posted July 29, 2012 10:38 AM            

Only the usual suspect with his lips firmly attached to O'Bomber's butt would describe almost 4 years as a "moment"...when it's really the entirety of O'Bomber's failed administration.

posted July 30, 2012 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

The latest report shows the US economy grew at an anemic 1%.

---

THAT is a moment.

posted July 31, 2012 10:25 AM            

There are more people on food stamps than at any time in US history.

There are more people on social security disability than at any time in US history.

There are more people at or below the poverty level than at any time since the 1960s.

There have been more than 40 straight months of unemployment above 8%. The real unemployment number is above 14%.

The wealth of American citizens has declined more than $4500 per family under O'Bomber.

There are more people unemployed today than when O'Bomber began infesting the White House..which means O'Bomber hasn't created a single net new job.

The growth of the economy is declining not improving.

If O'Bomber's plan was to destroy the US economy, he's succeeding brilliantly...and I can understand why his fellow leftists..like you are giving O'Bomber a big .

posted July 31, 2012 01:26 PM              

unlike the present, where the midterm elections brought in a bunch of republicans who have stymied the growth that was underway...

and when romney was governor of massachussets his record was just as bad, hemorrhaging jobs for nearly the whole of his term, only turning around at the end.

posted July 31, 2012 01:52 PM            

But, you'd rather attempt to paint a rosy picture of the utter failure of your little Marxist Messiah.

posted July 31, 2012 02:11 PM            

It's not a matter of checking whether you're right. There are some facts that paint this economy as poor. I'm not disputing that. Never have been.

I'm saying what is sensible, which is that when something bottoms out as it did at the Great Recession, things are bound to improve. That improvement doesn't happen across the board all at once. It happens incrementally, and employment is the ALWAYS the lagging factor. Clearly, you either lack or never obtained any information about how recoveries happen after recessions. You would know this otherwise.

posted July 31, 2012 03:29 PM              

but the PUBLIC sector where our new militant trickle-down governors have achieved huge LOSSES of public jobs. which are, after all JOBS. so they are subtracted from the total figure.

so all the moaning and groaning about obama's effect on the economy is just so much wool over the eyes of those who don't check out the facts.

all recessions bottom out and so will this one. as i said in 08, it was obvious that we were going down before up no matter who won the election. in '10 jwhop's crowd were crowing about their little "revolution' in congress but all it has achieved is to stymie growth that was underway while staging 10s of repetitive votes against the healthcare act and doing nothing to SAVE jobs.

it is amazing really how well things are going considering the custer's last stand taking place in the house in an attempt to sabotage everyone but the top moneymakers who are cleaning up on the foreclosure and stock markets.

posted August 01, 2012 10:08 AM            

The latest economic growth number is just over 1% and going in the wrong direction..down!

Wealth is not created in the "Public Sector". The useless bureaucrat class are net consumers of wealth...not producers.

posted August 02, 2012 07:50 AM            

Well...ummm, hmmmm, ahhhh, NO.

In spite of the rosy horseshiiit by the usual suspects...O'Bomber Kool-Aid swillers among us...the US economy is going in the wrong direction. It's going so far in the wrong direction and so fast that there are some who want the Federal Reserve to go hog wild again and spend unlimited amounts of money to prop up the failed O'Bomber economy.

So, on the one hand, we have the horseshiiit from the usual suspects that the US economy is "brightening" and on the other hand, we have the facts about the failed O'Bomber economy.

Thursday, 2 Aug 2012...today!
"Weakness in the world’s biggest economy is weighing on investors, who want the Fed to do more to stimulate growth. The U.S. economy grew just 1.5 percent in the second quarter, slowing from a 2 percent expansion in the first quarter as consumer spending faltered, and unemployment has stayed over 8 percent for six months.**Note** It's 42 straight months of unemployment above 8%, not 6 months but CNBC is an arm of the O'Bomber reelection campaign. Job creation slowed sharply in the second quarter to just 75,000 jobs per month from 226,000 in the first quarter."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48454902

posted August 02, 2012 11:54 AM            

Love this quote at the end of your article:

Similarly, Geoff Lewis, Global Market Strategist with J.P. Morgan Asset Management said there was no need for the Fed to act now because the U.S. economy could rebound in the second half of the year.

