PDA

View Full Version : Obama Jobs report. Sounds bad on first look


HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 07:12 AM
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/jobs-report-trainwreck/574026

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 07:37 AM
This doesn't sound bad it is bad. Horrible Horrible Horrible..

A couple more of these and we will be welcoming President Romney.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 07:42 AM
49,000 fewer jobs created the past 2 months than previously reported?

I'd like to buy stock in the words "unexpectedly" and "surprisingly" every month right before jobs numbers are posted.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 07:57 AM
49,000 fewer jobs created the past 2 months than previously reported?

I'd like to buy stock in the words "unexpectedly" and "surprisingly" every month right before jobs numbers are posted.


"You know, in the private sector, you go to jail for what used they used to winkingly call "managing" earnings - using accounting gimmickry to nudge revenues and expenses from period to period in order to meet analysts' expectations or smooth volatility.

But in the realm of government data reporting, the art of data massage has become impressively robust.

For the 59th week of the last 60, the previous initial jobless claim report was revised upward, from 386,000 to 389,000. And once again, this enables the Labor Department to report a week-over-week decline in new jobless claims, from the adjusted 389,000 to an unadjusted 388,000. Upon next week's revision, this week will almost certainly have shown another increase.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because last week, the government reported a decline of 2,000 (but only after upwardly revising the previous week by 8,000).

Looking back over the last five weeks, the cumulative reported weekly changes (from previous weeks' adjusted data to the new unadjusted numbers) showed a net decline of 1,000, despite an actual cumulative net increase of 24,000. And that's without the 5th revision factored in, at which point the cumulative increase will be closer to 30,000.

In addition to serving as fodder for another round of "Jobless Claims Fall" headlines, this week's underestimate has the additional side effect of avoiding the probably true headline "Jobless Claims Reach New 2012 High" from being written (at least for another week). They started at 390,000 in early January and, assuming next week brings an upward revision of more than 2,000 (revisions have ranged from +3,000 to +10,000 over the last month), then we're already sitting at year-to-date highs.

The lie of unadjusted unemployment claims at least used to be a predictable one. For the last year or so, the upward revision was almost invariably 3,000 or 4,000. While last week's oops was only 3,000, the two preceeding weeks were truly wild pitches that needed revisions of 8,000 and 10,000. So we no longer have the luxury of appplying a known truth adjustment factor to reveal the real data. Alas, the only thing we know for sure is that initial unemployment claims are some amount higher than 388,000."

Fairplay
06-01-2012, 08:11 AM
In general how many jobs should be created monthly and lets presume it is in normal economic conditions.

petegz28
06-01-2012, 08:16 AM
In general how many jobs should be created monthly and lets presume it is in normal economic conditions.

Right now most economisits would probably tell you we need to be creating 300k-350k jobs a month to get the economy really growing.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 08:17 AM
In general how many jobs should be created monthly and lets presume it is in normal economic conditions.

It takes almost 90,000 per month just to keep the employment level flat due to new people entering the workforce (minus retirees leaving) plus immigration.

Fairplay
06-01-2012, 08:19 AM
Thank you gentlemen for your quick responses.

petegz28
06-01-2012, 08:19 AM
It's safe to say that Obama's policies are not having the effect he wants. When you hear business people talk from CEO's to Mutual Fund Managers and the like the one phrase that is constantly repeated is "confusion about future policy" or similar. Business are making record profits because they have very lean staffs they are working into the ground. They refuse to hire though because our government has provided nothing of certainty related to economic policy.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 08:24 AM
The U.S. economy added just 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations of 150,000 job gains, according to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Not only did BLS report terrible numbers for May, but it made downward revisions to previous months job growth numbers, which were already considered weak. The economy is now said to have added 143,000 jobs in March (instead of 154,000) and just 77,000 jobs in April (instead of 115,000).

The unemployment rate crept up slightly to 8.2 percent.

The awful numbers, coming on top of a downward revision in first quarter economic growth to 1.9 percent, make President Obama's reelection campaign a lot more difficult and play right into the hands of Mitt Romney's economic message.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/jobs-report-trainwreck/574026


Just wait until they revise May's numbers downward.

