'Obamaville' sign posted near homeless camp

[Damocles]

Why did you ignore this one?

I was curious to see if you would retract your previous answer.

I didn't I answered both with one post.

The reality is, numbers wise we are not better we only have a goal to get there. I like better, I hope we get there, but we aren't there. It is possible that the economy will start getting better from here, but here is definitely worse than it was in January. 3% more unemployment, millions of jobs lost, foreclosures are once again starting to reach epic levels, still losing jobs, and you say that we are "better"... I think you are insane.

 

[Onceler]

I didn't I answered both with one post.

The reality is, numbers wise we are not better we only have a goal to get there. I like better, I hope we get there, but we aren't there. It is possible that the economy will start getting better from here, but here is definitely worse than it was in January.

And yet you still wouldn't trade this month for January.

I find that endlessly fascinating. You wouldn't trade a worse month, for a better month.

 

[Damocles]

And yet you still wouldn't trade this month for January.

I find that endlessly fascinating. You wouldn't trade a worse month, for a better month.

Again, numbers-wise, yes. I'd trade this month in a second for January. As I said before. 7% unemployment is better, more wealth is better, less foreclosures is better. My point hasn't been that we should go back, my point is that reaching "better than January" is a goal, we aren't there.

 

[Jarod]

Again, numbers-wise, yes. I'd trade this month in a second for January. As I said before. 7% unemployment is better, more wealth is better, less foreclosures is better. My point hasn't been that we should go back, my point is that reaching "better than January" is a goal, we aren't there.

So.... big picture you would rather not go back to January. A few smaller detales you would rather go back to January.

I get it...

 

[Onceler]

Again, numbers-wise, yes. I'd trade this month in a second for January. As I said before. 7% unemployment is better, more wealth is better, less foreclosures is better. My point hasn't been that we should go back, my point is that reaching "better than January" is a goal, we aren't there.

Perhaps we can agree that, from some aspects (like jobs), January was better, but from others (ability to plan hiring, for example), December is better?

For example, if I'm someone who had a job in January, and I lost it, December is clearly worse. However, if I am someone who is looking for a job, December is better, and if I am a company making personnel decisions, December is better.

Would you agree on that?

 

[Damocles]

So.... big picture you would rather not go back to January. A few smaller detales you would rather go back to January.

I get it...

*sigh*

My point is (And I'll speak slowly for the little fire rings in the smilie scenario added by Onceler.) that the economy is not "better" than in January. The prognosis is starting to look like we might be able to start building back to the numbers we had back then, but until we surpass those numbers we are not "better than January".

I have been clear, I have been concise, I have made my point so well that the only answer you have is "would you trade how you felt then for how you feel now"? The reality is I would trade those numbers for the numbers we have now in a heart beat, and for good reason.

They. Were. Better. Numbers.

In order to be "better" than those numbers we will need to surpass them.

Earlier you said you understood my point, yet you continue to try to get me to say something that I don't believe just because you feel better now than you used to.

 

[Topspin]

now your being a simpleton yourself.
The jobs number will indeed be worse for at least a year.
But GDP and hiring are going to explode in 2010. If your saying the economy as a whole is not better till the unemployment rates gets back down, keep shorting those stocks and I'll come back in 6 months laughing my ass off.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, I can put you on record for wishing we could trade December of '09 with January of '09, then?

Cool.

You can put me in that boat as well. You are correct that things look better for the FUTURE now than they did in January. But the economy was producing more back then (though headed down). More people were working then (though the numbers were heading down). Less people had seen their homes foreclosed upon (though the numbers were increasing).

Just because the FEAR/Uncertainty has subsided doesn't mean we are in a better position today than we were at the start of the year. Unemployment went from about 7.8% to over 10%. It will take us at LEAST a year to get back to the 8.5% range (assuming 6% GDP growth).

You are correct that confidence can boost the economic system to a degree. But if that confidence does not possess a solid foundation, it can be easily shaken.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I hope the Republican nominee harkins back to January of 09' as a goal for his administration!

You do realize that from an economic standpoint that IS a goal that is on the way to where we want to be?

We cannot get back to where we were in October of 2007 without passing back through the point where we were in January 2009.

Only a moron (which in politics there are a plenty) would NOT want us to go back to that level.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

HA, we are losing our wealth because of the policies of this command and control president.

It isn't your goal to lower the jobless rate, lower the foreclosure rates, increase the wealth of the nation?

