The US economy grows by 3.3% in the last quarter of 2013....

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
and would have grown by 3.5% if the GOP and a few psedo democrats had not voted to reject the compromise budget of last fall. those 16 days our federal government shut down cost the economy $24 billion dollars and thousands of jobs.
the members of congress, almost all of them Republicans ( of course ) should have to pay this amount their stupidity and hatred of Obama and the U.S. cost.

facts are stubborn things. no, the economy is not in perfect shape, but it is better shape, by far, than when George W Bush abandoned it, just like he did the victims of Katrina.
and yes, the Obama policy of encouraging the Fed to buy billions of US treasury bonds has helped considerably.
and nothing can alter or change these facts, no matter how much Poopy mustard you attempt to cover it with.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
yes, i know, i forgot the letter "u" in pseudo. sorry for the typo. but NOT sorry i posted this good news. no champagne yet, but ginger ale all around is appropriate.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
and would have grown by 3.5% if the GOP and a few psedo democrats had not voted to reject the compromise budget of last fall. those 16 days our federal government shut down cost the economy $24 billion dollars and thousands of jobs.
the members of congress, almost all of them Republicans ( of course ) should have to pay this amount their stupidity and hatred of Obama and the U.S. cost.

facts are stubborn things. no, the economy is not in perfect shape, but it is better shape, by far, than when George W Bush abandoned it, just like he did the victims of Katrina.
and yes, the Obama policy of encouraging the Fed to buy billions of US treasury bonds has helped considerably.
and nothing can alter or change these facts, no matter how much Poopy mustard you attempt to cover it with.
It grew at 4.1% in the quarter before that. You hatred for bush is reminding me of why I stayed away from the politics forum for a while though. Stick to what obama did instead of try and take every opportunity to attack bush.

If obama does something, great. Good job Obama. Because for one thing, things like the recession began long before Bush and are due to older policies. Bubbles dont form and break in 6 years time (people predicted the bubble as early as around 2000 and it was almost confirmed in like 2005).

So yea, you should work on isolating Obama's achievements and narrowing your vision down. You should only look at the policies that they put in place or remove that changed things and made them how they are. Policies usually take a couple of years before any change is really visible.
AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia
 

elklindoxxx

Superior Member
Cammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Posts
958
Media
9
Likes
3,266
Points
263
Location
NYC
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The economy grew at a slow rate in 2013 because of a combination of reduced government spending and increased taxation.

I generally tend to stay away from the ideologues since I rarely hear anything that comes within an earshot of being objective...
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You have about 20% unemployed and underemployed and a massive working poor segment of the population.

And these stats are getting worse with current government fiscal policy.

2013 was a very bad year and 2014 will be worse.

Obama has been a sterling success for the plutocrats. Not so for everyone else.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You have about 20% unemployed and underemployed and a massive working poor segment of the population.

And these stats are getting worse with current government fiscal policy.

2013 was a very bad year and 2014 will be worse.

Obama has been a sterling success for the plutocrats. Not so for everyone else.
Citation? 2013 wasn't a bad year... a 3% growth in GDP is basically a normal GDP growth for the US (maybe even slightly better than normal). I don't approve of all of his policies, but 20% unemployed and underemployed? Last I saw it was 13.1%. It could be better, but it isn't bad and at least it isn't getting worse.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Citation? 2013 wasn't a bad year... a 3% growth in GDP is basically a normal GDP growth for the US (maybe even slightly better than normal). I don't approve of all of his policies, but 20% unemployed and underemployed? Last I saw it was 13.1%. It could be better, but it isn't bad and at least it isn't getting worse.

Under Obama’s presidency, the top 1 percent has monopolized 95 percent of the growth in income, while the bottom 90 percent of the population has only been further impoverished.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Under Obama’s presidency, the top 1 percent has monopolized 95 percent of the growth in income, while the bottom 90 percent of the population has only been further impoverished.
Again, citation? And is this different than under other recent Presidencies? I know up until 1986 the rich were paying more than 50% in taxes (up to 70% in 1981) but Bush Sr and Clinton kept the rates under 40%.

