The ownage in this thread is epic. :1orglaugh

It's like trying to explain to a small child that the moon really isn't following him.

The democrats are always fond of saying that the stimulus saved millions of jobs from being lost, please show proof, they can't, but you can't disprove it either.


And the thread is not entitled are you better, it's are "WE" better off.

I just see 14.3% on food stamps in the US and I'm not happy when we are spending millions using drones in Pakistan

And you keep debating one sentance, why is that?

Exactly my point, it can't be proved or not. I was just using your story as an example, not singling you out. I'm sure there are many more people in the same situation.

I agree with you on the drones in Pakistan, think we should bring as many of our troops as possible out of the whole region. But i think with all the natural resources especially those found in Afghanistan we will be there awhile.

I'm not. We keep going in circles on your sentence because (based on your last defense) you expect people to know what you meant, rather than what you typed.

Also, the particular point of gas prices goes beyond the mere meaning of one sentence. You use it in the OP to provide an example of things being worse.

I've tried -- quite patiently I think -- to help you understand that you have that exactly backwards.

You have already shown your true reason for the thread.

I doubt this comes as a surprise to anyone who reads your posts, but politics aside, "we" are definitely better off without having experienced a collapse of the world credit markets and a deflationary depression, and I don't know a single intelligent person who thinks otherwise. Neither Bush nor Obama did, which is why they both moved quickly to backstop the collapse.

Of course, that is not to say that I'm happy about what this has all come to. "We" face tough times and it won't be easy sailing ahead. I personally think it will get worse, but that's beside the point.

Saw posted some place the other day that the number of Job openings almost doubled this month and the number of un-employed went up at the same time.

Sounds to me like a lot of people should be willing to work when they can rather than hold out for that rocket scientist job.

Yeah, lithium being the strongest reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...4minerals.html

It's just that most that voted for Barry were tired of the wars that Bush started , now we are shooting in 2 more countries

Yep, most people I know voted for him for that exact reason.

Better use protection every time these day's, AIDS is also up 9% this year.

this is what I wrote, this is what I meant

If the prices of fuel keep going up, what happens to the prices of everything else?

Yes, the government stepped in and saved the banks, I'll bet it happens again in the next 20 years

You haven't shown any patience, you have just blasted me for thinking differently from you, wow!!

I don't think with a trillion dollars spent on stimulus and cash for clunkers that really didn't work IMHO and shooting people in 4 countries and 14.3% of the nation on food stamps and hovering at 9% or higher unemployed we are doing better.

You feel differently, good for you

and after some time in office they reversed their feelings by the vote last Nov, wonder if he listened?

"did you figure in inflation, thats double [considering it doesn't matter]"

This means inflation is double. That's what you wrote. Read what you wrote and stop after "that's double". English is your first language, right?

Some things are indirectly affected. Of course, oil has recently dropped $15, erasing all its gains since mid February.

The part you are missing is that commodity prices are not completely at the mercy of fuel prices or the US$. They are affected by disease, weather and other factors that affect supply and demand.

And, the fact that you have not addressed my explanation for why energy prices were so low in 2009 is noted for the silent concession that it is (unless you want to argue differently).

Perhaps sooner, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion other than to identify the prospects of not having done so.

I don't get the impression you fully understand this. That's okay, the majority of the population doesn't either.

Well, I guess I could just call you names and use strawman arguments. But, unlike you, I've just stuck to the facts.

If by blasting you it simply means that I'm not arguing from ignorance then so be it. I've tried to explain it, but you have mental earmuffs on.

I do feel differently, but it's not because of the items you added here. I don't dispute what you've said here except for the idea that the stimulus didn't work.

I guess since you don't really understand economics and where we were in 2008-9, anything short of 5% GDP growth, 5% unemployment, $1.79 gas, world peace and no one on food stamps seems a failure. This is simpleton thinking, of course.

