'Obamaville' sign posted near homeless camp

[Damocles]

Nah. If you want to go with a nature analogy, it's more like being stranded on a raft in an ocean, and going from a hurricane area to a calm area where land is in sight, and saying that things are no better because we're "still on the ocean".

Again, it isn't. That may be what you wish, but it isn't even close to reality. During the past 11 months the economy has fallen, not grown, it isn't "better" than it was.

It's more like the wind calmed down to 75 MPH and we look around and find we've only lost 40% of our passengers then saying it "must be getting better" because the wind has slowed down! You just ignore the fact when you took over as captain you had 40% more people on board...

It isn't better because when January came millions of people had jobs that don't now. No jobs were created and that's a fact, Jack.

We started in January with unemployment at less than 8%...

 

[Onceler]

Again, it isn't. That may be what you may think...

It's more like the wind calmed down to 75 MPH and we look around and find we've only lost 40% of our passengers then saying it "must be getting better" because the wind has slowed down! It isn't better because when January came millions of people had jobs that don't now. No jobs were created and that's a fact, Jack.

We started in January with unemployment at less than 8%...

So it makes no difference to you or the people who are unemployed in this country if the stock market is at 7,000 or 10,000, if we're losing 500,000 jobs a month instead of 11,000, if employers are planning hires in the next 2 quarters as opposed to layoffs, if the economy is actually growing instead of retracting.

Those conditions are interchangeable in your world? You'd just as soon trade January for December?

Cool. Good to know how well you understand things.

 

[Bonestorm]

Alas, I recall the days of yore when I argued with Bushites, including present company, about how the dow and the stock market are not always reasonable proxies for "the economy" and was ridiculed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly employment matters and the stock market needn't be mentioned at all.

 

[Damocles]

So it makes no difference to you or the people who are unemployed in this country if the stock market is at 7,000 or 10,000, if we're losing 500,000 jobs a month instead of 11,000, if employers are planning hires in the next 2 quarters as opposed to layoffs, if the economy is actually growing instead of retracting.

Those conditions are interchangeable in your world? You'd just as soon trade January for December?

Cool. Good to know how well you understand things.

Actual GDP growth and job creation is what will end the recession, not stock market values. Are you incapable of understanding that the economy fell during the first 11 months of Obama's tenure, or are you going to tell me things are now "better" because the water level hasn't risen above your neck yet?

 

[Topspin]

he cares about making a political point, not if the economy is getting better.
Your both right. It's worse than it was in terms of total eimployment, yet things are getting better ie GDP is no longer falling.
Now, have at each other weaklings.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This isn't about "saved or created." You are attempting to distract by bringing that into the conversation.

Hackocles stated that things are no better today than they were in January.

Do you agree with that? Yes, or no.

1) Actually, several people were discussing the jobs situation. I added to that.

2) In terms of GDP, we are not better than we were at the start of the year. As GDP is an economic indicator we all use to measure the output of the economy, then in that sense he is correct. Given that there are more unemployed people now than there were at the start of the year, then in that sense, he is correct. Given that foreclosures have continued all year, then in that sense he is correct.

3) I know you wanted a simple 'yes or no', but neither of those answers are sufficient to the question you posed. I think what you are looking for is more of a 'could we have been worse than we are now'... and the answer to that is yes. I do believe things would have been worse had we not seen TARP and the stimulus. However, the poor design of the two programs by the two parties also means things could have been better.

 

[cawacko]

It seems we don't have the threat of (Wall St) companies failing and knocking over the entire financial system like we had at this time last year which is a good thing.

We've also had positive GDP growth which is a good thing (though there is a debate that can be had about how substainable the growth is without government propping the economy up).

We've also had unemployment continue to rise and while maybe leveling showing no imminent signs of coming down in the near term.

 

[Damocles]

Alas, I recall the days of yore when I argued with Bushites, including present company, about how the dow and the stock market are not always reasonable proxies for "the economy" and was ridiculed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly employment matters and the stock market needn't be mentioned at all.

You were never "ridiculed" by me, and that's another fact, Jack.

 

[Onceler]

Actual GDP growth and job creation is what will end the recession, not stock market values. Are you incapable of understanding that the economy fell during the first 11 months of Obama's tenure, or are you going to tell me things are now "better" because the water level hasn't risen above your neck yet?

The stock market doesn't exist in a bubble; things like GDP growth and employer confidence are directly tied to it.

Are you incapable of understanding that the conditions right now are much more favorable for future growth & employment than the conditions in January are?

It's become insane to argue with you. You used to understand the economy a bit better than this...

 

[Onceler]

1) Actually, several people were discussing the jobs situation. I added to that.

2) In terms of GDP, we are not better than we were at the start of the year. As GDP is an economic indicator we all use to measure the output of the economy, then in that sense he is correct. Given that there are more unemployed people now than there were at the start of the year, then in that sense, he is correct. Given that foreclosures have continued all year, then in that sense he is correct.

