We're in a Recovery

[mundame]

Jobless claims hit lowest point in five years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)By Jason Lange (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?n=jason.lange)
WASHINGTON - Factory activity grew the most in nearly two years in January and the number of new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a five-year low last week, giving surprisingly strong signals on the economy's pulse. Full Article (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)


The S&P finally went over 1500 this morning, and the Dow is looking at 14,000, which would be an all-time high.

So I guess the recovery does have some gas now. Presumably unemployment figures will start to drop soon.

I am still worried about Europe: Britain just threatened to leave the EU, and while Cameron put his referendum five years out and hedged it around with a lot of barriers, the Europeans were so angry that it's clear they believe England leaving would break up the European Union --- and presumably the global financial system, at least for awhile.

Any other concerns? I'd say the debt limit, but that is unsolved and yet the stock market is soaring, so I guess no one is actually worried about that. They'll kick the can down the road, as usual.

[red states rule]

Jobless claims hit lowest point in five years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)

By Jason Lange (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?n=jason.lange)
WASHINGTON - Factory activity grew the most in nearly two years in January and the number of new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a five-year low last week, giving surprisingly strong signals on the economy's pulse. Full Article (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)


The S&P finally went over 1500 this morning, and the Dow is looking at 14,000, which would be an all-time high.

So I guess the recovery does have some gas now. Presumably unemployment figures will start to drop soon.

I am still worried about Europe: Britain just threatened to leave the EU, and while Cameron put his referendum five years out and hedged it around with a lot of barriers, the Europeans were so angry that it's clear they believe England leaving would break up the European Union --- and presumably the global financial system, at least for awhile.

Any other concerns? I'd say the debt limit, but that is unsolved and yet the stock market is soaring, so I guess no one is actually worried about that. They'll kick the can down the road, as usual.

Eh, gas prices are still double what they were when Obama took office. The labor participation rate is shrinking. Food prices continue to rise. Wages are still flat. Foreclosures continue to roll along. and of course Obama continues to borrow 40 cents for every dollar spent and Dems have yet to pass a budget in over 4 years. So is this what you call a recovery?

[Drummond]

Jobless claims hit lowest point in five years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)

By Jason Lange (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?n=jason.lange)
WASHINGTON - Factory activity grew the most in nearly two years in January and the number of new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a five-year low last week, giving surprisingly strong signals on the economy's pulse. Full Article (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE90E0KL20130124)


The S&P finally went over 1500 this morning, and the Dow is looking at 14,000, which would be an all-time high.

So I guess the recovery does have some gas now. Presumably unemployment figures will start to drop soon.

I am still worried about Europe: Britain just threatened to leave the EU, and while Cameron put his referendum five years out and hedged it around with a lot of barriers, the Europeans were so angry that it's clear they believe England leaving would break up the European Union --- and presumably the global financial system, at least for awhile.

Any other concerns? I'd say the debt limit, but that is unsolved and yet the stock market is soaring, so I guess no one is actually worried about that. They'll kick the can down the road, as usual.

Red States' answer is an excellent one.

The debt limit should be a MASSIVE concern. Obama needs to try the approach our own Coalition Government in the UK is trying ... that of REDUCING indebtedness. This 'spend as if there's no tomorrow' mentality may be typically Socialist, but BEING typically Socialist, it's also typically ruinous. Even the mightiest of economies don't have infinite resources.

But anyway, it's your comment on Britain within the EU I chiefly wanted to comment about.

I think that you're considerably overstating your argument.

I don't doubt that much of Europe is angry with the UK. But .. what if they are ? Sure, they want us on board as a compliant 'partner' .. but with the terms they want to tie us into, that 'partnership' involves a terminal loss of our sovereignty. What sort of 'partner' offers an arrangement which, in reality, amounts to dictatorship from unelected officials, from a bureaucratic body demanding power over you, at an ever increasing rate .. and expects to be paid for the privilege !!!

The UK, if it left the EU, would do little more than annoy Brussels for having done so. There are plenty of other Member States tied into Europe, and there are even membership applications pending. The EU would most certainly survive if we left it. YES, it might give other Member States food for thought. There might be a ripple-back effect as some trading agreements suffered. But it'd be eminently survivable from the EU's point of view.

Consider that we refused to tie £ sterling into the Euro. Did the Euro collapse because of it ... OR, is its viability in long-term decline because weaker currencies of OTHER nations have dragged it down ?

Fact is, Mundame, that European unity is all about power-robbing, in order to create a European SuperState, this in turn being a step to making globalism a more complete reality. What WAS the EEC, a trading partnership, has today become a Leftie control-freaking paradise.

Let the bureaucrats throw a tantrum if the UK leaves. They'll survive it, and get over it. As will we, in the UK. And as a politically FREE entity.

See ... http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/372809/Leo-McKinstry


THE European Union has always been an enemy of democracy. It is a bureaucratic empire that governs with neither legitimacy nor consent. <section class="text-description" itxtnodeid="211" itxtharvested="0">
As Brussels continues its drive towards the creation of a federal superstate, the will of the British people is treated with the same contempt as our national sovereignty.

But at last a British leader has had the guts to challenge the EU’s remorseless destruction of our independence.

In his ground-breaking speech yesterday David Cameron declared that if the Tories win the general election in 2015 he will fight to repatriate powers back to Britain from Brussels.

Such a step would mark a dramatic reversal of the process that has been under way since we joined the Common Market 40 years ago, whereby the Eurocrats have been allowed to establish ever more oppressive control over our country.

Even more importantly Cameron promised that this new settlement will be put to the public in a straightforward in/out referendum before the end of 2017. “It is time for the British people to have their say,” he concluded.

With this speech Cameron has transformed British politics.

He has strengthened his party, exposed the hollowness of the Opposition and sent an electric shock through the EU. Given all the hype before Cameron’s performance it seemed likely that he would fail to live up to expectations. But he far exceeded them, not just through the powerful Euroscepticism of his language but also through his concrete proposal for an in/out referendum. Of course there are many hurdles to overcome.

For a start everything is dependent on the Conservatives winning the next election. Moreover the EU, whose entire existence is built on “ever closer union”, is unlikely to be amenable to British demands for more national autonomy.

Many in Brussels have reacted with alarm to Cameron’s speech, regarding it as an affront to their cherished federal project. Typically, Belgian Guy Verhofstadt, one of the most passionate integrationists in the European Parliament, claimed Cameron was “playing with fire”.

This reaction illustrates the instinctive disdain for democracy within the EU. But Brussels should not be too dismissive of Cameron. For his referendum proposal has strengthened his position in any future negotiations.

The reality that the British people might vote to leave, taking away our annual £18billion contribution from EU coffers, will make our partners far more wary of riding roughshod over our wishes.

Already German Chancellor Angela Merkel is talking of “compromise” with Britain, an indicator of the EU’s nervousness about our potential exit.

Only two years ago Cameron said he saw “no need for an in/out” referendum. He has been forced to change his stance because of the public’s growing hostility towards the EU. This newspaper deserves a lot of credit for helping strengthen that scepticism. When we began our campaign for a British withdrawal from the EU we were mocked.

Europhiles with their mix of smugness and snobbery derided us for extremism, portraying the paper as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

How wrong they were. In our demand for democratic self-governance, the Daily Express is now firmly in the mainstream of public opinion. It is the Euro fanatics who now lie on the extremes, their project broken by the eurozone debt crisis and the social dislocation arising from uncontrolled immigration.

