending by government to stimulate growth is how we've recovered from every recession since the Great Depression. It's called Keynesian economics, but you'd think that the Tea Party and Romney never heard of it.
I don't believe they are that dumb (although some such as Michele Bachman certainly are). They are simply sacrificing America's prosperity for their own political gain. Power is their end and if it means shutting down the American economy to get there, they will do it and are doing it.
Our economy needed another round of stimulus in early 2011 to get us to that 3% growth rate needed to create a supply of jobs that would begin to outpace demand for jobs. This is what it usually takes to get Americans back to work after a recession.
What we got instead was a bunch of Tea Party economic idiots and anti-recovery plotting Republicans.
The stench is coming from the first comment.
Off topic. Here is one of MSNBCs finest doing what she does best.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/paint_misbehavin_VYd6yL8Q3RJbTDYFxX3MjK
Shaak, you mean Obama for America's destruction.
Ben...
You brought up problem number one....Mr. Obama has no leadership abilities whatsoever. From day one, he did zero to establish relationships with anyone in the House or Senate...he has no pals on either side of the fence. Same thing with foreign policy...he has not developed any relationships...with anyone...anywhere, here or abroad. It is his biggest failure yet it cannot be blamed on him...a person either is a true 'leader' or is not. And this president is not.
Those on he left can spit on Ronald Reagan all they want and those on the right can say whatever they choose about Bill Clinton...but both those guys were connected to powerful members of both parties and also developed relationships with important folks overseas. That is why they got things accomplished.
Apparently, according to republican revisionist history, Obama has been the stubborn one and both the house and senate have done everything in their power to compromise and work in a bi-partisan fashion. It's scary that people with this mindset are legally allowed to vote.
You don't need to be revisionist to see the 30-some bills that Harry-the-Barrier refuses to even let be debated in the Senate... at least the House has the guts to vote and take a stand... not like the lying sneaking Liberals....
Growth is growth. I'll take it anyway I can. Better growth than recession or wars or torture or . . .
Thanks for giving Reid all of those bills full of right wing anti-abortion, tax cuts for the rich, and personhood garbage. You don't need to be revisionist to see that Obama HAS tried to work with the other side and they refused to even attempt to compromise. Remember the credit downgrade last year? I believe it was the republicans who refused a deal with 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases who caused that. We can't even get a jobs bill passed that helps VETERANS all because of republican obstruction. I hope you're happy that your side took a stand against the citizens of this country, just to try to make Obama look like a failure. I also hope it makes you feel good inside knowing that the guy you support has a disdain for 47% of the country, which includes veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and children.
Or circumventing due process for American citizens or personally signing off on drone strikes and killing innocents or failing to provide protection an ambassador or ...
There is a lot of good news in the report...
I want to look at the bad news from the report - The U.S. economy grew at a sluggish 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter.
well, just look at our most important trading partners who get most of our exports - Europe in deep debt crisis and Japan hurt badly by the nuclear disaster, that will cut 0.5-1% off GDP.
Then the extreme gap between the rich and poor will further shave off 1.5% of GDP, since comsumer spending is 70% of the GDP, extreme gap of wealth between the 1% and the 99% has hurt the economy. Because most of the poor and middle class spend most of their income on food and groceries - boosting demand in the market place. When Mitt gets more wealth, he just moves his money overseas.
So, trouble in Europe, Japan, and wealth gp in US shaves off 2%. Actually GDP is thus 4%. Good one
I think what people miss about economic data, and that voters are picking up are two factors: their home values are up (better refinancing, etc) and their 401k's are way up. These are tangible improvements voters can see and feel.
Jeremy - yes, home values are up the most in 3 years. It's a very good sign.
Obama/Biden 2012
How about a link to the home values being up and 401K values being way up. Let's back up your beliefs. Oh and please copy and paste the exact words. Thanks.
Also did you catch that manufacturing is down and the GDP is moving along at a miserable pace.
Obama grade on economics -- F-
manufacturing jobs are down, durable goods orders down.
reason? no consumer confidence.... lowest in 20 years
Forward -- don't mind that cliff you see, just keep marching!!
The good, The Bad, and the Ugly? Must be about Romney, Oblumber, and Michelle!
