Lucky... 0 #1 October 14, 2009 GDP is +, DJ is over the hump, and unemp claims have slowed. This recovery is fatser than anyone could have expected. God Obama is horrible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #2 October 14, 2009 You must be an economic master, unmatched in your time, to be able to have this economic cycle figured out already. Please let me know in a few years if this was a jobless recovery or not when all the data is back. This rush to make everything partisan is beyond stupid!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #3 October 14, 2009 QuoteYou must be an economic master, unmatched in your time, to be able to have this economic cycle figured out already. The 3 main indicators are the GDP, unemp rate and market. We can get technical and split hairs, but these are the major indicators, agreed? QuotePlease let me know in a few years if this was a jobless recovery or not when all the data is back. The 3rd wheel, unemp, doesn't get fixed until after the first 2. QuoteThis rush to make everything partisan is beyond stupid! I agree, what makes the issue bipatisan are guys like Eisenhower and GHWB, othr than that it's about TAX CUTS MY FRIENDS vs THE GOVERNMENT SERVING THE PEOPLE. Other than Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower or GHWB, show me a Re[ub since Teddy that was for the people rather than corp interest/rich people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #4 October 14, 2009 I agree I am glad you agree that making everything partisan is stupid. Especially since one major cause of this partisan BS is half cocked threads by self proclaimed economists that have beat all the real economists to the finish line and have already figured out all of the cause and effects relationships of this economic cycle. You should sit on a school board."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surfbum5412 0 #5 October 14, 2009 Quote I agree I am glad you agree that making everything partisan is stupid. Especially since one major cause of this partisan BS is half cocked threads by self proclaimed economists that have beat all the real economists to the finish line and have already figured out all of the cause and effects relationships of this economic cycle. You should sit on a school board. 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #6 October 14, 2009 Next stop...inflation.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #7 October 14, 2009 Quote 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. Hi Mr. Pot, care to contribute instead of resorting to personal attacks. I can't wait to hear how you also figured all the variables to this current economic cycle in such a short period of time. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #8 October 14, 2009 Quote I agree I am glad you agree that making everything partisan is stupid. Especially since one major cause of this partisan BS is half cocked threads by self proclaimed economists that have beat all the real economists to the finish line and have already figured out all of the cause and effects relationships of this economic cycle. You should sit on a school board. And you shouldn't sit on a school board or teach, etc. Posting parts of people assertions is dishonest w/o having some kind of context. I wrote: I agree, what makes the issue bipatisan are guys like Eisenhower and GHWB, othr than that it's about TAX CUTS MY FRIENDS vs THE GOVERNMENT SERVING THE PEOPLE. Show me the Dems who arelargely evil here. It's generally the side that fucks everything up that wants to include everyone. I see it in criminal cases, politics, etc. Share the blame; what have the Dems done vs the R's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #9 October 14, 2009 QuoteQuote I agree I am glad you agree that making everything partisan is stupid. Especially since one major cause of this partisan BS is half cocked threads by self proclaimed economists that have beat all the real economists to the finish line and have already figured out all of the cause and effects relationships of this economic cycle. You should sit on a school board. 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. Or better yet, quote 2 words out of a comprehensive sentence and leave the rest out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #10 October 14, 2009 QuoteNext stop...inflation. We've actually just left that. Under Bush: - Gas prices trippled - House prices doubled - Food prices increasd incredibly - Etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #11 October 14, 2009 Quote Quote 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. Hi Mr. Pot, care to contribute instead of resorting to personal attacks. I can't wait to hear how you also figured all the variables to this current economic cycle in such a short period of time. Would you? At least you quoted his entire sentence; baby steps. As for the cycle, we've seen Reagans, GWB's and Clinton/GHWB's inbetween; what do you want, another 28 years before you can draw a conclusion? A fair sample size id best, but 28 years with opposing policies is enough to draw a conclusion that cutting taxes and runaway spending sends things in the shitter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 October 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou must be an economic master, unmatched in your time, to be able to have this economic cycle figured out already. The 3 main indicators are the GDP, unemp rate and market. We can get technical and split hairs, but these are the major indicators, agreed? A bit dangerous to ignore the deficit. With 1.xT $ in red this year, you expect to see at least 2 of those numbers (GDP, unemployment) to improve. But will there be a price for it in year 2, or 3 or 4? The good scenario - this massive influx of dollars puts the economy on a nice upward