Homey and an Obo lie
Bob Tiernan
in a recession.
Recessions have a definition Dems agree with
In that light, was Obo lying - choose just
one of the two answers below by placing an "X"
in front of it, and any "But.." or other
shuffling counts as a No.
Recession?
Yes
No
Bob T
Don Homuth
<zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
>Homey, the liar said the other week that we're
>in a recession.
bT, the liar, said that I said that.
>Recessions have a definition Dems agree with
Pretty much anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together knows
what it is like.
lein
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:25:38 -0700, Bob Tiernan
>
> >Homey, the liar said the other week that we're
> >in a recession.
>
> bT, the liar, said that I said that.
>
> >Recessions have a definition Dems agree with
>
> Pretty much anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together knows
> what it is like.
Base on your question Bob, his answer is clearly "No".
Don Homuth
Nope.
The "official" take on the definition of a "recession" is a fairly
prolonged period of negative growth.
But that's on an average.
A prolonged period of Very Slow Growth, especially when the data are
manipulated by administration sources, has essentially the same effect
to many people.
The fact that it may be offset with some top-end data about Very large
increases for a small number of folks doesn't do much for me.
I figure it's one of those Angels On A Pinhead discussions.
The fact, for example, that the awlbidniss is doing Very Well Indeed
of late doesn't mean that the Housing Sector is sharing in that
"growth" at all. Which deals with more people?
Those "official" definitions never illuminate much, in my not the
Least bit humble opinion. They're just numbers to toss around, and
more so during election years.
But hey -- it's OK! Corporate Welfare is about to kick in. Y'all are
going to share in another $25 Billion in (mostly) borrowed money to
bail out all those good Republicans in the real estate sector who just
a year or so ago were bragging about how They were doing Very Well
Indeed!
Things do change, do they not?
Bill Shatzer
“Whether it’s a technical recession or not is not all that relevant. I
don't see that makes a great deal of difference.. It’s clearly the case
that for a variety of reasons families are facing hardship.”
- Ben Bernanke July 26, 2008
Peace and justice,
March Hare
> Peace and justice,
>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
lein
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:32:11 -0700 (PDT), lein
>
>
>
> <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 9:29 pm, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:25:38 -0700, Bob Tiernan
>
> >> <zulu.pacifier....@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> >> >Homey, the liar said the other week that we're
> >> >in a recession.
>
> >> bT, the liar, said that I said that.
>
> >> >Recessions have a definition Dems agree with
>
> >> Pretty much anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together knows
> >> what it is like.
>
> >Base on your question Bob, his answer is clearly "No".
>
> Nope.
>
> The "official" take on the definition of a "recession" is a fairly
> prolonged period of negative growth.
It's two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Like, for instance,
the two Clinton left for Bush when he left office. This has yet to
happen though the Ds in congress are busting their ass to make it
happen.
>
> But that's on an average.
>
> A prolonged period of Very Slow Growth, especially when the data are
> manipulated by administration sources, has essentially the same effect
> to many people.
But fewer people, in fact even the so call Clinton boom had a negative
effect to many people.
>
> The fact that it may be offset with some top-end data about Very large
> increases for a small number of folks doesn't do much for me.
>
> I figure it's one of those Angels On A Pinhead discussions.
>
> The fact, for example, that the awlbidniss is doing Very Well Indeed
> of late doesn't mean that the Housing Sector is sharing in that
> "growth" at all. Which deals with more people?
both are mutually exclusive. Exxon doesn't front loans to people who
lack the ability to pay or who fraudulently state their income and
assets on their loan applications.
One could also rephrase your statement as "The fact, for example, that
the housing sector isn't doing well doesn't mean that the oil
companies aren't."
>
> Those "official" definitions never illuminate much, in my not the
> Least bit humble opinion. They're just numbers to toss around, and
> more so during election years.
>
> But hey -- it's OK! Corporate Welfare is about to kick in. Y'all are
> going to share in another $25 Billion in (mostly) borrowed money to
> bail out all those good Republicans in the real estate sector who just
> a year or so ago were bragging about how They were doing Very Well
> Indeed!
