http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/159689-flashback-mitt-romney-now-makes-obama-look-dangerously-foolish-46-second-exchange-russia/

Derp

SportsAndLady;1638105 wrote:http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/159689-flashback-mitt-romney-now-makes-obama-look-dangerously-foolish-46-second-exchange-russia/

Derp

The evidence cited, however, didn't raise the case for Russian involvement in the shoot-down to a new level of certainty. Officials said they are still working to refine evidence and may offer more in coming days

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-lay-out-case-against-russians-1406063846

Obummer...the anti-capitalist, anti-business president that should draw the ire of all red blooded conservative men.

In fact, with annual data all the way back to 1929, corporate profitability as a share of national income was higher in 2013 than any other year on record. Think about that for a minute.....by this widely accepted measure, businesses just had their best year ever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/21/obamas-alleged-unfriendliness-to-businesses-is-a-big-foolish-distraction-and-its-also-wrong/?tid=rssfeed


We can remember when Conservative shills like Larry Kudlow were writing shit like this about President Bush:

Stock markets are the best barometer of the health, wealth and security of a nation” And today's stock market message is an unmistakable vote of confidence for the president. Even the best low-tax, limited-government economic policies can be thwarted if the men and women going to work in the morning can't get safely back to their homes and families at night.

But you'll see nothing like this from Larry Kudlow today or any other Conservative commentator.

If Romney had been elected and these results were coming in...we would be hearing nothing but praise about how Romney...the pro-business Conservative gave our business people confidence.

BoatShoes;1638421 wrote:Obummer...the anti-capitalist, anti-business president that should draw the ire of all red blooded conservative men.

Yeah, all any of that proves is your lack of understanding of business and economics.

Mohican00;1638366 wrote:The evidence cited, however, didn't raise the case for Russian involvement in the shoot-down to a new level of certainty. Officials said they are still working to refine evidence and may offer more in coming days

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-lay-out-case-against-russians-1406063846

Putin probably didn't tweet "shoot that sucker down" but you're kidding yourself if you don't think the Russians had ANY involvement in that.

gut;1638424 wrote:Yeah, all any of that proves is your lack of understanding of business and economics.

Sigh. So sad.

It is fun to imagine how hard Gut would be humping our mediocre economic news if his fantasy boy Romney could ever win anything.

BoatShoes;1638501 wrote:It is fun to imagine how hard Gut would be humping our mediocre economic news if his fantasy boy Romney could ever win anything.

LOL, it's funny how you continue to think you have a clue about economics. Reading a book doesn't mean you actually understood it.

If Romney had won...or if we had someone who actually was bothered enough to do the job....then the economic news would be better. But in Obama's defense the constant lying and spinning probably takes a lot of time and energy.

BoatShoes;1638500 wrote:Sigh. So sad.

Indeed it is. Now you know what other people feel like when they read your posts. How about giving us another chart you don't understand? It's been at least a week since you entertained us with a graph you thought supported your opinion, only to have others explain to you it actually refutes what you thought.

gut;1638599 wrote:LOL, it's funny how you continue to think you have a clue about economics. Reading a book doesn't mean you actually understood it.

If Romney had won...or if we had someone who actually was bothered enough to do the job....then the economic news would be better. But in Obama's defense the constant lying and spinning probably takes a lot of time and energy.

Wrong. Romney would've appointed a hawk. Obama appointed Yellen and the effect that appointment had on expectations has made a world of difference.

But then again, if you knew anything about monetary policy you might know that. See...I can say you don't know anything too. How fun is that?

In reality, I know you're a smart guy and just have a difference of opinion. But I suppose if I was wrong about impending debt bubble explosions year after year and had the world proving my thoughts about Obummer wrong every day I might be a little butthurt and result to insults too.

gut;1638600 wrote:Indeed it is. Now you know what other people feel like when they read your posts. How about giving us another chart you don't understand? It's been at least a week since you entertained us with a graph you thought supported your opinion, only to have others explain to you it actually refutes what you thought.

Here are some good ones that would make you swoon if your tribe would've won.








Obummer....the Confidence Fairy?

BoatShoes;1638633 wrote:Wrong. Romney would've appointed a hawk. Obama appointed Yellen and the effect that appointment had on expectations has made a world of difference.

