Proof - Obama is good for the economy!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by campanionator

 

Being stationed in Germany, I pay close attention to the exchange rate.

One thing I've noticed is that whenever the DJIA drops, the value of the dollar gets higher.

When the DJIA jumps up, the value of the dollar drops.

Which tells me that foreign markets are more involved with the US stock market than "Americans".

If you were here; the same thing happens with gas, when the Dow was below 8,000, gas was very cheap,
now that it is at 13,000 it is very expensive.

Last time we saw these kinds of prices were in 2008 - the DOW was above 13,000

Since your basis for a good economy is sole based on the stock market alone. I would sole say that Obama must be replaced for the good of this country.

The negative correlations as posted previously on this thread:

Stock Market Up, Jobs Down

Stock Market Up, U.S. Dollar Down

The positive correlations as posted previously on this thread:

Stock Market Up, Gas Up

These things all correlate to the bad economic policies of Obamanomics.

Final Analysis:

Obama Down, United States Up

I went to town earlier to try out this theory.

I stopped by the grocery store. When I got to the checkout, I told the clerk that I didn't have enough money, but that Starbucks was doing wonderful. She wouldn't let me have any groceries.

I stopped by the gas station and told them that even though I couldn't afford the gas, they should let me have it because of how well Caterpillar stock is doing. They laughed at me.

So much for that theory...

Others have said it, but I'll repeat it: unemployment is at 7.8%, the first time it has dipped below 8% in 40-some-odd months. What jobs there are are part-time, minimum wage, grunt jobs. Employers are receiving hundreds of applications for every job they have available. Food stamp enrollment is at an all-time high. Gasoline is double - double what it was four years ago. The US debt rating has been downgraded. Mortgage default and foreclosures are astronomical. Credit is extremely tight. Entire towns of tents have appeared to house those poor souls who are now homeless. Foreign outsourcing has increased many fold. Entire industries have been shipped overseas. Student loans are coming into default at historic levels.

And you are talking about how great Obama's policies have been because Starbuck's stock has risen? Are you serious?

Obama did not create all of these problems; he had plenty of help from Bush, and certain areas go back to Clinton, the elder Bush, and Reagan. But he ran for President knowing full well what he could expect: he could expect to bear responsibility for the state of the nation. His policies have not corrected the inherent problems we are experiencing; if anything, I believe they made things worse. He has failed to do what he promised to do. Spinning the facts, ignoring the facts, and using talking points do nothing to change anything, but they do show him for a shyster.

Would Romney do any better? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't support either of them. They're words on the same page, two stars in the same sky, two cars on the same road. Sometimes I wonder if they were not originally conjoined twins, separated at birth.

Wall Street is not the economy. Wall Street is a marketplace inhabited by those who already have made their fortune. The economy is much much greater, encompassing those on Wall Street, those who are starting their life as an adult, those who have worked or decades in an industry which no longer exists in this country, those who are forced to take part-time jobs making a tiny fraction of what they used to make, those who are struggling to make ends meet because they can't find a well-paying job, those who have managed to hold on through luck to one of the few jobs left, and those who are wondering what all the crying is about because they have always been this poor. Most of those people are hurting terribly, unable to make their financial obligations, unable to stay in the home they bought, unable to improve their lot in life. They are the economy, because they are in the majority.

Congratulations to Starbucks; well done. No congratulations to Obama.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by beezzer
Obama good for the economy?

Foodstamp usage at a record high
US credit rating downgraded.
High unemployment.
Low GDP
QE3, just last month.

That's like saying hammers are good for headaches.

edit on 13-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

2008–2012 global recession

The 2008–2012 global recession, sometimes referred to as the late-2000s recession, Great Recession,[1] the Lesser Depression,[2] or the Long Recession,[3] is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

When was Obama elected again? I forget

:-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by beezzer
Obama good for the economy?

Foodstamp usage at a record high
US credit rating downgraded.
High unemployment.
Low GDP
QE3, just last month.

That's like saying hammers are good for headaches.

edit on 13-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

2008–2012 global recession

The 2008–2012 global recession, sometimes referred to as the late-2000s recession, Great Recession,[1] the Lesser Depression,[2] or the Long Recession,[3] is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

When was Obama elected again? I forget

:-)

edit on 10/13/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: in case some are confused

Was there a huge mess before Obama?