>
> Things do change, do they not?
You do realize if there is a $25B bailout, it will be at the hands of
the Democrats who control the national checkbook.
lein
Economic downturn != a recession.
Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
Don Homuth
<boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Economic downturn != a recession.
Depends on how long it lasts.
More than six months, and it meets the definition.
>Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
They can last longer than six months.
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> Homey, the liar said the other week that we're
>> in a recession.
> bT, the liar, said that I said that.
Hey STUPID, read for clarity. You're really
touchy, aren'tcha?
First, look at the subject line. See where it says
an "Obo" lie? Not yours, but Obo's.
Next, look at the first line in the message and note
where the comma is placed. It says, "Homey, the liar
says....", rather than, "Homey the liar says...".
See the difference? Can you do that? See how it
works?
Gosh you're an idiot. First you flock up simple
math (4 is not a 50% increase over 3), and now
simple grammar.
Now that I've pulled your nose back into this,
you can concentrate on my original question.
Obo said we've been in a recession - this in
reaction to what Phil Gramm said. So I'm asking
you, and put an "X" in front of one of the two
answers below, and note that any shuffling or
a refusal to answer will be counted as a "No".
Bill Shatzer
>>>Recession?
>>> Yes
>>> No
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and feels like a duck...
To most folks, it -feels- like a recession.
> Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
Funny - there seems to have been only a single rather short lived
"official" recession in that period - from January 1980 to July 1980.
Though we do find a rather more significant one from November 73 through
March 75 under Nixon's watch and another large one from July 81 to
November 82 under Ronald (hallowed be his name) Reagan.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
Peace and justice,
duncan idahoe
Nobama's might go for 48.
duncan idahoe
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peace and justice,"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Peace and justice,
>
lein
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:05:06 -0700 (PDT), lein
>
> >Economic downturn != a recession.
>
> Depends on how long it lasts.
No, it depends on consecutive quarters of negative growth (and for the
liberals who are often challenged, a reduction in the rate of growth
is not negative growth).
>
> More than six months, and it meets the definition.
>
> >Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
>
> They can last longer than six months.
I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
lein
> lein wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 10:43 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> >>>Homey, the liar said the other week that we're
> >>>in a recession.
>
> >>>Recessions have a definition Dems agree with
>
> >>>In that light, was Obo lying - choose just
> >>>one of the two answers below by placing an "X"
> >>>in front of it, and any "But.." or other
> >>>shuffling counts as a No.
> >>>Recession?
> >>> Yes
> >>> No
> >>“Whether it’s a technical recession or not is not all that relevant. I
> >>don't see that makes a great deal of difference.. It’s clearly the case
> >>that for a variety of reasons families are facing hardship.”
> >> - Ben Bernanke July 26, 2008
> > Economic downturn != a recession.
>
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and feels like a duck...
>
> To most folks, it -feels- like a recession.
And a placebo can feel like a cure.
>
> > Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
>
> Funny - there seems to have been only a single rather short lived
> "official" recession in that period - from January 1980 to July 1980.
>
> Though we do find a rather more significant one from November 73 through
> March 75 under Nixon's watch and another large one from July 81 to
> November 82 under Ronald (hallowed be his name) Reagan.
>
> http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
But given interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates,
1976-81 felt like a depression compared to what we have now.
Don Homuth
Or not.
I'd predict Not.
Don Homuth
<boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
Then you'd be Wrong once again, as you are consistently.
duncan idahoe
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT), lein
> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
>
> Then you'd be Wrong once again,
No, it was damned near close to it, you festering great gray gasbag!
Don Homuth
<arr...@desert.planet> wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT), lein
>> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
>>
>> Then you'd be Wrong once again,
>
>No, it was damned near close to it,
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
duncan idahoe
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:06 GMT, duncan idahoe
> <arr...@desert.planet> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT), lein
>>> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
>>> Then you'd be Wrong once again,
>> No, it was damned near close to it,
>
> Close only counts
Yes' it counts plenty.
