Lucky...

Oh, goody! Hopefully we can lose out on another Olympics, too. Yay! Opposing a particular political agenda (for example, a war in a remote part of the world) is _not_ the same as hoping your country fails, contrary to the assertions of whichever side happens to support that agenda. Example: TA: I think Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, and ought to be overturned. BV: I don't think so. TA: What, you want America to fail? See how ridiculous it is? Not liking Roe and thinking it is hideous is different than not wanting the olympics to be here because the president was campaigning for them and we want everything Obama touches to fail. These are incredibly different things. Altho Roe was political, it wasn't tied to any politician in the same sense that HC and other issues are tied to Obama. Not being ellated that your sitting president won the Nobel falls along the same lines. The olymipcs are sppoed to be a non-partisan form of mutual patriotism and the righties have shown their colors.

Oh, goody! Hopefully we can lose out on another Olympics, too. Yay! I bet he hates Michael Phelps

Is that the same "reality" that provided your aviation analogy? And what's wrong with it, Airbus came from nowhere and has kicked the conglomeration known as Boeing/Douglas all to shit, as I posted. Yes, that's the same analogy. They're the #1 acft builder in the world last I checked. And do you know why? It is easy to be "competitive" with government subsidizing your efforts. But then, you are all for that are you not? So much for fair..... You know Rush has run out of things to say when he uses emoticons to the excess. As for gov subsidizing a market that you infer is a losing battle. First off, I'll tell you a fact you can later claim you already knew, Scarebus is a multi-national consortium of several W.E. nations, so you're saying that all or many of these nations are treating the mission as a loss situation as all socialist nations do; dump tons of cash with no return. So if this happened, the dollar value would drop, I mean, it's not as if they make it up anywhere else - they're socialists so they will have a failed economy, right? Well then explain how their currency is kicking our asses. Even Canada is kicking our ass again, they're 7 cents from even and they were at 3 cents a short time ago. The pound went to 2:1 under the end of Bush's term so make a valid point. And isn't the real welfare comming from our gov to Boeing in the form of military contract? I wonder how much of that wasteful 787 is funded by either direct US gov input ot indirect military program socialism? So much for fair......

I think YOU did in YOUR title of the thread. Try again but no more back peddling. The, "....but" doesn't trigger a pause? Hmmm, not real intelliegnt not to think, "I wonder what he meant by that *but*?"

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008. 2008 GDP Q1 14373.9 Q2 14497.8 (+) Q3 14546.7 (+) Q4 14347.3 (-) 2009 GDP Q1 14178.0 (-) Q2 14151.2 (-) I think we should team up Lucky with Billvon in order to make a recessionometer. (Have a good suggestion where to plug the cables though) You're one deceived here, you have Mikes bogus GDP numbers, even Kallend backed off those. Those are not REAL GDP numbers; these are: http://www.bea.gov/...pdate&JavaBox=no Now, let me make this simple: 2008 Q1 -0.7 2008 Q2 1.5 2008 Q3 -2.7 2008 Q4 -5.4 2009 Q1 -6.4 2009 Q2 -0.7 2009 Q3 3.0 (projected) Maybe that's why Mike won't post his source. He does that, takes an obscure version of a data set with no source and parades them as the real McCoy - then runs away.

In strict official terms by *some* economists it can, but of course we know the *real* recession won't be over for at least a year. I wrote that in post #6.

I hear ya bro, mt work is and has been sporadic too. I have a descent temp job lined up that keeps getting pushed back. Great that you guys showed such character to the end. I'm not saying the recession is over, just that some numbers look good. Post 6 illustrates that.

Say what???? That is in complete opposition to the title you put on this thread as well as being a self-contradicting statement. But I'll give credit where credit is due: By using just 17 words you probably made one of the shortest self-contradictory statements ever and it could have been shorter yet by about 3 or 4 words. Post #6 written by me: For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year. I'm really sorry you are unable to read. As for the title: It's official; recession is over, but.... Do you understand the inference? You must be a hoot to hang around, the "...but" at the end denotes there is more, not just the literal meaning. By many official accounts the recession is over, just as it was shortly after 32-33 when 2 consecutive tax increases pulled us out of the Great Depression, but unemp lingered on for years, which is why they cal it a 10-year depression.

Show me your source. Come on, show it. It's dishonest not to. Again, here's mine: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm I can't understand why you wouldn't post it. If we say that your data is correct, then Clinton left a sweeeeet economy, not a sputtering one. IOW's, raw GDP that is not adjusted to be REAL GDP is misleading and not used by economists; you posted other than real GDP and now you won't cite your source, or was it from some rogue RW source? I'M GONNA LAUGH MY ASS OFF IF YOU DON'T POST YOUR SOURCE.

In order to prevent you from crying, I will play your condescending, Socratic game. I wonder if you will do the same for me or if your ego would prohibit that? Their interest would be for the destruction of John Doe's House, not the protection of it. They wouldn't have the capital to cover all losses. Insurance is essentially gambling and gambling on credit is always a bad idea. Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase, the fed did not directly bail them out, altho gave them and JP a 30B guarantee on Bear's assets. AIG, well, that's another story. So since JP absorbed Bear with a 30B guarantee, did they really bailout Bear; Bear is no more? But the so-called bailout of Bear was a product of the fact that Bear held a tremendous amount of counterparty swap liability. Without the gov intervening and guaranteeing, all those parties on the other end of those transactions would have lost billions. There are a few reasons why the gov didn't intervene on Lehman. It could be the line drawn as to enough is enough bailout and to assert that not everyone is, “too big to fail.” So to summarize I would say the gov was sending a message to the bigs that the nipple shuts down eventually. Remember, I was the one who PA'd you asking for the thread title so I could answer these after I took the weekend off. And I'll assume you've already decided not to touch the point I've beat to death w/o you directly addressing how a cause and a catalyst can be the same thing and often is. Look, we really agree the same thing here; the cause of this mess was at least the following: - Gramm - Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Int rates too low too long The dispute is the apportionment of these; you think the top 2, I think the bottom was/were the primary cause. We both agreed that damage would be limited absent the low interest rates, I think they were largely and almost solely responsible. So instead of trying to talk me into agreeing that it was the top two, try to show me how w/o the low int rates any damage done by the top two would be excessive.

