Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Schneibster]

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

Other than the fact that you left out the very next sentence which directly contradicted what you quoted. That's deceptive, and deliberately misleading. You're busted. Get over it.

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with.

Too bad you forgot to include the next sentence, then. Don't quote mine.

[Coito ergo sum]

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

Other than the fact that you left out the very next sentence which directly contradicted what you quoted. That's deceptive, and deliberately misleading. You're busted. Get over it.

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with.

Too bad you forgot to include the next sentence, then. Don't quote mine.

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

And, you appear not to know what a quote mine is. Quoting is not quote mining. Stop trying to derail every thread.

[Schneibster]

You didn't, because nothing I said was false, or falsely represented what anyone said.

Other than the fact that you left out the very next sentence which directly contradicted what you quoted. That's deceptive, and deliberately misleading. You're busted. Get over it.

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with.

Too bad you forgot to include the next sentence, then. Don't quote mine.

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

It was not necessary to include the sentence, "An obvious failure," to do what you say you were trying to do. I'm sorry you tried to quote mine and didn't get away with it. Get over it.

And, you appear not to know what a quote mine is. Quoting is not quote mining. Stop trying to derail every thread.

Proving you're quote-mining, lying, and working the refs is not derailing the thread. It goes to your credibility.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with.

Too bad you forgot to include the next sentence, then. Don't quote mine.

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

It was not necessary to include the sentence, "An obvious failure," to do what you say you were trying to do. I'm sorry you tried to quote mine and didn't get away with it. Get over it.

You've got to be kidding. That's what he wrote - anyone reading the thread knows he was being ironic about that. I never said that Coe really thought it was an obvious failure. He was making the opposite claim, but I was attacking the basis for that claim - and I was obviously correct, and he was wrong on the unemployment numbers. You're just trying to deflect from that fact. Stop derailing threads.

And, you appear not to know what a quote mine is. Quoting is not quote mining. Stop trying to derail every thread.

Proving you're quote-mining, lying, and working the refs is not derailing the thread. It goes to your credibility.

You haven't proved anything ever, except that you like to bait and harass people, or at least me. Your credibility is nil, since you obviously have no trouble spouting off any load of nonsense you feel will serve your agenda.

[Schneibster]

Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009?

That's the only thing that I took issue with.

Too bad you forgot to include the next sentence, then. Don't quote mine.

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

It was not necessary to include the sentence, "An obvious failure," to do what you say you were trying to do. I'm sorry you tried to quote mine and didn't get away with it. Get over it.

You've got to be kidding. That's what he wrote

Typical.

You were quote-mining. Get over it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

It was not necessary to include the sentence, "An obvious failure," to do what you say you were trying to do. I'm sorry you tried to quote mine and didn't get away with it. Get over it.

You've got to be kidding. That's what he wrote

Typical.

You were quote-mining. Get over it.

Typical bullshit on your part, yes.

Do you even know what quote mining is? Obviously not.

I was taking issue with the facts that he stated, which were that unemployment is about the same now as when the Stimulus started. Obviously, hew was way off base on that since on February 1, 2009, unemployment was 7.6, and it went up as high as 9.4 and is now 9.1.

You're just trying to deflect from that and make this about your false allegation about me "quote mining." Your efforts are transparent and pathetic. Run along now.

[Schneibster]

The next sentence did not contradict the quote. Again: Are you saying the very next sentence directly contradicted his assertion that the unemployment rates were the same in February 2009 as they were in the present day? That unemployment was over 9% in February 2009? Because it didn't. You obviously just made something up.

It was not necessary to include the sentence, "An obvious failure," to do what you say you were trying to do. I'm sorry you tried to quote mine and didn't get away with it. Get over it.

You've got to be kidding. That's what he wrote

Typical.

You were quote-mining. Get over it.

Typical bullshit on your part, yes.

Do you even know what quote mining is? Obviously not.

Since we're back to this shit again, first lie.

Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and using it to prove a point that is at best unassociated with the material the quote was mined from, and at worst that contradicts said material.

Which is what you did.