Now bend over at the pump and thank St. Jimma for doubling our imports
from the ME with his insane windfall profits scam, you ASS FELCHING
PARTISAN WHORE!
Sancho Panza
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote in message
news:stcf849q1hm8iet6g...@4ax.com...
So you must be going long the market. Gotta love those polls.
Don Homuth
Changing some things around, but not due to anything political. Risk
Preference changes with age, and I've been moving more toward less
risk/growth of late.
>Gotta love those polls.
Nah -- just gotta know how to read them properly and how to interpret
them correctly. Snapshot polls don't provide much in the way of
useful information.
But if you like historical trending, the stock markets tend to do
better when Ds are elected.
Life is Hard!
Sell short!
duncan idahoe
> But if you like historical trending, the stock markets tend to do
> better when Ds are elected.
Lagging indicator.
Bob Tiernan
> Though we do find a rather more significant one from November 73 through
> March 75 under Nixon's watch and another large one from July 81 to
> November 82 under Ronald (hallowed be his name) Reagan.
July of 1981 -- before much, if any, of Reagan's economic policies
could take effect. In other words, that recession started while
Carteromics was still the rule.
Bob T
Bill Shatzer
> On Jul 23, 11:16 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>lein wrote:
-snip-
>>>Wanna feel a recession - get in your time machines and visit 1977-81
>>Funny - there seems to have been only a single rather short lived
>>"official" recession in that period - from January 1980 to July 1980.
>>Though we do find a rather more significant one from November 73 through
>>March 75 under Nixon's watch and another large one from July 81 to
>>November 82 under Ronald (hallowed be his name) Reagan.
>>http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
> But given interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates,
> 1976-81 felt like a depression compared to what we have now.
Carter had a bad last year, no doubt - probably the reason why it was
his last year.
But his entire term was not that bad. Indeed, all things considered,
even his last year wasn't that bad comparatively.
Fer instance, under Carter, the annual average unemployment rates were:
1977 7.05
1978 6.07
1979 5.85
1980 7.18
But of course the unemployment rate was 7.70 in 1976, the last year of
the Ford presidency. Carter -decreased- unemployment for his first three
years and even his last (and worst) year was still measurably better
than what he inherited.
And subsequently under Ronald (hallowed be his Name) Reagan, the
unemployment rate was:
1981 7.62
1982 9.71
1983 9.60
1984 7.51
1985 7.19
1986 7.00
1987 6.18
1988 5.49
In otherwords, it was not until the second year of Reagan's second term
that the unemployment rate was better than Carter's -worst- year.
Carter's worst year was better than five of Reagan's eight years.
Carter's average unemployment rate was a full percentage point -better-
than Reagan's average unemployment rate.
Inflation and interest rates were a bit rougher on Carter than
unemployment. But it is the Federal Reserve which largely controls those
and the responsibility lies largely with Arthur Burns and William
Miller - though I suppose Carter is due some blame for appointing Miller
in the first place. Still, Burns lit the fuse and it took some
draconian action by the fed and Miller's replacement, Paul Volker, to
finally extinguish the fire.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:06 GMT, duncan idahoe
> <arr...@desert.planet> wrote:
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT), lein
>>><boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>I would call the entire Carter presidency a depression then.
>>>Then you'd be Wrong once again,
>>No, it was damned near close to it,
> Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
And nuclear weapons.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
"It's all Clinton's fault, it's all Clinton's fault!"
That chant gets rather old, even when you change the names of the
characters.
Peace and justice,
Gurney Halleck
> That chant gets rather old, even when you change the names of the
> characters.
FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU 911 TRAITOR:
Gurney Halleck
> Carter had a bad last year,
FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU 911 TRAITOR:
Gurney Halleck
> And nuclear weapons.
>
> Peace and justice,
>
Don Homuth
<bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
>
>And nuclear weapons.
For very large values of Close.