Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

lol use a liberal bias editorial means nothing. I am not a Trump fan, however I do believe we can survive 4 years of him. I also believe we can not survive another 4 years of Obama/Clinton. Clinton has taken money from Arab countries that hate gays and mistreat women. She will just give more to them and allow more haters to come to our country. She will leave the borders wide open. At least Trump is saying he will close them.

jtdavis posted:

Obama -- worst recovery in over 100 years is actually, no recovery.

You know better than that. Look what he inherited from Bush and company.

The new Commerce data will show a flat lined economy for the last 7.5 years.  There were many panics/recessions between 1915 and 2015 some worst and some not, than 2008/2009.  We recovered from all of those. Even the Depression had some increases in GDP.  So, yes, the worst recovery under the administration of the worst president.

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:

Obama -- worst recovery in over 100 years is actually, no recovery.

You know better than that. Look what he inherited from Bush and company.

The new Commerce data will show a flat lined economy for the last 7.5 years.  There were many panics/recessions between 1915 and 2015 some worst and some not, than 2008/2009.  We recovered from all of those. Even the Depression had some increases in GDP.  So, yes, the worst recovery under the administration of th worst president.

___

Meanwhile, back at the truth about a complex situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...a-recovery.html?_r=0

 

 

 

The article Condie cited was by Paul Krugman, economist, dated December 2014.  As usual, with anything by Krugman, one must never trust his figures.  He stated that federal employment dropped 600,000 during the Obama administration.  Below are US civil service employment totals from the US. Office of Personnel Management.

Total US federal civilian employees 2008 – 4,206 million

Total US federal civilian employees 2010 – 4.443 million

Total US federal civilian employees 2014 – 4.186 million

https://www.opm.gov/POLICY-DAT...PLOYMENT-SINCE-1962/

As one may see, employment rose to a high of 4.443 million in 2010. Check the footnotes of the cited source and one will find that the rise from 2008 to 2010 was due to temporary employees hired for the 2010 census.  Actual decrease from 2008 to 2014, without the plus up, would be about 20,000. Doubt the actual payroll dropped as the federal government continues to contract out employees.  As yet, congress can’t get hard numbers on full time equivalents from the executive branch.

US corporate profits are higher.  As of 2009, the total was $1.397 trillion.  As of 2014, the total was $2,089 trillion or, about $692 billion.  Sounds good, except when one realizes that this includes their overseas profits, as well.  BTW, the US GDP in 2014 was about $17.42 trillion.  Total US corporate profits for 2014 would account for 12 percent of GDP, at best (remember, overseas profits are included). 

http://www.statista.com/statis...e-profits-in-the-us/

As to stock prices, those are directly connected to the corporate profits.

Meanwhile, as we now know, the entire GDP flat lined during the Obama administration

It’s said the devil can quote scripture to support his lies.  Lucifer needs to take lessons from Krugman.

direstraits posted:

The article Condie cited was by Paul Krugman, economist, dated December 2014.  As usual, with anything by Krugman, one must never trust his figures.  He stated that federal employment dropped 600,000 during the Obama administration.  Below are US civil service employment totals from the US. Office of Personnel Management.

Total US federal civilian employees 2008 – 4,206 million

Total US federal civilian employees 2010 – 4.443 million

Total US federal civilian employees 2014 – 4.186 million

https://www.opm.gov/POLICY-DAT...PLOYMENT-SINCE-1962/

As one may see, employment rose to a high of 4.443 million in 2010. Check the footnotes of the cited source and one will find that the rise from 2008 to 2010 was due to temporary employees hired for the 2010 census.  Actual decrease from 2008 to 2014, without the plus up, would be about 20,000. Doubt the actual payroll dropped as the federal government continues to contract out employees.  As yet, congress can’t get hard numbers on full time equivalents from the executive branch.

US corporate profits are higher.  As of 2009, the total was $1.397 trillion.  As of 2014, the total was $2,089 trillion or, about $692 billion.  Sounds good, except when one realizes that this includes their overseas profits, as well.  BTW, the US GDP in 2014 was about $17.42 trillion.  Total US corporate profits for 2014 would account for 12 percent of GDP, at best (remember, overseas profits are included). 

http://www.statista.com/statis...e-profits-in-the-us/

As to stock prices, those are directly connected to the corporate profits.

Meanwhile, as we now know, the entire GDP flat lined during the Obama administration

It’s said the devil can quote scripture to support his lies.  Lucifer needs to take lessons from Krugman.

And the profits made across both big ponds is staying overseas. Think of the economic stimulus we could get if corporations would bring that money back and invest it in the US economy. Even John Kennedy thought it would be a good idea to not double tax the profits of overseas units.