Sure!

Did Obama do anything to fix it or make it worse.

That's what is at issue now.

reply to post by beezzer

Was there a huge mess before Obama?

Sure!

Did Obama do anything to fix it or make it worse.

That's what is at issue now.

What would an honest, non-partisan answer to that question be I wonder? So, beezzer - how long should it take your average president of these United States to turn around something like this?

I swear - even if McCain had won in 2008 - you guys would still be blaming Obama for this mess. You can always claim McCain would have done better, but coulda, shoulda woulda :-)

You all are lucky you didn't win then - and I suspect it's why you're trying to shoot yourselves in the foot now

Meanwhile:
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
just idle speculation?

:-)

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by beezzer
Obama good for the economy?

Foodstamp usage at a record high
US credit rating downgraded.
High unemployment.
Low GDP
QE3, just last month.

That's like saying hammers are good for headaches.

edit on 13-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

2008–2012 global recession

The 2008–2012 global recession, sometimes referred to as the late-2000s recession, Great Recession,[1] the Lesser Depression,[2] or the Long Recession,[3] is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

When was Obama elected again? I forget

:-)

edit on 10/13/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: in case some are confused

Was there a huge mess before Obama?

Sure!

Did Obama do anything to fix it or make it worse.

That's what is at issue now.

edit on 13-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

I doubt you would have the stones to make these arguments to peoples faces, because they are
so outlandish and you would feel embarrassed

Jobs have been added to the economy every month for over three years, yet you parrot over and
over that the economy is worse.

Can you explain to me how the economy is worse if over 4 million jobs have been added?

Are you trying to say that adding jobs is bad?

I would bet my LIFE itself, that if you were in gods face, you wouldn't have the gaul to repeat the
stuff you say on these boards simply because you would be shot into the fires of hell with a trebuchet.

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Since your basis for a good economy is sole based on the stock market alone. I would sole say that Obama must be replaced for the good of this country.

The negative correlations as posted previously on this thread:

Stock Market Up, Jobs Down

Stock Market Up, U.S. Dollar Down

The positive correlations as posted previously on this thread:

Stock Market Up, Gas Up

These things all correlate to the bad economic policies of Obamanomics.

Final Analysis:

Obama Down, United States Up

Did you learn that kind of critical thinking in preschool?

Please leave my thread and go torture ants or something, I doubt have the back to stoup low enough.

But Paul Ryan said unemployment is rising across the country and is now @ 10%

How can both be true?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I went to town earlier to try out this theory.

I stopped by the grocery store. When I got to the checkout, I told the clerk that I didn't have enough money, but that Starbucks was doing wonderful. She wouldn't let me have any groceries.

I stopped by the gas station and told them that even though I couldn't afford the gas, they should let me have it because of how well Caterpillar stock is doing. They laughed at me.

So much for that theory...

Others have said it, but I'll repeat it: unemployment is at 7.8%, the first time it has dipped below 8% in 40-some-odd months. What jobs there are are part-time, minimum wage, grunt jobs. Employers are receiving hundreds of applications for every job they have available. Food stamp enrollment is at an all-time high. Gasoline is double - double what it was four years ago. The US debt rating has been downgraded. Mortgage default and foreclosures are astronomical. Credit is extremely tight. Entire towns of tents have appeared to house those poor souls who are now homeless. Foreign outsourcing has increased many fold. Entire industries have been shipped overseas. Student loans are coming into default at historic levels.

And you are talking about how great Obama's policies have been because Starbuck's stock has risen? Are you serious?

Obama did not create all of these problems; he had plenty of help from Bush, and certain areas go back to Clinton, the elder Bush, and Reagan. But he ran for President knowing full well what he could expect: he could expect to bear responsibility for the state of the nation. His policies have not corrected the inherent problems we are experiencing; if anything, I believe they made things worse. He has failed to do what he promised to do. Spinning the facts, ignoring the facts, and using talking points do nothing to change anything, but they do show him for a shyster.