Of course those numbers will be buried somewhere in the back pages of the NYT, just like always.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 08:31 AM
By the way, isn't it about time for an article about Romney shoving another boy when he was 6 years old?

qabbaan
06-01-2012, 08:37 AM
Even the heavily massaged unemployment rate figure ticked upward. And this is still not a measure of true unemployment. U6 unemployment increased from 14.5% to 14.8%. Three times the increase of the heavily managed "unemployment rate" figure. When Obama took office U6 was 14.2%. Today it's 14.8%.

Looking closer, U6 had actually been trickling downward since last year but now it's rising again. Still, it's a far cry from the 8-9% that typifies the prosperous period between 2000-2008.

AndChiefs
06-01-2012, 08:50 AM
Even the heavily massaged unemployment rate figure ticked upward. And this is still not a measure of true unemployment. U6 unemployment increased from 14.5% to 14.8%. Three times the increase of the heavily managed "unemployment rate" figure. When Obama took office U6 was 14.2%. Today it's 14.8%.

Looking closer, U6 had actually been trickling downward since last year but now it's rising again. Still, it's a far cry from the 8-9% that typifies the prosperous period between 2000-2008.

It's Bush's fault. We should start seeing Obama's policies take effect by Year 6 or so. Just have to be patient.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 08:56 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 09:05 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

That all you got, ambulance chaser?

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 09:06 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

Because there isn't any?

Bewbies
06-01-2012, 09:06 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

I'd go with sick of this disaster in the White House, but to each his own. As bad as Bush was D's could only dream Obama could be that good.

Cave Johnson
06-01-2012, 09:46 AM
It's safe to say that Obama's policies are not having the effect he wants. When you hear business people talk from CEO's to Mutual Fund Managers and the like the one phrase that is constantly repeated is "confusion about future policy" or similar. Business are making record profits because they have very lean staffs they are working into the ground. They refuse to hire though because our government has provided nothing of certainty related to economic policy.

Assuming you're even remotely correct, I don't buy "government uncertainty" as a legit reason not to hire. It may be a politically expedient reason, but the real reason is economic uncertainty due to the impending Euro-tastrophe and global slowdown.

It's not like Obama's going to turn America into Zimbabwe.

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 09:47 AM
It takes almost 90,000 per month just to keep the employment level flat due to new people entering the workforce (minus retirees leaving) plus immigration.

I thought it was more than that, like 150,000-200,000. Could be wrong though

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 09:49 AM
It's safe to say that Obama's policies are not having the effect he wants. When you hear business people talk from CEO's to Mutual Fund Managers and the like the one phrase that is constantly repeated is "confusion about future policy" or similar. Business are making record profits because they have very lean staffs they are working into the ground. They refuse to hire though because our government has provided nothing of certainty related to economic policy.

I am curious once the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare how that may impact hiring.

Donger
06-01-2012, 09:51 AM
Yes! Go double-dip, go!

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 09:53 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

Nobody is cheering for bad news. We are asking for a spade to be called what it is.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 09:56 AM
I thought it was more than that, like 150,000-200,000. Could be wrong though

That sounds more like total population increase, not labor force increase.

Cave Johnson
06-01-2012, 10:10 AM
Yes! Go double-dip, go!

Why are you so cheerful?

petegz28
06-01-2012, 10:10 AM
I am curious once the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare how that may impact hiring.

Honestly I think it could spur hiring to a point. If companies opt to pay the penalty as opposed to paying benefits it will leave money to hire. That sounds good but the end result to the consumer may not be.

Donger
06-01-2012, 10:12 AM
Why are you so cheerful?

I don't mind a little short-term pain in order to get long term relief.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 10:16 AM
Why are you so cheerful?

He's a front-running, bandwagon fan.

KC native
06-01-2012, 10:20 AM
OMG OBAMA IZ A SOCIULIZT AND IZ MEZSING UP EMPLOYMINT NUMBERZ!!!!!!