But then again, if you knew anything about monetary policy you might know that. See...I can say you don't know anything too. How fun is that?

In reality, I know you're a smart guy and just have a difference of opinion. But I suppose if I was wrong about impending debt bubble explosions year after year and had the world proving my thoughts about Obummer wrong every day I might be a little butthurt and result to insults too.

So you think overall Obama is doing a good job?

In fact, with annual data all the way back to 1929, corporate profitability as a share of national income was higher in 2013 than any other year on record. Think about that for a minute.....by this widely accepted measure, businesses just had their best year ever.

...and there is a really good reason for that. Have you actually talked to any business owners? Everybody is staying really lean and hiring very carefully. Inventories are being kept really low.

Have you tried hiring a contractor lately? Good luck! I tried hiring a landscaper in May...they told me mid July...and I haven't heard from them yet (calling them next week). At two different places I tried to get painting jobs...At one job I waited 6 weeks for them to get to me. The other job, it took me a month to even get anyone to bid on the job....and I settled for a guy who actually is an engineer but who does it on the side for extra cash.
I realize that this is anecdotal, but as a small business owner I know and talk to a lot of other guys/gals that own small business corporations. I don't know whether it is fear, or actual policies themselves, but owners are avoiding hiring if they can.

BoatShoes;1638635 wrote: Obummer....the Confidence Fairy?

Again, do you understand how the unemployment rate is actually calculated? Here's a hint: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Labor participation rate continues to drop - as it has EVERY year Obama has been in office.

And Romney would have appointed a hawk who immediately would have raised rates and caused a recession? Strawman fallacy much?

like_that;1638636 wrote:So you think overall Obama is doing a good job?

No. Mediocre at best. Not a fighter for the unemployed and has basically checked out instead of taking the troglodytes in the House to task like a Teddy Roosevelt might have.

But smart enough to pick Janet Yellen and so that redeems him enough to not be considered a failure. In my opinion that will ensure that he coasts through to the speaking circuit with a strong enough economy in time for Hillary or some other generic Democrat to take over. We're in for a miserably two years politically after the GOP takes the Senate in the fall but thankfully they can't obstruct the Federal Reserve like they can obstruct the President and the economy will chug along so long as the FED isn't cajoled by the Wall Street Journal into hitting the breaks too soon.

Sad considering he could've been a good president but he won't be the utter failure every Obama mouth foamer is sure he will be when all is said and done.

Go look at the list of predictions made by people at this place in the "What do you expect in the next four years thread". All of that doomsday blather was wrong but none of them change their tune. Oh well.

gut;1638640 wrote:Again, do you understand how the unemployment rate is actually calculated? Here's a hint: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Labor participation rate continues to drop - as it has EVERY year Obama has been in office.

And Romney would have appointed a hawk who immediately would have raised rates and caused a recession? Strawman fallacy much?

Right, right, right....now that Obummer is President all anybody wants to talk about on the right is the Labor Participation rate! Boy oh boy if it's not the same rate it was in the 70's when all the boomers were working that means Obummer the LiBrul is a fail!

Gosh Darn Anti-Bidnezz Librulz!!!

BoatShoes;1638642 wrote:Right, right, right....now that Obummer is President all anybody wants to talk about on the right is the Labor Participation rate! Boy oh boy if it's not the same rate it was in the 70's when all the boomers were working that means Obummer the LiBrul is a fail!

LOL, you don't understand how participation rate is calculated either, do you? Is there anything about economics that you DO understand?

Low interest rates PUNISH people on fixed incomes. Seems like an odd thing for a liberal to cheer.

HitsRus;1638639 wrote:Have you tried hiring a contractor lately? Good luck!

I hired someone for a remodeling job and someone for a landscaping job this year. There was no wait.

Don't you live in the middle of fucking nowhere Ohio? That could be part of the problem. I wouldn't want to do work in a town without a stoplight either.

Sorry, i'm 15 minutes out of Akron... And one of the jobs was in Port Clinton. I did say what I posted what was anecdotal... But I've never had that problem before.

gut;1638645 wrote:LOL, you don't understand how participation rate is calculated either, do you? Is there anything about economics that you DO understand?