The reality is, you are just a partisan hack as your posts clearly illustrate. Why don't you try learning some economics so you can argue these points intelligently?

Show me someone on this forum who ISNT a partisan hack.

Gas prices are still up
I understand that, but heavier shipping costs don't help
Until someone realized they needed to pay for oil spill

It's just one more thing that I disagree with, the reform that was shoved thru with partisan support, and I doubt it will work
And I really doubt the politicians that did the reform understand it either

I made a general statement, you went on and on

Take a look at history, Reagan had the same problem and handled it differently, and it worked
inflation from 12.5 to 4.4
unemployment from a high of 10.8% to 5%
and had a growth of gdp of 3.85% on average a year
So don't tell me it can't be done
I don't give a rats ass about one side over the other, I just don't like when the government takes something over.

I have a common sense question for you, when the government has less to spend, because of people out of work, why would the government think its a good time to increase spending by adding more entitlements?

Reagan tripled the deficit and the jobs arent coming back.they been shipping them overseas for awhile now.We have lost over 50 thousand factories in the past ten yrs alone. I dont care who is president, plan on 8 percent uniemployment being the new normal. Also all that prosperity was an illusion wages have been flat since reagan and cheap credit gave the illusion of doing better than one was truly doing. Clinton signed nafta that was the final nail in the coffin.

Tony, you and I agree about Nafta and disagree about Reagan.

I think what Reagan started was mishandled after he left.

I still think with good leadership we could do better, I believe in change, just not what Barry promised and didn't deliver

I'm more interested in making the right economic / market decisions than expressing political ideologies, which is why you never see me expressing any.

I also believe that while there are differences between political parties, they are more similar than they are different.

And I believe there are forces at work that impact economics / markets that are greater than who's in power, and by "forces" I don't mean specific people, groups, corporations or governments.

Seriously, I find it hard to believe you are having a hard time understanding the energy price issue.

Oil went to $140 in 2008. From that high it collapsed to under $40 within about 8 months. It didn't fall that hard because GWB had success with energy policy or because of the Oil spill (which didn't occur until 2010). Oil is currently trading at 101.66 basis the June contract. NOW.... Read carefully... It fell because the financial system was about to collapse and deflation was rearing its' head.

It's also hard to believe that you don't understand what would have happened if Bush and Obama, et al (and the FED) did not rush to backstop the system once it started imploding. Regardless of why or who's fault it was or what the antecedent causes that led up to all this were.... What do YOU think was going to happen if nothing was done?

Reagan did not have the same problem. Not only was it the complete opposite economic situation, it wasn't anywhere close to as large a problem / danger. Again, you just seem to have no grasp of economics or the direness of the situation. Your appeal to "look at history" here illustrates that you are arguing from ignorance.

There are a lot of people who argue against Keynesian economics, but I think you have to separate the model from how it's been applied. So in simple terms.... In theory, you are supposed to save when times are good and spend when times are bad. Fiscal (spending) and monetary policies would be used to smooth out what are normal cycles in economic conditions. The problem is that politicians (Republicans or Democrats) have been piss poor at the "saving when times are good" part. And, one could argue that the FED has been too aggressive with monetary policy, although they probably were in reality simply living up to their mandate. That's another debate.

The answer to your question is that if they don't "re-prime the pump", the economy is more likely to slip back into DEFLATION (the problem being faced in 2008 as opposed to 1980) and -- here's the important part -- this would be magnitudes of orders worse than what we have now. IOW, the Great Depression on steroids.

Gas is getting cheap again!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/11/news...html?hpt=hp_t2

No opinions here, just facts.

Unemployment is down to 7.3%.

http://yourmoney.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...iref=allsearch

Gas goes up, gas goes down. Right now it's going down.

Seems to be cheaper than when Bush left office, so that's a good thing.

Yet you can't debate to save your life.

Did you even read the article? The article states why so many people are on food stamps.

I'll give you a hint... It's not because of the current administration.