</section>A brilliant article.

Obama, as he's recently made clear, would hate us to leave the EU. He's had the arrogance to expect us to TAKE being ruled from outside our national borders.

But then .. he is a Leftie, who doesn't care a jot about the ordinary citizen's wishes. Or - when it defies what he wants - the sanctity of democratic process itself !

[jimnyc]

I'm not an economist, so I won't claim superiority here. I think IF we are in any type of recovery, the speed is the slowest ever known to man. I really don't see much of a national change on key indicators to fully support that yet, and for a measurable amount of time.

[Drummond]

I'm not an economist, so I won't claim superiority here. I think IF we are in any type of recovery, the speed is the slowest ever known to man. I really don't see much of a national change on key indicators to fully support that yet, and for a measurable amount of time.

I don't think you're in a recovery at all. You cannot recover for as long as public spending continues as it is. It's perfectly simple .. Obama needs to operate an economic strategy grounded in realism, instead of recklessness. Encouraging 'blips' along the way are fools' gold.

[red states rule]

More news on the Obama "recovery"
The Worst Economic Recovery Ever

January 24, 2013
By Lonely Conservative (http://lonelyconservative.com/author/lonely-conservative/)
Did you hear the news this morning that initial jobless claims have hit a new low? Well, that’s because they estimated the numbers from three big states (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/and-reason-todays-five-years-initial-claims-low). What a convenient distraction from the real news (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/its-official-worst-recovery-ever).
If there was any debate whether the Fed’s policies have helped the economy or just the market (and specifically the Bernanke-targeted Russell 2000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110307372.html)), the following two charts will end any and all debate. As the following chart from the St Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/economy/us/gdpdata.html)shows, as of the just completed quarter, US GDP “growth” since the “recovery” is now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

Here’s the chart.
http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GDP-recovery-st-louis-fed_0.jpg (http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GDP-recovery-st-louis-fed_0.jpg)
The only people experiencing a nice recovery are the 1% the Democrats love to bash in public. Funny, huh?
Read the whole thing (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/its-official-worst-recovery-ever). http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/01/the-worst-economic-recovery-ever/

[mundame]

I'm not an economist, so I won't claim superiority here. I think IF we are in any type of recovery, the speed is the slowest ever known to man. I really don't see much of a national change on key indicators to fully support that yet, and for a measurable amount of time.

Oh, it's been slow, for sure. Historically slow: we really got into serious, serious trouble in 2007-2008.

Well, you could be right. I am partly going by the stock market, which is very high, but January is almost always one of the best months of the year for the stock market, so maybe I shouldn't.

I could be premature here. Let's watch and see.

[jimnyc]

Oh, it's been slow, for sure. Historically slow: we really got into serious, serious trouble in 2007-2008.

Well, you could be right. I am partly going by the stock market, which is very high, but January is almost always one of the best months of the year for the stock market, so maybe I shouldn't.

I could be premature here. Let's watch and see.

I'm still of the belief that "true" recovery won't begin until the government reels in wasteful spending and lowers taxes. Taking more and more money from citizens won't spur growth, it just gives the government more money to waste.

[mundame]

Red States' answer is an excellent one.




You made me look -----

Just more of the usual snark and sneer from RSR. And spam.

RSR is a snarkaholic and I keep him firmly turned off. Snarkaholics will destroy anyone they can, with a constant stream of sneer and jeer.

[aboutime]

The Only RECOVERY taking place. Is by Those Americans who voted for Obama a second time, and ONLY NOW are trying to RECOVER from their repeated BUYERS REMORSE.

Recovery for the Economy can not, and will not happen until 2016 when either Obama is gone, or the European Style Socialist Government takes over, and all of us are BANKRUPT.

[mundame]

I don't think you're in a recovery at all. You cannot recover for as long as public spending continues as it is. It's perfectly simple .. Obama needs to operate an economic strategy grounded in realism, instead of recklessness. Encouraging 'blips' along the way are fools' gold.

I want to respond to your very interesting longer post, but this one is worrying me ------ not that you are saying it but that it might be true.

I think you are saying that an apparent recovery could be "fools' gold" if it all crashes in a heap because of a Spain/Greek-style deficit crisis.

Well, there is that.......

[Kathianne]

I'm not an economist, so I won't claim superiority here. I think IF we are in any type of recovery, the speed is the slowest ever known to man. I really don't see much of a national change on key indicators to fully support that yet, and for a measurable amount of time.

I'm not an economist either, but I do know that when the Constitution for the EU is longer than the Obama Health Care 'affordability' option, the European countries have a problem. From the get go it appeared to strip away autonomy of the states. Seems that even in France, when it appeared they were thinking of a direct vote on something or other, it quickly became clear the people were against, so the French government 'decided' to go along with EU, rather than vote. Interesting that.

[mundame]

Yes, I agree with you, Drummond, the article you posted is brilliant. I particularly liked the analysis that Cameron's announcement of an upcoming referendum, however distant! strengthens his hand at negotiations with Brussels.

I don't know if you are aware that I agree generally with you: certainly the EU is an elitist, non-democratic exercise: if they took a vote, many countries would vote themselves out immediately, including Germany!





But anyway, it's your comment on Britain within the EU I chiefly wanted to comment about.

I think that you're considerably overstating your argument.




I THINK I mainly argued that Europe is showing very interesting signs of being terrified by this threat of referendum by Cameron. And the article you cited seems to agree that they are quite worried. Contagion, contagion --- the bête noir of this very fragile union these days. I cannot tell how much trouble Europe is in; of course they hide it, they have to or their fear becomes self-fulfilling. So I am interested at the anger; they may well feel Cameron is trying to break it up.</SPAN>
Well, that would be a fall-back position Britain has never shied away from before in two millennia.....a spoke in the wheel of European powers. Hey, works for me.

I gather you do NOT entirely agree with either me or the article you cited, that the united Europe project is in real danger because of Cameron's strong speech. You think they'll get up and walk it off.

The article says, however, It is the Euro fanatics who now lie on the extremes, their project broken by the eurozone debt crisis and the social dislocation arising from uncontrolled immigration.

Their project broken........

We talked before about Obama's strange strong reproof of Britain and Cameron a couple weeks earlier. He of course must have been given an advance copy of the speech. So our State Department/administration also thinks Cameron's referendum or even just the threat of it could break up the EU, and thinks that would be bad for the United States.

Probably would, in the sense of European wars becoming more likely again, avoiding which has long been our interest and concern.

However, it's not working. IMO, Europe will break up. I could be very wrong, of course. But I watch this sort of clue with interest.

[Kathianne]

Some recovery:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/gallup-poll-americans-most-negative-nation-and-economy-30-years


Gallup Poll: Americans Most Negative On the Nation And Economy In 30 Years http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/pictures/picture-5.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
Submitted by Tyler Durden (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden) on 01/24/2013 15:03 -0500

Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog (http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/01/24/gallup-poll-americans-most-negative-on-the-nation-and-economy-in-30-years/),
I guess Americans just haven’t heard of a little something called the stock market. Isn’t that right Bernanke? Wasn’t the stock market rally you engineered supposed to make everyone feel all nice and confident? Well the great middle class squeeze continues, as the stock market is for the 1% what food stamps are for the poor. They are just strategies to keep these groups apathetic and obedient. The middle class isn’t buying it though, as is evidenced by this recent Gallup Poll conducted January 7-10, 2013.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/01/20130124_gallup.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/01/20130124_gallup.jpg)

From Gallup:



PRINCETON, NJ — U.S. President Barack Obama begins his second term at a time when Americans are as negative about the state of the country and its prospects going forward as they have been in more than three decades. Fewer than four in 10 Americans (39%) rate the current status of the U.S. at the positive end of a zero to 10 scale. This is about the same as in 2010, but it is fewer than have said so at any point since 1979. As they usually are, Americans are more upbeat in their predictions of where the U.S. will be in five years (48% positive), but this is also lower than at any time since 1979.

