Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
4 years ago
It would appear that are in fact a little better off than we were 4 years ago.
The GDP was shrinking by almost 9 % four year ago.Now it is growing by 1.7%
The Dow Jones was under 8000in 2008. Today it was 13,035.
however, unemployment was 7.8% in January 2009 ,and it was 8.3% in July.
So yes, the economy is starting to come back,but my prediction is that if the unemployment doesn't get under 8 % by November, Obama will not be re-elected.
Re: 4 years ago
Unfortunately, when you factor in those who have given up looking for work or those that are underemployed/working part time the unemployment rate is much higher. It is very sad.
The problem is we are showing very little growth and the economy is considered at a stagnant stage. Per a friend of mine who works on Wall Street - " Wall Street will always make money unless we are in a shitzstorm free fall mess...we just need to know what the rules are. The problem is businesses aren't reinvesting and hiring because of the uncertainty - in both the government, the national debt and the economy. Those business are making profit by cutting jobs, resources and not investing in capital, which equals slow economic growth overall."
And yes, you are probably right...if UE doesn't go down the chances of Obama getting reelected are fairly slim. I am sure the DNC and Obama Admin are on pins and needles and hoping for a good jobs report on Friday.
Yeah, do tell.
Dammit Scorch, I put all this and more information in the "Obama graded himself incomplete" thread, but no one has bothered to respond. I included a graph, even!
I'm taking my data and going home.
Okay, this was a good post that liberals are free to debate.
And all you want to do is ask what someone's name used to be.
And we are supposed to believe you are just here earnestly trying to have a good debate and discussion.
Yeah, right.
My response is already in the "incomplete" thread, but those numbers and facts were ignored too. I would love to discuss, but I'm just left talking to a wall.
Maybe now you can start to see why.
The people from the parenting board don't want to discuss. They want to cause trouble and call people stupid.
They weren't necessarily ignored, but is it realistic to argue macro and micro economics, Keynesian economics versus laissez-faire with someone who cuts and pastes a salon.com blogger's post? Probably not.
FYI 1.7 GDP growth is not good. And it definitely isn't good after the stimulus packages BOTH parties flooded the economy with - which is why you see "growth" on that chart . We are contracting again because there is no stimulus in play. Somewhere in the realm of 90% of the stimulus was to be spent in the first 3 years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Venus is from the Parenting board.
Well, you certainly can't claim there aren't people wanting to discuss and debate if you just don't engage because you decide they're not intelligent enough to keep up with you.
The GDP growth is not good, yet, and it shouldnt be expected to be this soon after a financial meltdown. It is, as I said in the OP, a SLOW improvement, but an improvement none the less. The data used for projections of the GDP shows that without the stimulus the GDP would be lagging behind about $100 billion dollars slower than it is now, which is a relatively small percentage.
I highly doubt that explaining Romney's economic policy requires an in-depth knowledge of macro vs. microeconomics, Keyesian vs. laissez faire ideas and theories.
Economics is not rocket science and you don't need a higher degree in economics to understand it.
So try us out instead of assuming we don't know shiit from shinola.
Liberal post on politics
::ignored::
Liberal post on politics
::ignored::
Liberal post on politics
::ignored::
Liberal post asking who someone is
"See!!!!1!! They don't want to discuss politics!!!111!!!"
You are inferring your own insecurities (?) into my post. Read it again. I never said you were not intelligent. I think we are all aware that salon.com is a leftist-leaning site and quoting from a blogger is probably not the best source of economic information.
Besides, when you push that much money into the market of course you are going to see positive results. the problem is ( as you can see on the graph) eventually that fizzles out. So then what? More stimulus? How long do you keep infusing money into the economy? What do you do about the inflation? How do you give that money it's value? You can print all of the money you want, but without value behind that money it is worthless...and then you have a whole other problem to deal with.
Actually, I consider the fact that most high schools teach MAYBE about 3 months worth of economics to students a downfall in this country. Perhaps you have a grasp on these concepts, but a big chunk of Americans do not. No, economics isn't rocket science but having a working knowledge of macro and micro economics is necessary to wrap your head around our financial system and what happens when we have a " bubble economy" on our hands.
so what exactly is your point about the 3 mos. of HS economics, forward?
AFAIK, a good portion, if not all, of the people who've posted here recently have a college education.
Are you trying to slyly tell us that we've all got the education level of high schoolers?
You're right in that quoting from salon.com was not a good idea. I didn't want to, but there were several stats and points made in one space that I wanted to hit. I didn't want to have to link several different news sites and articles for one response. However, the blog I linked DOES have all of those different links to more reliable sources if anyone's interested.
The hope was that by the time the stimulus began to fizzle out that the new jobs created would have put families in a better position to be spending more of their money. Unfortunately, we haven't seen the expected growth there. The "job creators", although still receiving their tax cuts, aren't backing up their nickname. We have seen 4+ million jobs created in the time since Obama took office, but the relief hasn't been felt because we've had major cuts to government jobs(which your party has been seeking) and so many jobs were lost initially in the financial collapse, we're still trying to play catch up from way, way behind.
I'm not claiming Obama is some economic Messiah that's just been getting a bad rap. Things have not come as far as anyone, even Obama, had hoped they would be now. Following the worst financial collapse we've seen since the Great Depression, I don't think ANY political leader could have had us out of the mess in one term. However, I DO believe things are improving and headed in the right direction, but that it's going to be a slow process. I do NOT believe that returning to the same failed policies that landed us in this mess will help to get us out of it.
Oh, I'm sure it's because of "uncertainty." Or just because employers know they can suck more out of their employees without spending money to hire more. There is always uncertainty, and employers have managed to hire in spite of it. PPACA is pretty clear; many employers already have health plans and their insurance providers are already meeting the PPACA requirements, so they know (as much as possible) how much it will cost. To the extent that health care costs are rising astronomically, there's only so much anyone can do. Hopefully with more preventive care available to more people, some of those costs will stabilize or even decline.