I hope that all the Democrats run on that.

 

[Onceler]

HA, we are losing our wealth because of the policies of this command and control president.

Actually, net worth jumped up $2.7 trillion last quarter.

But thanks for chiming in, Tutu.

 

[Topspin]

Actually, net worth jumped up $2.7 trillion last quarter.

But thanks for chiming in, Tutu.

Tutu's a moron, maybe she's being controlled by Obama. I surely am not

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I am beginning to believe that nothing short of China foreclosing on our debt will shake the liberal's enthusiasm for our current economy.....

 

[Topspin]

I am beginning to believe that nothing short of China foreclosing on our debt will shake the liberal's enthusiasm for our current economy.....

I for one am not shocked you don't know dick about the economy.

 

[evince]

Where were all these economic concerns when this economic house of cards weas being built?

I remember some constwantly screaming "more Millionaires" and saying CEOs deserve k400 times what the average worker makes.

The right will never be able to claim they are the fiscal party.

Twice now in history you guys failed to head off economic disastor and now yet again you are screaming for sitting on our hands instead of dealing with the problem.

You are now known as the idiot party who opperates on greed and wears blinders.

This problem was fed during the Bush terms and every attempt to warn you it was coming met with idiotic screams of "Doom and Gloomer" or "You just hate Bush".

You guys wrecked the car and now you want to scream at the people who are taking it in to get fixed.

While we fix the car and add the oil, transmission fluid, new tires, new plugs, oil filter and fill it with gas you scream nothing should be done because the car will just get worse if we do we will continue to plan the next destination.

You will then scream you should be allowed to drive because someone else is at fault for you wrecking the car.

Your party has been outed for the fools you are. Its going to take another 30 years before you can convince anyone that you are the "fiscal" party.

Have fun in the shadows

 

[Canceled2]

That sucks. I hope he finds employment soon.

He's applying for government work...the only sector growing.

 

[cawacko]

Where were all these economic concerns when this economic house of cards weas being built?

I remember some constwantly screaming "more Millionaires" and saying CEOs deserve k400 times what the average worker makes.

The right will never be able to claim they are the fiscal party.

Twice now in history you guys failed to head off economic disastor and now yet again you are screaming for sitting on our hands instead of dealing with the problem.

You are now known as the idiot party who opperates on greed and wears blinders.

This problem was fed during the Bush terms and every attempt to warn you it was coming met with idiotic screams of "Doom and Gloomer" or "You just hate Bush".

You guys wrecked the car and now you want to scream at the people who are taking it in to get fixed.

While we fix the car and add the oil, transmission fluid, new tires, new plugs, oil filter and fill it with gas you scream nothing should be done because the car will just get worse if we do we will continue to plan the next destination.

You will then scream you should be allowed to drive because someone else is at fault for you wrecking the car.

Your party has been outed for the fools you are. Its going to take another 30 years before you can convince anyone that you are the "fiscal" party.

Have fun in the shadows

The House of Cards that was being built in the '90's? I think you heard some screams then though with the tech boom they definitely weren't as loud.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Calling slowed job loss a recovery is a misnomer. The BEA reports are preliminary, but it looks as if we may have finally seen the bottom of this and might start to see some improvement from the bottom. It still is worse than in January, but some indicators show signs that we may start walking uphill again at some point.

If your parking company lost $30,000,000,000 in the last eleven months and you said to the shareholders that it is better than in January before you lost all that cash because now there are slightly more customers in the parking lot, they'd fire you.

There was a report, on some news source, that was saying that a lot of companies are reporting gains for this quarter; but the reason is, is that with the lay offs they have less overhead.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Will you admit we are worse if I phrase it this way?

If in January my bank account had $30,000 in it, now it has $300, but it looks as if in the future I may be able to start saving again (stress maybe) does that mean I have more money than I had in January? That it is "better"?

The easy explanation is Bush bsd, Obama good.
No matter what Obama does, or doesn't do, they're never going to point a finger at him; unless it affects them directly.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And again, slowed inertia doesn't make it "better than" when we had more jobs, more money, less foreclosures, less credit card defaults...

You are basing it on confidence, which is an emotion. Confidence is good, and if it exists other than in your own mind it signifies that we may start to climb back to where we were in January in job numbers and wealth, but we are certainly not "better than" we were in January.

As the man who fell off the 99th floor of a building. He was heard to say, as he passed the 70th, 50th, 30th, and 10th floor. "No problem so far".