An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is facing a very difficult year ahead.
Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> facing a very difficult year ahead.
On Nov 11, 8:30 pm, gregz <ze...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> > nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> > fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> > facing a very difficult year ahead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems about right, but I was figuring the hair to be solid gray on the
Liar In Chief. Serious anklebiters snapping at his sorry ass the whole
way ready to jump on his next lie and cowardly deed.
On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> facing a very difficult year ahead.
> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
> --
> Bruce
> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
>On Nov 11, 8:30 pm, gregz <ze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>> > nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>> > fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>> > facing a very difficult year ahead.
>> Greg
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Seems about right, but I was figuring the hair to be solid gray on the
>Liar In Chief. Serious anklebiters snapping at his sorry ass the whole
>way ready to jump on his next lie and cowardly deed.
>Jan
More like trying to make everything that happens into a lie or
cawardly deed. That is what you anklebiters do.
> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>> --
>> Bruce
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
> That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
> something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
> professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
> economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
> Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
> Adam Smith
You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble - what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing on the wall?
As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't be official until March or April.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
> > On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> >> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> >> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> >> facing a very difficult year ahead.
> >> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
> >> --
> >> Bruce
> >> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
> >> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
> > That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
> > something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
> > professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
> > economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
> > Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
> > Adam Smith
> You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is
> coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the
> government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also
> based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that
> stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of
> recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving
> government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is
> entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
> Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble -
> what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing
> on the wall?
> As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a
> recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't
> be official until March or April.
> --
> Bruce
> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
Guess we'll have to wait a few months to find out if your prediction
is valid, won't we? Do you think Romney's election would have
changed this?
> On Nov 12, 11:08 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 1:31 AM, Don Lampson wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>>>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>>>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>>>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>>>> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>>>> --
>>>> Bruce
>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>>>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>>> That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
>>> something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
>>> professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
>>> economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
>>> Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
>>> Adam Smith
>> You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is
>> coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the
>> government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also
>> based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that
>> stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of
>> recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving
>> government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is
>> entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
>> Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble -
>> what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing
>> on the wall?
>> As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a
>> recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't
>> be official until March or April.
>> --
>> Bruce
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
> Guess we'll have to wait a few months to find out if your prediction
> is valid, won't we? Do you think Romney's election would have
> changed this?
> Alfalfa Smith
The recession is virtually guaranteed, the real difference is that it would have been shorter and shallower with Romney in the White House and Republicans in the Senate. Hell, 0bama still hasn't gotten us back to where we were before the last recession - with another coming, we will never recover as long as Democrats are in control. You only have to look at the 1930s to see an example of what happens when liberals are in charge during a recession.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/12/2012 1:31 AM, Don Lampson wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>>> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>>> --
>>> Bruce
>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>> That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
>> something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
>> professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
>> economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
>> Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
>> Adam Smith
>You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is >coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the >government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also >based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that >stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of >recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving >government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is >entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
>Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble - >what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing >on the wall?
>As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a >recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't >be official until March or April.
It looks like an easy pick as we have been cycling recessions as far
back as his graph goes. The longest period without one was when slick
willy was running things. ;-))
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:08:14 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 1:31 AM, Don Lampson wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>>>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>>>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>>>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>>>> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>>>> --
>>>> Bruce
>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>>>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>>> That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
>>> something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
>>> professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
>>> economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
>>> Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
>>> Adam Smith
>> You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is
>> coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the
>> government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also
>> based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that
>> stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of
>> recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving
>> government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is
>> entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
>> Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble -
>> what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing
>> on the wall?
>> As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a
>> recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't
>> be official until March or April.
> It looks like an easy pick as we have been cycling recessions as far
> back as his graph goes. The longest period without one was when slick
> willy was running things. ;-))
Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say we age going into a recession - what changed?
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/12/2012 3:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:08:14 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2012 1:31 AM, Don Lampson wrote:
>>>> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>>>>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>>>>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>>>>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>>>>> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
>>>>> else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>> That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
>>>> something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
>>>> professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
>>>> economists don't have? HawHawHaw!
>>>> Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?
>>>> Adam Smith
>>> You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is
>>> coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the
>>> government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also
>>> based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that
>>> stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of
>>> recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving
>>> government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is
>>> entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.
>>> Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble -
>>> what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing
>>> on the wall?
>>> As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a
>>> recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't
>>> be official until March or April.
>> It looks like an easy pick as we have been cycling recessions as far
>> back as his graph goes. The longest period without one was when slick
>> willy was running things. ;-))
>Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the >election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good >that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month >it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say >we age going into a recession - what changed?
What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>> >Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>> >election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>> >that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>> >it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>> >we age going into a recession - what changed?
> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama, or; we are going into a recession.
Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to have 250,000 new jobs per month?
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>>> >Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>> >election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>> >that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>> >it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>> >we age going into a recession - what changed?
>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so >that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama, >or; we are going into a recession.
>Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to >have 250,000 new jobs per month?
You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
figure out what I said.
If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>> or; we are going into a recession.
>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
> figure out what I said.
> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is not to blame for any of it.
