If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economic Policy Institute)   For the past five years, the CBO has predicted a full economic recovery is four years away   (epi.org) divider line 71
    More: Fail, Congressional Budget Office, economic recovery  
•       •       •

543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2013 at 1:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 01:53:46 PM
So we're not supposed to believe them today?
 
2013-02-21 01:53:47 PM
For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?
 
2013-02-21 01:54:03 PM
Quantum physics has been proven to be wrong. I don't know why physicists even still have jobs. They shouldn't even try.
 
2013-02-21 01:54:25 PM

Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?


Came to say THIS ^
 
2013-02-21 01:54:31 PM
It's better than it was 4 years ago. That said--it could get better. Is this what they mean? What's the goal, everyone employed?
 
2013-02-21 01:55:34 PM
Oh yeah? Well for the past 12 years, the president has been black. Study it out!!!
 
2013-02-21 01:56:52 PM
Perhaps they didn't foresee the GOP kneecapping our economy at every turn.
 
2013-02-21 01:58:30 PM
Well, for the last 18 months we've been in a cycle of "uncertainty", which I'm told is the cause of the recession.

I mean, there's no uncertainty in the 1%'s annual earnings, but "the market" is "uncertain" which means "business" can't "do anything".

// except pay bonuses to executives - those are contracted, and contracts are scrosanct
// right, guy-who-thought-he'd-have-a-pension-on-retirement?
 
2013-02-21 01:58:51 PM
Didn't read the article.  I bet what the CBO actually said in 2009 was that a recovery was at least four years away.  Things were rather unsettled in 2009, to put it mildly.  Not a good environment for predictions.

Things have been improving.  Don't know if subby is in the "HOW CAN THINGS IMPROVE WHEN A BLAH SOSHULIST IS PRESIDENT" camp.  But they're better than they were in 2009.

However we can probably rely on True Murican Patriots to drive the economy back down into the ground again.  "Hey I know...let's slash taxes to the wealthy and invade Iran.  Is Beghazi a scandal yet?"
 
2013-02-21 01:59:38 PM

TimonC346: It's better than it was 4 years ago. That said--it could get better. Is this what they mean? What's the goal, everyone employed?


Under 6% unemployment is usually the rule of thumb on when we feel "fully" recovered (what with structural unemployment.)

Actually, the fact that they've been so rosy shows that they haven't taken into account the lessons of Japan's Lost Decade(s). Liquidity traps are terrible to get out of.
 
2013-02-21 02:02:00 PM

Wendy's Chili: Perhaps they didn't foresee the GOP kneecapping our economy at every turn.


Exactly.
 
2013-02-21 02:02:01 PM
They made the erroneous assumption that half the politicians would be willing to work to improve the economy, even though it meant the blah demoncrat might get some of the credit.
 
2013-02-21 02:02:11 PM

Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-21 02:02:12 PM

Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?


Isn't the CBO required to use assumptions based on current laws? In that case it would not matter what Congress did or didn't do as it relates to the CBO's report.
 
2013-02-21 02:02:42 PM
They are under the assumption that the GOP will eventually stop trying to stall congress and do something for the good of the country for a change.
 
2013-02-21 02:04:10 PM
Projected Real GDP relative to Projected Potential GDP is how we define "full economic recovery"?

How about unemployment under 6%?
 
2013-02-21 02:04:47 PM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-21 02:07:34 PM
Did somebody say economics?

/We were in a massive bubble, and people are still talking about when we're going to get back to the top.  It was a bubble, you don't go back.  You learn to live within your means.
 
2013-02-21 02:08:49 PM

ManRay: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Isn't the CBO required to use assumptions based on current laws? In that case it would not matter what Congress did or didn't do as it relates to the CBO's report.


There was never a law stating that congress had to use the debt ceiling to force massive government cuts.
 
2013-02-21 02:10:40 PM

ManRay: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Isn't the CBO required to use assumptions based on current laws? In that case it would not matter what Congress did or didn't do as it relates to the CBO's report.


But you can assume that the debt ceiling will be raised without making a political issue out of it and assume that the GOP will not make a political issue out of everything Obama tries/tried to do.  That in itself slows the recovery. IMO
 
2013-02-21 02:15:00 PM

riverwalk barfly: That in itself slows the recovery. IMO


It did the first go around.

Link
 
2013-02-21 02:22:26 PM

Wendy's Chili: There was never a law stating that congress had to use the debt ceiling to force massive government cuts.


If they do, then I assume the new CBO prediction would take that into account.
 
2013-02-21 02:25:36 PM

MattStafford: Did somebody say economics?

/We were in a massive bubble, and people are still talking about when we're going to get back to the top.  It was a bubble, you don't go back.  You learn to live within your means.


I see you've brought back the stupid "means" argument. Im guess just like last time you will are unable to define  "living within your means".

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-02-21 02:25:44 PM

ManRay: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Isn't the CBO required to use assumptions based on current laws? In that case it would not matter what Congress did or didn't do as it relates to the CBO's report.