Krugman is a joke amongst many investment experts, I remember one on CNBC asked how one makes a small fortune -- take a large fortune and follow Krugman;s investment advice.

He mainly writes these puff pieces for the NYT and other extreme left MSM.  Remember the NYT editorials that blamed Republicans and Christians for the slaughter in Orlando.

Contendahh posted:

A REMINDER:

 

HERE is the TOPIC of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36m1o-tM05g

I believe Condie has lost contact with reality and is up the river of deflection, a major tributary of the river of denial.

The thread was that Obama was looking good.  While Trump was looking bad, supported by an 18 month old article as to how good things are under Obama.  I dissected Krugman's article to reveal it was a heap of rotting garbage disguised as good times.  Combined with the recent Commerce Dept. information, we know that the last 7 plus years are a Potemkin village -- a Hollywood stage set with beautiful fronts of buildings, with nothing behind the sham.

Don't post the struggle of a young man with a terrible disease, while keeping a positive, brave attitude, as anything to do with this thread.

Tell me,,,,,,,, does this invasion of barbaric homicidal  sand
monkeys look like an inside job..?? Just how high should this
traitorous, perfidious, betraying satanic person be found..?? ----Jack Flash
 
I see two major possibilities on Obama's nonperformance; either the man is the poster-child for the word "incompetence" or he actually wants the chaos and carnage from those terrorists who slip through. Actually I prefer the incompetence scenario, but I am wondering about the latter possibility. From Obama's actions, I wonder if he might want more mass shootings to force legislation to deliver the new-age liberal wet-dream of a totally compliant population of disarmed sheep. 

 From Obama's actions, I wonder if he might want more mass shootings to force legislation to deliver the new-age liberal wet-dream of a totally compliant population of disarmed sheep.  Stanky

If he were that incompetent he would also be stupid enough 
take advisory help from his staff. I'm sure he's been given his
orders from the people who groomed and pay him.
He can do this without compunction because of his indifference
to white American Christians being a life long member of the
Islamic group.

 

Jack Flash posted:

 From Obama's actions, I wonder if he might want more mass shootings to force legislation to deliver the new-age liberal wet-dream of a totally compliant population of disarmed sheep.  Stanky

If he were that incompetent he would also be stupid enough 
take advisory help from his staff. I'm sure he's been given his
orders from the people who groomed and pay him.
He can do this without compunction because of his indifference
to white American Christians being a life long member of the
Islamic group.

 

I assume its a dynamic combination of incompetence and arrogance. It fits his record.

.

Update:  Trump looking even WORSE; GOP hurting all over!

http://www.businessinsider.com...olls-not-good-2016-6

http://www.politico.com/polls/

Keep blithering, Donald; by November, you will have made Johnson/Goldwater '64 look like a dead heat!  Trump is bidding fair to become the Loose Cannon of the Century and the GOP leaders are aghast, but don't know what to do with this monster they have created. It's the best show in town, folks--gets wilder every day.  Just WHAT will the varmint say next?

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie really should review past presidential campaigns at this stage.  As to what the critter Canckles says, it can't be any worse than her insane  laughs.

___

More evasive and irrelevant pap from you, DIRE.  That seems to be your emerging standard lately.

Meanwhile, the original theme of your thread is shown to be a sham.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie really should review past presidential campaigns at this stage.  As to what the critter Canckles says, it can't be any worse than her insane  laughs.

___

More evasive and irrelevant pap from you, DIRE.  That seems to be your emerging standard lately.

Meanwhile, the original theme of your thread is shown to be a sham.

___

Keep telling yourself that and keep ignoring the substance of the article if that makes you comfortable.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie really should review past presidential campaigns at this stage.  As to what the critter Canckles says, it can't be any worse than her insane  laughs.

___

More evasive and irrelevant pap from you, DIRE.  That seems to be your emerging standard lately.

Meanwhile, the original theme of your thread is shown to be a sham.

___

Keep telling yourself that and keep ignoring the substance of the article if that makes you comfortable.

Then, please show where I was in error!  Review what I stated about the article and make your case.  Also, remember, there are 24 million less with private healthcare insurance than in 2008.   Or, that most of the new jobs are part time -- the result of full time jobs being cut in hours. 

The worst recovery history delivered by an arrogant incompetent.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie really should review past presidential campaigns at this stage.  As to what the critter Canckles says, it can't be any worse than her insane  laughs.

___

More evasive and irrelevant pap from you, DIRE.  That seems to be your emerging standard lately.

Meanwhile, the original theme of your thread is shown to be a sham.