Oh hey, it's this thread again. Seriously, go read how employment data is collected and the cavaets with the reports. It's on their website fucksticks. Bls.gov

ChiefsCountry
06-01-2012, 10:27 AM
I don't mind a little short-term pain in order to get long term relief.

This. If it gets that turd Obama out of office, the better we are off as a country.

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 10:27 AM
On January 3rd 2007 the day the democrats took control of BOTH the House and the Senate the unemployment rate was 4.6%...the GDP for the previous qrt. was 3.5% and the economy had just completed 52 consecutive months of job creation and only 26 million Americans were on food stamps.

We are now living the rest of the story.

petegz28
06-01-2012, 10:27 AM
OMG OBAMA IZ A SOCIULIZT AND IZ MEZSING UP EMPLOYMINT NUMBERZ!!!!!!

Oh hey, it's this thread again. Seriously, go read how employment data is collected and the cavaets with the reports. It's on their website ****sticks. Bls.gov

The porblem politically is Obama is out to tout every UE report that shows some meager gains. He has to take the bad with the good. He can't say don't looke at why the UE rate dropped when it dropps but go look at the report when it goes up.

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 10:28 AM
This. If it gets that turd Obama out of office, the better we are off as a country.

Its more than just Obama....but getting him out will help.

Donger
06-01-2012, 10:31 AM
I only pause to comment that during the Bush years, when Democrats posted anything like this, we'd get hammered with "you WANT this bad news. You love it! You're rooting for us to lose in Iraq!! Why don't you ever post any of the good news?!?"

So if Romney wins and Democrats start once again posting the bad news, please check your hypocrisy at the door. That is all.

I take it you do make a distinction between rooting for bad economic news which will hopefully lead to a change in POTUS and rooting for bad news in warfare, right?

petegz28
06-01-2012, 10:33 AM
I lay the majority of this on the Fed Reserve. Their feeble attemts at QE I, II and Operation Twist have proven to be pure failures. No one can earn anything on their savings, the weak $ is killing everyday people at the gas pump and grocery store and it has not spurred anything in the housing or employment areas. Congress shares a lot of the blame as well.

Cave Johnson
06-01-2012, 10:35 AM
On January 3rd 2007 the day the democrats took control of BOTH the House and the Senate the unemployment rate was 4.6%...the GDP for the previous qrt. was 3.5% and the economy had just completed 52 consecutive months of job creation and only 26 million Americans were on food stamps.

We are now living the rest of the story.

Yes, the Democrats caused the worldwide real estate bubble, said bubble popping, and the resulting financial meltdown.

F'ing Democrats.

Cave Johnson
06-01-2012, 10:35 AM
I don't mind a little short-term pain in order to get long term relief.

How much is Romney gonna cut your taxes, Donger?

Donger
06-01-2012, 10:38 AM
How much is Romney gonna cut your taxes, Donger?

I don't believe that my taxes will go down at all under President Romney. Why do you ask?

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Honestly I think it could spur hiring to a point. If companies opt to pay the penalty as opposed to paying benefits it will leave money to hire. That sounds good but the end result to the consumer may not be.

That is what I am thinking. Regardless of the outcome the uncertainty will be gone..well most of it.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 10:42 AM
I take it you do make a distinction between rooting for bad economic news which will hopefully lead to a change in POTUS and rooting for bad news in warfare, right?


So it's ok to root for bad economic news, which means people are losing their jobs, homes, businesses, etc., but not for bad news in warfare which presumably means people are losing lives and limbs?


Gotta say, I don't generally root for either regardless of who the POTUS is.

Donger
06-01-2012, 10:43 AM
So it's ok to root for bad economic news, which means people are losing their jobs, homes, businesses, etc., but not for bad news in warfare which presumably means people are losing lives and limbs?


Gotta say, I don't generally root for either regardless of who the POTUS is.

I think one is worse than the other, sure. Don't you?

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 10:45 AM
F'ing Democrats.


Those facts are devasting to liberals.

Stewie
06-01-2012, 10:52 AM
http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/clip_image001.jpg

Otter
06-01-2012, 10:53 AM
I'm a Cisco Engineer with 2 degrees in computer science and hold a CCNA and CWNA certs that just got done establishing himself in Colorado. I had a job before moving out but always explore my options.