Or assumptions given to them by the requestor of a study.
 
2013-02-21 02:26:27 PM
Looks like Obama's laser focus on the economy isn't all that focused. Where's his budget again? OH, that's right, he won't submit one and the Dems won't vote for one in the Senate.

If you want a better economy, get rid of the Democrats. Look what happened to our economy when the Dems took over the House in 2006.
 
2013-02-21 02:28:19 PM
Anyone else think that the "economy is not fine" view is a bunch of fearmongers?
 
2013-02-21 02:28:41 PM

max_pooper: I see you've brought back the stupid "means" argument. Im guess just like last time you will are unable to define "living within your means".


What do you mean I can't define 'living within your means'?

Living within your means is not consuming more than you produce, with the value of your production and consumption determined by market forces.
 
2013-02-21 02:28:46 PM

ManRay: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Isn't the CBO required to use assumptions based on current laws? In that case it would not matter what Congress did or didn't do as it relates to the CBO's report.


You also are making a bad assumption.  You assume that republicans have been limited to maintaining the status quo, and have not been able to actively hurt things.  The country's credit rating would disagree.
 
2013-02-21 02:30:05 PM
It is pretty simple to explain. Imagine an island, a coconut farmer and monkeys on pogo sticks...
 
2013-02-21 02:30:20 PM

MattStafford: max_pooper: I see you've brought back the stupid "means" argument. Im guess just like last time you will are unable to define "living within your means".

What do you mean I can't define 'living within your means'?

Living within your means is not consuming more than you produce, with the value of your production and consumption determined by market forces.


If you that is your definition, you are wrong.
 
2013-02-21 02:30:28 PM

shotglasss: Where's his budget again?


One for every year. Link

shotglasss: If you want a better economy, get rid of the Democrats.


Reality, math, and history disagree with you.
 
2013-02-21 02:31:00 PM

ekdikeo4: Anyone else think that the "economy is not fine" view is a bunch of fearmongers?


I don't think it is "fine". I think it is improving, we are on the right track and we are in recovery but "fine"? Not even close.
 
2013-02-21 02:33:13 PM

ekdikeo4: Anyone else think that the "economy is not fine" view is a bunch of fearmongers?


Does anyone still think that we're worse off now than we were 4 years ago?
 
2013-02-21 02:33:50 PM

max_pooper: MattStafford: max_pooper: I see you've brought back the stupid "means" argument. Im guess just like last time you will are unable to define "living within your means".

What do you mean I can't define 'living within your means'?

Living within your means is not consuming more than you produce, with the value of your production and consumption determined by market forces.

If you that is your definition, you are wrong.


He has already proven that he gets to make up whatever definitions he wants regardless of reality. See also: "Government spending on infrastructure and education is supply side economics"
 
2013-02-21 02:35:56 PM
webpages.charter.net

Dusk-You-n-Me: shotglasss: Where's his budget again?

One for every year. Link


Which of those were voted on by the House and Senate, then signed into law by Obama? Zero of them.

I'mma focusing my lazor on the economy!!!
 
2013-02-21 02:36:03 PM
There are so many things that have happened that no one has ever seen before. How can you make predictions with unprecedented data input?

The first time that financial institutions have declared themselves "too big to fail".
The first time the filibuster has been the main bargaining tool in Congress.
The first time that 70% of Presidential appointments have gone unfulfilled.
The first time that the debt limit has been used to hold the country hostage.

The first time a black man has been elected as President.

The first time a black man has been re-elected as President.

President Barack Obama, a President of unprecedented firsts.
 
2013-02-21 02:36:15 PM

max_pooper: If you that is your definition, you are wrong.


Well, what's your definition?

jst3p: He has already proven that he gets to make up whatever definitions he wants regardless of reality. See also: "Government spending on infrastructure and education is supply side economics"


Do you have a better definition for living within your means?

It is amazing that you think you can just get away with completely ignoring any of my points, or making any arguments of your own, and somehow still think you're winning the argument.
 
2013-02-21 02:38:18 PM

shotglasss: Which of those were voted on by the House and Senate, then signed into law by Obama? Zero of them.


That's not what you asked. You asked where his budget is, and why hasn't he submitted one. He has, every year he's been in office. You were wrong. It's OK to be wrong. The tough part is swallowing your pride and admitting it.
 
2013-02-21 02:39:11 PM

shotglasss: Look what happened to our economy when the Dems took over the House in 2006.


Please share with the class what the House Democrats did or didn't do between January 2006 and the collapse of Bear Stearns in February 2008 that you would have had them change.  Please be specific, and remember that the answer can't be regulate.


riverwalk barfly: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Came to say THIS ^


You mean apart from the $700B stimulus that got passed in the first 3 months he was in office.  Not that they haven't been recalcitrant since that time, but your statement is inaccurate on its face.
 
2013-02-21 02:41:24 PM

MattStafford: jst3p: He has already proven that he gets to make up whatever definitions he wants regardless of reality. See also: "Government spending on infrastructure and education is supply side economics"

Do you have a better definition for living within your means?

