Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Luckily we have inflation at only 3.7%
Comments
-
Carter lost in 80HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls.
Bush lost in 92
For someone who once claimed to have voted for Reagan your pretty ignorant about his first term
Voters could feel the improvement
Numbers say they feel Biden is failing badly -
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
Suck that dickHHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
-
The Evergreen State Econ Dept. must be so proud.RaceBannon said:
Suck that dickHHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
No GDP growth is an interesting campaign plank
-
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
If wishes were horses . . .Bob_C said:
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
High GDP growth is not guaranteed forever. Hence, you must be happy with economic downturns. Great thesis you’ve got thereHHusky said:
If wishes were horses . . .Bob_C said:
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls. -
Vote for Joe and get no growth and high inflation!Sources said:
High GDP growth is not guaranteed forever. Hence, you must be happy with economic downturns. Great thesis you’ve got thereHHusky said:
If wishes were horses . . .Bob_C said:
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls.
It could work -
Bubbles are great . . . until they're not.Sources said:
High GDP growth is not guaranteed forever. Hence, you must be happy with economic downturns. Great thesis you’ve got thereHHusky said:
If wishes were horses . . .Bob_C said:
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls.
You gals might want to take a remedial econ course or two. -
Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult -
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences. -
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy -
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades? -
He is "winning" with GOP primary voters. Just like Bernie would have won with Rat Party primary voters. The DNC actually cares about winning National elections so they torpedoed Bernie, twice. You don't care about winning so you'll vote for Trump. You know how easily a Nikki Haley would beat Biden? But you don't care about winning you care about Trump.RaceBannon said:
And yet he's winning and has wonSFGbob said:
It's all about winning
Why would I support candidates 50 points behind him?
Trump is the only one leading Biden
You know who doesn't care about winning? Never Trumpers -
You've already been humiliated on thisHHusky said:
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades?
Note
Ignore all the inflation the first two years
By all means run on the no growth high inflation platform
-
-
Trump is leading Biden and is closer to my issuesSFGbob said:
He is "winning" with GOP primary voters. Just like Bernie would have won with Rat Party primary voters. The DNC actually cares about winning National elections so they torpedoed Bernie, twice. You don't care about winning so you'll vote for Trump. You know how easily a Nikki Haley would beat Biden? But you don't care about winning you care about Trump.RaceBannon said:
And yet he's winning and has wonSFGbob said:
It's all about winning
Why would I support candidates 50 points behind him?
Trump is the only one leading Biden
You know who doesn't care about winning? Never Trumpers
She may be veep
Trump is crushing her too. It's your party Bob
McCain and Romney were winners too. Allegedly -
You've been shown your ass repeatedly.HHusky said:
Bubbles are great . . . until they're not.Sources said:
High GDP growth is not guaranteed forever. Hence, you must be happy with economic downturns. Great thesis you’ve got thereHHusky said:
If wishes were horses . . .Bob_C said:
I'm fine with high real GDP growth forever.HHusky said:
Ducking the question was your best choice. CongratsBob_C said:
You're right, best to stick with stagflation.HHusky said:
Is there any economist who thinks a 7% GDP growth in a developed nation would be a good thing to see on an ongoing basis?Bob_C said:
1984 had 7% GDP growth. Are we getting that in 2024?HHusky said:
Did Reagan lose 48 or 50 states in 1984 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?thechatch said:
In normal times a POTUS performing like this would lose 48/50 states.Bob_C said:
But we live in clown times.
Did Bush1 lose 48 or 50 states in 1988 when inflation was higher than 3.7%?
3.7% is 0.6% higher than the average inflation rate since 1980. The sky is falling, of course.
Take a Midol, girls.
You gals might want to take a remedial econ course or two.
Take an econ class!?#
Do you actually believe your own shtick? -
Willful idiot. Keep ignoring the massive inflation the two years prior. The damage is already done. We underwent more than a decade of inflation overnight, but now that it's 3.7% all is well?HHusky said:
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades? -
Anyone who is shopping for food, fuel or has taken a look at their latest electric and NG bill knows the claim that inflation is at 3.7% is complete lie.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Willful idiot. Keep ignoring the massive inflation the two years prior. The damage is already done. We underwent more than a decade of inflation overnight, but now that it's 3.7% all is well?HHusky said:
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades? -
And to answer your questionHHusky said:
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades?
Yes I was -
I guess we'll ignore the 7-9 percent for two years and the unnecessary printing of 5 trillion supply chain issues, and 500 ships sitting in LA/Long Bitch Harbor for weeksHHusky said:
3.7% isn't high inflation ma'am.RaceBannon said:
Even the administration stopped the bullshit on temporary inflationHHusky said:
Two-plus percent growth and very temporary inflation that is now at unremarkable levels for anyone as old as you are, Dear.RaceBannon said:Under Biden no growth and the worst inflation since Carter is a GOOD thing
Found another cult
Condolences.
I guess you missed the memo
We'll ignore all the inflation that happened the first two years
No growth and high inflation! Bidenomics!
Bold strategy
We're you stoned for most of the past several decades? -
Bloomberg Finance column today:
The years from 2008 to 2020 were abnormal, even if at some point they came to feel normal, Slok says. The crew over at Bank of America dug up another historical nugget to underscore the point: Global interest rates during this period were the lowest in 5,000 years. “The new world that we live in,” Slok says, “is really the normal world that we were in.”
HHusky is always right. Just accept it. -
LolHHusky said:Bloomberg Finance column today:
The years from 2008 to 2020 were abnormal, even if at some point they came to feel normal, Slok says. The crew over at Bank of America dug up another historical nugget to underscore the point: Global interest rates during this period were the lowest in 5,000 years. “The new world that we live in,” Slok says, “is really the normal world that we were in.”
HHusky is always right. Just accept it. -
With 3.9% inflation. Yet you persist in your stupidity.HHusky said:Bloomberg Finance column today:
The years from 2008 to 2020 were abnormal, even if at some point they came to feel normal, Slok says. The crew over at Bank of America dug up another historical nugget to underscore the point: Global interest rates during this period were the lowest in 5,000 years. “The new world that we live in,” Slok says, “is really the normal world that we were in.”
HHusky is always right. Just accept it. -
HHusky said:
Bloomberg Finance column today:
The years from 2008 to 2020 were abnormal, even if at some point they came to feel normal, Slok says. The crew over at Bank of America dug up another historical nugget to underscore the point: Global interest rates during this period were the lowest in 5,000 years. “The new world that we live in,” Slok says, “is really the normal world that we were in.”
Mr. Hands Up, Don’t Shoot is always WRONG. Just accept it.
