Yeah too bad he's such a shitty public speaker. He's got the charisma of a gnat.
Oops. I was talking about McDonnell's response.ATG wrote:
Moar like an Eagle tbh. hint, click the link
Point was, they are all buffoons.
They have created no jobs but those for their cronies.
Phony divisions between reps and dems only divert our attention from the travesty unfolding before our eyes.
And Obama is an excellent example of having only charisma will get us.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah too bad he's such a shitty public speaker. He's got the charisma of a gnat.
Here in California we have 0% Government unemployment and 12.5% non-Government unemployment...guess we know where all that stimulous cash went.ATG wrote:
Moar like an Eagle tbh. hint, click the link
Point was, they are all buffoons.
They have created no jobs but those for their cronies.
Phony divisions between reps and dems only divert our attention from the travesty unfolding before our eyes.
Good job at wrecking the economy even more than Bush did.androoz wrote:
Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job so far?
Exactly how?ATG wrote:
Good job at wrecking the economy even more than Bush did.androoz wrote:
Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job so far?
U.S. Nominal GDP Growth Rate ForecastATG wrote:
Good job at wrecking the economy even more than Bush did.androoz wrote:
Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job so far?
ATG wrote:
He is projecting 1.5+ trillion per year in the red. That is choice going forward.
If it means solid positive GDP growth and unemployment levelling off I'll take it any day of the week.Debt =/= bad economy
Isn't all that data from January 2010 forward projections? Today is still the 27th of January.Spark wrote:
U.S. Nominal GDP Growth Rate ForecastATG wrote:
Good job at wrecking the economy even more than Bush did.androoz wrote:
Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job so far?
Year/Year Change in Nominal U.S. GDP. Percent per annum.
Month Date Forecast
Value 50%
Correct +/- 80%
Correct +/-
0 Oct 2009 -0.60 0.0 0.0
1 Nov 2009 -0.6 0.8 1.7
2 Dec 2009 -0.6 0.9 2.1
3 Jan 2010 0.3 1.1 2.4
4 Feb 2010 0.3 1.2 2.6
5 Mar 2010 0.3 1.2 2.8
6 Apr 2010 1.1 1.3 3.0
7 May 2010 1.1 1.4 3.1
8 Jun 2010 1.1 1.4 3.2
I certainly am interested in where you get "wrecking" from.
Again: debt =/= bad economy.
Actually it's all projections from the end of last October (as I'm not sure if Q4 09 data is out yet), but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably correct. The trend is quite clear.Harmor wrote:
Isn't all that data from January 2010 forward projections? Today is still the 27th of January.Spark wrote:
U.S. Nominal GDP Growth Rate ForecastATG wrote:
Good job at wrecking the economy even more than Bush did.
Year/Year Change in Nominal U.S. GDP. Percent per annum.
Month Date Forecast
Value 50%
Correct +/- 80%
Correct +/-
0 Oct 2009 -0.60 0.0 0.0
1 Nov 2009 -0.6 0.8 1.7
2 Dec 2009 -0.6 0.9 2.1
3 Jan 2010 0.3 1.1 2.4
4 Feb 2010 0.3 1.2 2.6
5 Mar 2010 0.3 1.2 2.8
6 Apr 2010 1.1 1.3 3.0
7 May 2010 1.1 1.4 3.1
8 Jun 2010 1.1 1.4 3.2
I certainly am interested in where you get "wrecking" from.
Again: debt =/= bad economy.
[url=http://wallstreetpit.com/13069-stiglitz-us-economy-may-contract-in-the-second-half-of-next-year]Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warns that there’s a “significant” chance the U.S. economy will recede in the second half of 2010, and urged Washington to prepare a second stimulus package to spur job creation.Spark wrote:
Actually it's all projections from the end of last October (as I'm not sure if Q4 09 data is out yet), but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably correct. The trend is quite clear.Harmor wrote:
Isn't all that data from January 2010 forward projections? Today is still the 27th of January.Spark wrote:
U.S. Nominal GDP Growth Rate Forecast
Year/Year Change in Nominal U.S. GDP. Percent per annum.
Month Date Forecast
Value 50%
Correct +/- 80%
Correct +/-
0 Oct 2009 -0.60 0.0 0.0
1 Nov 2009 -0.6 0.8 1.7
2 Dec 2009 -0.6 0.9 2.1
3 Jan 2010 0.3 1.1 2.4
4 Feb 2010 0.3 1.2 2.6
5 Mar 2010 0.3 1.2 2.8
6 Apr 2010 1.1 1.3 3.0
7 May 2010 1.1 1.4 3.1
8 Jun 2010 1.1 1.4 3.2
I certainly am interested in where you get "wrecking" from.
Again: debt =/= bad economy.
This is a good thing, does nothing but assure his term expires in 3 more years. Last thing he needs to do is confuse the issue even more by suggesating for a minute that he would move toward the center.JohnG@lt wrote:
I've really tried to keep an open mind going into this thing but the guy hasn't said a single thing that I could get behind. All I hear is spend spend spend and a doubling down on the progressive agenda.
because stimulus is how you get yourself out of recession quickly. it has consequences later on but the short term benefits are significant.Macbeth wrote:
[url=http://wallstreetpit.com/13069-stiglitz-us-economy-may-contract-in-the-second-half-of-next-year]Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warns that there’s a “significant” chance the U.S. economy will recede in the second half of 2010, and urged Washington to prepare a second stimulus package to spur job creation.Spark wrote:
Actually it's all projections from the end of last October (as I'm not sure if Q4 09 data is out yet), but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably correct. The trend is quite clear.Harmor wrote:
Isn't all that data from January 2010 forward projections? Today is still the 27th of January.
AP: “The likelihood of this slowdown is very, very high,” Stiglitz told reporters in Singapore. “There is a significant chance that the number will be in the negative range.”[/url]
A good few economist are warning a contraction could happen in 2010, mind you they want a second stimulus.
Wouldn't the fastest way to get out of a recession to lower the income tax significantly? People would see the extra money in their next paycheck instead of authorizing all these government spending programs that only benefit government workers and companies with fat government contracts?Spark wrote:
because stimulus is how you get yourself out of recession quickly. it has consequences later on but the short term benefits are significant.
If you weren't in such a huge deficit, the government could easily spend their way out of a recession.Harmor wrote:
I also would like to add that I disagree with the whole premise that the government can spend us out of a recession.
so harmor, how high have your federal taxes gone up?Harmor wrote:
Wouldn't the fastest way to get out of a recession to lower the income tax significantly? People would see the extra money in their next paycheck instead of authorizing all these government spending programs that only benefit government workers and companies with fat government contracts?Spark wrote:
because stimulus is how you get yourself out of recession quickly. it has consequences later on but the short term benefits are significant.
The last two porkulous bills I believe where mostly a waste.
If people use the money that would otherwise that would be collected in tax would be put back into the economy in the form of spending etc, sure. But that doesn't happen, not nearly as effectively as straight stimulus.Harmor wrote:
Wouldn't the fastest way to get out of a recession to lower the income tax significantly? People would see the extra money in their next paycheck instead of authorizing all these government spending programs that only benefit government workers and companies with fat government contracts?Spark wrote:
because stimulus is how you get yourself out of recession quickly. it has consequences later on but the short term benefits are significant.
The last two porkulous bills I believe where mostly a waste.
Which is basically what happened here - although we were in surplus in the first place.AussieReaper wrote:
If you weren't in such a huge deficit, the government could easily spend their way out of a recession.Harmor wrote:
I also would like to add that I disagree with the whole premise that the government can spend us out of a recession.
Last edited by Spark (2010-01-27 22:30:13)