Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since 2008.

There is no such thing as natural market cycles. They are as real as fairy godmothers. In 2008, the economy (of the world) was headed directly into the dumper and would have kept heading in that very direction if the steps initially forced upon Bush and then energetically undertaken and expanded by Obama had not been a) implemented, and b) worked out the way they did, for which there was no guaranty at all going in.

Giovernment consumption and investment account for 20-25% of GDP, depending on how strong or weak the rest of the economy is. That is a very large chunk, and it means that there is no entity that can exert a more significant influence on the economy than the federal government, which of course also has various sovereign powers that it and no other entity can wield.

 

There is a good case to be made, that intervention made the recession less serious, thereby avoiding depression. There is almost no case to be made, that the same intervention led to the current recovery when it happened and why it happened. The recovery IS part of a natural market cycle(something that is very real, and I have never seen denied before).

Yes, a collection of largely independent, and at times entirely independent bodies employ and spend a large amount of money. One president does NOT all of a sudden stop that, or double the amount spent. If they did, they would effect the economy a great deal. As it is, the 700 billion they spent was tiny in comparison to the amount of money lost in the collapse of the housing bubble, which I have seen estimated at at least 10 trillion globally. That 700 billion was nothing in comparison. The federal reserve admittedly does have a lot of power to impact the economy, but they act independently from the elected political establishment, and from the president. Which means the president can take little credit for their actions.

 

Misguided liberals are at work yet again. When they run out of new lies, they recycle OLD lies. LMAO!!!

Let' take a look at 2011 1040 form to see how many refundable credits are available shall we?

Refundable credit starting on line 64..

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

64a. EIC
65. Addititional child tax credit
66. American Opportunity credit
67. First-time homebuyer credit
68. Amount paid with requested extension
69. Excess social security
70. Credit for federal tax fuel

At this point, I can only assume you have no clues what you're talking about. Dude, let me know if you need help filling out your own tax return.

 

Strawman is walking. Your knowledge about stock market as good as Sponge Bob. Individual stock performance is based on company revenue strength. And I never said ALL of them would do worse than the index, but in general, when the index does not do well, individual stock would do worse.

And I notice that you haven't came up with any financial stock that ended 2011 break even.

Another strawman attempt. Increase tax rate do not ALWAYS translate to increase revenue.

Critical thinking 101. It's something that liberals do not possess.

 

What? Are you saying the GDP measurement is bogus now?

Keynesian huggers have entire economy process completely backward. No successful businesses run their operations with the notion of "sit and wait" on government stimulus. They produce what the consumers want the most and they constantly evolve and invent new products and services to make a better life for everyone. Private sector is a main engine in the any economy, it's hopelessly naive to think it would be better for the economy if the government plays a bigger role than private sector.

All centrally planned economy will fail. Period.

 

They have to contribute something to where they live. What is your point really? Do you believe there is a FREE LUNCH?

Bush is baaaaaaaad. Obama is goooooood. Woah woah woah!

More class warfare bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Everyone has to pay payroll taxes. In dollar term, rich pay a lot more. But with liberal logic, rich never pay enough.

Do you think they're born millionaires? All of them have to work and save enough so they can invest and grow their money. They impose payroll taxes on investment income will not fix the problem. I can guarantee you that. To fix the problem, first they must admit the problem. Social Security would be just fine if Demopublican party did not allow those leeches who never pay a penny to the coffer but freely sucking the system dry...

More liberal propaganda and class warfare garbage. Rich and poor receiving the same quality of care. Wealthy folks who wants personal care spend more money out of pocket than poor.

Your repetitive fail attempt to throw (*)(*)(*)(*)s against the wall to make it stick is amazing.

Is there any more welfare plan that we don't know? Is there any welfare plan in the making? In liberal world, free lunch actually does exist ya know.

 

snooop is eating 17thandK's lunch.

 

Your statement: "In general, if the indexes do not do well, individual stocks would do even worse."

If by "individual stocks" you mean all individual stocks, then how, mathematically, can the average of all indvidual stocks be worse than an index which is the average of all individual stocks?

If by "individual stocks" you meant selected stocks, then your statement doesn't make sense. Selected do worse than the index, regardless of whether the index does well or not.

I suppose it is hypothetically possible. But I cannot think of one year where there was a significant tax increase where revenues declined, can you?

You can impress us with your critical thinking with your answers.

 

So you've now changed the subject from unemployment to the deficit and bankruptcy. The theme of the thread is the fact that unemployment is decreasing not predicting dooms day.

 

You think?

Snoooop's argument on the individual stocks vs. index seems inherently illogical to me.

 

Greece, Japan, Spain, Ireland, Italy? any of them ring a bell?

 

Every time the unemployment rate drops the coservatives predict doomsday.

 

My post is a reply to 17th previous post about people who managed their own portfolios. Overall 2011 was a bad year for hedge funds, investment banks, and private investors due to a lot of uncertainty and volatility in the market. I have yet to hear many people claimed that 2011 was a good year for stocks.

17th seems to be very optimistic that government would rack in more taxes from capital gains this year without providing any evidence to back his claim. It's his usual liberal wishful thinking.

That's progressive liberal thinking. They simply assume economy will grow and government just rake in more revenue. In reality, there are many unpredictable variables could affect the economy. Hypothetically speaking, if Europe turns to Lehman Brothers II this year, what effect would it have on US economy?

What do you want to know?

 

Fascinating. What does that have to do with whether your statement: ""In general, if the indexes do not do well, individual stocks would do even worse" is logically correct?