Seeking sanity, my home in the southwest is down in value by 49%. I have resorted to renting it. I do not like having to be a landlord.
GUYS and GALS -- if you look at the value of your home now compared to when Woodrow Wilson was president, the value is up 10%
People who have jobs are doing OK now. They cut back on spending where they could and decreased their debt (on average). The people who want to work, but can't find jobs are the ones really suffering.
That is why we need another round of stimulus (and have needed for the last 2 years). A jobs bill and infrastructure spending bill were blocked by House tea Party. These bills would have helped speed up our recovery to a level high enough to continue reducing unemployment.
Deficit spending spurs economic growth. You reduce budget deficits when unemployment is reduced to desired level. This is how the elected government can manage the economy for the benefit of all.
Basically, deficits are reduced when economy is humming along at 3% growth rate. Tax revenues go up as business profits and personal income go up. Costs go down with fewer people on food stamps and unemployment and medicaid and welfare. Cuts to government employees and contractors can work when they have a good chance of getting another job or finding other work to do. Otherwise, cuts here are just a drag on growth.
Stimulus works. Deficit spending to lower unemployment work. Higher growth reduces deficits for all the years that growth continues.
Yeah sure Ben. The President has control over the weather. LOL
You can thank the obstructionists in Congress for the uncertainty both business and consumers are feeling.
BTW -- Corporate profits were revised up.
And, the reason corporations are not hiring and investing is because they are scared out of their wits at what new taxes and obstacles Obama is going to unload on them, never mind new health care costs. As a small business owner, I speak from experience, not political rhetoric,
lisa - home values are NOT back to where they were and won't be for years. But, they are up to the highest value in 3 years. The market is coming back but it will be a slow recovery.
JERSY GIRL - a lemonade stand doesn't really count as owning a business.
Obama/Biden 2012
Jersey Girl'
Business will expand when their sales go up. When a business owner goes into his warehouse and sees he can't fill an order, he loses a sale. So, he will restock and fill the order. In this same situation, a manufacturer would increase production which could be just more overtime or he might add more workers to meet his sales demand.
All this talk about uncertainty is BS. The uncertainty is sales.
What planet do you live on??? my home has lost 25% of it's value since Oblunder took over....
My home's value has increased 33% in last 7 years. I believe if you live in an area with lower unemployment (our county is at 6%) your home value is higher.
In areas of high unemployment, home values have dropped a lot.
Stimulating job growth will increase home values.
Areas with lots of retirees (Florida, Arizona) are seeing home sales improvement as healthier Northern state economies have produced higher home values there and retirees can sell their homes and net enough money to move South to enjoy their golden years free from ice and snow.
shaak: so what you're saying is that if you cherry pick the data then it's all good?
First Read quotes the AP as saying:
So...that means that if there were 100 aircraft orders last month there were -2 orders this month!? Odd! What am I missing here?? LOL!
if there was 100, that would make it ~ 48.
Percent change = [(value at end of period - value at beginning of period)/value at beginning of period] * 100
My example: [(-2 - 100) / 100]*100 = [-102/100]*100 = -102
Your example: [(48 - 100) / 100] * 100 = [-52/100]*100 = -52
if you had 48 gizmo's and had 102% growth, or (48 x 1.02) 48.9, add them together to get ~ 100
Right...but if I had 100 gizmos and there was a 102% decrease in the number I have, I would end up with -2.
Trust me on this one.
Look at it this way...going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. But going from 2 to 1 is NOT a 100% decrease...it is a 50% decrease. The percentage increase or decrease is always relative to the original value. A 100% decrease in anything means that you end up at 0!
LOL, Frank - you win, the guy must be crazy!
How bout we agree to this...the number sucks!! LOL!! ;-)
Got my answer by the way. From "Business Insider":
OK, that makes sense now!
};~( -- agreed!
102% is a strange figure. I would guess there are a few cancelled orders in that figure. Looking at Europe's problems, that could be happening.
I guess if you are an aircraft salesman, August just wasn't your month.
Isn't that also the month when everyone goes on vacation (for Congress, its the 8th vacation period in 8 months.)
