Many Americans feel economy isn't improving

You're full of crap. Bush brought this country to it's knees by getting us into a war which had no endgame, destroying the economy by increasing the deficit, which Clinton had in the black at the time, all while lying through his teeth about a war he wanted.

Now- the economy is finally getting back on track and you somehow hate that. Jesus Christ- be happy it's getting better. The last time it got better was under Clinton (and no, I did not care for him), but the facts are the guy got things done, and the economy was good. I don't know about you, but I have been busier at work more than I have been in years. I'm really happy about that. I'm also making more money than I ever have in my life. I work in advertising, and if we are busy and doing well, everyone else will be doing the same shortly.

That should make you happy. But it seems that you don't want things to go well if someone in the Oval Office does not agree with your ideology. That's sad.

Furthermore, I am a very proud liberal. I have worked since I was 16 years old, and am now 46. I have been through layoffs and all kinds of other things you probably have never, nor ever will go through. I am a self starter and always have been. I'm sick of you guys always saying that liberals don't want to work and want a handout. If that were true, New York, Chicago and LA would have been gone a long time ago. But yet, those very places, full of liberals, are what keep the country going with innovation and passion. Case in point- Steve Jobs, late of Apple. One very liberal guy who made a ton of money, started one of the greatest companies around and changed the world. He did not do that by being a close-minded (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). He did it by listening, and including everyone who could help him.

 

Isbhuffpo writing your posts for you? You have no clue about the financial meltdown of 2008 or the wars in the Middle East. It all links back to Clinton and the democrats.

 

Yes, I do. And you have posted nothing to the contrary. It's the usual whining from you. I'm damn sick of it. And yes, I have quite the clue about the wars in the Middle East. I got my clues straight from friends who fought them and felt used. One of them is a heart transplant surgeon. He loved the military until Bush II. He had over 20 years under his belt and had no intention to retire- until he got sent to Iraq a second time to sew up kids that Bush II found expendable.

In his own words, "I am not here to make politicians' friends money. I'm here to defend my country. This war is the largest abuse of the military I have ever seen, and I won't be a part of it anymore."

That's a soldier talking. A soldier of over 20 years.

BTW- the meltdown of 2008 was about housing. That was the new bubble after the internet mess of 2000. I've lived through all of this. I'm 46, not some dumb kid. Try your crap with someone else.

 

You weren't paying attention while you were "living thru it". Were you still living in your parent's basement during those times? You surely don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

Really? I have no clue? As a gay person, I was disowned by my family at 19. I have lived by my own means until now at 46. I have never asked my parents for one cent. I am an adult who has made his way through life quite successfully. I know- you hate that. Librools should suffer, right?

 

You should do some reading up on the topic and be quiet for a while:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

Now fast forward to the mess Bill Clinton set in motion:

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

So why do people blame the republicans alone? Answer: They don't have a clue what they are talking about. You lose now run away. LOL!

 

Iriemon, don't do that. The right constantly just give their opinion without facts. That is what you are doing.

movie: Too Big To Fail (2011)

 

Did you notice that your link show some presidents and a lot of financial gurus. They caused the financial collapse and caused gullible customers to be part of the problem.

That should end the right's arument about the man on the street did it. And, wow, no Barney Frank.

Oh, BTW, which financial expert was not a Republican?

 

What better economic news? Growth is still pitiful, employment still horrible, if the labor participation rate was the same as 2009 the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Obama's policies are scaring businesses from investing and expanding for growth, I know I talk to business owners and managers on a daily basis.

 

More and more people dropping out of the labor force so that instead of an 11% plus unemployment rate it is 7.5% is an improvement. Heck lets get a few more million to drop out and go on government subistance and get the rate down to 6% and then we can shout happy days are here again!

Stability at this low growth rate and high unemployment is not very desirable don't you think? It's been "stable" there for over 5 1/2 years.

Since it did nothing of the sort why would anyone make such an acknowledgement, it did not stop the joblosses they were already turning around long before the stimulus went into effect and they couldn't get the money out fast enough anyway remember the shovel ready jobs not being so shovel ready. It was supposed to hold unemployment to 8.5% it did nothing of the sort. We'd been better off if he had announced that all the current tax rates would be locked in for 5 years, no Obamacare, a freeze on new regulations and then gotten out of the way.

We have been under Democrat policy since 2008.

The Congress being merely "productive" means nothing to economic growth or lack thereof, measuring Congressional "productivity" by how many bills they pass is a fallacy.

Obama got his tax increase and the Republicans were more than willing to sit down and talk tax reform, Obama refused.

 

Retired persons are not part of the labor force and are not counted in the participation rate of the labor force. Beyond that those seniors who ARE working ARE counted in the labor force as long as they are working so the skew the number up while those who retire have no effect on it downward.