I agreed it was hypothetically possible. But I cannot think of one year where there was a significant tax increase where revenues declined, can you?

If by "individual stocks" you mean all individual stocks, then how, mathematically, can the average of all indvidual stocks be worse than an index which is the average of all individual stocks?

If by "individual stocks" you meant selected stocks, then your statement doesn't make sense. Selected do worse than the index, regardless of whether the index does well or not, right?

But I cannot think of one year where there was a significant tax increase where revenues declined, can you?

 

If your money is in index fund last year, you would ended 2011 with little change. For self-picked individual stocks, it's a whole different ball game. I've seen more losers than winners in 2011.

Don't listen to me, why don't you pick 20 stock today, we can revisit this thread 6 months from now to see how they're doing.

 

See my earlier reply. If possible, why don't you post your own portfolios so we can laugh at you 6 months from now?

Why not? If Euro collapses, (*)(*)(*)(*) will hit the fan rather fast. Liberal logic strikes again. Increase tax rate = increase in revenue. My guess is Obama would have some new spending measure in place due to project increase in revenue right?

Sigh

 

I do not predict a doomsday. However, I predict that the US is in for a long and stagnant recovery and possibly Japanese-like lost decades. The US government is copying exactly what Japan has been doing, so the outcome is likely be the same.

 

Only one year after the Bush economy collapsed the unemployment rate reached 10%. In the last 3 months of Bush's term the unemployment rate jumped from 4.5% to 7.5 %.

Bush admitted a complete economic collapse under his administration when he begged congress for a bailout. Whether you agree with the bailout or not the Bush administration already knew there was at least 700 million dollars in bad securities in the financial sector. Obama faced an unprecedented Recession.

Obama has every right to use the same government statistics that all presidents use to measure unemployment. Only the hard core Conservatives want to rig everything differently under Obama.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZjk-9DGm0&feature=related"]Bush Asks Congress For $700 Billion Bailout! - YouTube[/ame]

 

8.5% is TERRIBLE. Loony liberals try to portray that as a good thing. It is terrible. And obama has had the longest time over 8% of any president in history, WHILE, blowing many TIMES more money than any president in history.
And unemployment dropped into the 8's last year too and loony liberals were dancing in the streets. Now, in the usual way that lunatic liberals view history, THAT never happened. Now unemployment is going down and it is terrific. Well it still STINKS. 8.5% is a terrible number to be abusing yourselves with. And it WILL go back up. When the Stimulus was passed, that day, I said, "We just added 2 years to the recovery." I was wildly optimistic. This "recovery" is a figment of loony liberal imaginations. We have two ways to go. Follow the incompetent idiot fool's present FAILED, policies and take ANOTHER 2 years to show any REAL recovery. OR do a 'sea change' of policy and do something completely different. And the "something different" the incompetent idiot has HAD in his hands since Dec. 2010. His own commission told him the way to go. A way that would have brought Congress TOGETHER. And would have the nation well on its way to a robust economy. But the clown fool ideologue found it in opposition to his idiot beliefs and he has ignored it. NOT a Republican Plan. His own commission's plan. So he STUPIDLY continues a failed policy while spending outrageous amounts of money. Amounts previously thought unimaginable. And liberal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s play with themselves over 8.5% unemployment and say its all Bush's fault, even tho Bush has had NO POWER since Jan 3 2007.

 

And what does this have to do with the fact that the unempoyment rate is going down????!!!!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!

 

Somewhat agree. To the extent that the market is allowed to work, it has been responsible for the incipient and anemic recovery we're experiencing.

I don't recall making such an argument. I understand that President Obama is not the only individual at fault. However, to absolve him of any responsibility is just as silly as attributing all the fault to him. As the President, he has an immense influence over the economy, and to the extent he has exercised this influence, it has negatively impacted our recovery.

That is simply false. I am a minarchist; as such, I support the existence of government. Principally, its responsibility should be to protect our rights and enforce contracts via criminal and civil justice systems, respectively; and on the local level, I typically support more of a directly democratic approach to government than I would on the Federal level. So, you see, I do not "attribute all the bad in the world to government" and actually believe it has a beneficial albeit limited role to play in social organization. Basically, I am the quintessential "centrist" or "moderate". I advocate a balance between individual liberty and socially-based governance. I just tend to lean in favor of individual liberty, as it should be.

"Isn't that great"? I'm not sure I can even take such a statement seriously. Are you really going to maintain that the government does not have a "great" influence on the "economy", which is nothing more than the aggregation of individual action as it pertains to commerce? North Korea's government certainly exercises a "great" deal of influence over its markets. I would maintain that our central bank exercises a "great" deal of influence over our economy. Really, I don't know how you claim otherwise.

 

Vague and self-serving platitudes that add nothing to the discussion.

 

It would appear there are few instances where the rate rises and revenues decline.

 

The terrible part is all Bush, and for anyone to say Obama did not deserve credit for the economic recovery, and that it was down to natural market cycles is the utmost lunacy. Bush had us hemmoraging 750,000 jobs every month and an economic crisis that had this country heading for widespread civil unrest that would have been unprecedented and one that we might not have recovered from. It's hard enuf as it is right now, thank god we didn't get McPalin or we wouldn't have had a nice Christmas or a Happy New Year, maybe ever again. GObama!

 

Bush retired three years ago and liberals are still blaming him. Is Obama responsible for any thing at all? And btw, that this one out, I guess the recovery act is working just fine.

The Obama Presidency - By The Numbers

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyshop/6196456311/sizes/o/in/photostream/