The 39% of Americans who give a six to 10 rating when asked to evaluate the nation’s current status is similar to the 37% who said the same three years ago. Prior to that, however, assessments were generally more positive, including a 73% six to 10 rating in January 2001 — the highest on record. The three previous points in time when ratings were as low as or lower than the 2013 rating were in August 1979 (34%), April 1974 (33%), and January 1971 (39%). The 1979 measure came at a time when the economy was in bad shape and inflation was rampant, while the 1974 measure came in the midst of the Watergate scandal. When Gallup first asked the question in August 1959, 68% of Americans rated the state of the nation in the six to 10 range.
What about the future?



The 48% who give a six to 10 ranking when asked to project the status of the U.S. five years from now is tied with the 1979 measure as the lowest in Gallup’s history of asking the question. Additionally, the 40% who give a negative rating (zero to four) when asked to look ahead is lower than at any point in history. These negative ratings include 10% who say the situation of the country in five years will be zero, the worst they can imagine.
Not so much. Don’t worry Bernanke, I’m sure another 50 S&P handles will make everything better.


Full Gallup article here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160046/americans-downbeat-state-prospects-future.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines).

[Robert A Whit]

Eh, gas prices are still double what they were when Obama took office. The labor participation rate is shrinking. Food prices continue to rise. Wages are still flat. Foreclosures continue to roll along. and of course Obama continues to borrow 40 cents for every dollar spent and Dems have yet to pass a budget in over 4 years. So is this what you call a recovery?

Since Obama took over, food prices are staggering. And she forgot to mention those so discouraged that though they got laid off long ago, they no longer get counted by Obama.

Actual estimates of the unemployeed must still be in the 15/16 percent range or higher.

She has been told before that if you are rich, you ought to love Obama since his polices help the rich the most.

[red states rule]

You made me look -----

Just more of the usual snark and sneer from RSR. And spam.

RSR is a snarkaholic and I keep him firmly turned off. Snarkaholics will destroy anyone they can, with a constant stream of sneer and jeer.

I guess it would be difficult for you to refute that vicious pack of truth I posted. Pardon me while I bust that bubble you are living in :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Since Obama took over, food prices are staggering. And she forgot to mention those so discouraged that though they got laid off long ago, they no longer get counted by Obama.

Actual estimates of the unemployeed must still be in the 15/16 percent range or higher.

She has been told before that if you are rich, you ought to love Obama since his polices help the rich the most.

and more on that "recovery"
For the second week in a row, actual (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) unemployment claims as reported (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20130108.htm) by the Department of Labor came in greater than the analogous week in 2012.
At the same time, and also for the second week in a row, the department's seasonally adjusted claims number -- the only one the business wire services ever specifically identify in their reports -- came in lower. In today's instance, raw year-over-year claims were almost 5 percent higher than the same week a year ago, but the year-over-year seasonally adjusted figure came in 11 percent lower. That's bad enough, but then the wires compounded the problem by running with indefensible conclusions based on DOL's contradictory data.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/24/second-week-row-press-says-jobless-claims-fall-5-year-low-actual-year-ov#ixzz2J1su5pUR

[Robert A Whit]

I pulled up our real estate figures for a number of years.

Let's start with 1/1/2005 to 1/31/2006

56.58 percent that listed sold.
Avg. listing price. $768,929
Avg sold price. $781,779 (note higher than listed prices)
Avg days on the market 16 days

Today Pendings (entered escrow)

Avg listed price $429,000
Avg sold price $????? Won't be available till closed
Avg days on the market 29

I have figures of the years going back. But those were worse.

So, prices are down by about $353,000

What is going on is that loans are extremely difficult to obtain.

In 2005 one could pay 5 percent down and get a good rate.

Today you must pay 20 percent down and of course the rate is a lot lower.

With such rates, real estate should be so hot it is sold in 5 or less days at these prices.

But though in parts of the SF Bay area, the rich are able to easily buy homes and the rich love this area and compete like mad, the ultra librerals home prices go way up.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is, if you are a Bankruptcy attorney, own a repo company or collection agency - you should be doing very well in this Obama "recovery". BTW, do not forget everyone is now taking home less money thanks to the Obama tax increase (and the Dems are on the record saying more tax increases are on the way) Obama and the Dems expect you to live on less money - but Obama and the Dems will not apply that line of thinking to the Federal government

[mundame]

I guess I do think we're in a recovery.

Today from Reuters:

S&P 500 eyes best winning streak in eight years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/25/us-markets-stocks-idUSBRE90L0DA20130125)9:07am ESTNEW YORK - Stock futures climbed on Friday and the S&P 500 was poised for an eighth day of gains, its longest winning streak in eight years, buoyed by rosy earnings from Procter & Gamble amid a backdrop of sturdy corporate results.
************************************************** ***




The same Reuters page ALSO says Britain may well be sagging into a triple-dip recession. That is, it's going down for the third time. Okay, that's not good.

So I'm not interested in predictions for our big recovery this year, only what actually does happen, like the stock market burst of joy this week. Because Europe......Europe could blow up at any moment, overnight, kablooie, there goes the world economy. That's the thing about the future; we don't know what's in it.

[tailfins]

I guess I do think we're in a recovery.

Today from Reuters:

S&P 500 eyes best winning streak in eight years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/25/us-markets-stocks-idUSBRE90L0DA20130125)9:07am EST

NEW YORK - Stock futures climbed on Friday and the S&P 500 was poised for an eighth day of gains, its longest winning streak in eight years, buoyed by rosy earnings from Procter & Gamble amid a backdrop of sturdy corporate results.
************************************************** ***




The same Reuters page ALSO says Britain may well be sagging into a triple-dip recession. That is, it's going down for the third time. Okay, that's not good.

So I'm not interested in predictions for our big recovery this year, only what actually does happen, like the stock market burst of joy this week. Because Europe......Europe could blow up at any moment, overnight, kablooie, there goes the world economy. That's the thing about the future; we don't know what's in it.

The US has been in a technical recovery for almost four years now. In order to not be rightfully corrected, I refer to this as a "weak economy". Can you make a case that the US is not in a weak economy?

[mundame]

The US has been in a technical recovery for almost four years now. In order to not be rightfully corrected, I refer to this as a "weak economy". Can you make a case that the US is not in a weak economy?


No....can anyone? Well, weak recovery. I'd agree that equates to "weak economy," though.

I don't know why you would expect me to make such a case; obviously we have had a crappy economy since 2008. We had, you know, a crash. Crashette.

However, we MAY be in the beginning of a strong recovery this month: the stock market certainly thinks so! The stock market is going nuts: the bronze bull is on the rampage. Wouldn't surprise me if the Dow goes over 14,000 next week.

Will it last? Depends on external factors, IMO. Wars. European crash.

Even being pulled down like Spain and Portugal by the weight of our own deficits, though I personally do not think that is a near-term danger. I know some of you think we're on the edge of the cliff every moment, but .....not yet, IMO.