If it is different, can you state why that is the case? What policies did Obama enact/repeal that caused it to happen?
 

Puffdaddy316

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Posts
2,086
Media
38
Likes
5,052
Points
543
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
You know, I kind of agree with the points raised by everyone in this thread.

My take is that GDP growth needs about a year after the quarter finishes. These figures all seem like they are revised later.

In fairness, there aren't a ton of policy tools the President has to work with.

If you want to thoroughly debate this topic, I think it's Bernancke and Congress that are the key players.

The number I absolutely do not believe in is the CPI as a measurement of real inflation. Look at the price of stuff like milk and cereal.

To me, inflation is what's being brushed under the rug and BOTH sides should blamed. Maybe for young enough people like myself it's not a big deal, but for seniors it's very rough.

In general, though, I don't believe any number out of any government.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Again, citation? And is this different than under other recent Presidencies? I know up until 1986 the rich were paying more than 50% in taxes (up to 70% in 1981) but Bush Sr and Clinton kept the rates under 40%.

If it is different, can you state why that is the case? What policies did Obama enact/repeal that caused it to happen?

In the neoliberal era wealth inequality has grown at an accelerating pace. Productivity has shot up while wages have stagnated at best and declined since the manufactured GFC.

GDP per capita is still behind 2007.

What we have is a deflationary depression while the assets of the wealthy and corporate profits are propped up by monetary policy and direct federal spending on corporate welfare programmes like 'defence'.

And it will only get worse while the deficit crazies have sway over politicians and a sizable percentage of the public.

You're being lied to. They mean to make things worse for the many.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You know, I kind of agree with the points raised by everyone in this thread.

My take is that GDP growth needs about a year after the quarter finishes. These figures all seem like they are revised later.

In fairness, there aren't a ton of policy tools the President has to work with.

If you want to thoroughly debate this topic, I think it's Bernancke and Congress that are the key players.

The number I absolutely do not believe in is the CPI as a measurement of real inflation. Look at the price of stuff like milk and cereal.

To me, inflation is what's being brushed under the rug and BOTH sides should blamed. Maybe for young enough people like myself it's not a big deal, but for seniors it's very rough.

In general, though, I don't believe any number out of any government.

He's gone.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
In the neoliberal era wealth inequality has grown at an accelerating pace. Productivity has shot up while wages have stagnated at best and declined since the manufactured GFC.

GDP per capita is still behind 2007.

What we have is a deflationary depression while the assets of the wealthy and corporate profits are propped up by monetary policy and direct federal spending on corporate welfare programmes like 'defence'.

And it will only get worse while the deficit crazies have sway over politicians and a sizable percentage of the public.

You're being lied to. They mean to make things worse for the many.
What is the neoliberal era? When did that begin? Productivity shot up because of technology. Wages have stagnated (not declined, wont even bother commenting on the idea of GFC being manufactured) but what is the solution to that? You can't just raise the federal minimum wage because then the dollar just becomes less valuable. How do you get people to demand the pay that they should be getting, especially when the market favors businesses due to unemployment?

We are ahead of 2007, but slightly behind 2008

Why do you say we have a deflationary depression? What policy would you put in place to fix it and to encourage investing rather than sitting?
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
What is the neoliberal era? When did that begin? Productivity shot up because of technology. Wages have stagnated (not declined, wont even bother commenting on the idea of GFC being manufactured) but what is the solution to that? You can't just raise the federal minimum wage because then the dollar just becomes less valuable. How do you get people to demand the pay that they should be getting, especially when the market favors businesses due to unemployment?

We are ahead of 2007, but slightly behind 2008

Why do you say we have a deflationary depression? What policy would you put in place to fix it and to encourage investing rather than sitting?