momentum. See Reagan, 1984-1989. Of course, he did jack up the debt horribly in his 8 year term and Bush continued it for 4 more. The bad scenario - the gains disappear the minute we try reducing the deficit back under a trillion. The dollar continues to fall, oil prices shoot up as a result, and inflation reigns supreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 October 14, 2009 QuoteA bit dangerous to ignore the deficit. With 1.xT $ in red this year, you expect to see at least 2 of those numbers (GDP, unemployment) to improve. But will there be a price for it in year 2, or 3 or 4? FDR deficit spent, every war president deficit spent. When in an emergency, you have to ignore that and spend what you have to. If a loved one needed a surgery and you havd to sell your house, would you say, 'I dunno, that's not fiscally intelligent?' BTW, this mess was inherited, he's spending for Bush's fuck up. QuoteThe good scenario - this massive influx of dollars puts the economy on a nice upward momentum. See Reagan, 1984-1989. Of course, he did jack up the debt horribly in his 8 year term and Bush continued it for 4 more. No GHWb didn't, he cut military spending immediatley and then raised taxes after 2 years. Altho the debt / deficit kept rising, he laid the platform for recovery. GHWB and Clinton were very similar presidents, Reagan and GWB were much the same. QuoteThe bad scenario - the gains disappear the minute we try reducing the deficit back under a trillion. The dollar continues to fall, oil prices shoot up as a result, and inflation reigns supreme. We're all over the place now, there is nothing stable you can discern from this. We'll have to look back on this to make sense of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #14 October 14, 2009 Quote 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. wait... so in the same post that lucky agrees that making things like this partisan is stupid, he makes them partisan. I don't see how that goes to Lucky.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 October 14, 2009 QuoteQuote 2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. wait... so in the same post that lucky agrees that making things like this partisan is stupid, he makes them partisan. I don't see how that goes to Lucky. What I said was that this mess is largely partisan, the R's own most of the debt. However, there are a few bright spots as with GHWB, Eisenhower and Teddy, but that's 3 in > 100 years, I ask you to show me other R's who were a + influence in the economy. It must be that you cannot understand degrees, just black/white. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 October 14, 2009 Quote We're all over the place now, there is nothing stable you can discern from this. We'll have to look back on this to make sense of it. Precisely. So why are you declaring victory for Obama already? He'll get reelected (or not) based on what things are looking like 2+ years from now. The midterm election will depend largely on next summer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #17 October 14, 2009 Quote You should sit on a school board. At least he understands the concept of ZERO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 October 14, 2009 QuoteQuote We're all over the place now, there is nothing stable you can discern from this. We'll have to look back on this to make sense of it. Precisely. So why are you declaring victory for Obama already? He'll get reelected (or not) based on what things are looking like 2+ years from now. The midterm election will depend largely on next summer. Based upon the early signs, GDP and the market it looks real good. I would rather have things look good early so if they tail off they have room to do so, as opposed to having it take a shit or continue the shit from Bush for an extended period. Let me ask you, aren't you excited about the early numbers going way + in mere months? Or would that make Obama an early success and you would rather tank the entire thing to take Obama down? How patriotic. The R's are going to have to look like a different variation of the D's to have a chance. FDR saved the country after 12 mill died under Hoover, in his 4 election wins he never gave up even 100 electoral votes, I think I see 2012 looking something like that, maybe not <100 EV's, but another blowout. WHat did McCain get? 179 I think. This coming midterm, kinda wild, hard to predict, now it seems that being an R senator and being up in 2010 is a bad thing and there are a slew of them, 19 or so I think. I agree, the next year will be huge and if unemp falls below 7% or better yet, 6% it's a tough road for stubborn R's refusing to advance Obama's plans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 October 14, 2009 Quote Let me ask you, aren't you excited about the early numbers going way + in mere months? Or would that make Obama an early success and you would rather tank the entire thing to take Obama down? How patriotic. I guess you didn't know I voted for him. McCain-Bush had to be retired - 8 years of one party in the WH is usually a bad idea anyway. But that doesn't mean I like the fact that he's mostly continuing Bush policy, and he's throwing stimulus money at things that don't need nor deserve it, running a huge deficit in the process. Quote The R's are going to have to look like a different variation of the D's to have a chance. FDR saved the country after 12 mill died under Hoover, in his 4 election wins he never gave up even 100 electoral votes, I think I see 2012 looking something like that, maybe not <100 EV's, but another blowout. WHat did McCain get? 179 I think. Look at the last 3 elections, both for percentages and EVs. You're kidding yourself if you think he will get 435. I think it's still iffy (50/50) that he can win reelection. And there are quite a few states that