The economy is making slow progress, but progress nevertheless. Even slow growth is better than contraction! The hole dug by George "Wrong Way" Bush and his comrades-in-deceit was very deep. It was the deepest economic hole dug by any administration since 1932. That's why we need to keep cool, steady leadership as we climb out of that hole, rung by rung. What we don't need to do is to destroy the ladder, pick up our shovels, and go back to digging, which is what the Republicans would have us do.
Yeah Steve, everything is just wonderful...
Can libbies blog without using the words Bush, Stench, or namecalling?
Sirie'
When you discuss economic trends, it is necessary to compare to historic data.
You cannot make sense of where you are unless you remember where you came from.
What you suggest is that we just close our eyes, walk along for awhile, and then reopen our eyes and say where are we? Lost in the wilderness again.
It is apparent that you have so little clue to where our economy is and what direction we should go because you refuse to remember where we've been. There is a pattern. That is how we learn from history and try not to repeat the same mistakes.
sirie, you cant win with these folks, they have no concept of real world economics. If you are touting a pres. who has done nothing but lied, cant lead but can blame others than shame on you. Its time for someone else to take charge
Oilshark
Care to explain "real world economics"?
Sure, telling people unemployment figures that do not reflect the accurate picture is something you guys are pros at. This economy is not getting any better, and everytime dismal news comes out there is spin to dig down to some economic indicator that bodes better than the real picture. Making @!$%# up and pretending its good news and no one could do better is bs. How is it that you think that a guy who never ran a company, balanced a budget or did anything other than suck off the govt tit is more capable of steering this country in the right direction as oppossed to someone who has done all of those things AND BEEN SUCCESFUL doing it. say what you want about romney, he has been a success in life on a large scale, he is more equiped to deal with this than obama.
You can watch the weather channel to see if it is raining outside... but it may be better to actually open a window...
8.2 percent unemployment is a number, taken in context sounds like the other 91.8% of people are employed (of those that are looking for work).
However, the numbers get juggled - they have been tainted. Real unemployment is much much higher
Sirie and Oilshark: so what is the Republican party going to do about getting more jobs going ? They have had the Congress for almost two years and have done NOTHING. Laws to end abortions, name post offices and prevent women from getting contraceptives do not create jobs.
Revised growth rate of 1.3% is a 1.3% annual rate of growth for 2nd quarter. That is the economy expanded by 0.425% in the 2nd quarter. Not good, but much better than the -8.5% growth rate Obama inherited from Bush.
We need a 3% growth rate to produce enough jobs to put unemployed back to work. How to get there? Laying off government workers only adds further drag on the economy, slowing it down. We could be back in recession if deficit cutters have their way.
Stimulus works to speed growth. Deficit spending is what Ronald Reagan did to stimulate the economy. In fact, he nearly tripled the national debt during his term, but he also created 7 million jobs coming out of 82-83 recession, doing deficit financed stimulus spending. Reagan would do it again now and Republicans would agree with him.
But when Obama wants to do what Reagan did, it's a big NO from Republicans.
Explain why Republicans won't go along with stimulating an economy that sorely needs it.
The worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, and the "AP" Administration's Press, uses the same propaganda line for the past three years:
"a hopeful sign for the job market." Yeah, any day now.
And First Read, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama reelection team, tells us the economy is "in the middle".
In the middle of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression; in the middle of 43 straight months if unempployment over 8%...in the middle of Obama failed policies totally tanking the private sector...
Bob in Va- pls explain in plain English the logic of the RepubliCON party FILIBUSTERING the law to assist VETERENS from finding employment which occurred two weeks ago.
Imagine the election with an unemployment rate of 6.5 or 7%(main stream economist projection of rate if Obama's jobs bills would have passed).
You thought 180+ and counting filibusters were a coincidence?
Oh try to use the vets, how bout a dem senate that hasnt passed a budget in 3 yrs, or dems who want this cut to defense dept thatis going to cost an est 300k job loss. Jobs bill what if bozo passed a pipeline that was shovel ready unlike his shovel ready that wasn;t ready
dem It would have passed but the democrats wanted to add to the bill. Every bill the dems want to add. Sneaking a higher tax on the rich is a no go.