Neoliberalism is the dominant political economic doctrine of our times. You are immersed in it. Instead of government managing economies we have banksters centrally planning.

It is a rehash of the laissez-faire financial capitalism the led to the world wars of the 20th century.

We are in a deflationary depression. Wages and living standards are declining. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been lost from the untermensch.

We have mass unemployment and underemployment, we have massive underutilsation of tools, factories and office space.

These are the signs of a deflationary depression.

If you had an independent media you would know that.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Neoliberalism is the dominant political economic doctrine of our times. You are immersed in it. Instead of government managing economies we have banksters centrally planning.

It is a rehash of the laissez-faire financial capitalism the led to the world wars of the 20th century.

We are in a deflationary depression. Wages and living standards are declining. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been lost from the untermensch.

We have mass unemployment and underemployment, we have massive underutilsation of tools, factories and office space.

These are the signs of a deflationary depression.

If you had an independent media you would know that.
Until you state some specifics with sources, I am not going to listen to a thing you say. You couldn't even answer a simple question like "When did neoliberalism begin"

You can spout whatever nonsense you believe, but I will continue to just think you are a crazy person until you have somebody that is trusted backing you with evidence. So don't go off and cite a random blog with no sources, I expect a real source with verifiable evidence. If you say that all of the verifiable evidence is biased and not "independent", then there is no arguing with you at all because you have no facts to use.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The solution is full employment at a living wage.
How would you achieve that? Are you aware of what "full employment" is? Do you know that "full employment" doesn't take underemployment into consideration as that is a fairly new concept (we only began measuring it in 1994)? Are you aware that since "full employment" doesnt account for underemployment, we are within 1% of what the OECD defines as full employment for the US?

What is a living wage? How do you determine it? Do you know that a living wage in SF, CA is not the same as a living wage in Houston, TX? How do you propose making that change? Would you force each state to adjust their minimum wage?
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Until you state some specifics with sources, I am not going to listen to a thing you say. You couldn't even answer a simple question like "When did neoliberalism begin"

You can spout whatever nonsense you believe, but I will continue to just think you are a crazy person until you have somebody that is trusted backing you with evidence. So don't go off and cite a random blog with no sources, I expect a real source with verifiable evidence. If you say that all of the verifiable evidence is biased and not "independent", then there is no arguing with you at all because you have no facts to use.

You don't even know what neoliberalism is.

So I'm not bothered about what you think of me.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
How would you achieve that? Are you aware of what "full employment" is? Do you know that "full employment" doesn't take underemployment into consideration as that is a fairly new concept (we only began measuring it in 1994)? Are you aware that since "full employment" doesnt account for underemployment, we are within 1% of what the OECD defines as full employment for the US?

What is a living wage? How do you determine it? Do you know that a living wage in SF, CA is not the same as a living wage in Houston, TX? How do you propose making that change? Would you force each state to adjust their minimum wage?

Yes.

But apparently you don't.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You don't even know what neoliberalism is.

So I'm not bothered about what you think of me.
Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really not that hard, man. We live in the age of the internet.
Yes.

But apparently you don't.
You keep telling me what I don't know, but then fail to tell me how I don't know it. You fail to mention any sources or specifics. I am sorry that you don't know how to actually argue anything. I am sorry that you get these notions in your mind about what other people are like without actually knowing them or what they are thinking. I am sorry for you, and in case you haven't noticed... I am trying to help you.

All of these questions that I ask? They are a guide to give you something to say that has actual substance. They give me something to actually respond to. Without any of this information I can't really say much about what you say... because you aren't saying anything.

What you say is the equivalent of me saying, "well the solution is to just make the world a utopia." Except you have to realize that without telling something about how to do it or why you would do it or anything aside from that one sentence, there is nothing to talk about.

"People need more money" - Yea, more money would be good. Nice. Duh.
"We need full employment" - That would be great. Sure. Who wouldn't want full employment?

Do you understand? Are you keeping up with what I am saying? Do you get the concept of substance, depth, or content?