hellava Oconomy we got going on here
Comments
-
You are just pissed cause Obama is stomping your hero on unemployment.RaceBannon said:You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle* -
Of course the thread was about growth but still2001400ex said:
You are just pissed cause Obama is stomping your hero on unemployment.RaceBannon said:You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle*
And Houston did show that unemployment reporting has changed since Reagan but still
I never voted for Reagan
We know who has the hero worship here -
You brought Reagan into this and said to compare it to him. Which I did and you didn't like. I also showed you how the recession was worse during Reagan's term than in the 70s.RaceBannon said:Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession
Never mind
So you were really 0 for 2 in that comment. -
I said growth
You lose -
Yeah, you compared with data calculated differently (as the owners of the data itself warned which you ignored) to say something false. And are too dumb to accept it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
-
-
OK then, how do you propose that we accomplish both, growing the economy and balancing the budget?HoustonHusky said:Yeah, you compared with data calculated differently (as the owners of the data itself warned which you ignored) to say something false. And are too dumb to accept it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
For me, if you read my comments, I haven't said it's sunshine and roses. I did say however, that overall the economy is growing, deficit is reducing, all facts. Of course I want more growth, of course I want a balanced budget. But reality is, we will go through another recession before the country is back on track financially. That's just how the system works. -
Solid thread - but let it be said
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side -
We are not on the gold standard anymore.unfrozencaveman said:Solid thread - but let it be said
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side -
So having a federal funds rate of 0% is a good thing?
And why do you make it sound like growing the economy and balancing the budget are opposing concepts? That's pretty FS....