 

Cherry picking a statistic as complex as the labor participation rate and distilling the analysis of this phenomena to "unemployment" and people giving up is yet another example of right wing misrepresentation or overzealous dumbing down to get it on a bumpersticker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/08/the-u-s-labor-force-is-still-shrinking-rapidly-heres-why/

Not relevant to the point that foreclosures and bankruptcies have dramatically declined which is an indication of returning stability and growth.

An uproductive argument I see. The stimulus SAVED millions of jobs that would have otherwise been lost. Only righties claim that hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters would have kept their jobs without the stimulus.
Most of those shovel ready projects were submitted by REPUBLICAN governors who then promptly used the funds to make like fiscal heroes and try to balance their own budgets - or do you not recall this phenomena either?

It was hoped that the stimulus would hold unemployment to 8.5% but you can't possibly be saying that because it didn't hit that target figure it was a failure. It wasn't evem, the prime objective of the stimulus in the first place. PREVENTING a full global depression was the number 1 item.

And all of the tax rates were locked in with the stimulus and individuals enjoyed over 350 Billion in stimulus cuts and tax holidays, thereby giving ample evidence that cutting taxes isn't the panacea republicans erroneously and repeatedly declare.
Obamacare has not significantly impacted the job market, despite the major whinging and unsubstantiated (other than anecdotally) accusations of the right. Even the "part time" hiring instead of full time has been debunked according to BLS figures.

Freeze new regulations, so wall street can do it again? That BP can do it again? Right.

You mean 2009 don't you?

Congress being productive has everything to do with economic growth.

I agree. no congress should be judged solely on the quantity of legislation passed. It should be measured on the quality of the quantity of legislation passed, and when viewed by these two criteria, the past two congressional sessions easily retain their respective historic titles.

Oh so is that why the house refused to close tax loopholes for corporations? refused stop paper based offshore tax shelters? The republicans talk a lot about their willingness to talk, except they spend so much time talking about wanting to talk, they never actually get around to it. (that's by design, in case you missed it). what about all those subsidies to oil companies - just the most profitable industry in history? Oh wait, lets not forget those farm subsidies so many members of congress enjoy? I think everyone agrees that tax reform is required. Unfortunately in this age of partisan politics it is not in the republicans game plan to actually do anything about it while democrats control the white house and the senate.


You have already declared that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy and now you are suggesting that it actually has a positive effect? Make up your mind.

 

You are simply wrong. Labor participation rate includes ALL citizens age 16 and up.

Table 1 is of interest in this regard.
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf

 

Wait a minute, so the GOP is now FOR regulation? You're joking, right? And no, I have no need to run from people like you, and I did not lose. This is not a game. Interesting though, you link to an article called "25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis", and you only mention one? OK, let's have some fun and see who else is on the list:

Angelo Mozilo- Republican
Phil Gramm- Republican
Alan Greenspan- Libertarian
Chris Cox- Republican
Hank Paulson- Republican

More in a minute

 

others on the list:

Joes Cassano- independent
Frank Raines- independent

Oh look who else!

George W Bush- Republican

Well, well, well. Seems somebody can't post honestly.

 

ROFLMAO that's not cherry picking, that is pointing the fact that were the labor force the same size as it was, had all those people not dropped out the unemployment rate would be over 11%.

Yes there aren't alot left to go bankrupt or get foreclosed, those have already happened, that the "stablity" is at such unacceptable growth rates and unacceptable unemployment rates even with the horrible labor participation rate is certainly nothing to be bragging about.

Quite productive and factual. The stimulus didn't even take effect until long after the bottoming out had occurred and we were primed for a recovery. And it was a STIMULUS not a life bouy just to save us from deeper decline. It was just supposed to prevent a depression it was to stimulus us into a rigorous recovery. It failed miserably and we will be paying for it, rather our future generations will be paying for it for decades.

While millions in the private sector could not find jobs because of the policies of this administration, not an acceptable trade off. We need PRODUCTIVE jobs.

Facts not in evidence and the fact remains that even Obama admitted it was failure and those jobs never came to pass.

It was stated in writing by his top economic advisers and used to sell the stimulus.

ROFL didn't hit the "target", it blew by it and never recovered and again the unemployment rate would still be double digit had not so many just given up and dropped out of the workforce. We are FIVE YEARS after the end of the recession.

Wrong it was to stimulate the economy into a robust recovery and the unemployment rate was to hit 6% years ago.

While all the time Obama pledging he would raise taxes, fighting for it and finally getting it.

Again, it is business confidence that has suffered and in large part because of Obamacare and not knowing what the law was going to be and how much it would add to business cost with the new taxes and new requirements.

Yes NEW regulations and since the old ones didn't prevent either..................

No, I meant what I said.

ROFL it means exactly the opposite, Congress merely passing more bills does nothing for the economy and since most are new restrictions and regulations costing business more and more resources it hardly becomes an economic stimulus.