Here, for your ready reference, is the original theme of my thread--that being that the popularity of the GOP is in steep decline, as polls consistently show. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com...story.html?tid=a_inl

 

You have not produced anything that disputes anything in the E.J. Dionne article.

Your analysis of corporate profits and stock market prices overlooks something very critical, namely that it does not matter to a U.S. stock market investor whether the profits he makes from Corporation X stock were produced by domestic or overseas operations.  Either way, he is making money, and investors have made plenty of it during the Obama presidency. And that particular component of the profits that corporations make for their happy U.S. stockholders is not staying overseas.

Your reference to "past presidential campaigns" remains obscure and arcane. And your silly and irrelevant reference to"Cankles" and her insane laughs" adds precisely NOTHING to the discussion except to show your desperation to find some way to demean the Clinton candidacy, otherwise known as the candidacy of the next POTUS.. 

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie really should review past presidential campaigns at this stage.  As to what the critter Canckles says, it can't be any worse than her insane  laughs.

___

More evasive and irrelevant pap from you, DIRE.  That seems to be your emerging standard lately.

Meanwhile, the original theme of your thread is shown to be a sham.

Here, for your ready reference, is the original theme of my thread--that being that the popularity of the GOP is in steep decline, as polls consistently show. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com...story.html?tid=a_inl

 

You have not produced anything that disputes anything in the E.J. Dionne article.

The article is just that, an opinion piece.  I suggest one check Reagan's popularity before the 1980 convention -- very instructive.  Not the approval rating of any president at the end of their administration.

Your analysis of corporate profits and stock market prices overlooks something very critical, namely that it does not matter to a U.S. stock market investor whether the profits he makes from Corporation X stock were produced by domestic or overseas operations.  Either way, he is making money, and investors have made plenty of it during the Obama presidency. And that particular component of the profits that corporations make for their happy U.S. stockholders is not staying overseas.

I hope you were never an investment councilor.  Or, if so, that all your clients were Democrats.  Any income from the investments will come from either selling the stock and pocketing the difference between original cost to the investor vs. selling price and from any dividends paid from the corporate profits. From that second portion, only the US profits may provide the dividends.

Your reference to "past presidential campaigns" remains obscure and arcane. And your silly and irrelevant reference to"Cankles" and her insane laughs" adds precisely NOTHING to the discussion except to show your desperation to find some way to demean the Clinton candidacy, otherwise known as the candidacy of the next POTUS.. 

Nothing arcane about the popularity or, lack thereof, at the end if primaries vs after  the convention. 

 

Less than 2 percent GDP growth gives Obama's administration the reputation of the worst recovery in over 100 years.  No growth, as predicted by Commerce makes it the worst recovery, ever in the US.

I remember economic historians computed that during the Dark Ages, economies increased about one percent every twenty years.  Congrats, Obama, you're on your way to the worst recovery since the fall of Rome.  

Last edited by direstraits
jtdavis posted:

Dire, no matter how many times you post the same old tired story about the "recovery", we are far better off than at the end of Bushes administration.  The stock market is at record highs, unemployment is down, corporate profits are high, interest is low, etc. Which leading indicator is worse now?

The GDP average, obviously, without a significant increase, companies can't expand, nor raise pay, nor can the government pay its bills, and must borrow more.  The income from those companies equal about 10 to 12 percent of GDP. Which means the other 88 to 90 percent of the economy stalled or decreased.  Stock market going up is a good indicator of investor enthusiasm..  However, its not a measure of actual wealth, until one sells the stock.  The higher employment is mostly for lower paying , part time jobs at the expense of higher paying full time jobs.

jtdavis posted:

Is that Obama's fault or is it the CEO's fault? If it is high american wages, why can a construction craftsman go just about anywhere else in the world and make a higher wage than in america? 

What are you talking about?  Haven't you noticed all the illegals in construction forcing labor costs down.  If, its so bad in the US, WHY AIN'T YOU LEFT YET!

jtdavis posted:

Dire, no matter how many times you post the same old tired story about the "recovery", we are far better off than at the end of Bushes administration.  The stock market is at record highs, unemployment is down, corporate profits are high, interest is low, etc. Which leading indicator is worse now?

If you're in the stock market today you should be sacred,
it's a false high, soon the top layer of money will be raked
off again. Years ago when the market was healthy the
fluctuation was small or unchanged. Unemployment
is still very high, no matter how they spin it. 
 
If you can't be true to yourself about actual facts from an
accurate source you are doomed to live the same lie you
embrace with love everyday because it feels good and
you're too PC to wake up. I suggest you stay in never  
never land.....

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×