Would Romney do any better? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't support either of them. They're words on the same page, two stars in the same sky, two cars on the same road. Sometimes I wonder if they were not originally conjoined twins, separated at birth.

Wall Street is not the economy. Wall Street is a marketplace inhabited by those who already have made their fortune. The economy is much much greater, encompassing those on Wall Street, those who are starting their life as an adult, those who have worked or decades in an industry which no longer exists in this country, those who are forced to take part-time jobs making a tiny fraction of what they used to make, those who are struggling to make ends meet because they can't find a well-paying job, those who have managed to hold on through luck to one of the few jobs left, and those who are wondering what all the crying is about because they have always been this poor. Most of those people are hurting terribly, unable to make their financial obligations, unable to stay in the home they bought, unable to improve their lot in life. They are the economy, because they are in the majority.

Congratulations to Starbucks; well done. No congratulations to Obama.

TheRedneck

When Starbucks expands do you think they will hire robots to work their stores?

How about when Whole Foods plans to TRIPLE the amount of locations they have in ten years?

I decided to use the market because it does not have a political agenda, the market which
holds my investments is doing well, I am going to hire people myself due to this.

If you are in Alabama and you are not doing well in your locale it might be because your area
is less populated than my area which has a a county of Millions upon Millions, there are three
new businesses on the corner and all the houses on my block have been sold and occupied.
It is a whole lot better than it used to be, I would stare into the face of god and say that
without an ounce of fear.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer

 

Was there a huge mess before Obama?

Sure!

Did Obama do anything to fix it or make it worse.

That's what is at issue now.

What would an honest, non-partisan answer to that question be I wonder? So, beezzer - how long should it take your average president of these United States to turn around something like this?

I swear - even if McCain had won in 2008 - you guys would still be blaming Obama for this mess. You can always claim McCain would have done better, but coulda, shoulda woulda :-)

You all are lucky you didn't win then - and I suspect it's why you're trying to shoot yourselves in the foot now

Meanwhile:
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
just idle speculation?

:-)

Unfortunately for Obama, he himself said that if he couldn't fix the economy in 3 years he should be a one-term president. That was a dumb comment on his part.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis



If McCain had won in 2008 how in the world would we still blame Obama? Obama would never have been president.

reply to post by texasgirl

Is absurdity never funny to literalists?

Or, do you have no sense of humor girl-from-Texas?

:-)

reply to post by texasgirl




I'm really very interested texasgirl

Why do you think what he said was dumb?

And - what is it that you think he said?

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


It's 4 years and the economy is still limping along. He is trying to get re-elected and others are using his statement against him. Just be careful what you say, is all.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by texasgirl

 

Is absurdity never funny to literalists?

Or, do you have no sense of humor girl-from-Texas?

:-)

I can be quite funny. Just not today. :-)

reply to post by texasgirl

It's 4 years and the economy is still limping along. He is trying to get re-elected and others are using his statement against him. Just be careful what you say, is all.

What an incredibly straightforward and honest thing for him to say

And - he was right. He just might lose this thing if people don't believe they're better off now than they were before. Doesn't get any more real than that

The economy is still limping along - but is it limping less or more?

People aren't that dumb Tex - most people know that this economy was a dog when he got elected - and wasn't anybody gonna fix it in no four years. Not without a magic wand

Nobody can use this statement against him - I wonder that you (and many others) can't see that

:-)

reply to post by campanionator

When Starbucks expands do you think they will hire robots to work their stores?

What is the average pay scale of Starbucks employees (not upper management/corporate positions)?

How about when Whole Foods plans to TRIPLE the amount of locations they have in ten years?

Again, what is the average pay scale of Whole Foods store employees?

I decided to use the market because it does not have a political agenda, the market which
holds my investments is doing well, I am going to hire people myself due to this.

That's great that you are doing well; those not so fortunate when this mess hit in 2007 are not. And while I will agree the stock market has no political agenda, it also has little direct effect on average individuals. For example, there is a new company that opened a couple years ago 5 miles from me. I was excited, thinking it meant jobs for the area. No such luck. It is a automobile parts manufacturer from Japan. They hired 3-4 people for management, all who had to be fluent in Japanese, and the rest of their operation is robotic. Now, besides those 3-4 people who got hired and the owner of the building they took over, who benefited in this community?