There are no jobs right now. That I can say for sure. Whoever is trying to tell you different is bullshiting you. It's bleak. Not trying to brag (it's not like I'm a brain surgeon) but I used to have people knocking down my door. The phone doesn't even ring anymore even with an immaculate background and job history.

It's scary.

Stewie
06-01-2012, 10:53 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_TKYvC3hiwc/T8i_QHiytSI/AAAAAAAAHVc/xgJ6KbD51No/s1600/JCH.PNG

Cave Johnson
06-01-2012, 10:59 AM
Those facts are devasting to liberals.

What facts? That the economy was doing well until factors TOTALLY UNRELATED TO WHICH PARTY WAS IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS led to a deep (and ongoing) global recession?

I'm done discussing the issue with you, as you're clearly one step above functionally retarded.

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 11:03 AM
On January 3rd 2007 the day the democrats took control of BOTH the House and the Senate the unemployment rate was 4.6%...the GDP for the previous qrt. was 3.5% and the economy had just completed 52 consecutive months of job creation and only 26 million Americans were on food stamps.

We are now living the rest of the story.

Can you point to a bill the Dem congress passed and Bush signed that destroyed the economy?

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 11:13 AM
What facts? That the economy was doing well until factors TOTALLY UNRELATED TO WHICH PARTY WAS IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS led to a deep (and ongoing) global recession?

I'm done discussing the issue with you, as you're clearly one step above functionally retarded.

:LOL:

Do you think Obamacare would have been passed if the Republicans were in control of the house or the Senate ? That Obamacare is sure creating alot of jobs and the enviroment for bsn. owners to want to hire more employees.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 11:26 AM
What facts? That the economy was doing well until factors TOTALLY UNRELATED TO WHICH PARTY WAS IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS led to a deep (and ongoing) global recession?



Oh my!

We've gone from "It's Bush's fault!" to "It's Nobody's fault!"

LMAO

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 11:33 AM
:LOL:

Do you think Obamacare would have been passed if the Republicans were in control of the house or the Senate ? That Obamacare is sure creating alot of jobs and the enviroment for bsn. owners to want to hire more employees.

Well they did pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill which will cost almost a trillion dollars.

I will ask again what bill did the Dems pass that Bush signed that caused the recession?

You do realize the recession started in 2007 2 years before Obama was in office don't you?

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 11:34 AM
I think one is worse than the other, sure. Don't you?


Forced to pick between the two, under most circumstances yes military adversity is worse than some kind of bad economic data. But which is worse, the Great Depression or a slight setback in a very small war?

It's comical that you're trying to parse this however. When Democrats were pointing out what a complete fucking disaster the situation in Iraq was -- WHICH IT IN FACT WAS!! -- we were accused of being anti-American etc. Apparently we weren't even supposed to DISCUSS it.

Of course, when BushCo finally woke up to reality (about a 18 months later than when one would have thought), and instituted the surge, that's fine. :spock:

Besides, Democrats were NOT rooting for the bad news from Iraq. Maybe you're rooting for a weak/mediocre/horrible economy from now to November, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't anybody on the board who actually hoped that the military situation in Iraq would remain bad just for the sake of an election, no matter what Republicans here thought.

Bottom line ot me is that Americans are absolutely going to -- in fact are supposed to and should -- discuss when things are going badly as well as when they're are going well. TALKING about either is fine. ROOTING for either is not fine.

Donger
06-01-2012, 11:38 AM
Forced to pick between the two, under most circumstances yes military adversity is worse than some kind of bad economic data. But which is worse, the Great Depression or a slight setback in a very small war?

It's comical that you're trying to parse this however. When Democrats were pointing out what a complete ****ing disaster the situation in Iraq was -- WHICH IT IN FACT WAS!! -- we were accused of being anti-American etc. Apparently we weren't even supposed to DISCUSS it.