Bill Clinton had a republican congress and they worked great together. This is a leadership problem. We have a president unwilling to work with the republicans. This problem will not go away if Obama is reelected. The house will remain republican.
yep all 180+ filibusters were engineered by the dems- sure thing ya betcha.
Dems said the bill was revenuw neutral(savings from other programs) reoublicans claimed it increased the deficit. At least get your talking points stright.
Question- what is the impact on the deficit by having a higher employment rate? many studies have shown that just cutting down unemployment due to the multiplier effect on money is cost effective EVEN if the govt "borrows" money to fund the program. Secondly at what point does something hit a "tipping point" where the psychological effects of lower unemployment boosts the economy all on its own?
These fools forget he had two years of a dem controlled house and senate to do with whatever they saw fit, but yet we blame the other guy. If you cant get it done get out.
Romney/Ryan 12
So when dems used fillibusters during W's term it was ok? how about the pipeline proj? talk about jobs, even the unions backed it. This pres and his minions just plain lie lie and blame others. Typical lib though, not my fault and its owed to me.
oilshark- please the sequestration was agreed to by Boehner and the RepubliCONS that was the deal that was cut on the debt ceilins so please understand what the heck you are talking about and quit blaming dems for everything because it ISNT SO
As usual though to the Libs who want all their spending bills passed without exception, it's all the Republicans fault. When has the Senate come up with one Budget to vote on? Why does Harry not bring one bill to the floor passed by the House? So who is really the obstructionists? It takes two to tango.
Also, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Discount rate stood at 0.5% when Obama took office. Interest rate cuts would not work to stimulate economy from -8.5% growth rate. The 1st round of stimulus halted negative growth in just over 6 months.
Slowest growth since Great Depression because of NO 2nd round of Stimulus. You can thank the TEA PARTY for that.
hey shaak, unlike you and your cronies i believe my party carries blame as well. Repubs were just as wasteful as dems over the past decade. Both parties made this mess together, however, Libs have turned into give me give me give me. I will not vote for anyone on either party that will not cut and balance the budgets and trim the waste and there is ALOT of waste. when the waste has been trimmed, if you need to raise taxes then, I might consider it, but to much of MY money is wasted for me to pay any % more.
oilshark-
1. the dems did not have a super majority for two years- closer to 6 mos is the correct answer. Brown from Mass was elected late Jan 2009.
2.if you check the facts during 2001 what was Bush's lead agenda- no child left behind- guess who co authered it- Ted Kennedy and it passed.
we have had the MOST filibusters in US History.
at least get educated and be able to defend your position with facts and not opinion. But if it wasnt for hot air 99% of your side wouldnt be able to post
Sure according to who msnbc. Brown has voted with the dems on certain issues and stating one bill that was cosponsered is hardly anything to get excited about. Hey, two weeks ago you guys said romney shot first aimed later, to bad he was right while you guys were still looking for your ding dong. That incident is the latest to prove how incompetent you really are.
Bill Clinton had a republican congress and they worked great together. This is a leadership problem. We have a president unwilling to work with the republicans. This problem will not go away if Obama is reelected. The house will remain republican.
So Kevin, when Congress, led by Newt Gingrich tried to push through their narrow minded agenda was stopped by President Clinton who asked that bills be pure and not laden with garbage that is cooperation? The Congress shut down under Gingrich because of stupid and silly stuff the Republicans put to Clinton for signature. Once the spending bills were sent to the White House void of the right wing agenda items Clinton signed them. The bills held up in the Senate are because Harry Reid knows that the Republicans won't accept anything but cut, cut, cut. FDR knew that a combination of spending cuts where necessary coupled with tax increases helped get us out of the Great Depression. The Koean War as well as the two World Wars were paid for by Americans buying bonds. The Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unfunded period. Yet money had to be spent. If you are spending and not increasing revenue to cover the expenditure you lose. That is what happened. Even Ronnie Reagan, the demigod of the right, raised taxes in order to stimulate the economy. Today's Republicans fail to raise taxes but want to cut everything in sight. That simply hasn't worked.
FDR never got us out of the depession. WW2 did, and right after the war the country went back into a recession.