[Drummond]

You made me look -----

Just more of the usual snark and sneer from RSR. And spam.

RSR is a snarkaholic and I keep him firmly turned off. Snarkaholics will destroy anyone they can, with a constant stream of sneer and jeer.

No, Mundame. I don't accept your characterisation of 'RSR' at all.

'Redstate' has posted NOT spam, but informative posts. This information is to be found on this thread for all to see ... for example, his post #6, showing a graphical representation of GDP.

That you may disagree with him is no good reason to be dismissive of him. Indeed, I'll say this .. 'Redstate' is a patriotic Conservative whose posts are informative, therefore CONSTRUCTIVE, and which regularly earn my respect. In my opinion, you can learn much from him.

Mundame, you seem convinced that a recovery is well underway in the US. But I fail to see why. Even if you're intent on ignoring 'RSR's' data, you cannot get around the fact that Obama continues to commit to a reckless spending agenda .. and on those occasions when he has to run to your Congress to get him (and therefore your country !) out of his latest self-made disaster, what happens ? Brinkmanship. Propagandising. Blame-game tactics. Bullying. In fact, anything but the very commitment that the US actually, REALLY, needs ... PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT.

We in the UK have been fed a diet of such management for the past two plus years. Yes, it's been painful, but the result .. this after several years of OUR Socialists' spendthrift ways, has been a reduction of the budget deficit the Socialists saddled our current Government with BY A QUARTER.

Observe ...

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Economy.aspx


• Over the last two years, this Government has cut the record budget deficit it inherited from Labour by a quarter.
• Since the general election, the private sector has created over 1 million new jobs – well over two new jobs in the private sector for every one job lost in the public sector.
• Our borrowing costs have fallen to record lows, showing that UK government debt is seen as a safe haven in the global debt storm and saving money for taxpayers, businesses and families.

Now, how does this stack up, compared to the Obama record - bearing in mind that achievements made could only have been worked on from 2010, the time our Coalition Government was formed ?

Prudent, Conservative approaches work. Irresponsibility does NOT.

By the way, I've already discussed the UK and its future in Europe. You've taken the line that Europe would be alarmed at the prospect of the UK leaving it.

Well ... I accept that they'll be far from happy, should it come to pass. But, you see, the psychology of the EU is one of dictatorial arrogance, one where Member States are required to fall in line with Brussels diktat .. 'OR ELSE'.

Today, the Daily Express ... itself a campaigning newspaper, once dismissed as holding 'fringe' views but is now seen as reflecting MAINSTREAM British opinion, has now reported the following, on its front page ...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/373047/Now-EU-fines-Britain-250-000-each-day


THE EU was accused of acting like a spoilt child yesterday after threatening the UK with fines of £250,000 a day for failing to implement new rules.

The huge penalty was proposed by the European Commission the day after David Cameron called for EU reform and promised Britain a referendum on whether to stay in on new terms or leave.

Outraged MPs said Brussels’ petty attempt at revenge would make a vote to pull out even more likely, while the Whitehall department affected also hit back at the Eurocrats, insisting the UK was on the verge of meeting their demands.

The Commission is asking the European Court of Justice to slap daily fines equivalent to £174 a minute or more than £91million a year on the UK for failing fully to introduce into British law two directives on how gas and electricity markets operate in the EU.

Leading Conservative Eurosceptic MP Peter Bone said: “This shows why we should not be in the EU. Their action is like a spoilt child who has been told off for their behaviour and is retaliating against the person who has reprimanded them.

“They are quite happy to fine the UK for allegedly not implementing these directives but totally fail to implement directives that benefit British businesses.

“It could be interpreted as an effort by the Commission to ensure we leave the EU. I heard it suggested that this is Brussels’ petty revenge for David Cameron standing up for the interests of the British people. Either way it just goes to prove how the Daily Express on its own spoke for the whole British nation while other papers scramble to catch up.”

Fellow Tory Douglas Carswell asked: “Is this Brussels’ idea of an early April Fool joke? Thanks to the EU’s wretched energy rules, bills for my constituents are rising so fast that living standards are falling.

“Far from giving us cheaper energy, EU rules mean the householder has to pay ever more. Now they have the nerve to fine us because we have failed to impose yet more costly diktats. They have given the campaign to get us out of the EU a real boost.”

The Department of Energy and *Climate Change issued an unusually strongly worded response to the Brussels threat ....

The sooner we're free of this Leftie, schoolground bullying self-styled 'Mafia' outfit called the EU ... the better, in my view ...

[mundame]

you cannot get around the fact that Obama continues to commit to a reckless spending agenda .. and on those occasions when he has to run to your Congress to get him (and therefore your country !) out of his latest self-made disaster, what happens ? Brinkmanship. Propagandising. Blame-game tactics. Bullying. In fact, anything but the very commitment that the US actually, REALLY, needs ... PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT.

No, I can't get around those facts. I agree.



We in the UK have been fed a diet of such management for the past two plus years. Yes, it's been painful, but the result .. this after several years of OUR Socialists' spendthrift ways, has been a reduction of the budget deficit the Socialists saddled our current Government with BY A QUARTER.


Britain is good with money, no question. They are not the financial capital of the world for nothing.





By the way, I've already discussed the UK and its future in Europe. You've taken the line that Europe would be alarmed at the prospect of the UK leaving it.

Well ... I accept that they'll be far from happy, should it come to pass. But, you see, the psychology of the EU is one of dictatorial arrogance, one where Member States are required to fall in line with Brussels diktat .. 'OR ELSE'.

How my husband would agree with you. I do, too. I recognize that a united Europe is in the USA's interest (this predates Obama) but I am sure it is unpleasant to live under, very. I wouldn't care for it myself.




The sooner we're free of this Leftie, schoolground bullying self-styled 'Mafia' outfit called the EU ... the better, in my view ...


If I lived in London, I'd be UKIP. I suppose Cameron is hoping that within such a long period, the situation will solve itself: either the EU will collapse, or the British people will be real, real clear what they want and they can't be resisted, or the EU will be a huge success story and Britain will want to affirm their participation in a referendum (unlikely, IMO). This is kick the can, of course.

[red states rule]

Mundame reminds me of a skit that Abbott and Costello did
"Did you ever go to school, stupid?" Bud asks Lou
"Yeah and I came out the same way!" Lou replied

[Robert A Whit]

I guess I do think we're in a recovery.

Today from Reuters:

S&P 500 eyes best winning streak in eight years (http://www.debatepolicy.com/article/2013/01/25/us-markets-stocks-idUSBRE90L0DA20130125)9:07am EST

NEW YORK - Stock futures climbed on Friday and the S&P 500 was poised for an eighth day of gains, its longest winning streak in eight years, buoyed by rosy earnings from Procter & Gamble amid a backdrop of sturdy corporate results.
************************************************** ***




The same Reuters page ALSO says Britain may well be sagging into a triple-dip recession. That is, it's going down for the third time. Okay, that's not good.

So I'm not interested in predictions for our big recovery this year, only what actually does happen, like the stock market burst of joy this week. Because Europe......Europe could blow up at any moment, overnight, kablooie, there goes the world economy. That's the thing about the future; we don't know what's in it.

If a well informed stock investor wants to correct me, wonderful.

But I believe that the poor never were buying stocks. That the middle class lost so much money and are easily scared off, for the most part they are not part of the stock market rally.