So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>> figure out what I said.
>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support >your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no >defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does >means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is >not to blame for any of it.
I said that if Romney makes any changes he needs to exceed 12 million
jobs to give the changes meaning as the trend is to create 12 million
jobs assuming nothing else happens. That has nothing to do with
Obama. It is all about the destructive changes you want him to make.
>So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month >during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
variables for me to predict.
>Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his >administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.
>0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it >up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.
>On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>> figure out what I said.
>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support >your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no >defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does >means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is >not to blame for any of it.
>So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month >during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his >administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it >up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
--------------------------
But Bruce, you are neglecting facts yourself.
The American public knows that the economy is NOT good.
However, the American public has not forgotten how good the economy
was during Clinton and how BAD it got during Bush.
It is fairly obvious that no one thinks the economy is booming.
However, the American public knows that as a nation we dodged a bullet
when we did not go into a full scale depression after the Bush
Administration. I suspect the American people are happy about that.
American voters just did not find Romney believable. I doubt if any
of the wing nuts believed Romney either. "I am not going to raise
anyones taxes, I am going to reduce spending, I am going to increase
Defense Spending by $2-TRILLION and I am going to create a zillion
jobs with my secret plan".
The folks that hated Obama lapped up that message.
However, as bad as the economy is the majority of voters decided that
they would rather stick with Obama than risk having someone spewing
that Bull Shit in office.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:09:08 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
wrote:
>If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
The Conservatives talked OweBama into killing the pipeline and all the
jobs it would have created, right?
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>>> figure out what I said.
>>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>> So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support
>> your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no
>> defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does
>> means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is
>> not to blame for any of it.
> I said that if Romney makes any changes he needs to exceed 12 million
> jobs to give the changes meaning as the trend is to create 12 million
> jobs assuming nothing else happens. That has nothing to do with
> Obama. It is all about the destructive changes you want him to make.
No you didn't. What you said was that you heard on the radio that the economy was growing and that the 12 million jobs Romney claimed he would create would happen regardless of what he did. If that claim was true, it would happen regardless of who got elected. Unfortunately, that claim was not true.
The reality is that if Romney had been elected, he would have made changes to the economy that would have produced those jobs - with 0bama in office, we will continue to see negative job growth for the next four years. Of course, that will make you happy.
>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
> No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
> that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
> Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
> community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
> variables for me to predict.
The recession is coming now, regardless of the fiscal cliff. 0bama has guaranteed that.
>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
> As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
> your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.
Since when is the congress the only part of the administration. It is the EPA, OSHA, 0bamacare, and others controlled by the office of the president that are determined to screw up the economy.
>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
> Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
> detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.
You think permitting oil drilling would be detrimental?
You think approving the pipeline would be detrimental?
You think rolling back EPA regs to the levels that brought us the cleanest air in a century would be detrimental?
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>>> figure out what I said.
>>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>> So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support
>> your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no
>> defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does
>> means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is
>> not to blame for any of it.
>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
> --------------------------
> But Bruce, you are neglecting facts yourself.
> The American public knows that the economy is NOT good.
> However, the American public has not forgotten how good the economy
> was during Clinton and how BAD it got during Bush.
> It is fairly obvious that no one thinks the economy is booming.
> However, the American public knows that as a nation we dodged a bullet
> when we did not go into a full scale depression after the Bush
> Administration. I suspect the American people are happy about that.
> American voters just did not find Romney believable. I doubt if any
> of the wing nuts believed Romney either. "I am not going to raise
> anyones taxes, I am going to reduce spending, I am going to increase
> Defense Spending by $2-TRILLION and I am going to create a zillion
> jobs with my secret plan".
> The folks that hated Obama lapped up that message.
> However, as bad as the economy is the majority of voters decided that
> they would rather stick with Obama than risk having someone spewing
> that Bull Shit in office.
> That is just the way it is.
> mike
Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president. As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless economy four years from now.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:47:32 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:09:08 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
>wrote:
>>If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>>of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>>jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>>This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>>Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>The Conservatives talked OweBama into killing the pipeline and all the
>jobs it would have created, right?
In the great scheme of things a drop in the proverbial bucket. By the
same token getting the Congress to authorize all those public works
jobs folks whine about were also another drop.
In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017e...@news.astraweb.com>,
Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the > time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would > have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he > took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing > bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that > recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president. > As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless > economy four years from now.
Em, apparently you were not listening to the "real" economists (as opposed to party hacks from either party) that directly contradict you. They said, repeated;y in 2008 (before the election) that the recovery would start not start earlier then 2010, it would be one of the slowest on record and that any significant job growth would not occur until 2013 or 2014.
That was without regard to who won the election.
-- --------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
> In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the
>> time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would
>> have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he
>> took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing
>> bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that
>> recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president.
>> As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless
>> economy four years from now.
> Em, apparently you were not listening to the "real" economists (as
> opposed to party hacks from either party) that directly contradict you.
> They said, repeated;y in 2008 (before the election) that the recovery
> would start not start earlier then 2010, it would be one of the slowest
> on record and that any significant job growth would not occur until 2013
> or 2014.
> That was without regard to who won the election.