Adler you are wrong about Harry Reid. It is all political with him. He refuses to give the house republicans credit for anything, he will not allow them to be the job creators. The war on coal and oil has crushed the economy and you are to blind to see it.
As for taxes. This is America, everyone needs to pay income tax. It is unamerican to force some to pay and others not to have to pay. We all reap the benefits of highways, police, etc. So we all need to pay our fair share.
As for the wars. You are beating a dead horse. Military spending is always high, reguardless of if we are in war or not. The military does not operate for free as some of you think it does. The cost of war is in lives, not money.
Raising taxes on the rich will not work either. We have a $16 trillion debt.
We could do a lot with $7 billion. That is the amount we pay in interest each week. What is your plan when there is no more money to borrow? We will have no choice but to cut everything.
Kevin...
'Correct' on St. Franklin D. Roosevelt !
'Correct' on the ridiculous Harry Reid.
'Correct' on taxes.
Now just sit back and wait for the rocket scientists of America to write that we are both 'RWNJ' idiot neocons. It simply comes with the territory.
Untrue. The recession in the 1982 was worse than the one that ended 3 years ago.
@Adler:
Clinton isn't running for president. Obama is and he has failed to follow the example of reaching across the aisle that Clinton set.
I think we have yet to see any good in this "good news". Reduced unemployment claims could just signal we have more people giving up.
The reduction of 13.2% in durable goods orders, partially influenced by by overall negative growth in aircraft orders, is really bad. The reduction indicates the economy remains stagnant at best. The loss of aircraft orders (probably the highest paid mfg jobs in the US) and the stagnation of other durable goods (prob 3rd paying) is a pretty bad sign.
Take that in conjunction with the revision and reduction of the GDP to 1.3%, and this tells me the country continues to go backwards at a slow pace.
The ugly is Obama killing Chris Stevens and 3 others because of his failure to heed warnings of attacks on 9-11, then jetting off to LV to fundraise, then lying about it for 2 weeks so it wouldn't have a negative impact on his campaign.
Maybe had Obama been taking his briefings, he would have known about the dangers in Libya and elsewhere, instead of spending all his time campaigning.
4000 dead in Iraq was bad news.
800,000 jobs lost per month was bad news.
Unemployment claims down is good news.
Obama up in the polls is good news.
More people out of work than when bozo took office baad news
Higher gas prices-bad news
Lower income for all americans- bad news
President that lies about terror attacks - bad news
Polls that lie to make you feel better for a few more months...Funny
The look on all libs faces when Romney is elected....PRiceless
hey Shaak how many dead in Afghan? how bout unemployment still above 8% and underemployment even higher? How bout the crummy GDP. GREAT NEWS. In dystopia
Shaak pom pomming for Obama, priceless
Tell us just how Obama killed Chris Stevens. I have never seen or heard such poppycock in my 66 years on this planet.
First of all Ambassador Stevens declined increased security in order to be closer to the Libyan people. He said it not me.
Ceasar,
You offer lots of criticisms. Have you any solutions to share with us. Be specific, please.
Now turn the clock back to those heady last days of Pres. Bush.
-8.5% growth
800,000 jobs lost per month
budget deficit of $1.3 trillion
Stock market falling to low of just over 6500
Auto industry almost in shut down mode
Banks teetering on edge of financial ruin
Wow, we're obviously in much better shape now, don't you agree.
Im as specific as you Shaak.
tell that to 23million people. Obama and the Golden Age eh Shaak? keep picking that turd up by the clean end
shaak Typical democrat talking points. You give all the credit to Bush but fail to mention the house and senate leaders. Nancy and Harry had as much or more to do with the mess of 2008.
You fail to mention the cause of the mess also. Freddie and Fannie...Barny Franks and Chris Dodd.
GM is not out of the woods. Their investments in stupid projects like the Volt has cost the tax payer dearly.
The one single thing that is crushing the economy is the price of gas. You along with every democrat on earth raised hell when gas got to $4 a gallon under Bush. He did manage to get the price down to $1.80 a gallon before he left office, because he opened up drilling sites in Alaska. Obama closed those sites and gas went back up, but that is OK to now have gas at $4 a gallon because a democrat is in office. Hypocrisy at its finest.
shaak...