I believe based on reading, that the gains you speak of flow to the rich. No I do not mind them getting more money. Institutions and pension funds no doubt are raking in plenty of money too.

But as to helping the working class where they recover, I very much doubt it helps them other than a pension fund they hope to collect on later in life.

Take housing for instance. Foreclosures (watch the discovery channel who has a great program showing now on buying foreclosures.) Note the buyers are able to pay cash for homes and some have paid around $300,000 cash to buy a foreclosure.

When working guy Joe and his wife want to buy a decent house at a cheap price, take this into account. Say you live in the less pricy areas of SF Bay area. Believe me that the longer driving to work properties still suffer a lot. A owner wishing to sell who bought at high prices will lose several hundred thousand dollars to get rid of the home.

So, lets deal with prices where jobs tend to be better paid and more plentiful.

Take San Francisco for instance. Rent there is sky high. Unless you earn a quarter million annually, your chances of saving is much harder since you keep after tax money and deduct the high living expenses.

Then you want to buy that one million dollar home in San Francisco. And you visit the lender who informs you you must put down $200,000 and to that you add another 5 percent or $50,000 in closing costs. A lot of that goes for property taxes and the high costs charged by title companies plus your one year insurance premium along with escrow accounts for both.

If you hurt your credit, forget it.

We are left with the very well off as buyers. And foreclosures? Show me a bank that will loan an some beat up highly damaged house. Some of them are shells. I sold one years ago that the occupants once living their painted all of the living area walls coal black. It took so much paint to get it to show white and took a lot longer to paint. The appraiser told the Bank the shape it was in and the buyer had to illegally enter the home and work his ass off to fix things the appraiser pointed out that he was very troubled about the deal. Price was very low so he stuck it out. We had to pay double for an appraiser since he had to come back to check out the home and report to the lender it now was able to support a loan.

The buyer was scared to death the selling bank would show up to check and decide to void the deal and take advantage of the repairs. Fortunately that did not happen since the deal was in escrow.

Anyway, foreclosures are a nightmare unless you pay cash for them. Then if you can't inspect it first, you may get a house where all the copper in the house is gone, the place has holes in the walls, carpets don't exist and things like kitchen appliances are gone.

This is a risky venture for sure.

So, you try to buy the decent home that appraises well sold by some owner who owned it from maybe the early 90s forward. Or earlier.

When you get your contract looked at, a dozen other people beat you there and you are now in a bidding war. If you have lots of money, a high income, yes, you can get some decent deals.

Does that sound like a recovery to any of you?

Let me explain one more thing. i used to make a lot of money appraising homes. Comparable sales are tough to find that support what the seller thinks his house is worth.

Real estate is a very complex business and so is appraising homes. I was making so much money doing home loans I decided in 1997 to leave appraisals to others.

[red states rule]

so much fro the "recovery"
For the second week in a row, actual (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) unemployment claims as reported (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20130108.htm) by the Department of Labor came in greater than the analogous week in 2012.
At the same time, and also for the second week in a row, the department's seasonally adjusted claims number -- the only one the business wire services ever specifically identify in their reports -- came in lower. In today's instance, raw year-over-year claims were almost 5 percent higher than the same week a year ago, but the year-over-year seasonally adjusted figure came in 11 percent lower. That's bad enough, but then the wires compounded the problem by running with indefensible conclusions based on DOL's contradictory data.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/24/second-week-row-press-says-jobless-claims-fall-5-year-low-actual-year-ov#ixzz2J5PiiaOv

[mundame]

If a well informed stock investor wants to correct me, wonderful.

But I believe that the poor never were buying stocks. That the middle class lost so much money and are easily scared off, for the most part they are not part of the stock market rally.

I believe based on reading, that the gains you speak of flow to the rich. No I do not mind them getting more money. Institutions and pension funds no doubt are raking in plenty of money too.

But as to helping the working class where they recover, I very much doubt it helps them other than a pension fund they hope to collect on later in life.

Take housing for instance. Foreclosures (watch the discovery channel who has a great program showing now on buying foreclosures.) Note the buyers are able to pay cash for homes and some have paid around $300,000 cash to buy a foreclosure.

When working guy Joe and his wife want to buy a decent house at a cheap price, take this into account. Say you live in the less pricy areas of SF Bay area. Believe me that the longer driving to work properties still suffer a lot. A owner wishing to sell who bought at high prices will lose several hundred thousand dollars to get rid of the home.

So, lets deal with prices where jobs tend to be better paid and more plentiful.

Take San Francisco for instance. Rent there is sky high. Unless you earn a quarter million annually, your chances of saving is much harder since you keep after tax money and deduct the high living expenses.

Then you want to buy that one million dollar home in San Francisco. And you visit the lender who informs you you must put down $200,000 and to that you add another 5 percent or $50,000 in closing costs. A lot of that goes for property taxes and the high costs charged by title companies plus your one year insurance premium along with escrow accounts for both.

If you hurt your credit, forget it.

We are left with the very well off as buyers. And foreclosures? Show me a bank that will loan an some beat up highly damaged house. Some of them are shells. I sold one years ago that the occupants once living their painted all of the living area walls coal black. It took so much paint to get it to show white and took a lot longer to paint. The appraiser told the Bank the shape it was in and the buyer had to illegally enter the home and work his ass off to fix things the appraiser pointed out that he was very troubled about the deal. Price was very low so he stuck it out. We had to pay double for an appraiser since he had to come back to check out the home and report to the lender it now was able to support a loan.

The buyer was scared to death the selling bank would show up to check and decide to void the deal and take advantage of the repairs. Fortunately that did not happen since the deal was in escrow.

Anyway, foreclosures are a nightmare unless you pay cash for them. Then if you can't inspect it first, you may get a house where all the copper in the house is gone, the place has holes in the walls, carpets don't exist and things like kitchen appliances are gone.

This is a risky venture for sure.

So, you try to buy the decent home that appraises well sold by some owner who owned it from maybe the early 90s forward. Or earlier.

When you get your contract looked at, a dozen other people beat you there and you are now in a bidding war. If you have lots of money, a high income, yes, you can get some decent deals.

Does that sound like a recovery to any of you?

Let me explain one more thing. i used to make a lot of money appraising homes. Comparable sales are tough to find that support what the seller thinks his house is worth.

Real estate is a very complex business and so is appraising homes. I was making so much money doing home loans I decided in 1997 to leave appraisals to others.



If I understand you correctly, Robert, you are saying that the housing market is still in bad shape and until housing recovers, the economy can't recover.

Housing is an important component, I agree.

[red states rule]

Another aspect of this "recovery" is that with the decreasing labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate is about 11%. Of course if Obama could get all of those people to simply stop looking for work, he could brag how under his leadership the nation has a 0% unemployment rate

[tailfins]

Another aspect of this "recovery" is that with the decreasing labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate is about 11%. Of course if Obama could get all of those people to simply stop looking for work, he could brag how under his leadership the nation has a 0% unemployment rate

It's still a recovery with GDP increasing quarter over quarter.

[red states rule]

It's still a recovery with GDP increasing quarter over quarter.

