Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1261655 wrote:More wisdom bestowed upon me by Manhattan Buckeye. Hopefully someday, I will learn.
  
  Is it agreeable that modest job growth is better than massive job loss?
  
  If that is the case, see for yourself in this graph, or, if you'd prefer, there is a chart available in the link.
  
  
  http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
  
  
  So looks to me about 500,000 job difference in the "better than four years ago" category.

  Do you even understand your own link? That is one month net change graph. Do you even understand what the word "net" and "month over month" means?
• Belly35

  

  Take your graphs and charts shove then up your ass, wake up, look around, drive down the street,stores closed, shops gone, company locked up, unemploymnet and forecloser what you see now is real Obama agenda. More foreclose to come, more business cutting back and harder times for the poor and new poor everyone in general thanks to Obama Idea of a Poverty America. What you think is doing OK now is a false comfort. wait foire the added taxes to support those failed agenda with no sign of increase in pay ....
  Prosperty, profit and wealth in Obama world is only for the few not for all ....
• isadore

  Gosh a ruddies what do we have. We have the republican party, george bush and his minions. For 8 years they produced a narrow and false with tax cuts, mainly to the rich, deregulation and friedman’s continuous lowering of interest helping produce a housing bubble. And what do we get at the end of this administration, maldistribution of income, a collapsed housing market, financial system near collapse, major automakers bankrupt and a rapidly rising unemployment. The basic tools of fiscal and monetary policy are spent, having been overused to produce a fake façade of prosperity. An economy in free fall was the Republican gift to President Obama.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1261729 wrote: And what do we get at the end of this administration, maldistribution of income, a collapsed housing market, financial system near collapse, major automakers bankrupt and a rapidly rising unemployment.

  The housing market collapsed because government, led by democrats, forced banks to loan money to people who could not repay the loans ---- a prescription for the disaster that followed. Plain and simple; even a neophyte can understand.
  
  How many effin times will we have to reiterate the facts!
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge;1261448 wrote:Bush's cabinet positions were held by people who should be in ****in jail. Also, your memory blows as to what the GDP, the unemployment rate, the stock market were when Pinnochio limped out of office.

  In jail? For what? Calling attention to the housing bubble sponsored by liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and executed by true criminals like Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae? Frank, Dodd and Raines are among those who definitely should be in jail. Nice try though.
  
  As for the numbers, Bush unemployment rate was 5%, obama's double that. Bush's economic expansion created 5 million jobs; obama's recession has cost us 5 million jobs, with 23 million more still seeking work. Bush's GDP was well over 3%, obama's not even half that. And even though we have no economic growth, gasoline costs twice as much as it did under Bush -- go figure.
  
  Fair warning: failure to own up to the truth may lead you to squander your vote again on the biggest failure to ever occupy the White House. Good luck.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1261760 wrote:The housing market collapsed because government, led by democrats, forced banks to loan money to people who could not repay the loans ---- a prescription for the disaster that followed. Plain and simple; even a neophyte can understand.
  
  How many effin times will we have to reiterate the facts!

  Gosh a ruddies, the low interest rates that attracted so many borrowers were set by the Fed, not the Democrats. Bank deregulation pushed by the Republicans in the 1980s set it up.
  “
  Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
  　
  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1261831 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, the low interest rates that attracted so many borrowers were set by the Fed, not the Democrats. Bank deregulation pushed by the Republicans in the 1980s set it up.
  “
  Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
  　
  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A

  
  
  We were not in the low interest rate environment then, gosh a fool might even know that.
• isadore

  
  
  
  gosh really
• BoatShoes

  gut;1261662 wrote:Funny how many states with "austerity" measures are doing much better than your approach in states like CA and IL.
  
  If you are such a fan of Obama, then you should look "forward" to Europe - UK, Greece, etc... - because that's what the future holds when investors finally say "no mas".
  
  No one, on this board or anywhere, is espousing austerity. Why do you continue to make that strawman argument?

  Ha must be nice to fire your public employees but have them still shop in your state's grocery stores on Uncle Sam's food stamps so you can blow up his deficit. Federalism FTW.
  
  Keep worrying about the non-problem of investors saying "no mas" as they keep begging to lend their money to Barry O. Good Call.
  
  Any day now we'll be Greece (even though they borrowed in another currency LOL).
  
  You're not advocating spending cuts and a balanced budget, or, at the very least a "credible approach to a balanced budget"???
  
  :laugh:
• gut

  BoatShoes;1261921 wrote: Keep worrying about the non-problem of investors saying "no mas" as they keep begging to lend their money to Barry O. Good Call.
  
  Any day now we'll be Greece (even though they borrowed in another currency LOL).
  