Of course, when BushCo finally woke up to reality (about a 18 months later than when one would have thought), and instituted the surge, that's fine. :spock:

Besides, Democrats were NOT rooting for the bad news from Iraq. Maybe you're rooting for a weak/mediocre/horrible economy from now to November, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't anybody on the board who actually hoped that the military situation in Iraq would remain bad just for the sake of an election, no matter what Republicans here thought.

Bottom line ot me is that Americans are absolutely going to -- in fact are supposed to and should -- discuss when things are going badly as well as when they're are going well. TALKING about either is fine. ROOTING for either is not fine.

Oh, I think some Democrats were rooting for Iraq to be and continue to be a cluster**** when Bush was in office.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer that Obama get caught up in some scandal and have to resign than have a crappy economy. But, if having a continued crappy economy going into the election is what I have to pick from, I'll take it.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 11:38 AM
On January 3rd 2007 the day the democrats took control of BOTH the House and the Senate the unemployment rate was 4.6%...the GDP for the previous qrt. was 3.5% and the economy had just completed 52 consecutive months of job creation and only 26 million Americans were on food stamps.

We are now living the rest of the story.


I hate to tell you this, but the real estate crash was coming regardless of which party held whichever house of Congress in 2007-08. The seeds had been planted long before.

Of course, only a myopic partisan lunatic would argue otherwise, but if you want to, go ahead.

qabbaan
06-01-2012, 11:41 AM
I know the economy was tough when Obama took office, but he made a hell of a lot of lofty promises. At some point - say after an entire term as president - you have to judge a president based on results. 4 years is a hell of a lot of time economically and not one thing has changed, despite the gratuitous spending. He hasn't even made a dent in these problems after waging a messiah-like campaign to save us all from the horror of the 2000-2008 economy.

Put up or shut up started in 2008. 2012 should be GTFO.

He likes to bash CEOs, but if he were a CEO he'd have been canned by now.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 11:42 AM
Oh, I think some Democrats were rooting for Iraq to be and continue to be a cluster**** when Bush was in office.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer that Obama get caught up in some scandal and have to resign than have a crappy economy. But, if having a continued crappy economy going into the election is what I have to pick from, I'll take it.


Thought Iraq was a mistake from day one. Thought it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time. Thought the aftermath was a complete fiasco because of horrific planning. "Wait, remove the guy from power and the country won't coalesce together to cheer for the US knocking this bastard off and transition easily to a democracy, even though Iran is next door?!? WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

Fucking retarded.

But I wasn't happy to be proven right. Ultimately sufficient forces were brought in to occupy and now, a FULL DECADE LATER, ***MAYBE*** the country will survive our withdrawal. Or maybe it'll go full Islamic nutcake. Who knows for certain?

Don't think many Democrats were rooting for the enemy and I'm fully confident none were rooting for any American soldiers to die or get hurt. I know demonizing one's political opponents is par for the course around here, but except for some extremists here and there, I don't see it.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 11:43 AM
I know the economy was tough when Obama took office, but he made a hell of a lot of lofty promises. At some point - say after an entire term as president - you have to judge a president based on results. 4 years is a hell of a lot of time economically and not one thing has changed, despite the gratuitous spending. He hasn't even made a dent in these problems after waging a messiah-like campaign to save us all from the horror of the 2000-2008 economy.

Put up or shut up started in 2008. 2012 should be GTFO.

He likes to bash CEOs, but if he were a CEO he'd have been canned by now.


err...alot has changed actually. We were spiralling down hill very fast. The situation is stabilized and seems to be slowly, SLOWLY recovering. Of course, the rest of the world is having serious issues also which isn't helping us one damn bit either as all these dominoes are increasingly connected.

Stewie
06-01-2012, 11:44 AM
Well they did pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill which will cost almost a trillion dollars.

I will ask again what bill did the Dems pass that Bush signed that caused the recession?

You do realize the recession started in 2007 2 years before Obama was in office don't you?

Really bad policy takes about 10 years to cause damage. The conscious effort to ease credit in the mid 90s (not via markets, but Fed manipulation) caused this problem and it has become worldwide. "Everyone should own a home" was the mantra. Fanny and Freddie were the vehicles that allowed this "feel good" policy to become a reality. People that had no business owning homes, or homes they couldn't afford were the heroes until the plate-spinning stopped.