It is amazing that you think you can just get away with completely ignoring any of my points, or making any arguments of your own, and somehow still think you're winning the argument.


I am not winning an argument, I am mocking your ignorance and the stupid things you say/have said. You have proven, to me, to not be worth arguing with. Others haven't gotten to that point yet. I admire their persistence and pity them at the same time.
 
2013-02-21 02:41:49 PM

Citrate1007: They are under the assumption that the GOP will eventually stop trying to stall congress and do something for the good of the country for a change.


Why would anyone assume that?
 
2013-02-21 02:46:20 PM

shotglasss: Looks like Obama's laser focus on the economy isn't all that focused. Where's his budget again? OH, that's right, he won't submit one and the Dems won't vote for one in the Senate.

If you want a better economy, get rid of the Democrats. Look what happened to our economy when the Dems took over the House in 2006.


I thought republican patriots were such experts in the Constitution!! Budgets need to originate in the house, genius.
 
2013-02-21 02:47:34 PM

jst3p: It is pretty simple to explain. Imagine an island, a coconut farmer and monkeys on pogo sticks...


Where to the apples and bananas fit in?
 
2013-02-21 02:49:09 PM

MattStafford: max_pooper: If you that is your definition, you are wrong.

Well, what's your definition?

jst3p: He has already proven that he gets to make up whatever definitions he wants regardless of reality. See also: "Government spending on infrastructure and education is supply side economics"

Do you have a better definition for living within your means?

It is amazing that you think you can just get away with completely ignoring any of my points, or making any arguments of your own, and somehow still think you're winning the argument.


I'm not the one making claims about "living within your means" but I will do my best to provide one: living beyond your means is acquiring debt at a rate than increases income to debt ratio faster than the growth of income.

That is a far cry from what you've been rambling on about. A country, despite what you claim, can run deficits indefinitely if the rate of debt increase is less than the aggregate of GDP expansion and inflation.

Your simple mantra of "debt bad" is very simplistic especially for somebody who claims to have earned a degree in economics.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-02-21 02:49:14 PM

shotglasss: If you want a better economy, get rid of the Democrats. Look what happened to our economy when the Dems took over the House in 2006.


House Democrats are as responsible for the the economy crash as Bush is for 9/11.
 
2013-02-21 02:49:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: Well, for the last 18 months we've been in a cycle of "uncertainty", which I'm told is the cause of the recession.

I mean, there's no uncertainty in the 1%'s annual earnings, but "the market" is "uncertain" which means "business" can't "do anything".

// except pay bonuses to executives - those are contracted, and contracts are scrosanct
// right, guy-who-thought-he'd-have-a-pension-on-retirement?


Your tone sounds ungrateful.  You're not ungrateful, are you?

A pension is not a contract.   It is an offer of a benefit made to you, the employee, which will more likely than not be honored after you retire.

It is a way for the company that employs you to shield assets from taxation and creditors, while also providing commissions for friends and colleagues of the company's officers who work in the vital financial services industry.

In the unfortunate event that the company is bankrupted or looted by its officers, you are still entitled to a fraction of your promised (but not guaranteed) benefits, thanks to the taxpayer-funded PBGC.
 
2013-02-21 02:53:19 PM

Saiga410: Or assumptions given to them by the requestor of a study.


Right, but I thought that was when a Congressman wants a bill scored in a "what-if" scenario before it is voted on. I assume the predictions referenced here are not that type of scoring.
 
2013-02-21 02:54:14 PM

theknuckler_33: jst3p: It is pretty simple to explain. Imagine an island, a coconut farmer and monkeys on pogo sticks...

Where to the apples and bananas fit in?


They are purchased from Sub-Sarahan Africans on debt financed social security and imported on a bridge from the adjacent deserted island paid for with non-USD pinned yuan oil revenue. Duh.
 
2013-02-21 02:57:31 PM

unyon: shotglasss: Look what happened to our economy when the Dems took over the House in 2006.

Please share with the class what the House Democrats did or didn't do between January 2006 and the collapse of Bear Stearns in February 2008 that you would have had them change.  Please be specific, and remember that the answer can't be regulate.


riverwalk barfly: Dante87336: For the past 5 years, Congress has blocked any sort of significant bill that would encourage recovery.

Predictions, how do they work?

Came to say THIS ^


You mean apart from the $700B stimulus that got passed in the first 3 months he was in office.  Not that they haven't been recalcitrant since that time, but your statement is inaccurate on its face.


Your point?
 
2013-02-21 02:59:50 PM

max_pooper: living beyond your means is acquiring debt at a rate than increases income to debt ratio faster than the growth of income.


Um, what?  You're comparing income/debt to growth in income?  Percentage growth?  Nominal growth?  What if your debt starts off extremely high, for example, post University.  I graduate with 100k in debt making 30k.  Are you suggesting that if my income doubles, I would be living within my means if debt doubled as well.  Or if my debt increased by 30k as well?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or make a strawman, I'm just not sure what that means.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report