  You're not advocating spending cuts and a balanced budget, or, at the very least a "credible approach to a balanced budget"???
  
  :laugh:

  Yes, a responsible and measured approach to a balanced budget. I've never seen anyone here or anywhere else - except you claiming so - advocate differently. It's just one of many flailing arguments you try to prop-up failed keynsian policies.
  
  And, by the way, investors are not "lining up" to give their money to uncle sugar. A ton of the debt has been issued by firing up the printing press and issuing IOU's to the treasury. But it's funny you keep citing Europe to promote keynesian policy when unbridled keynesian economics got them there AND THEN investors eventually cut them off. You kind of keep ignoring that last, rather MAJOR aspect.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1261663 wrote:Do you even understand your own link? That is one month net change graph. Do you even understand what the word "net" and "month over month" means?

  No MB, I don't understand what "net" and "month over month" mean. Enlighten me please :laugh:
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1261936 wrote:No MB, I don't understand what "net" and "month over month" mean. Enlighten me please :laugh:

  It means: "Ha must be nice to fire your public employees but have them still shop in your state's grocery stores on Uncle Sam's food stamps so you can blow up his deficit"
  
  If you write something that ridiculous you aren't worth the time for Econ 101.
  
  BTW, once again perhaps we should hire government employees to dig holes, and hire more to fill them up, how well will that work out for us?
  
  If you really want me to explain why your graph is ridiculous PM me, I can get to you in a couple of days. Right now I'm working on my sister-in-law's resume and am going to bed ideally soon.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1261941 wrote: BTW, once again perhaps we should hire government employees to dig holes, and hire more to fill them up, how well will that work out for us?

  If you look at the data, isn't that pretty much all we've done?
  
  There's no multiplier effect when businesses are hoarding cash...because of another coming fiscal/tax crunch. All those businesses that are too small to bail out (about 99.9% of them) are amassing huge rainy day funds.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1261934 wrote:Yes, a responsible and measured approach to a balanced budget. I've never seen anyone here or anywhere else - except you claiming so - advocate differently. It's just one of many flailing arguments you try to prop-up failed keynsian policies.
  
  And, by the way, investors are not "lining up" to give their money to uncle sugar. A ton of the debt has been issued by firing up the printing press and issuing IOU's to the treasury. But it's funny you keep citing Europe to promote keynesian policy when unbridled keynesian economics got them there AND THEN investors eventually cut them off. You kind of keep ignoring that last, rather MAJOR aspect.

  Well again you say "unbridled keynesianism" is what got them there when that is simply wrong. It is simply wrong.
  
  And, investors have not cut off countries with their own currencies. Exhibit A is Japan.
  
  Meanwhile, you lamented President Obama's offer for a "responsible and measured approach" to a balanced budget and also rail on Obamacare despite its serious first steps toward cost control in healthcare while keeping the mainstays of our private, market-oriented approach and yet you are going all in for a ticket promoting a budget that won't get into balance for half a century even under the rosiest (ridiculous) assumptions. Obama's approach was good enough for the rating agencies but not for you! LOL.
  
  The reality is, I'm not that keen on Obama...the whole national conversation is waaay too far to the right and he's the most serious budget hawk in this race but at least there's hope wisdom might catch his ear and he at least will run budget deficits with higher multipliers. If he'd had gotten his way last summer we'd be heading toward recession just like the Fiscal Cliff from the Sequester will lead us there. This makes perfect sense and shows he shouldn't have even been concerned about a debt-deal yet. FDR made the same mistake in 1937.
  
  Romney and Ryan are just inefficient keynesian/supply-siders and now goldbugs apparently who want to pretend to be fiscal disciplinarians to cut the State down to size. It just so happens what they want to cut will devastate aggregate demand and the deficits they want to run won't stimulate aggregate demand and even Eddie Lazear has come out and declared that to be the problem.
  
  I get it now though. You "help" failing companies and Mitt Romney's like the Michael Jordan of your profession. No need to justify your vote beyond that.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1261941 wrote:It means: "Ha must be nice to fire your public employees but have them still shop in your state's grocery stores on Uncle Sam's food stamps so you can blow up his deficit"
  
  If you write something that ridiculous you aren't worth the time for Econ 101.
  
  BTW, once again perhaps we should hire government employees to dig holes, and hire more to fill them up, how well will that work out for us?
  
  If you really want me to explain why your graph is ridiculous PM me, I can get to you in a couple of days. Right now I'm working on my sister-in-law's resume and am going to bed ideally soon.