“We don’t think the need is likely to arise, at least in the second half of 2012 so it’s about time I think the Fed told investors, don’t look to us all the time for relief and support,” Lewis said. “Don’t look to us to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The U.S. is recovering gradually and so from that point of view, I’m quite happy with the Fed’s inaction.”

posted August 02, 2012 01:20 PM              

i note that even jwhop now admits that the FIRST quarter was marked by quite healthy growth DESPITE THE LOSS OF PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS spurred by our new trickledown governor-kings brought in in '10.

and as i mentioned on another thread, many of those who have "given up" have found ways to make their own, rather than look for someone else to hire them. this is all part of the entrepreneurial spirit obama's administration is supposed to have killed - but has NOT.

posted August 02, 2012 02:32 PM            

Why don't we wait for the ACTUAL job numbers acoustic. We'll have those...after they've been revised down and the O'Bomber drooling press tries to hide the numbers but fails.

The O'Bomber droolers are always "SURPRISED" by the "LOWER THAN EXPECTED" jobs numbers.

Of course, they're cooking the books anyway and the "REAL US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" is above 10% and the rate of unemployment + underemployment is above 14%.

Three cheers for the O'Bomber economy.

posted August 02, 2012 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

during reagans first 3.5 years the unemployment rate climbed steadily and quickly. it peaked in 82-83 at 10.8%, almost identical to now... when the midterm elections returned congress to the dems and things started to turn around.

---

posted August 02, 2012 05:59 PM            

I know how much you...and all leftists hate facts katatonic so close your eyes and don't read this.

"During the Reagan Era GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or the total output of the nation) grew substantially. Overall the economy expanded by a third, or the equivalent of the entire West German economy.

Looking at the growth by quarter, we can see that the economy was quite sluggish at the end of the Carter Era. The two recessions during the Carter budget years were a sign of the inability of that adminstration to achieve an extended period of growth.

But as predicted by Supply Side economic theory, the across-the-board marginal rate cuts for the Federal income tax spurred not just a long period of growth, but the longest in peace-time history at that point in time.

When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%. As a comparison, average annual growth for the twelve years from 1990-2001 (since Reagan) was 2.95%, for 1991-2001 (previous trough to peak) it was 3.05% and for 1992-2001 (the last expansion) it was 3.4%.

So the Reagan expansion growth was better than the last expansion by almost a full percent per year and the growth for all the Reagan years was greater than the growth since by half a percent. That's a lot of support for the claim that Reagan's policies have produced the best growth in a generation. (The average growth for the eight Clinton years was 3.55%, and it was part of the last expansion period.)"

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
http://www.presidentreagan.info/gdp.cfm

And, the best your little Marxist Messiah can show is...about 2% growth in the first quarter of 2012 declining to only 1.5% growth in the second quarter of 2012.

posted August 02, 2012 09:02 PM              

obama's second term will not look like the first either. when he has been and gone THEN you can talk about his entire term/effect...but he is very much the president right now and congress has very much been doing EVERYTHING they can think of to keep him from a second term where the SUPREME COURT looms as a threat to the future of the republican/lobbyists agenda.

and i doubt, having seen what happened in '10, the voters will allow any more of THAT to happen in '12.

just to remind you, jwhop, you were DEAD CERTAIN that obama would NEVER win in 08

and your own attempts to curb his success have helped deepen the recession. thanks a lot!

posted August 02, 2012 09:24 PM            

For the 2nd quarter of 1984, economic growth was 5% compared to O'Bomber miniscule 1.5% for the corresponding period in their administrations.

posted August 02, 2012 11:34 PM            

As for the first 2 years of O'Bomber's total screw-up, there were bulletproof majorities in the House and Senate, yet they wasted trillions on failed bailouts, failed stimulus and generally screwed everything up while unemployment continued to rise and economic activity declined.

You sound like you're on a different planet or in an alternate universe. You certainly don't know what's going on in this reality.

posted August 03, 2012 09:45 AM            

First acoustic, you have a English conceptual disability. If the numbers ARE expected to improve...then they can't be designated "better than expected"...since they're EXPECTED.

And second acoustic...the unemployment number went up to 8.3% for July and not down from 8.2%. And, the unemployed plus the underemployed number went up too...from 14.9% to 15%.