No one. That building is large enough to support a company that uses 100 line employees, but it uses 0. Sure, it pays taxes and it is a business... so it's a success story in that sense of the word. But it does not appreciably aid the community. But hey, their stock is probably up, so that makes everything great.

When I left unemployment to take a part-time job tutoring at the local college, how did that job affect the community? Well, it lowered unemployment, despite the fact that my income is now 25% of what it was a few short years before; it left me still dependent on food stamps; it left me still unable to afford all but the barest necessities. But, hey, it's a job, right? Thank you, O great Obama, that I have just enough income to make me suffer!

If you are in Alabama and you are not doing well in your locale it might be because your area
is less populated than my area which has a a county of Millions upon Millions, there are three
new businesses on the corner and all the houses on my block have been sold and occupied.

Spoken like someone completely out of touch with reality.

You are obviously doing quite well. That's 1 person. 1. For every person like you that is doing well (and I know some locally myself; they missed the axe during the layoffs and their company managed to stay afloat), there are dozens struggling, hurting, trying to just get by without losing everything. I'm not even including myself in those dozens, because as bad as I have it, most have it worse; I have skills I can use to make every dollar stretch.

And move? That's your answer? Why should I move? I own my land, I own my home, I own everything I have. I should just get up in the morning, rent a U-Haul, and leave for better parts, forgetting the life I have built here, friends, family, community? Is that what Obama calls success? Is that the American Dream? Is that the best solution he can come up with?

How about letting companies decide what they want to offer? Obama has regularly dumped billions of dollars into "green" energy schemes like Solyndra, almost all off which have failed to even get close to predictions (if they survived at all), but he stopped the Keystone Pipeline project which would have provided cheaper energy and thousands of jobs. How is that trying to help the economy?

It's not. It's not about the economy for him; it is about social rearrangement. I don't want the government coddling me; I want the government to get out of my way so I can coddle myself. I can make it in this world without some faceless bureaucracy making sure I'm doing everything 'right'. Instead, I now have this massive, bloated, over-spending government telling me what I am to do with my life.

That has never ended well in the history of the world. Ask Edward I of England. Ask Louis XVI of France.

Or just give it a few more years like this and you can ask Obama I of the United States.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by campanionator

What is the average pay scale of Starbucks employees (not upper management/corporate positions)?

Would you prefer that people are being employed or not?

Again, what is the average pay scale of Whole Foods store employees?

All this growth requires all the support positions from middle to upper management as well as "average
employees". Pretty elitist of you if you concern is in fact, the lack of jobs. In my world having a job
is better than having none...

I decided to use the market because it does not have a political agenda, the market which
holds my investments is doing well, I am going to hire people myself due to this.
That's great that you are doing well; those not so fortunate when this mess hit in 2007 are not. And while I will agree the stock market has no political agenda, it also has little direct effect on average individuals. For example, there is a new company that opened a couple years ago 5 miles from me. I was excited, thinking it meant jobs for the area. No such luck. It is a automobile parts manufacturer from Japan. They hired 3-4 people for management, all who had to be fluent in Japanese, and the rest of their operation is robotic. Now, besides those 3-4 people who got hired and the owner of the building they took over, who benefited in this community?

You have good concern, automation and outsourcing is not good for America's workers.

But lets return to the political focus of my OP... How does this companies policies prove that Obama's
economy has further ruined America's policies?

No one. That building is large enough to support a company that uses 100 line employees, but it uses 0. Sure, it pays taxes and it is a business... so it's a success story in that sense of the word. But it does not appreciably aid the community. But hey, their stock is probably up, so that makes everything great.

It doesn't make everything great, I did not attempt to say everything is great did I?

But it is not as bad as losing 700,000 jobs a month is it? Because people assert that the economy is
worse than losing 700,000 jobs a month. Are you saying America is worse than then that?

When Obama came in the country lost 700,000 jobs in one month, one month.

Thank you, O great Obama, that I have just enough income to make me suffer!

That is confusing, later in the post you ask for government to stay out of your way?
Obama is responsible for you? You are contradicting yourself...

Spoken like someone completely out of touch with reality.