are quite unlikely to vote Democrat - Texas in particular. Quote This coming midterm, kinda wild, hard to predict, now it seems that being an R senator and being up in 2010 is a bad thing and there are a slew of them, 19 or so I think. I agree, the next year will be huge and if unemp falls below 7% or better yet, 6% it's a tough road for stubborn R's refusing to advance Obama's plans. Yes, the number of R's running for reelection tends to blunt the typical midterm loses in the Senate side. But the House can change more quickly. And remember, Clinton had 57 Senators after 1992, and a minority after 1994. Combine health care, deficits, new taxes, and a emerging leader like Newt was and the GOP could do something. Right now, I don't see any sort of person like that (Palin wouldn't qualify), so it doesn't seem too likely for next year, but 2012 is a ways out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 October 14, 2009 QuoteI guess you didn't know I voted for him. McCain-Bush had to be retired - 8 years of one party in the WH is usually a bad idea anyway. So you voted Obama for which reason or how much of each? Term limits and/or age limit? QuoteLook at the last 3 elections, both for percentages and EVs. You're kidding yourself if you think he will get 435. I think it's still iffy (50/50) that he can win reelection. And there are quite a few states that are quite unlikely to vote Democrat - Texas in particular. I clearly stated he wouldn't do what FDR did, but he would get close. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08 McCain got 173, I said 179; I was close from memory. So I'm saying it will swing further away from the R's meaning they will get < 173. Of course we will have to see the performance and R candidate, but it's looking bad for the R's. ***To compare Clinton to Obama in that respect is incorrect IMO. Clinton only won due to Perot splitting the R vote. I think people were pissed Clinton was elected, I was, so that was their way of showing disapproval. Obama is loved and he s/b rewarded in 2010 and 2012, it's early, but could be another FDR blowout. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #21 October 14, 2009 I'm not getting all excited about my retirement plan yet, but 10,000 sure looks better than 7,000. Wasn't very long ago that the ODS sufferers were predicting a drop below 5,000.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 October 14, 2009 Quote So you voted Obama for which reason or how much of each? Term limits and/or age limit? A variety of reasons. Sorry, if you want to suggest I want to see him fail, you're barking up the wrong tree, Quote To compare Clinton to Obama in that respect is incorrect IMO. Clinton only won due to Perot splitting the R vote. I think people were pissed Clinton was elected, I was, so that was their way of showing disapproval. Obama is loved and he s/b rewarded in 2010 and 2012, it's early, but could be another FDR blowout. I saw the data at the Survey Research Center at Cal after the 1992 election. Perot stole more or less for each party. He did not give it to Clinton, he just made it more hilarious to watch. Clinton won because he spoke well, seemed more in touch with the public that suffered in the downturns of 1990-91, and no doubt got some votes from R's that Bush pissed off by breaking his no new taxes pledge. Obama can't really expect to win more states. He got most of the close ones in the last election. Just holding them all is a challenge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #23 October 14, 2009 Quote I'm not getting all excited about my retirement plan yet, but 10,000 sure looks better than 7,000. Wasn't very long ago that the ODS sufferers were predicting a drop below 5,000. Yea, what a bunch of losers and these are the guys selling advice as stockbrokers. Channel Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter Why not channel Clinton, he had the biggest boom of all of them; 3500-9800. Channel Reagan? Yea, hell, channel GWB, he did a better job of upping the debt, unless we look at % of increase, fascist Ronnie owns that at 300%. WHat is it with this Reagan love, he was a war coward, senile elitist who trippled the debt whiling ripping benefits from workers. All that populist anti-Wall Street rhetoric in Washington scares the heck out of investors. Good call Get the bipartisanship thing going Yea, their maggots are in and it's all about fuck teh other side, now that they have been outed, let's play nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #24 October 14, 2009 QuoteI saw the data at the Survey Research Center at Cal after the 1992 election. Perot stole more or less for each party. He did not give it to Clinton, he just made it more hilarious to watch. Appears you are right. Since they were both fiscally conservative I figured the rumour made sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes equally among Clinton, Bush, and those staying home if Perot had not been a candidate, but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.[24] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[25] Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues. QuoteObama can't really expect to win more states. He got most of the close ones in the last election. Just holding them all is a challenge. Look at that map I posted, he lost a few close ones too. I don't really care, I'm not out to trounce, 1 EV is a winner. Of course with an even number of EV's you have to win by 2 I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #25 October 15, 2009 Quote Quote Next stop...inflation. We've actually just left that. Under Bush: - Gas prices trippled - House prices doubled - Food prices increasd incredibly - Etc And this is all Bushes fault? Hey wonderworld that was going on way before bush.Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