Then why do you engage in such folly?

What loopholes?

You just get more and more abusrd, offshore investing is nothing new and our citizens have EVERY right to do so and the government has NO BUSINESS attempting to restrict it but beyond that taxes are paid on those foreign investments when the citizen collects them.

They just don't talk about it they make the offers and pass the bills to sit down and talk about as opposed to the Democrats who do not pass bills and refuse to talk about anything.

What subsidies and be specific.

Who told you that, can we then assume you invest heavily in oil industry?

All for getting rid of the them but go talk to the Democrats who refuse to do so.

No they don't because the Democrats don't want tax reform they want tax rate increases. The Republicans have offered over and over and even passed reform measures.

I made no such claim, quite the opposite, but at the least Obama should have supported legislation to make the Bush rates permanent for at least 5 years, 10 years even better.

 

actually, it is attempting to misrepresent a statistic. The unemployment rate has nearly ALWAYS been measured in the same fashion (with some minor exceptions). therefore, you cannot attempt to "interpret" the unemployment rate as being something that it clearly is not and has never been.

Its like saying if you only counted employed people, unemployment would be zero.

Again, you don't seem to be able to grasp how the stats are derived. The labor participation rate is not horrible by any stretch, it is REFLECTIVE of the aging population, the slower rate of female employment, the fact more kids stay in school longer, etc. But don't let actual analysis get in the way of your superficial pronouncements that lack context and understanding. I should be surprised, but I've dealt with too many partisan hacks for that.

five-myths-about-obamas-stimulus [quote]But the $787 billion bill ...merican_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Job loses continued until October 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_losses_caused_by_the_Great_Recession

the very least you could do is get your facts straight.

You mean like the Jobs Act that the house refused to table? Or the myriad of other pieces of legislation that the house did even bother to bring to a vote? I agree more should have been done. More Could have been done, but for some peculiar reason republicans in the house and senate, have not been too keen to support any democratic legislation and have been mostly focused on repealing/defunding obamacare and obstructing as much as possible.

What jobs are not productive?

Obama did not admit the stimulus was a failure. It prevented a total financial collapse.
At least you are consistent in not being in command of the facts.

It was one projection in a report.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

Still repeating the same nonsense about unemployment.

It was to PREVENT a depression and stimulate the economy. It was never meant to be the sole mechanism despite the rights whinging.

irrelevant to the issue. over $350 billion of the stimulus was in tax cuts and "holidays". Where were all those jobs that tax cuts are supposed to generate according to conservative ideology? Oh right - that's just another demonstrably proven canard.

Like I said, obamacare as not significantly impacted the job market. funny how uncertainity generally accompanies change, I guess that is why conservatives are so reluctant to embrace change in the first place.

Huh? are you saying because the old regulations failed to prevent the meltdown, that its pointless to institute new regulations specifically designed to curtail the ridiculously high risk activities the banks et.al. engaged in?

Except the Obama inaugaration was in january of 2009. so how he was able to "control" legislation in the lame duck period is beyond most thinking individuals to ascertain.

Now you are just getting ridiculous. It is the CONTENT OF THE LEGISLATION that has an impact on the economy. Your arguments are getting dumber by the sentence.

I dont'.

I have no problem with legit offshore investments made by individuals.
One of the problems is in "off-shoring" of "corporate offices" which amounts to a POBox. There are any number of sites that list the more outrageous loopholes. Might want to educate yourself so you can take advantage of them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/09/1245670/-Senate-Republicans-reject-budget-negotiations-for-21st-nbsp-time

http://www.policymic.com/articles/66879/5-wild-gop-myths-about-the-shutdown-debunked

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/a-complete-timeline-of-re_b_4074372.html#

The view must be really sensational in that bubble you live in.

 

Did you read the other article? That answers all those questions....you fail.

 

Hahaha! You did lose. I call the financial meltdown a bipartisan effort....which it was. The republicans tried to stop it but were blocked by the democrats. So you are wrong. I bet that stings.

 

It's not Obama's policies scaring businesses, it is Obama scaring businesses.

Let's all cut the bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Republicans are in bed with the wealthy. Their politicians are bought and sold. The media is bought and sold. They have Fox News to relay total bullcrap to their ignorant minions. They bribe everyone in the government, including the Democrats, to "compromise." The economy won't recover quickly as long as a Democrat is in office. As soon as Republican old boy gets back in, business will miraculously start hiring.

No one questions how businesses are posting record profits and still sitting on them?? You guys are thinking way too hard. Not a single conservative on this forum can come up with a clear explanation as to how any of Obama's policies have hurt the economy, yet cling to it as an argument.

Republicans in, economy booms.
Republicans lose, they sabotage the economy.

Pretty simple. America is starting to catch on and is mad about it.