There was never a real estate bubble. It was a credit bubble that will never come back to save the people underwater in their homes. Derivatives off of these loans and other obscure vehicles is what's killing banks and sovereign nations.

The big banks are bankrupt except for criminal accounting that is being allowed by this administration.

Notice the y-axis is in TRILLION$.

http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/clip_image002.gif

Donger
06-01-2012, 11:44 AM
Thought Iraq was a mistake from day one. Thought it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time. Thought the aftermath was a complete fiasco because of horrific planning. "Wait, remove the guy from power and the country won't coalesce together to cheer for the US knocking this bastard off and transition easily to a democracy, even though Iran is next door?!? WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

****ing retarded.

But I wasn't happy to be proven right. Ultimately sufficient forces were brought in to occupy and now, a FULL DECADE LATER, ***MAYBE*** the country will survive our withdrawal. Or maybe it'll go full Islamic nutcake. Who knows for certain?

Don't think many Democrats were rooting for the enemy and I'm fully confident none were rooting for any American soldiers to die or get hurt. I know demonizing one's political opponents is par for the course around here, but except for some extremists here and there, I don't see it.

Or, I read what you posted and made my "Go double-dip, go!" post.

:p

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 11:48 AM
I hate to tell you this, but the real estate crash was coming regardless of which party held whichever house of Congress in 2007-08. The seeds had been planted long before.

Of course, only a myopic partisan lunatic would argue otherwise, but if you want to, go ahead.

You mean like every Democrat talking head and Democrat Senator and Congressman and our President blaming Bush.

dirk digler
06-01-2012, 11:52 AM
I know the economy was tough when Obama took office, but he made a hell of a lot of lofty promises. At some point - say after an entire term as president - you have to judge a president based on results. 4 years is a hell of a lot of time economically and not one thing has changed, despite the gratuitous spending. He hasn't even made a dent in these problems after waging a messiah-like campaign to save us all from the horror of the 2000-2008 economy.

Put up or shut up started in 2008. 2012 should be GTFO.

He likes to bash CEOs, but if he were a CEO he'd have been canned by now.

As an Obama supporter I accept that. I judge POTUS like I do NFL head coaches. I can certainly understand why people would want to change head coaches after they went 2-14, 8-8, 9-7, and 8-8.

alpha_omega
06-01-2012, 12:02 PM
As an Obama supporter I accept that. I judge POTUS like I do NFL head coaches. I can certainly understand why people would want to change head coaches after they went 2-14, 8-8, 9-7, and 8-8.

Interesting way to approach it.

However, i would say that America has been sub-500 over the last 3 years.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 12:02 PM
Or, I read what you posted and made my "Go double-dip, go!" post.

:p



You goddamn trolling sneaky Limey bastard. I've only been watching you sucker people for 10 years.

Rep to you, have a great weekend, and go to hell.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 12:05 PM
You mean like every Democrat talking head and Democrat Senator and Congressman and our President blaming Bush.


Bush had a slice of the blame. He'd been President for 7 years before the onslaught, of course he gets a slice.

But it's a relatively small slice, in my book. Democrats also get a slice. Stupid homeowners get a slice. Crooked mortgage brokerage firms get a slice. Investment banks priming the pump too. Bad regulators also get a slice. It's a very big pie and there's plenty for everyone...

But people in office from 2007 on? The train had left the station and there was no stopping it by then.

Note that doesn't leave Democrats blameless. But not because of anythign anyone did from 2007 on.

Aries Walker
06-01-2012, 12:06 PM
I'll wait until someone more reputable than the Examiner chimes in, thanks.

Donger
06-01-2012, 12:06 PM
You goddamn trolling sneaky Limey bastard. I've only been watching you sucker people for 10 years.

Rep to you, have a great weekend, and go to hell.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. You have a peachy weekend too (sucker).

Stewie
06-01-2012, 12:15 PM
I'll wait until someone more reputable than the Examiner chimes in, thanks.

How about the markets chiming in?