The reality is smaller locales take longer to bounce back from recessions...

You are obviously doing quite well.

I am not doing that well, I am doing better and I was smart enough to
realize that it was best to invest once the economy tanked under Bush's rule.

Is that what Obama calls success? Is that the American Dream? Is that the best solution he can come up with?

Again, you want Obama to save you?

Obama did not look the other way for a decade, while the banks undermined the entire global economy.

But the GOP and politicians sure use your distress to manipulate your mind. Your anger and distress
is their gold and you act exactly in the way that benefits them.

They got to crash the economy, then they get to reap the rewards of their work as long as the screws are
on people like you.

reply to post by campanionator

Would you prefer that people are being employed or not?

A typical question designed to shift the topic. I would prefer that people be gainfully employed, as opposed to just employed. You know as well as I do that all jobs are not equal. There is a world of difference between an unskilled, low-paying subsistence job and a skilled, well-paying gainful job.

What we need are quality jobs, not just part-time, minimum-wage jobs.

All this growth requires all the support positions from middle to upper management as well as "average employees". Pretty elitist of you if you concern is in fact, the lack of jobs. In my world having a job is better than having none...

Again with the smoke and mirrors. I never said management positions are unneeded. What I insinuated, and what is the truth, is that Starbucks and Whole Foods is primarily hiring for minimum-wage positions... hardly what I would call sufficient for the millions of families trying to pay their mortgage and raise a family amid inflating food, medical, and energy costs. That is the opposite of elitism. Your earlier statement

I decided to use the market because it does not have a political agenda, the market which holds my investments is doing well, I am going to hire people myself due to this.

is much closer to the definition of elitism than anything I said.

I am concerned about those who are hurting financially right now; you are unconcerned because they have jobs which I daresay you apparently feel are beneath you. Who's elitist?

But lets return to the political focus of my OP... How does this companies policies prove that Obama's
economy has further ruined America's policies?

That example was never intended to show such; it was an example of how a rise in business does not necessarily correlate to prosperity in the economy. I thought the purpose was plain.

It doesn't make everything great, I did not attempt to say everything is great did I?

You said Obama's policies are good for the economy. Considering we have had those policies for four years, two of which had a sympathetic Congress to boot, we're apparently doing great.

I say your numbers are unrepresentative of the overall state of the economy, and we are, in fact, doing dismally.

But it is not as bad as losing 700,000 jobs a month is it? Because people assert that the economy is worse than losing 700,000 jobs a month. Are you saying America is worse than then that?

No, I am saying Obama has failed miserably on his promises to improve the economy. Sure, it beats losing jobs, but consider someone in foreclosure on their home, three months in arrears on their car, maxed out on all credit cards, and who has several judgements against them. If this person were to walk into their bank and announce, "I found $20 in the parking lot! I'm rich!" do you think the bank would agree?

That unemployment rate does not include those who have exhausted their unemployment, those who are working only a few hours a week, or those who are going back to school because there are no jobs they are qualified for. The truth is that compared to the population growth, we are losing jobs!

That is confusing, later in the post you ask for government to stay out of your way?
Obama is responsible for you? You are contradicting yourself...

It's called sarcasm.

The reality is smaller locales take longer to bounce back from recessions...

The reality is that areas which are not considered important are ignored. The reality is that government regulations, over-taxation, and excessive government spending caused the recession in the first place. The reality is that Obama is not only continuing the very policies that caused the problem, but is increasing them.

I am not doing that well, I am doing better and I was smart enough to
realize that it was best to invest once the economy tanked under Bush's rule.

Backstroke?

I decided to use the market because it does not have a political agenda, the market which holds my investments is doing well, I am going to hire people myself due to this.

Hmmm.... no conflict there. (more sarcasm)

Again, you want Obama to save you?

I want Obama to do his job. I don't need saving from anyone except this administration.

Yes, the banks are culpable. Yes, Bush is also at fault, but Bush is gone.

You, sir, proceed from a false assumption. I am not a Republican. I voted for the lying *censored* in 2008, a mistake I will never make again. But neither can I cast my vote for Romney. I will be voting either Libertarian or Constitution Party next month.

TheRedneck