unemployment drops to 7.8%

[joshh]

so you deny that obama paid no attention to the economy in his first two years? years when he had a filibuster proof senate and a majority in the house, could have passed any law/program he wanted? you're saying this did not happen?

and josh, don't you know that an economy that is decelerating from over 3% GDP to less than 1.5% GDP is growing? Sheesh. econ 101 man.

I know but growth is growth right. But "The private sector is doing fine..."

And some people here want to think they aren't partisan...lol.

[nando]

uhm, is an economy that is 101.5% the size it was in an earlier period not larger? or are you saying 101.5 is smaller than 100?

how about math 97. Man.

[gwb72tii]

no, not really. until you stop parroting faux news, that's just what you are.

so you deny that obama paid no attention to the economy in his first two years? years when he had a filibuster proof senate and a majority in the house, could have passed any law/program he wanted? you're saying this did not happen?

and josh, don't you know that an economy that is decelerating from over 3% GDP to less than 1.5% GDP is growing? Sheesh. econ 101 man.

[Kershaw]

no, not really. until you stop parroting faux news, that's just what you are.

[joshh]

compared to fantasy land, then? how exactly do you propose we magically grow the economy "faster"? hiring a right wing nut job who uses an untested version of a software application for the most important day of his life? (yet, we're supposed to believe in his business acumen?)

look, your side lost. they spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to unseat a president who oversaw one of the worst recessions ever, and FAILED. People saw through the BS machine, maybe someday you will too..

Nice red herring there Nando.

Obama spent how many years working on what instead of the economy during his first term. How much debt added to the national debt with only small growth over the four years he's been in office. Yet here we are still on the edge of possible recession still....partially because of what Obama did in his first term instead of work on just the economy.
And to make it clear for you once again. The Republicans aren't my "side". They're just the lesser of two evils. That clear yet.

[nando]

compared to fantasy land, then? how exactly do you propose we magically grow the economy "faster"? hiring a right wing nut job who uses an untested version of a software application for the most important day of his life? (yet, we're supposed to believe in his business acumen?)

look, your side lost. they spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to unseat a president who oversaw one of the worst recessions ever, and FAILED. People saw through the BS machine, maybe someday you will too..

[joshh]

Another solid post. Yes, joshh's argument is that growth and improvement isn't good enough. (compared to what?)


Oh well, consumers are certainly less gloomy than 4-5 years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/michigan-consumer-sentiment-index-increased-to-84-9-in-november.html

Meaning: 'Confidence among U.S. consumers climbed to a five-year high in November, improving the prospects of bigger spending gains that will help spur the expansion.' They also mentioned that although the fiscal cliff looms, people are still expecting a solid holiday shopping season and that could help round out the year.

Compared to growing much faster than it currently is considering we are still seeing the chance we may *still* slide back into a recession. Your denial is strong. You've been arguing this "growth is growth" point for what, almost two years now.

[rwh11385]

So now the argument that Obama has taken the economy from a free fall (thanks to previous policies) to growth (which in 2008, economists thought best case scenario was worse than where we are today) thanks to Obama's new policies. But growth isn't good enough... So we need to bring it back the previous policies via Romney!!! Yay!!

People that feel that way must have a very short memory.

Another solid post. Yes, joshh's argument is that growth and improvement isn't good enough. (compared to what?)


Oh well, consumers are certainly less gloomy than 4-5 years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/michigan-consumer-sentiment-index-increased-to-84-9-in-november.html

"The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary consumer sentiment index rose to 84.9, the fourth straight increase and the highest since July 2007, from 82.6 in October."

"The Michigan index of consumer expectations six months from now, which more closely projects the direction of consumer spending, increased to 80.8, the best reading since July 2007, from 79 in October. The gauge of current conditions rose to 91.3, the highest since January 2008, from 88.1 the prior month."

Meaning: 'Confidence among U.S. consumers climbed to a five-year high in November, improving the prospects of bigger spending gains that will help spur the expansion.' They also mentioned that although the fiscal cliff looms, people are still expecting a solid holiday shopping season and that could help round out the year.

[Frog]

So now the argument that Obama has taken the economy from a free fall (thanks to previous policies) to growth (which in 2008, economists thought best case scenario was worse than where we are today) thanks to Obama's new policies. But growth isn't good enough... So we need to bring it back the previous policies via Romney!!! Yay!!

People that feel that way must have a very short memory.

[tjts1]

n
the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.

So if its not for him, is it for my benefit or do I fall in the NO SOUP FOR YOU! club too?

Maybe you should add a list after your links of who worthy and not worthy of your shit.

[gwb72tii]

What he said was accurate.

thank you

[rwh11385]

so, rwh, you're saying hussman is lying, is that it?

Strawman building.

What he said was accurate. But why he (and you) are suddenly focusing on it is misdirection and a shift from previous mentalities.

[gwb72tii]

so, rwh, you're saying hussman is lying, is that it?

[rwh11385]

nothing you ranted about is even on point about the hussman article and why current econ news means little

the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.
instead of trying to make yourself look smart, how about letting others chime in if they choose to after reading about the historical revisions to economic data?

Actually, I think it is on point - current economic data was meaningful to you previously when you thought it pointed downward, but now only when it is positive does it lack any value.

Even Bill Clinton can't evade a basic question that well

Like Brave said... At least you have demonstrated repeatedly to the board that you are so incapable of answering questions about your logic that you seek to avoid them entirely. But this is a discussion board where you don't get to pick and choose who doesn't get to challenge your bull. You might surround yourself with gullible clients who eat it up, but no one does around here.

[gwb72tii]

nothing you ranted about is even on point about the hussman article and why current econ news means little

the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.
instead of trying to make yourself look smart, how about letting others chime in if they choose to after reading about the historical revisions to economic data?