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2985/markets.jpg

LVNHACK
06-01-2012, 12:29 PM
[QUOTE=Amnorix;8652224]Thought Iraq was a mistake from day one. Thought it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time. Thought the aftermath was a complete fiasco because of horrific planning. "Wait, remove the guy from power and the country won't coalesce together to cheer for the US knocking this bastard off and transition easily to a democracy, even though Iran is next door?!? WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

****ing retarded.

But I wasn't happy to be proven right. Ultimately sufficient forces were brought in to occupy and now, a FULL DECADE LATER, ***MAYBE*** the country will survive our withdrawal. Or maybe it'll go full Islamic nutcake. Who knows for certain?

QUOTE]

Nice post....But as long as I've been here now and I spent plenty of time LIVING outside the wire....Iraqis can't cope on their own....Saddam created the perfect welfare state and now that they have their "freedom" they're more ****ed then old Hogans goat...

BTW....I'll give you 3 guess's who met their end on those gallows in my avatar

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 12:29 PM
err...alot has changed actually. We were spiralling down hill very fast. The situation is stabilized and seems to be slowly, SLOWLY recovering. Of course, the rest of the world is having serious issues also which isn't helping us one damn bit either as all these dominoes are increasingly connected.

Is this your way of congratulating Obama for hitting rock bottom on the economy...by calling what happened "stabilizing"?

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 12:47 PM
Is this your way of congratulating Obama for hitting rock bottom on the economy...by calling what happened "stabilizing"?


We can both argue about it endlessly, but there's no way to know that a Republican administration would've hit a bottom that was any better. Austerity meaures in Europe (which I don't really remember any Republican actually advocating for) have met with very mixed results to say the least and now people are pushing hard for stimulus.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 12:54 PM
We can both argue about it endlessly, but there's no way to know that a Republican administration would've hit a bottom that was any better. Austerity meaures in Europe (which I don't really remember any Republican actually advocating for) have met with very mixed results to say the least and now people are pushing hard for stimulus.

I agree that there's no way of knowing what would have happened if, say, Mitt Romney had won the last election. I'm not giving Obama any credit for hitting rock bottom just because someone else theoretically may have done just as bad of a job, though.

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 01:04 PM
I agree that there's no way of knowing what would have happened if, say, Mitt Romney had won the last election. I'm not giving Obama any credit for hitting rock bottom just because someone else theoretically may have done just as bad of a job, though.


Right, but you're assuming Obama clearly hit a lower bottom than someone else would have. That's just an assumption without any support.

One example is what would have happened had the Administration not stepped into the auto industry fiasco which could have dragged the entire economy into a much deeper pit, at least theoretically. Or if they had failed to adopt any, or as much, of a stimulus program.

No matter what the administration or their policies, eventually a bottom is reached, and then the climb out begins. Because you assume Obama's policies suck and were obviously worse than whatever a Republican would have done, you assume the bottom we hit was worse, and the recovery slower. You can't prove it, however, and neither can I.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 01:07 PM
Right, but you're assuming Obama clearly hit a lower bottom than someone else would have. That's just an assumption without any support.

One example is what would have happened had the Administration not stepped into the auto industry fiasco which could have dragged the entire economy into a much deeper pit, at least theoretically. Or if they had failed to adopt any, or as much, of a stimulus program.

No matter what the administration or their policies, eventually a bottom is reached, and then the climb out begins. Because you assume Obama's policies suck and were obviously worse than whatever a Republican would have done, you assume the bottom we hit was worse, and the recovery slower. You can't prove it, however, and neither can I.

Not at all. I'm saying they were abysmal on their own merits, and I'm not grading him on some sort of curve.

Donger
06-01-2012, 01:09 PM
Right, but you're assuming Obama clearly hit a lower bottom than someone else would have. That's just an assumption without any support.

One example is what would have happened had the Administration not stepped into the auto industry fiasco which could have dragged the entire economy into a much deeper pit, at least theoretically. Or if they had failed to adopt any, or as much, of a stimulus program.