  
• gut

  BoatShoes;1261952 wrote: Meanwhile, you lamented President Obama's offer for a "responsible and measured approach" to a balanced budget and also rail on Obamacare despite its serious first steps toward cost control in healthcare .

  Wow. couple of whoppers there. WHAT cost control from Obamakare? You mean the bogus fuzzy math they used to try to sell that to the American people?
  
  And 25%+ spending GDP is a respnsible and measured approach?!? That's $1T+ deficits as far as the eye can see. Obama a serious budget hawk? How can anything you write be taken seriously when you make beyond ridiculous statements like that? Good lord, I'm praying that Obamakare can get you affordable alzeihmers meds before it's too late.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1261952 wrote:Obama's approach was good enough for the rating agencies but not for you! LOL.

  they cut the debt rating, by the way. You might have missed that while you were scouring the internet trying to justify unrestrained stimulus spending.
  
  And while it's a "convenient misdirection" to blame the Tea Party, the reality is the ballooning debt was driving that. They tipped their hand MONTHS ahead of the debt ceiling crisis, and they cited that mountainous debt again in justification of their ratings cut.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1261867 wrote: gosh really

  
  
  Although you chart is of long term interest rates and not necessarily 'mortgage rates', you can read the chart, can you not? Mortgage rates were 6 - 9% when the government began forcing banks to make the loans (and yes, they used implicit force), today rates are 1/2 to 1/3 of that. Chart reading, oh my gosh.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1261952 wrote:Meanwhile, you lamented President Obama's offer for a "responsible and measured approach" to a balanced budget ...

  I must have missed this policy adoption. He has increased spending by over $1.3 trillion per year, for 4 years, adding $6 trillion in new debt (a 60% increase in less than one term), formed a special committee to lay out a fiscal plan to solve the deficit/debt issue and then promptly sent them packing without any thought whatsoever of adopting their suggestions.
  
  A "responsible and measured approach". Are you fu#$%ing serious?
• wkfan

  BHO says that 4.5 million more people ahve jobs. Here is an analysis done by CNN:
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
  
  "Conclusion:The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1262000 wrote:Although you chart is of long term interest rates and not necessarily 'mortgage rates', you can read the chart, can you not? Mortgage rates were 6 - 9% when the government began forcing banks to make the loans (and yes, they used implicit force), today rates are 1/2 to 1/3 of that. Chart reading, oh my gosh.

  I realize actually reading the thread must be a chore for you but try it, you might learn the truth, I doubt you would know the truth if you saw it, but you might.

  isadore wrote: The basic tools of fiscal and monetary policy are spent, having been overused to produce a fake façade of prosperity. An economy in free fall was the Republican gift to President Obama.

  #54 this thread
  Tax cuts, interest cuts used to stimulate an economy to produce a false prosperity and with deregulation lead us into a massive recession. And leave president obama with few tools to fight it.
  Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
  　http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A\
  
  　
  　
  　
  
• QuakerOats

  gosh isadore, thanks for the latest chart which again illustrates that mortgage rates were 6-9% during the late '90's and early to mid '00's during the time when government forced banks to make bad loans, that ultimately went south in the late '00's because the debtors could not afford them. In the AFTERMATH OF ALL THAT, IN 2009, the Fed drastically lowered rates to try and save the sinking ship, to no avail.
  
  I am not sure what is so complex about what happened and about the timeline, but I am tired of explaining it to you. Gosh a rookie can read those charts.
• O-Trap

  

  From an employer standpoint, I'm considerably worse off. However, it doesn't have much to do with which of the chucklehead parties is in power. I would have been in equally worse shape either way, as the job market was going to do what it was going to do.
  
  However, thanks to me starting my own business, I'm doing better overall. F U, job market.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1262059 wrote:gosh isadore, thanks for the latest chart which again illustrates that mortgage rates were 6-9% during the late '90's and early to mid '00's during the time when government forced banks to make bad loans, that ultimately went south in the late '00's because the debtors could not afford them. In the AFTERMATH OF ALL THAT, IN 2009, the Fed drastically lowered rates to try and save the sinking ship, to no avail.
  
  I am not sure what is so complex about what happened and about the timeline, but I am tired of explaining it to you. Gosh a rookie can read those charts.

  gosh, none are so blind as you. shown that interest rates had been lowered precipitiously for many years, depriving the bernanke fed of major tool to fight the recession. and as to your other claim as we showed
  Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
  　http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A\
  the republican administration plunged us into an economic abyss, but of course its supporters lack the courage to admit it.
• Bigdogg

  It has been a slow recovery, but better than another Great Depression, which is where we would of been without the current administration. Not interested in going back to the failed policies of trickle down, supply side, or screw the middle class or whatever you want to call it. Move forward not backward!