True - damn near flat line GDP increases are indeed increases. Hardly what was promised by Obama and the economic "experts" after that "stimulus" bill was put on the Obama Excess card

[red states rule]

Ah, Harry is upset over R's talking about this Obama "recovery"





Reid: The GOP really needs to stop bad-mouthing this recovery we’re in

Just a brief comment on my friend, the Republican leader’s, statement. He continues bad-mouthing the recovery. We are in a recovery. The moral of the fourth quarter is a repudiation of the Republican playbook. Growth went down in the fourth quarter because of reduced government spending, and a reticence in the private sector as government fought over the fiscal cliff. And that fight came as a result of the Republicans being so unreasonable. … The economy was rejecting the austerity and brinkmanship… The Republican playbook of continually complaining about spending is something — we know we have to do something about spending, we understand that, but there’s more to making our economy recover than just continually harping on what’s going on with spending. …We also have to do something to have a fair program. … Is it fair that the Republicans continue to want to go after Social Security, Medicare, even food stamps, that benefits the poorest of the poor, let’s start talking about fairness.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/31/reid-the-gop-really-needs-to-stop-bad-mouthing-this-recovery-were-in/






Meanwhile the labor participation rate continues to head south

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/013113jobs2.jpg


and this is a recovery?

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10684820130204120100.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's still a recovery with GDP increasing quarter over quarter.

Not if it lags so very far behind the increased prices of goods and services. Which it has..
The price of gas, food , utilities and other services has increased at a far greater rate and wages have not.
The month of January was by no means a recovery.

[bingster]

Eh, gas prices are still double what they were when Obama took office. The labor participation rate is shrinking. Food prices continue to rise. Wages are still flat. Foreclosures continue to roll along. and of course Obama continues to borrow 40 cents for every dollar spent and Dems have yet to pass a budget in over 4 years. So is this what you call a recovery?

The president has almost nothing to do with gas prices-remember 2008 before the crash? Rising food prices have to do with gas prices; Wages are still flat for the same reason unemployment numbers are still high-demand has not completely returned. Do Republicans have any excuses for why Europe has done so poorly compared to America?

If Dems could have passed a budget by themselves, they would have. The House Republicans couldn't pass a budget even if the Democrats agreed with them. They don't agree with themselves.

Economy still sucks but the blame isn't all for Obama or all for Republicans. Cynical Obama bashing is neither productive nor realistic.

[bingster]

Red States' answer is an excellent one.

The debt limit should be a MASSIVE concern. Obama needs to try the approach our own Coalition Government in the UK is trying ... that of REDUCING indebtedness. This 'spend as if there's no tomorrow' mentality may be typically Socialist, but BEING typically Socialist, it's also typically ruinous. Even the mightiest of economies don't have infinite resources.

But anyway, it's your comment on Britain within the EU I chiefly wanted to comment about.

I think that you're considerably overstating your argument.

I don't doubt that much of Europe is angry with the UK. But .. what if they are ? Sure, they want us on board as a compliant 'partner' .. but with the terms they want to tie us into, that 'partnership' involves a terminal loss of our sovereignty. What sort of 'partner' offers an arrangement which, in reality, amounts to dictatorship from unelected officials, from a bureaucratic body demanding power over you, at an ever increasing rate .. and expects to be paid for the privilege !!!

The UK, if it left the EU, would do little more than annoy Brussels for having done so. There are plenty of other Member States tied into Europe, and there are even membership applications pending. The EU would most certainly survive if we left it. YES, it might give other Member States food for thought. There might be a ripple-back effect as some trading agreements suffered. But it'd be eminently survivable from the EU's point of view.

Consider that we refused to tie £ sterling into the Euro. Did the Euro collapse because of it ... OR, is its viability in long-term decline because weaker currencies of OTHER nations have dragged it down ?

Fact is, Mundame, that European unity is all about power-robbing, in order to create a European SuperState, this in turn being a step to making globalism a more complete reality. What WAS the EEC, a trading partnership, has today become a Leftie control-freaking paradise.

Let the bureaucrats throw a tantrum if the UK leaves. They'll survive it, and get over it. As will we, in the UK. And as a politically FREE entity.

See ... http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/372809/Leo-McKinstry



A brilliant article.

Obama, as he's recently made clear, would hate us to leave the EU. He's had the arrogance to expect us to TAKE being ruled from outside our national borders.

But then .. he is a Leftie, who doesn't care a jot about the ordinary citizen's wishes. Or - when it defies what he wants - the sanctity of democratic process itself !

Oh yea, the UK is a perfect example. Aren't they in a tripple dip recession?

And how do you square your comment "But then .. he is a Leftie, who doesn't care a jot about the ordinary citizen's wishes" when he's polling at 60% and has massive approval for all of his policies?

[Robert A Whit]

The president has almost nothing to do with gas prices-remember 2008 before the crash? Where are your labor participation rate shrinking numbers? Rising food prices have to do with gas prices; Wages are still flat for the same reason unemployment numbers are still high-demand has not completely returned. Do Republicans have any excuses for why Europe has done so poorly compared to America?

If Dems could have passed a budget by themselves, they would have. The House Republicans couldn't pass a budget even if the Democrats agreed with them. They don't agree with themselves.

Economy still sucks but the blame isn't all for Obama or all for Republicans. Cynical Obama bashing is neither productive nor realistic.

I would love to agree with you. But don't you remember the Obama orders that put the brakes on oil production? Did you forget what he did to Keystone?

Those things matter to the market. It is called manipulating the market to satisfy ones ideology.

It is getting much more costly for labor to harvest crops since Obama brags he has booted out the most Mexicans. A report I saw on CSPAN spoke of wages having risen very fast to those that harvest since the supply of labor has fallen swiftly. Figures of between $20 to $40 per hour

The Senate Dems have plain blocked any budget for the Federal Government.

As to Obama, why is loyalty to him more important than loyalty to the people?

I would work harder to sympathize with Democrats had they cooparated with President Bush.

[Robert A Whit]

I have posted with many Democrats.

I have yet to meet one that does not have that flat forehead.

Some claim they like Obama's policies.

OK I say, what are his policies?

The hand smacks the forehead and they mutter, gee, I dunno.

What has he done you like?

Smack forehead followed by I dunno.

His policy so far as i am able to tell is to blow so much money he stays in the red to the tune of well over 100 billion dollars per month. To leave my grandkids bills they will never be able to pay.

Well, we cna't forget his anti automobile policy or his forcing us all to pay so much for fuels it is like a tax on the working guy.

Why can't he fight to lower fuel prices?

No, I don't mean get the CEOS on the phone, I am talking about revoking his anti business polices.

That would sure help people get a job.

[bingster]

I would love to agree with you. But don't you remember the Obama orders that put the brakes on oil production? Did you forget what he did to Keystone?

Those things matter to the market. It is called manipulating the market to satisfy ones ideology.

It is getting much more costly for labor to harvest crops since Obama brags he has booted out the most Mexicans. A report I saw on CSPAN spoke of wages having risen very fast to those that harvest since the supply of labor has fallen swiftly. Figures of between $20 to $40 per hour

The Senate Dems have plain blocked any budget for the Federal Government.

As to Obama, why is loyalty to him more important than loyalty to the people?

I would work harder to sympathize with Democrats had they cooparated with President Bush.

Did you forget the BP oil spill? Even if he would have approved the Keystone pipeline, it wouldn't affect oil prices within the next ten years, if ever. Oil prices are set on the world market and have almost nothing to do with our production.

Sorry, can't blame him for raising wages and blame him for stagnant wages at the same time.

"Dems blocking" is the richest argument ever, when you compare them to Republicans. The Republican budget has had overwhelming opposition from the american people. Even tea partiers freaked out when Ryan put his original budget out. Tea partiers like Medicare too!

