Under Obama prices go up

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Rune
How much did consumer costs rise under 8 years of Bush, especialy in comparison with consumer buying power at the same time?
Conservative?

Anyone?
 
icedancer2theend said:
The economic data that portend recovery are totally and completely inventions of Obama’s political operation. The reality is that no recovery is taking place!

Economist James Fitzgibbon, of the Highlander Fund, explains how cooked the economic statistics on which the president bases his claims of recovery really are.

Begin with “gains” in the stock market. Fitzgibbon explains that they are no indication of changes in the public mood because the public isn’t doing the investing anymore. He notes that HFT (high frequency trade computers) now “account for 80 percent [of the market's] daily business. No one else is left because they lost their money in 2008 and the public has fled the market … Total NYSE volume is 67 percent lower on average than in 2008. Volume is 29 percent lower this year compared to 2011. The prices [have] no serious meaning.”

Have consumers, as alleged, started borrowing again? Not really. Fitzgibbon explains that “credit use has surged only because the Obama administration changed the student loan program to a direct program and those loans are now counted as part of this metric. It is not comparable to anything prior to 2011.” And, he adds ominously, “massive credit card use as measured against actual verifiable sales shows the increase is in borrowed funds to pay for food! Not my idea of a healthy sign.”

How about lower unemployment figures? Fitzgibbon says they are a “joke.” He says that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has “completely changed the … metrics as of January 2012. None of the current percentages are relatable to anything prior to 2012!” He points out that the January unemployment data are heavily adjusted for “seasonal variations.” He notes that “the actual data [show that the economy] lost 2.7 million jobs in January.” And that’s just the numerator. For the denominator — the number of people in the workforce — the data “also shows about 1.2 million people magically left the workforce.” He says one has to go back to the early 1980s to see labor force participation as low as it is now.

Auto sales? He says “auto sales are when the manufacturer dumps cars and trucks on a dealer. Inventory stuffing! It has no relationship to actual sales to a consumer. Thanks to Obama, GM dealers are drowning in product no one wants to buy. It is a meaningless data point. Only dealer-to-consumer data is useful. It is not showing any growth at all.”

Housing? He says positive news in this sector is unreliable. “The raw data we get shows it is worse than last year and in some regions [the] worst ever since the ’60s.”

So it appears that Obama’s reelection strategy hinges on asking people to believe the data he puts before them rather than the evidence of their own eyes. It won’t work.

Any economic recovery is only publicly noticed eight to 12 quarters after it has taken place. Ask George H.W. Bush, who lost the 1992 election despite very positive economic news at the end of his term. Or ask Clinton, who lost Congress despite two years of favorable job-creation numbers. It takes awhile for the good economic news to sink in. And, when there is no good news, just faked government propaganda, it takes even longer to sink in!

People will understand that Obama’s data are a lie. The economy is not some abstract issue. Real people do not depend on changes in the unemployment-rate data to gauge their mood. They are more interested in whether they can get good jobs themselves. Obama’s attempt to rig the statistics won’t work. Indeed, it is a pathetic attempt.

link
Click to expand...


Dick Morris? Really?

Condi_vs_Hillary.jpg



Lolers.
 
Rune said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Rune
How much did consumer costs rise under 8 years of Bush, especialy in comparison with consumer buying power at the same time?
Conservative?

Anyone?
Click to expand...

do you really expect the troll to debate?

this thread is nothing but a troll thread. of course prices have gone up. they have done so under virtually every president for the past 40 years....

the one issue i have is gas prices. the left bitched like crazy and blamed bush when gas prices were this high. but now...not a fucking peep.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Once again all you can do is attack the messenger- proof you will support a bad president due to his party title, regardless of his failed performance.
Click to expand...


When the messenger is Dick Fucking Morris what the hell do you expect? Really. There are smart conservatives out there that make smart arguments against Obama and in favor of conservative policies. Dick Fucking Morris ain't one of them.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
When the messenger is Dick Fucking Morris what the hell do you expect? Really. There are smart conservatives out there that make smart arguments against Obama and in favor of conservative policies. Dick Fucking Morris ain't one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes he is- you saying he isn't is pure bs. All you have done is prove that you support Obama due to the d after his name. You have done nothing to dismantle the arguments and facts presented by Morris. This means that you either are unable to do so, or are too stupid and or lazy to do so. It does not mean that Morris is wrong or not smart.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yes he is- you saying he isn't is pure bs. All you have done is prove that you support Obama due to the d after his name. You have done nothing to dismantle the arguments and facts presented by Morris. This means that you either are unable to do so, or are too stupid and or lazy to do so. It does not mean that Morris is wrong or not smart.
Click to expand...


Morris is a moron. His argument is that the BLS is cooking the books for Obama and he has exactly zero evidence in support of that proposition so he appeals to authority who asserts various conclusions unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. There are no facts to dismantle.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Morris is a moron. His argument is that the BLS is cooking the books for Obama and he has exactly zero evidence in support of that proposition so he appeals to authority who asserts various conclusions unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. There are no facts to dismantle.
Click to expand...

Below is what you refer to as "no evidence"? Fitzgibbon provides the rationale- which is factual.

How about lower unemployment figures? Fitzgibbon says they are a “joke.” He says that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has “completely changed the … metrics as of January 2012. None of the current percentages are relatable to anything prior to 2012!” He points out that the January unemployment data are heavily adjusted for “seasonal variations.” He notes that “the actual data [show that the economy] lost 2.7 million jobs in January.” And that’s just the numerator. For the denominator — the number of people in the workforce — the data “also shows about 1.2 million people magically left the workforce.” He says one has to go back to the early 1980s to see labor force participation as low as it is now.

blstablea.jpg

Table A in the BLS release showed seasonal adjustments made to employment for every month for 2011 at 2,191,000. We excluded December, since this is still a “preliminary” number. This “seasonal adjustment” number was higher than any used in the last three years. If the BLS had used the average of the last three years, unemployment would not have dropped and Non-Farm jobs added would have only been 132,000, which would have been less than the 140,000 expected by the market.
blstablec.jpg

Table C in the BLS release tells us how the worker bees at the Labor Department were able to massage the numbers to come out with the headline number they wanted. They increased the “Civilian noninstitutional population” by 1,685,000.

Remember, citizens that have not looked for work in the last four weeks are not counted as unemployed. The Labor Department calls these individuals “marginally attached” rather than unemployed. To get the unemployment percentage to drop this “Not in labor force” number was increased by 1,177,000

This dropped the labor force participation rate by 0.3%, to a new 30-year low of 63.7% and viola, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3% On first blush; this low labor participation rate is an indictment of the U.S. work ethic. On second thought, think about this. These adjustments are all about not counting people that want to work but can’t find a job else the unemployment rate would be astronomical.

If the political appointees and bureaucrats at the Labor Department add just a little over 4% more people to the “marginally attached” group, they can end up with a 0.0% unemployment rate by Election day! Oh happy day.

If you thought the market was manipulated by banks and high frequency traders…be suspicious of the information you believe that may not be accurate. What would the market have done last Friday if the Non-Farm payrolls number would have come in low, and unemployment rose?

link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top