No matter what the administration or their policies, eventually a bottom is reached, and then the climb out begins. Because you assume Obama's policies suck and were obviously worse than whatever a Republican would have done, you assume the bottom we hit was worse, and the recovery slower. You can't prove it, however, and neither can I.

The problem for Obama in all this is that he made some very specific predictions which would result from his being elected. Have any actually come to fruition?

alpha_omega
06-01-2012, 01:19 PM
...Obama's policies suck...

Ok....Amnorix is getting it now.






Sorry Amno...i just couldn't help taking your words out of context! Thanks for playing along.

Chief Henry
06-01-2012, 01:24 PM
Bush had a slice of the blame. He'd been President for 7 years before the onslaught, of course he gets a slice.

But it's a relatively small slice, in my book. Democrats also get a slice. Stupid homeowners get a slice. Crooked mortgage brokerage firms get a slice. Investment banks priming the pump too. Bad regulators also get a slice. It's a very big pie and there's plenty for everyone...

But people in office from 2007 on? The train had left the station and there was no stopping it by then.

Note that doesn't leave Democrats blameless. But not because of anythign anyone did from 2007 on.

A very good read on this problem is "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times financial reporter Gretchen Morgenson. This book names names and gives concrete reasons why they name the names.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2012, 01:46 PM
Yes, the Democrats caused the worldwide real estate bubble, said bubble popping, and the resulting financial meltdown.

F'ing Democrats.

Alan Greenspan at the helm of the Federal Reserve.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2012, 01:48 PM
I don't mind a little short-term pain in order to get long term relief.

LMAO Exactly what Ron Paul proscribed. You're a loon then. ROFL:evil:

Amnorix
06-01-2012, 02:05 PM
A very good read on this problem is "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times financial reporter Gretchen Morgenson. This book names names and gives concrete reasons why they name the names.


I've read several books on the real estate bubble, including All the Devils are Here, written by senior writers for Fortune, the Big Short, by Michael Lewis, and other books that are more specifically focused on key actors (such as Bear Stearns).

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2012, 02:14 PM
Oh, I think some Democrats were rooting for Iraq to be and continue to be a cluster**** when Bush was in office.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer that Obama get caught up in some scandal and have to resign than have a crappy economy. But, if having a continued crappy economy going into the election is what I have to pick from, I'll take it.Do you have evidence of Democrats rooting for failure (like you are)?

Stewie
06-01-2012, 02:15 PM
Reckless Endangerment is a hack job of a book... as are all books trying to figure out why this shit happened.

Read When Genius Failed... to get a glimpse into the power of banks over the dumbassery of the Democratic party. It shows how stupid the Clinton administration was when it came to monetary policy. It was the turning point in the banks ruling/voting/controlling the Democratic way. Nearly all big bank executives are registered democrats so they can vote in primaries. It's political registration over the stupid people they can control. It's a fucking joke and the dems don't get it.

Donger
06-01-2012, 02:25 PM
Do you have evidence of Democrats rooting for failure (like you are)?

You mean now that there's a Democrat in the WH? No. I would expect there to be.

IIRC, there was a poll of Democrats who were asked whether or not they wanted Bush to fail. The majority did.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Assuming you're even remotely correct, I don't buy "government uncertainty" as a legit reason not to hire. It may be a politically expedient reason, but the real reason is economic uncertainty due to the impending Euro-tastrophe and global slowdown.

It's not like Obama's going to turn America into Zimbabwe.

You must be on drugs

HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 03:47 PM
President Obama attributed the rise in unemployment to European struggles and high gas prices in the United States, when he spoke to Minnesotans today.

“As we learned in today’s jobs report, we’re still not creating them as fast as we want,” Obama said. “We had high gas prices, a month two months ago,” he said, “and then, most prominently, most recently, we’ve had a crisis in Europe’s economy that is having an impact worldwide; and it’s starting to cast a shadow on our own [economy] as well.”

“We can’t fully control what happens in other parts of the world,” Obama said, again citing “what’s going on in Europe.”

He then blamed Congress for failing to pass his jobs bill. “Congress should’ve passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job,” he said.

Keep reading…http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-europe-cast-shadow-us-economy/574446