[bingster]

I have posted with many Democrats.

I have yet to meet one that does not have that flat forehead.

Some claim they like Obama's policies.

OK I say, what are his policies?

Pro gay rights, pro gun control, pro business (have you seen the stock market lately; continued tax cuts), pro women's rights (Lilly Ledbetter), pro immigrant; and pro economy (stimulus, pay roll tax cut, continued most of Bush tax cuts, just check out Europe who has adopted the conservative policies to their own despair).

The hand smacks the forehead and they mutter, gee, I dunno.

What has he done you like?

Smack forehead followed by I dunno.

His policy so far as i am able to tell is to blow so much money he stays in the red to the tune of well over 100 billion dollars per month. To leave my grandkids bills they will never be able to pay.

That's just not true. Other than the stimulus, he hasn't spent as much as he's blamed for. The debt is mostly due to far less revenue from recession and continued tax cuts and wars. While Republicans think subtracting revenue with more tax cuts is supposed to increase revenue. Ridiculous.

Well, we cna't forget his anti automobile policy or his forcing us all to pay so much for fuels it is like a tax on the working guy.

Why can't he fight to lower fuel prices?

He's fighting for the long haul: better fuel economy and more green energy.

No, I don't mean get the CEOS on the phone, I am talking about revoking his anti business polices.

That would sure help people get a job.

I commented in red above.

[Robert A Whit]

Did you forget the BP oil spill? Even if he would have approved the Keystone pipeline, it wouldn't affect oil prices within the next ten years, if ever. Oil prices are set on the world market and have almost nothing to do with our production.

Sorry, can't blame him for raising wages and blame him for stagnant wages at the same time.

"Dems blocking" is the richest argument ever, when you compare them to Republicans. The Republican budget has had overwhelming opposition from the american people. Even tea partiers freaked out when Ryan put his original budget out. Tea partiers like Medicare too!

BP ... Obama and his clusterfuck approach. The man over reacts. He despises crude oil. But what did BP do wrong off the East coast or off the coast of Alaska?

Actually, Keystone would add to crude supply and this per classic economics cuts down prices. We are one of the major supplies of oil so naturally we have a great deal of influence.

I have not blamed him for stagnant wages that I am aware of. When did I do that?

[bingster]

I commented in red above.

I also find it offensive that the only jobs programs that the Republicans can support are oil related. Don't we need to fix our roads and bridges? Don't oil tankers drive over our infrastructure too?

[bingster]

BP ... Obama and his clusterfuck approach. The man over reacts. He despises crude oil. But what did BP do wrong off the East coast or off the coast of Alaska?

Actually, Keystone would add to crude supply and this per classic economics cuts down prices. We are one of the major supplies of oil so naturally we have a great deal of influence.

I have not blamed him for stagnant wages that I am aware of. When did I do that?

Actually, I'm sorry, it wasn't you who blamed him for stagnant wages. It was one of the earlier posts to push back against the purpose of this thread.

The fact is Obama has always on the side of ecologists who fear climate change. The Keystone project is not dead yet, I just read an article that it's still being studied and a verdict is due in March. He's been against it because it's the dirtiest type of oil in the world and that it would leave a huge carbon footprint. If I was to bet, I would say that the project will go through. A majority of the Senate is now for it.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614680#post614680)
I have posted with many Democrats.

I have yet to meet one that does not have that flat forehead.

Some claim they like Obama's policies.

OK I say, what are his policies?

Pro gay rights, pro gun control, pro business (have you seen the stock market lately; continued tax cuts), pro women's rights (Lilly Ledbetter), pro immigrant; and pro economy (stimulus, pay roll tax cut, continued most of Bush tax cuts, just check out Europe who has adopted the conservative policies to their own despair).

What are gay rights? Do they have more than I have or something? They have the same rights I have. Yes, he is anti constitution especially anti the second amendment. The shape of business is not reflected by the stock market. Notice out of the hundreds of thousands of companies, only a rare few end up on the DOW. But if you also recall, when Bush was president, the DOW was higher than today and indeed Bush holds the record but little good that did him since the market crashed. Explain to me how presidents cut taxes? Do you mean that the congress cut them? Also, look how he will be blamed for raising taxes on the woerksrs due to his way of hogging the credit. You mean pro illegals. This nation suffers probably 17 million still out of work. And many have been out of work and are past the age of getting any easy to find job. Many are passed over by those with degrees. Actually, by paying off their debts, Europe will be stronger and well prepared for prosperity.

The hand smacks the forehead and they mutter, gee, I dunno.

What has he done you like?

Smack forehead followed by I dunno.

His policy so far as i am able to tell is to blow so much money he stays in the red to the tune of well over 100 billion dollars per month. To leave my grandkids bills they will never be able to pay.

That's just not true. Other than the stimulus, he hasn't spent as much as he's blamed for. The debt is mostly due to far less revenue from recession and continued tax cuts and wars. While Republicans think subtracting revenue with more tax cuts is supposed to increase revenue. Ridiculous.

Actually, he has far more revenue than Bill Clinton had and he refuses to try to force Harry Reid to get with it and approve a budget. I can't blame Obama for what Reid won't do. You guys must learn to get used to Obama taking blame. He has no problem sucking up credit for what he likes. Do you know that Obama has more revenue than Bush had when he was president yet the flat foreheads want to put the blame on Bush. That is funny. Republicans have this funny idea that only when goverment stops holding back business then the revenues will grow. They also think this idea of spending your way to get rich is wrong.

Well, we can't forget his anti automobile policy or his forcing us all to pay so much for fuels it is like a tax on the working guy.

Why can't he fight to lower fuel prices?

He's fighting for the long haul: better fuel economy and more green energy.

Gee lucky me. In college and since then, I have spent a lot of time studying the automobile and energy. When you get a lot more fuel economy, there is a trade off. Look at the Mini Cooper. I believe we are owed a safe ride. And this means my much faster car of about 4,000 pounds can eat up a small car in an accident. Green energy is a slogan. I think if one enjoys geing told what to do by goverment, as if we are children, they appreciate Obama. Give me that CRX and a highway. And in great comfort I can travel. I have rented plenty of those small cars on vacation and plain won't buy one.

You get more economy by reducing weight. And Americans are so delighted with that policy, they buy pick up trucks.

I truly get pissed when any government assumes they are in business to manage my life. By the way, my car gets up to 30 mpg and can hit over 140 miles per hour and I enjoy great comfort on long trips. Should any small car hit me, I survive. They may not.

No, I don't mean get the CEOS on the phone, I am talking about revoking his anti business polices.

That would sure help people get a job.



I commented in red above.

And of course, the blue is me.

Let me ask you one more thing.

Why do you wish to be managed by the Fed Government?

Is your governor bright?

[fj1200]

I also find it offensive that the only jobs programs that the Republicans can support are oil related. Don't we need to fix our roads and bridges? Don't oil tankers drive over our infrastructure too?

Beg pardon? Republicans support many jobs "programs." Ones that work that is and is private sector based of course.

[Robert A Whit]

I also find it offensive that the only jobs programs that the Republicans can support are oil related. Don't we need to fix our roads and bridges? Don't oil tankers drive over our infrastructure too?

Roads and bridges are oil related. What is your point again?

There is a myth that the Feds send Cash to the oil companies as benefits. The money sent by the Feds is to pay the bill for fuel and oil products to them is all it is. But the Oil companies don't get subsidies.