I've read your line about 500 times on this site..."800,000 lost jobs per month".
The word "per" indicates repetition...can you tell us how many months in a row 800,000 jobs were lost ??? The way folks like you (some say "750,000 jobs per month") put it, it sounds long term.
...............THE GOOD......................THE BAD............................THE UGLY............
...........President Obama...........Gov. Romney.......................Rep. Ryan...........
FORWARD
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
You are delusional.
Jersey, most of these people on here are.
You Said: Jersey, most of these people on here are.
No, only Jersey Girl 1, OilShark1, Ceasar Augustus and a few other RWNJ's.
No Feisty on that list renders it moot.
jersey girl and oil shark- can either of you show us ONE country that has used your reduce deficits first approach where it has succeeded?
two years ago your side was yelling if the deficit was not REDUCED NOW the dollar was going to be worthless and no one in the world would buy our debt.
Last year during the debt ceiling fiasco(thank you RepubliCON party) if we didnt do things YOUR way hyperinflation was upon us.
Can you tell us ONE prediction that your side has gotten correct.
Why the 2012 election was a slam dunk for your side and a continuation of the 2010 election trend.
You dont understand economics. You do not understand history.
It was Dick Cheney, Neocon extraordinaire, who opined that deficits didn't matter. So why are his drooling followers so anal retentive now about reducing deficits?
Adler: the answer is very simple, deficits only matter if there is a Democrat in the White House. If a GOP is President, then you can cut revenue, get into two land wars, give the elderly an additional entitlement and not put any of it into the budget. Then you can claim you did not add to the deficit, even though the national debt escalates.
Then, when there is a historic recession, there will be no room for stimulus to pull the country back into economic recovery, you can filibuster all recovery efforts and you can blame the President for doing nothing. That way you can complete your number one goal of making the President have only one term, regardless of the cost to the country.
The GOP has only one goal, getting reelected at all costs. It will destroy the country so long as it can rule over the carcass is leaves behind.
Yes buddy, its called AMERICA.
Ness flash, we bought most of our debt using soc sec and medicare/ medicade.
Most world analyst suggest it is coming..even clinton has mentioned it..moron
Yes, two weeks ago we said it was a terror attack, you guys blames a video noone heard of until then. In 2002 Bush said that the fair housing act of 96 was going to crash the real estate market, you guys cried racisim...guys what, it crashed.
I understand economics very well, and history even better, No one said slam dunk, not with all the mooches out there. History says this is Carter 2.
oilshark- news flash. Social security is a trust fund and not part of the budget process therefore not part of the deficit.
but heck, who ever called your side anything but low information voters?
as you said you know history and economics but have no answer for my comments- name one country that has used your deficit reduce plan where it worked or why after your side makes DEFINITE predictions that fail to happen that anyone should place any credence in your logic.
PS- pls go to youtube and watch Bush stating under his administration a poor person can buy a home just as nice as a rich man's home.
PPS- you have fha and va loans all of which were and are required to carry mortgage insurance(protects the bank not the owner) if there is less then a 20% equity position and you have private for profit banks creating subprime loans that were the ONLY vehicle available for Ninja loans. Which of the two do you think created the toxic assets that blew up the system?
More spin from the Obama fan club... durable goods down 13.2%... but don't worry, Oblunder is focused like a laser.... well, on his golf game anyway...
fed up- it is a fact that the republican leadership met the day Obama was inaugurated to devise a strategy to make his Presidency a failure. Do you honestly believe that 180+ and counting filibusters were a coincidence?
Imangine an election with a 6.5-7.0% unemployment rate(projection of cbo and independent economists like Mark Zandi head of Moody's analytical unit and former economic advisor to McCain). It would be a cakewalk for Obama.
It was your party that placed Republican welfare ahead of country.
Don't cry. Democrats did the exact same thing when Bush was in office. Its politics. What did Nancy and Harry do the last 2 yrs of Bush?
Now for the Truth!
2012
Official Unemployed: 12,439,741
Actual Unemployed: 22,568,961
2008
Offical Unemployed: 10,224,497
Actual Unemployed: 13,538,541
Romney's ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit
Bloomberg: Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit, by Jesse Drucker: