airdvr 210 #1 January 18, 2010 How is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? Regardless of whether I agree with it or not my thoughts last year at this time were along the lines of seeing a ton of stuff I probably won't like buzzing through. What a difference a year makes.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #2 January 19, 2010 Quote How is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? You mean that we didn't experience yet another terrorist attach which killed thousands, and didn't invade yet another country? And the "control" is not the proper word as was shown during healthcare bill voting.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #3 January 19, 2010 Quote How is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? Regardless of whether I agree with it or not my thoughts last year at this time were along the lines of seeing a ton of stuff I probably won't like buzzing through. What a difference a year makes. The GDP had 4 of 5 Q's negative, now 3 huge Q's in a row. The market was in freefall, now it's closer to 11k than 10k. Unemp was in freefall, now it's halted and rounding bottom. I guess if you consider that nothing then you're right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 January 19, 2010 "now 3 huge Q's in a row" -6.4, -0.7 and +2.2, and economists say that most of the 2.2 from last q was due to cash for clunkers. (real GDP from the BEA) "now it's closer to 11k to 10k" And I hope it continues to rise. "now it's halted and rounding bottom" 73k new people on unemp last month, and the rate would have gone higher than 10% if 589k people hadn't quit looking for work. (BLS monthly stats) Makes a body wonder what January's numbers are going to look like after the layoff of the seasonal folks from Christmas are recorded.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 January 19, 2010 Quote Quote How is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? You mean that we didn't experience yet another terrorist attach which killed thousands, and didn't invade yet another country? And the "control" is not the proper word as was shown during healthcare bill voting. Ahem, we did endure a terrorist attack at Fort Hood, killing 13, and wounding dozens. The only thing that saved the Detroit bound airliner was a Dutch citizen on the plane. With all troops on the way to Haiti...I'm waiting to hear of the "invasion"...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #6 January 19, 2010 >Ahem, we did endure a terrorist attack at Fort Hood, killing 13, >and wounding dozens. Hmm. That's an area I don't think you want to keep score in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #7 January 19, 2010 Seriously...what has been accomplished? Gitmo? Fail Stimulus keeps unemp under 8%? Fail Foriegn policy? Do we have one? War on Terror? Shhh Transparency? Fail Immigration? Nope Health care? On life support Where's the change? Are you Dems getting a little antsy?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #8 January 19, 2010 The GDP had 4 of 5 Q's negative, now 3 huge Q's in a row. The market was in freefall, now it's closer to 11k than 10k. Unemp was in freefall, now it's halted and rounding bottom. I guess if you consider that nothing then you're right. And strangely none of those improvements we have seen in the economy have been the result of anything the government has done in the last year(that includes both sides of the aisle). The government didn't create jobs to lessen unemployment, they gave more benefits to those without jobs. Thats like giving aspirin to a guy with cancer. And the market corrected itself, although I agree that government spending is a necessary evil to pull out of a downturn like we had our government went about it completely the wrong way. The only major accomplishment I've seen in Washington since '06 was the change in strategy that helped us set the stage for exiting Iraq. And no that has not happened in the last 12 months, it was in place long before.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #9 January 19, 2010 Quote>Ahem, we did endure a terrorist attack at Fort Hood, killing 13, >and wounding dozens. Hmm. That's an area I don't think you want to keep score in. I'm not keeping score...I'm also not poking my head in the sand pretending it was something it wasn't....pretending that the world "loves us more because we have a nice guy in office". I don't even need to bring this up to keep score with the laundry list of non-accomplishments, which, now that I see the full agenda, I am glad are not being fulfilled. There are two things at this point the President and Congress should be concentrating on: -The war (to include domestic security and intelligence) -The economy The rest is a diversion and an attempt to overload the system with non-essentials.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #10 January 19, 2010 QuoteHow is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" "Well, tradition mostly." -- Charlie Wilson's War (2007)"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #11 January 19, 2010 Quote -6.4, -0.7 and +2.2, and economists say that most of the 2.2 from last q was due to cash for clunkers. (real GDP from the BEA) Oh Mikey, you're so much fun to prove wrong. And to insure we are all on the same obvious page, this is real GDP. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm -6.4 was the toilet Obama inherited; is that Q his fault considering the Q was underway as he entered office? That's a joke if you think so. Obama's stimulus moved the GDP from negative 6.4 to negative .7; that's a 5.7 move in the positive direction for people with 5th grade math skills or better. 