3) I know you wanted a simple 'yes or no', but neither of those answers are sufficient to the question you posed. I think what you are looking for is more of a 'could we have been worse than we are now'... and the answer to that is yes. I do believe things would have been worse had we not seen TARP and the stimulus. However, the poor design of the two programs by the two parties also means things could have been better.

I wasn't apologizing for the "One," as you insinuated.

The answer is yes, things are better now. If you're a business, if you're unemployed, or if you're employed, things are better, and you're in a better position to either 1) hire soon 2) regain employment soon 3) hang onto your job

Does that cover everyone?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I wasn't apologizing for the "One," as you insinuated.

The answer is yes, things are better now. If you're a business, if you're unemployed, or if you're employed, things are better, and you're in a better position to either 1) hire soon 2) regain employment soon 3) hang onto your job

Does that cover everyone?

Yes, you were apologizing for his continued use of the 'Bush sucks'

Again, you clearly did not read my answer. Things are NOT better now. If more people lost jobs, if foreclosures continued to rise, if GDP is LOWER than it was at the start of the year, then it is IGNORANT to suggest that things are better now than they were then.

Saying... 'well some people SAY they will start hiring next year' does give HOPE of things getting better, but it does not MAKE things better NOW.

As I stated, defaults on cc debt are rising, the commercial real estate market is in trouble due to the credit market, banks are not showing an ease in credit on the residential side either. None of this bodes well.

GDP was propped up by the cash for clunkers fiasco which has no long term benefits to the economy.

You quote the '50% of companies are planning to hire next year' quite a bit.... so what are the OTHER 50% going to do? what is the net of jobs expected?

As I stated, we need 6% GDP growth for a year to get unemployment back to the 8.5% level (roughly)

As I also stated, yes... things could have been worse.

 

[Onceler]

Companies planning hires is much better than companies planning massive layoffs. More confidence is better than less confidence. A growing market is better than one on the downswing. And yes - growth is better than retraction.

These seem like fairly simple concepts to me, but hey, I'm no economist...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Companies planning hires is much better than companies planning massive layoffs. More confidence is better than less confidence. A growing market is better than one on the downswing. And yes - growth is better than retraction.

These seem like fairly simple concepts to me, but hey, I'm no economist...

That is obvious...

Again... you talk about the 50% who are planning to hire... WHAT about the other 50%? What are they planning to do?

Again... a growing market is a positive sign... but that does NOT make the economy better than it was in January. It means the FUTURE is looking better, but that does not change the PRESENT. Damo stated that we are worse off than we were at the start of the year. We are worse.

You continue to ignore the points I made as to why that is correct.... because as I stated, you are an apologist for your messiah.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Small businesses aren't hiring because of the uncertainty of Obama's policies, period.

I wasn't apologizing for the "One," as you insinuated.

The answer is yes, things are better now. If you're a business, if you're unemployed, or if you're employed, things are better, and you're in a better position to either 1) hire soon 2) regain employment soon 3) hang onto your job

Does that cover everyone?

 

[zappasguitar]

Actually I hope he continues to whine, it helps to make his numbers go down faster.

I just point out what I see and hear. The one thing I know is that the proverbial buck does not stop at the desk of Obama. Ever.

He's just keeping up the tradition, as did his predecessor.

Because if the buck had ever stopped with GWB, then Obama would never have to talk about what his administration "inherited".

 

[zappasguitar]

In a year when the economy is picking up steem in the direction of recovery you will hear all kinds of Republicans saying one of two things...

1) It was always going to recover dispite President Obama.

Or

2) Recovery, what recovery?

I ALREADY HEAR a number of the usual Righties spouting their own version of #1 on a daily basis.

 

[Damocles]

He's just keeping up the tradition, as did his predecessor.

Because if the buck had ever stopped with GWB, then Obama would never have to talk about what his administration "inherited".

And that makes it better how? Bush stank, so we should just accept when this guy does too? Rubbish.

 

[zappasguitar]

And that makes it better how? Bush stank, so we should just accept when this guy does too? Rubbish.

Well, perhaps if some of your conservative buddies hadn't "just accepted it" when "it" came from Dubya and maybe been a little more outraged, then perhaps we might understand your current anger at President Obama, but pardon me if I don't get why you suddenly have a problem.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Obama wouldn't get elected dog cat her with this economy. But he stalled the stimulus for political gain. He'll have a booming economy in 2011.

 

[zappasguitar]

That is obvious...

Again... you talk about the 50% who are planning to hire... WHAT about the other 50%? What are they planning to do?

Again... a growing market is a positive sign... but that does NOT make the economy better than it was in January. It means the FUTURE is looking better, but that does not change the PRESENT. Damo stated that we are worse off than we were at the start of the year. We are worse.

You continue to ignore the points I made as to why that is correct.... because as I stated, you are an apologist for your messiah.

Why you gotta demean him and his ideas?

He's being polite and civil with you...why do you find it necessary to end every post of yours with "you are an apologist for your messiah", or some variation on that theme?

The bottom line is you both are right, but only one of you made his point without putting down the other.