Indeed. Because you refuse to use REAL GDP DATA. Hell, you won't even address it. You fucked up by not posting real GDP data and now you're trying to whitewash it. Here is the data with my source....oh, BTW, why not post your source? Here, I think I need to make it easier with, let's say, pictures. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm So you can get out your crayons and draw pretty butterflies on the chart if you wish. Mikeeee, where are ya? You did this too with the top 20% richest data, I posted asset worth and you posted income to attempt to impeach my data. Here you posted GDP other than REAL GDP, the standard. I don't think you're being dishonest, I sincerely think you don't understand the differences and just post the first thing that works.

Indeed. Because you refuse to use REAL GDP DATA. Hell, you won't even address it. You fucked up by not posting real GDP data and now you're trying to whitewash it. Here is the data with my source....oh, BTW, why not post your source? Here, I think I need to make it easier with, let's say, pictures. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm So you can get out your crayons and draw pretty butterflies on the chart if you wish.

So when data supports your position it's great, when not it's BS data? I understand

The one I seen today had a majority opposed to HC. Well get off Newsmax, The Onion, Fox and Limbaugh then.

He's not correct with his GDP numbers. Furthermore, I'm not claiming the recession is over in fact, just officially by way of the GDP. Mike's numbers are not correct. http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html In fact right here they state why they don't and I agree that using a mechanical number like the GDP doesn't reflect all facets of the economy. So no, Mike isn't correct, he posted numbers that weren't REAL GDP numbers as the NBER and most legitimate economists use. And if you read from the thread title to my statements in this thread you would see I don't make claim that the recession is over by saying it might be officially over, but not over in reality.

No, Skippy, this is why I'm here, to straighten out all the purveyors of misinformation from guys like you. Of course you don't cite your source, that wouldn't be Mikesque. Here's mine, the BEA: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no Now, let me make this simple: 2008 Q1 -0.7 2008 Q2 1.5 2008 Q3 -2.7 2008 Q4 -5.4 2009 Q1 -6.4 2009 Q2 -0.7 2009 Q3 3.0 (projected) Again, the reliable number to use is the real GDP, as it adjusts for inflation and other variables. At the end of the Clinton years, there were 3 NEG GDP Q's, none were consecutive, but it showed a real porpousing of the economy. This was using a real GDP, but if you didn't use real GDp there was only 1 Q of neg GDP. Real GDP is the honest one to use. Lesson over. You're not using real GDP, that's the only honest way to do it. No prob, delay the unthinkable to you: A Dem that has once again started unfucking your president's mess, just as with Clinton. No you haven't, you didn't use real GDP; I highly doubt you know / understand the difference.

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008. 2008 GDP Q1 14373.9 Q2 14497.8 (+) Q3 14546.7 (+) Q4 14347.3 (-) 2009 GDP Q1 14178.0 (-) Q2 14151.2 (-) Don't forget to put a negative on Q1 of 2008 there skippy. That's right, the recession started the 3rd Q of 2008, I've never said different. But when Obama took office, 4 of the 5 previous quarters, counting the one he was currently in, were negative. The quarter he entered office under was the worst; -6.4. The next was -1.0, this will be projected at +3.0 so far. Point out any misstating that I've done. BTW, the emboldened Q I illustrated in your post is incorrect. Are you using Real GDP? Probably not, I live in the "real world" so I use real GDP, how bout you?

10 stars **********

Gee, I know just a touch about aviation, my dad took me flying from age 5, I served in the AF as an acft mech and I'm an AP/IA, PP, FCC GROL.... I think I know a bit about it. I've worked for Boeing, Douglas, Rockwell, General Dynamics and a buch more. I've worked GA to the B-1, 747 and many others, I think I get that Scarebus is kicking Boeing in the ass. I didn't ignore a thing, I didn't see it. Are you going to act as tho I don't post enough here? Which thread?

Is that the same "reality" that provided your aviation analogy? And what's wrong with it, Airbus came from nowhere and has kicked the conglomeration known as Boeing/Douglas all to shit, as I posted. Yes, that's the same analogy. They're the #1 acft builder in the world last I checked.

Helluva thing to call a Jew, there. It just kinda came to me Is it that far off?

Word - couldn't have said it better myself.

Like that? I see a lot of American Jews want to proliferate the Iraq War or any warring with the ME, of course not them or theirs, but they feel an obligation to send other Americans off to that region to kill Arabs / Palestinians. SO the beauty here is that if the Dems can find the balls, tell Liebernazi to go with the HC flow or lose his committee positions NOW. I hoe they have teh balls to leverage that.

You assume HC will run up the debt when in reality it will likely just bring equity to HC for people whether they choose the public option or not. Furthermore, I bitch about the debt when it's wasted on the Iraq War, overmaxed military and other unneccessary BS. HC, according to all but the world, is a neccessity.

One thing for sure. The country won a round today *** Yea, the real Americasn, the ones that spend 600B/yr on the military and are responsible for most of the world's debt.