2.2 wasn't from the last Q, it was from the 3rd Q; my, my you are up on your GDP stats . The 4th Q is projected to be around 4% by sources Baron's hoity-toity Dem hater pub cites: http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2009/12/11/fourth-quarter-gdp-forecasts-hiked/ See, stats are trends usually unless something catastrophic happens. TRENDS: - GWB: 5 of last 6 Q's GDP trended downward at end of term. 4 of 5 last Q's were negative GDP. - OBAMA: Every Q was higher than previous, in So, Mikey, if you wanna pretend that teh 1st Q of 2009 where Obama entered office 20 days into it is the fault of whomever enters office at that time, then have a good time with your skewed stats. But I guess we have to blame fascist Ronnie for that high interest rate then, huh? Oh, I see, it works one way. Quote And I hope it continues to rise. AKA: yes, you're right, the market's recovery is way ahead of schedule and doing awesomw under Obama. Quote 73k new people on unemp last month, and the rate would have gone higher than 10% if 589k people hadn't quit looking for work. (BLS monthly stats) Those intangibles are typical of unemp stats all teh time. The real unemp rate is now 17% counting all people out of work, but again, that is typical of all unemp stats. at any given time. The unemp rate was in freefall when Obama inherited it, he warded it off thru stimulus and now it's a flat 10%. Not good, but great considering what he inherited. Quote Makes a body wonder what January's numbers are going to look like after the layoff of the seasonal folks from Christmas are recorded. But it doesn't make a body wonder what would have happened if McHoover would have done like his heroes; fascist Ronnie and Hoover if he was elected. Tax cuts and 25% unemployment. You crack me up, Mikey. We have a set of recoveries that are amazing and you want to skew stats to make them horrible. At least you didn't use nominal GDP like before And did the stimulus prop the numbers up in part artificially? Of course, that's why they call it stimulus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #12 January 19, 2010 QuoteGitmo? Fail From your school that's a pass you mean, you like it. So you're saying Obama's being a Republican = fail. Maybe so. QuoteStimulus keeps unemp under 8%? Fail Obama never promiused that, just hoped it would work. QuoteForiegn policy? Do we have one? When you have a statement, let me know. QuoteWar on Terror? Shhh Again, make a statement. What of teh war on terror? Obama actually boosted troop #'s in AFG, so do you read current events a lot or not so much? QuoteTransparency? Fail Too many things so far being accomplished. Hope he comes to this. QuoteImmigration? Nope What's deos this mean? QuoteHealth care? On life support That's on Congress, Obama hasn't done a thing, perhaps if you understood legislative roles vs executive roles you would get it. QuoteWhere's the change? Are you Dems getting a little antsy? The economy has changed significantly, esp considering it was in total freefall when Obama inherited it. The war hasn't changed. I sincerely wish McHoover would have won so we could have the next 5 terms being Dem-owned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 January 19, 2010 Quote And strangely none of those improvements we have seen in the economy have been the result of anything the government has done in the last year(that includes both sides of the aisle). Yea, the bank bailout and stimulus had nothing to do with the recovery . Quote The government didn't create jobs to lessen unemployment, they gave more benefits to those without jobs. Thats like giving aspirin to a guy with cancer. And if the gov opened factories there would be more Tea Bagger nuts walking around with AR-15's over their shoulder. In fascit America we have to fix the economy by restoring teh millionaires and billionaires, then begging them to trickle some downward. In civilized nations they open hospitals, factories, etc and directly employ people. So what you're crying about is the US system, not Obama's performance. Quote And the market corrected itself,.... Ahhhhh, I see, the market was in freefall and mysteriously fixed itself. Amazing how it fixes itself under the policies of the Dems moreso than under teh R's. And whatever gains it makes under teh R's is normally temporary and quick, then it dumps. Quote ...although I agree that government spending is a necessary evil to pull out of a downturn like we had our government went about it completely the wrong way. 1) And fo course you don't declare what the right way would be. 2) Actually there are 2 ways: DEFICIT SPENDING or TAXATION INCREASES. History has shown taxx increases work the best, but what does history know, right? Quote The only major accomplishment I've seen in Washington since '06 was the change in strategy that helped us set the stage for exiting Iraq. And no that has not happened in the last 12 months, it was in place long before. Are you talking about the surge without giving the courtesy of overtly saying so? Yea, we're trying to get out by bringing more people in; makes as much sense as declaring victory on the ship as your hero did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 January 19, 2010 Quote Obama's stimulus moved the GDP from negative 6.4 to negative .7; that's a 5.7 move in the positive direction for people with 5th grade math skills or better. Nice tapdance - it would have even been somewhat believable if you'd said "a 5.7% positive move" rather than "3 huge quarters" - of course, that's pretty obvious to people with 5th grade English skills or better. Quote 2.2 wasn't from the last Q, it was from the 3rd Q; my, my you are up on your GDP stats . Odd, both the BEA page I got the numbers from and YOUR graph only show up to 3rd quarter - making up numbers again like your '12 million died' claim, Lucky? Quote The 4th Q is projected to be around 4% by sources Baron's hoity-toity Dem hater pub cites: http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2009/12/11/fourth-quarter-gdp-forecasts-hiked/ Yeah, I remember you saying something like that about 3Q, too - then they had to revise it back down. Quote So, Mikey, if you wanna pretend that teh 1st Q of 2009 where Obama entered office 20 days into it is the fault of whomever enters office at that time, then have a good time with your skewed stats. I didn't say that - makes a nice strawman, though. Quote You crack me up, Mikey. We have a set of recoveries that are amazing and you want to skew stats to make them horrible. Numbers are from gov't sources, so how am I 'skewing' them, oh Master of Bullshit? Quote At least you didn't use nominal GDP like before You keep saying that, when YOU changed your post to say real gdp AFTER I replied to you - makes a good misdirect, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 January 20, 2010 I'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 January 20, 2010 QuoteI'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Quotenow 3 huge Q's in a