Keynesian economists following a Keynesian policy of government intervention. If we had leadership that believed in free market capitalism, it would have been a lot shallower and a lot shorter.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/13/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>>>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>>>> figure out what I said.
>>>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>>>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>>>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>>>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>>>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>>> So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support
>>> your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no
>>> defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does
>>> means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is
>>> not to blame for any of it.
>>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
>> --------------------------
>> But Bruce, you are neglecting facts yourself.
>> The American public knows that the economy is NOT good.
>> However, the American public has not forgotten how good the economy
>> was during Clinton and how BAD it got during Bush.
>> It is fairly obvious that no one thinks the economy is booming.
>> However, the American public knows that as a nation we dodged a bullet
>> when we did not go into a full scale depression after the Bush
>> Administration. I suspect the American people are happy about that.
>> American voters just did not find Romney believable. I doubt if any
>> of the wing nuts believed Romney either. "I am not going to raise
>> anyones taxes, I am going to reduce spending, I am going to increase
>> Defense Spending by $2-TRILLION and I am going to create a zillion
>> jobs with my secret plan".
>> The folks that hated Obama lapped up that message.
>> However, as bad as the economy is the majority of voters decided that
>> they would rather stick with Obama than risk having someone spewing
>> that Bull Shit in office.
>> That is just the way it is.
>> mike
>Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the >time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would >have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he >took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing >bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that >recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president. > As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless >economy four years from now.
--------------------------
Bruce I know that you listen to and get your information from
infallible sources. We are constantly reminded some of you as to
which sources have "true knowledge & facts" vs, those sources that
just repeat the party line.
Let me be the first to break the news to you....... Your sources have
been wrong, dead wrong. It might be time for you to change sources to
one that at least gets some things right.
You have been drinking the kool aid for so long you couldn't even tell
when they dropped the turd in it.
"Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote ...
| The recession is virtually guaranteed, the real difference is that it
| would have been shorter and shallower with Romney in the White House and
| Republicans in the Senate. Hell, 0bama still hasn't gotten us back to
| where we were before the last recession - with another coming, we will
| never recover as long as Democrats are in control. You only have to
| look at the 1930s to see an example of what happens when liberals are in
| charge during a recession.
You are prolly right. Too bad the GOP had to sacrifice common fiscal sense on the altar of fundamentalist nuttiness.
>On 11/13/2012 11:28 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 5:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>>>>>>> election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>>>>>>> that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>>>>>>> it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>>>>>>> we age going into a recession - what changed?
>>>>>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>>>>>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>>>>>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>>>>>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>>>>> You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>>>>> that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>>>>> or; we are going into a recession.
>>>>> Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>>>>> have 250,000 new jobs per month?
>>>> You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
>>>> figure out what I said.
>>>> If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>>>> of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>>>> jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>>>> This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>>>> Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.
>>> So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support
>>> your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no
>>> defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does
>>> means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is
>>> not to blame for any of it.
>> I said that if Romney makes any changes he needs to exceed 12 million
>> jobs to give the changes meaning as the trend is to create 12 million
>> jobs assuming nothing else happens. That has nothing to do with
>> Obama. It is all about the destructive changes you want him to make.
>No you didn't. What you said was that you heard on the radio that the >economy was growing and that the 12 million jobs Romney claimed he would >create would happen regardless of what he did. If that claim was true, >it would happen regardless of who got elected. Unfortunately, that >claim was not true.
How is it not true?
If you were not so busy ankle biting you would realize that we will
not know what happened until 4 years from now.
>The reality is that if Romney had been elected, he would have made >changes to the economy that would have produced those jobs - with 0bama >in office, we will continue to see negative job growth for the next four >years. Of course, that will make you happy.
We don't have negative job growth now. What we have is recovery from
the mess that started under Bush and an idiotic interpretation of the
data by folks more interested in picking a political fight than
understanding what is happening.
That is not so say we could not do better. The problem is the the
proposed Romney moves would increase job exports on one hand and screw
both the general health of the country and working conditions on the
other.
>>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>> No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
>> that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
>> Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
>> community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
>> variables for me to predict.
>The recession is coming now, regardless of the fiscal cliff. 0bama has >guaranteed that.
Nothing like a true believer. If your prodictor is correct Romney
could not stop it either. Your problem is your focus on screwing your
fellow man.
>>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>> As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
>> your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.
>Since when is the congress the only part of the administration. It is >the EPA, OSHA, 0bamacare, and others controlled by the office of the >president that are determined to screw up the economy.
all written and passed by the Congress. You cannot escape that. The
assholes in Congress cannot get away from it either. Nor can they get
away from the fact that they could change any of it any time they can
get the votes.
>>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
>> Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
>> detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.
>You think permitting oil drilling would be detrimental?
>You think approving the pipeline would be detrimental?
>You think rolling back EPA regs to the levels that brought us the >cleanest air in a century would be detrimental?
I think the pipeline will get built.
I think the drilling bans are asking for trouble as sooner or later
the oil will be drilled and pumped.
I think we should mandate all products sold in this country be made in
factories that meet OSHA and EPA regulations. A lower price is not an
excuse for killing workers and poisoning the planet.