Low interest rates PUNISH people on fixed incomes. Seems like an odd thing for a liberal to cheer.

Oh please will you just stop. I myself have pointed to the Labor Force Participation Rate as evidence for the need for more fiscal and monetary stimulus! I think it is you actually who doesn't know what you're talking about based upon this reply but oh well.

You're a smart guy. Can you not engage in any discussions like a reasonable person?

And as to your argument that low interest rates punish those on fixed incomes. According to the AARP, the median interest income for a senior is $255. 4 out of 5 dollars that low to moderate income seniors earn come from Social Security. Raising interest rates would harm more seniors than it would help.

Low interest rates harm the rentier class. That's it and that's why the Wall Street Journal constantly wants to raise rates despite the fact that it would make things worse. Hope this helps.

BoatShoes;1638859 wrote:\
Low interest rates harm the rentier class.

This is why it's hard to have discussions with you "like a reasonable person". You make ridiculous statements/claims, then spam us with charts that you think supports your point but usally doesn't (and often actually repeats it).

Like where in hell do you get the idea that interest rates are linked to rental rates (instead of, I don't know, supply & demand)? Knowing how interest rates affect property values, it really has nothing to do with renters.

Rental rates are usually also linked to property values. Property values have a somewhat inverse relationship with interest rates - people can buy more house with lower rates, and that bids prices up. So, actually, it's likely to be the case that lower interest rates RAISE rents because inflated home prices mean the landlord will have to charge a higher rent.

And, ummmm, interest income for seniors is only $255/mo? Gee, is that not $500/mo lower than it would be under normal interest rates? The reason 4/5 of their dollars comes from SS is you took away 1/4 of their dollars away with your artificially low interest rates that have accomplished very little except to inflate bank balance sheets....again, this is an odd case of a liberal supporting Keynesian economics when the results/impact would otherwise enrage him.

We're pretty much at the limits of monetary stimulus and the fiscal stimulus was a waste. Even Krugman doesn't pound his Keysian fist half as much as you do. Deficits are still 2-3X higher than normal and you think the govt isn't spending enough money?

BoatShoes;1638859 wrote:\
Low interest rates harm the rentier class.

This is why it's hard to have discussions with you "like a reasonable person". You make ridiculous statements/claims, then spam us with charts that you think supports your point but usally doesn't (and often actually refutes it).

Like where in hell do you get the idea that interest rates are linked to rental rates (instead of, I don't know, supply & demand)? Rental rates might be very loosely related to property values, if at all. But property values have a somewhat inverse relationship with interest rates - people can buy more house with lower rates, and that bids prices up. So, actually, it's likely to be the case that lower interest rates RAISE rents because inflated home prices mean the landlord will have to charge a higher rent. Further, rental properties tend to be purchased with at least 50% cash and you manage your costs (interest) really independently of rates....it would be flat stupid to assume you could pass higher debt service onto your renters especially when competing landlords have different rates locked-in over different times (and many own the homes outright, so they are competely unaffected by rates).

And, ummmm, interest income for seniors is only $255/mo? Gee, is that not $500/mo lower than it would be under normal interest rates? The reason 4/5 of their dollars comes from SS is you took away 1/4 of their dollars away with your artificially low interest rates that have accomplished very little except to inflate bank balance sheets....again, this is an odd case of a liberal supporting Keynesian economics when the results/impact would otherwise enrage him.

We're pretty much at the limits of monetary stimulus and the fiscal stimulus was a waste. Even Krugman doesn't pound his Keysian fist half as much as you do. Deficits are still 2-3X higher than normal and you think the govt isn't spending enough money?

If even half of the reports of the Presidential executive actions are correct re immigration, Obama should be impeached.

Manhattan Buckeye;1639045 wrote:If even half of the reports of the Presidential executive actions are correct re immigration, Obama should be impeached.

Nawww, it's easier to give speeches and pretend you have solution than work to pass legislation. It's a win-win: there's no risk of the policy failing and it leaves plenty of time for the golf course.

gut;1639097 wrote:Nawww, it's easier to give speeches and pretend you have solution than work to pass legislation. It's a win-win: there's no risk of the policy failing and it leaves plenty of time for the golf course...and another taxpayer-funded vacation.

fify