row. That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #17 January 20, 2010 QuoteQuote How is it that having control of both houses and the executive branch has accomplished so little? You mean that we didn't experience yet another terrorist attach which killed thousands, and didn't invade yet another country? And the "control" is not the proper word as was shown during healthcare bill voting. Soooo.... same as the last guy is good enough for you? The opposite of that was Obama's campaign slogan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 January 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Quotenow 3 huge Q's in a row. That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass. This is vontage Mike. I focussed on this one question by itself so you couldn't squirm, here it is again: I'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Now, I'll make it easy: - Yes Obama is responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - No Obama is not responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - Continue to squirm Come on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #19 January 20, 2010 If your posts implied that you had at least tsken a breath in the same room as an Econ textbook at some point in your life you might be worth continuing this debate with. But your mindless yelling from your last reply proved that it would be a wasted effort.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 January 20, 2010 QuoteIf your posts implied that you had at least tsken a breath in the same room as an Econ textbook at some point in your life you might be worth continuing this debate with. But your mindless yelling from your last reply proved that it would be a wasted effort. This undoubtedly is over your head, but you have committed an ad hominem. Not one word about the GDP, Obama's actions which led to the betterment or further deterioration of it, just, "you and yours." You attack the poster not the subject so you are irrelevant. Now, if you have the capacity to understand all that, go ahead and comment on the 1st Q of 09 and GWB's and Obama's efforts with that. I won't drop by all day checking; I'm sure just more ad hominem. In case this is still over your head, you could be right, hypothetically I might be the least educated person in economics, but that still fails to even start to address the 1st Q of 09. Mike appreciates the back slapping tho. Hit the site in my sig and perhaps understand the RW a little better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 January 21, 2010 QuoteThis is vontage Mike. I focussed on this one question by itself so you couldn't squirm, here it is again: And this is 'vontage' Lucky - spout bullshit and then scramble to cover your ass when you get called on it. QuoteCome on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya. Quote***now 3 huge Q's in a row. That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass. Real easy, Lucky - can't make it easier for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #22 January 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteThis is vontage Mike. I focussed on this one question by itself so you couldn't squirm, here it is again: And this is 'vontage' Lucky - spout bullshit and then scramble to cover your ass when you get called on it. QuoteCome on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya. Quote***now 3 huge Q's in a row. That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass. Real easy, Lucky - can't make it easier for you. So now we're down to correcting mechanical spelling errors? You spend too much time with Ron I guess. And as for, "Real easy, Lucky - can't make it easier for you." I guess I have to say I'm flattered you would copy me. DO YOU THINK ANYONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MOVE TO CHECK SPELLING AND IMMITATION AND AVOID A SIMPLE QUESTION? THIS IS YOUR WAY OF SAYING, OF COURSE 2009 1ST Q WAS NOT OABAMA'S FAULT - WE GET IT. If you care to answer the very simple question, I'll repost: I'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Now, I'll make it easy: - Yes Obama is responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - No Obama is not responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - Continue to squirm Come on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #23 January 22, 2010 QuoteIf your posts implied that you had at least tsken a breath in the same room as an Econ textbook at some point in your life you might be worth continuing this debate with. But your mindless yelling from your last reply proved that it would be a wasted effort. No response? Acquiescence? Loud and clear. This undoubtedly is over your head, but you have committed an ad hominem. Not one word about the GDP, Obama's actions which led to the betterment or further deterioration of it, just, "you and yours." You attack the poster not the subject so you are irrelevant. Now, if you have the capacity to understand all that, go ahead and comment on the 1st Q of 09 and GWB's and Obama's efforts with that. I won't drop by all day checking; I'm sure just more ad hominem. In case this is still over your head, you could be right, hypothetically I might be the least educated person in economics, but that still fails to even start to address the 1st Q of 09. Mike appreciates the back slapping tho. Hit the site in my sig and perhaps understand the RW a little better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 January 22, 2010 Post #3 "3 huge Q's in a row" You said it, so own it. It's ok...Obama still loves you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #25 January 23, 2010 QuotePost #3 "3 huge Q's in a row" You said it, so own it. It's ok...Obama still loves you. Yep, 3 Q's: - 2009 2nd Q took it from -6.4 to -.7 = 5.7 in the + direction - 2009 3rd Q took it from -.7 to +2.2 = 2.9 in the + direction - 2009 4th Q took it from +2.2 to +4.0 (est) = 1.8 in the + direction Not sure if math is not your suit or what, but those are big gains: >12% in 1 year. I do own it, you are either real bad at math or in denial. I'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Now, I'll make it easy: - Yes Obama is responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - No Obama is not responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - Continue to squirm Come on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