I made at the time a lot of money on that sort of infrastructure.

Roads are normally under the control of states. I spent 9 years working my way up the ladder on construction jobs to the point I was the manager over a major BART project. I got the bills and took them to Company headquarters. I dealt with inspectors that represented the customer. I never at any point ran into Federal inspectors. I ran into many state or county inspectors though.

Obama has fooled many people talking about such construction jobs.

I got my paycheck from a major construction company. They got paid by the State. I admit that my crews at times had to meet Federal standards such as percentages of minorities.

Do you know, when the negro was worried he might lose his job, he worked as well as any white. But when they found out they were favored over whites, they goofed off.

[aboutime]

First. I am now apologizing to Gabby.
Second. I am now convinced Bingster...not Gabby, is the dumbest member here.

Proof. Just read any of Bingsters posts.

End of story.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually, I'm sorry, it wasn't you who blamed him for stagnant wages. It was one of the earlier posts to push back against the purpose of this thread.

The fact is Obama has always on the side of ecologists who fear climate change. The Keystone project is not dead yet, I just read an article that it's still being studied and a verdict is due in March. He's been against it because it's the dirtiest type of oil in the world and that it would leave a huge carbon footprint. If I was to bet, I would say that the project will go through. A majority of the Senate is now for it.


Gee, climate change eh?

I don't even know why this comes up.

Wanna know why?

The sum total of the warming climate is slight. A bit over 1 degree.

And do you know how it is measured?

Something they call an average. Professor Lindzen of MIT, explained to me that they should not use average but should use mean temperature.

Even so, the change is simply far too tiny.

Then you have the fact for instance that once a huge sheet of ice was over a lot of North America. Do you want the great lakes to freeze again and get covered by a glacier?

Thank your good luck those glaciers that extended to NY City melted due to non man made global warming.

We would not even have much decent farm land in this country had it not warmed up.

I looked over the NASA model of earth heat. And it is not like a blanket, it is like warm and cool globs around the earth.

For them to score points, the ecowhack jobs made the temp go from blue to orange in about 1 degree.

Then take another look at the hockey stick.

The graph would be virtuallya flat line were the dates and temps showed in proper scale.

You can use a graph to fool people.

And they keep trying to pull that same stuff.

They are not honest.

I think I will send Professor Lindzen a note and one to Professor Mueller. I want to see what they say about that hocky stick. I call it hocky shit.

[gabosaurus]

If there is anything that ultra conservative jackasses can even remotely blame on Obama, they are going to do it. Again and again.
But when Dems did the same thing to Dubya, they were labeled as unpatriotic haters.
The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.

[Robert A Whit]

If there is anything that ultra conservative jackasses can even remotely blame on Obama, they are going to do it. Again and again.
But when Dems did the same thing to Dubya, they were labeled as unpatriotic haters.
The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.

I only blame Obama for being incompetent. At least when you had Clinton, he came to DC with real experience and was an expert on how to manage government.

Bush slashed taxes for all of us. But he got no credit for the good economy and only when the home industry crashed the economy, greatly helped by Democrats and of course buyers that agreed to tell lies merely to get a loan, did Democrats give him credit for anything, to wit they bawled that he ruined the economy. The same policy that helped the econmy could not also ruin the economy.

I don't get why democrats are so dumb they can't spot a phony that simply using bull shit managed to occupy the white house. Worse, no matter how he screwed up, they continue to support him.

A feckng Mazing.

He shows up a community organizer. My god, per Democrats he now knows just how to be a state senator. ROFLMAO

Next he talks a lot and poof, he ends up on Capitol Hill acting the part time role of a US Senator. Voting present is not what a decent Senator should do.

[aboutime]

If there is anything that ultra conservative jackasses can even remotely blame on Obama, they are going to do it. Again and again.
But when Dems did the same thing to Dubya, they were labeled as unpatriotic haters.
The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.


Gabby. Most of us are really so, so proud of your ability to Perpetuate, and so freely Repeat the known lies, even as you deny the actual facts, and would never admit to feeling Buyers Remorse for your TWO dumb votes in 2008, and 2012. In fact. You, and people like you WROTE THE BOOK on HYPOCRISY.

[Kathianne]

If there is anything that ultra conservative jackasses can even remotely blame on Obama, they are going to do it. Again and again.
But when Dems did the same thing to Dubya, they were labeled as unpatriotic haters.
The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.

Problem is this is a case of coming home to roost. The 'fun times' for those that claimed to be disenfranchised in 2004, have dome home. Welcome to it. More to come in the future thanks to Pelosi and Reid.

[Esox]

We're in a recovery with an economy that went backwards last quarter.

Innat a peach?

[fj1200]

... the dumbest member here.

You're really not one to talk.

[red states rule]

The president has almost nothing to do with gas prices-remember 2008 before the crash? Rising food prices have to do with gas prices; Wages are still flat for the same reason unemployment numbers are still high-demand has not completely returned. Do Republicans have any excuses for why Europe has done so poorly compared to America?

If Dems could have passed a budget by themselves, they would have. The House Republicans couldn't pass a budget even if the Democrats agreed with them. They don't agree with themselves.

Economy still sucks but the blame isn't all for Obama or all for Republicans. Cynical Obama bashing is neither productive nor realistic.

Since when does the President have nothing to do with gas prices Bing? Lets take a walk down memory lane (thanks to Al Gore's Amazing Internet) and see how Dems looked at high gas prices

First, we have the Holy Bible of the left - the NY Times

From April 2006:




WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.


With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.


To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.
"It's a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.


Officials at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which advises House candidates, said they sent a memorandum to candidates on Thursday offering guidance on using the issue to their advantage. The memorandum includes a "sample statement" that recommends telling voters, "Americans are tired of giving billion-dollar tax subsidies to energy companies and foreign countries while paying record prices at the pump."
Increasing gasoline prices have put Republicans on the defensive at a time when they are counting on the economy to help offset the myriad other problems they face, starting with the Iraq war.


Republicans say they have spent years advocating policies that would reduce the reliance on imported oil, largely by promoting more domestic energy production, and they point to the energy bill that President Bush signed last August as a step in that direction. They said that the law encouraged conservation and greater use of ethanol in gasoline and that it would have done more for domestic oil supplies if Democrats had not fought so hard against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20060424monday.html


Then we have the Messiah himself blaming Pres Bush for high gas prices (I doubt if he has anything to say since gas prices have doubled since he took office except it's Bush's fault)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQb_4hXLx2Q&feature=player_embedded







Oh an BTW Bing, Obama still has the drilling ban in the Gulf, he refuses to allow drilling where we knew their is oil, and continues to piss away tax payer money on his failed "green" energy ideas. So it is no wonder libs have nothing to say about high gas prices except this is the new norm in the Obama economy (along with high unemployment

[red states rule]

If there is anything that ultra conservative jackasses can even remotely blame on Obama, they are going to do it. Again and again.
But when Dems did the same thing to Dubya, they were labeled as unpatriotic haters.
The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.

No Gabby we are holing Obama to the same standards libs like you held Pres Bush to. Which of course you dismiss as hate, racism, and being unpatriotic. Once again you have proven if not for you double standards liberals like you would have no standards at all

BTW do we need to take time and post a list of the threads you started during the Bush years? You were hardly supportive of anything the man did and your side blamed him for the bridge collapse in MN and the divorce of Al and Tipper