[Coito ergo sum]

The President's long-awaited address to Congress and the voting public wasn't a matter of a "style over substance." Obama delivered on the former, but there was little, if any, substance to chew on. The headlines were "$450 billion" and the phrase "pass this bill." The dollar figure was largely meaningless and as Matt Nesto noted, the President's call to pass the bill sounded more like the request of a salesman, not the mandate of a strong President.
Every aspect of the vague program was short-term in nature. The much reviled Wall Street is constantly criticized for focusing on the short-term, yet the same President, placing himself on the frontline of class warfare, offered tax cuts running only through 2013. If you're currently planning or expanding a business you most likely are doing so with more than the next 5 quarters in mind. A major plant started today would be completed roughly at the same time as the proposed tax cuts expire. These tax breaks will do nothing to create jobs today.
The bill is "$450 billion on the ask" as Nesto put it. For those unfamiliar with trading parlance, the ask is what the seller wants, the bid is what the buyers offer. In this case the would-be buyers are ultimately the voters. It seems unlikely Americans are going to surrender the nearly half a trillion without some evidence that the money will be better spent than what was dumped into stimulus efforts undertaken in 2009.
Estimates on what the "American Jobs Act" would do for the economy range from our rather conservative figure of "nothing" to Mark Zandi's view that passage of the still-nonexistent bill would add 2 points to GDP and hack 1% off the 9.1% unemployment rate. Mr. Zandi is employed by Moody's, a ratings agency. It's worth noting that it's in Moody's best interest to curry favor with the White House in light of the abuse being heaped upon fellow ratings agency Standard & Poors for having the audacity to express a negative view of the government. Not to suggest that Mr. Zandi is in any way conflicted in his opinion; it's simply something to consider as the Administration rapturously embraces Moody's view.
Nesto pointed out the importance of Fed Head Bernanke's Thursday afternoon speech, despite his efforts to keep focus on politicians. The "money line" from Bernanke's speech was assurance that the Fed will do "all it can" to foster jobs growth, provided inflation remains low. In other words, the Fed will continue to do what it's been doing for 3 years.
The President avoided mention of the Federal Reserve but he did cite both Warren Buffett and Abraham Lincoln in his plea for more stimulus now to be paid for later. Lamentably, Lincoln has been dead for 146 years and Warren Buffett's lifetime contribution to the Treasury and the political process has thus far been limited to dodging the estate tax and writing op-eds.
Ultimately the speech amounted to a decent pre-game show for the Packers and Saints. Beyond that the American Jobs Act won't be worth much discussion until we see the details the President promised for next week.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... hlb2JhbWFq

[Coito ergo sum]

When adding in all of the money owed to cover future liabilities in entitlement programs the US is actually in worse financial shape than Greece and other debt-laden European countries, Pimco's Bill Gross told CNBC Monday.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973/US_Is_i ... eece_Gross (June)

German minister raises ‘orderly default’ for Greece
Germany has stepped up its rhetoric against Greece, warning that the debt-laden country could default on its debts in a move that highlights the growing divisions at the heart of Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... reece.html

[Coito ergo sum]

S&P Could Fall 20%, 2-Year Treasury Hit 0%: Analyst

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44487678

[Coito ergo sum]

Geithner: Economy In "An Early Stage" Of Crisis http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... risis.html

[Ian]

Okay, NOW I'm convinced:

The Clearest Sign Yet That We’ve Hit Rock Bottom
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44536780

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Market watchers are always looking for a sign of capitulation , that investors are crying uncle, throwing in the towel. In other words, hitting rock bottom.

Usually it’s a massive selloff or a move en masse into safer investments. (Yes, I’m talking to you, $1,900 gold.)

But this newspaper ad posted on Reddit may just be the surest sign yet that this economy has hit bottom.

It reads:

“FOR $ALE: Do (sic) to the down economy, I am forced to sell my collection of Star Trek portraits in order to continue paying for my World of Warcraft subscription. Each one is hand-painted by myself. Please call 603-570-****. If my Mom picks up, ask for Warlock.”

The “If my Mom picks up” is a little suspect, like maybe this is made up. Still, it’s kind of uplifting, don’t you think? Like maybe this ad, for real or not, is a sign that we’ve hit rock bottom.

Thank you, “Warlock” — and your mom — for offering us all some hope.

To quote Mr. Spock, may we all “Live long and prosper.”

[Coito ergo sum]

In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He vowed to veto any deficit reduction package that cuts benefits to Medicare recipients but does not raise new revenues.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-23-33-29

...reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Warren Dew]

...reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's he going to do, leave the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if no deficit reduction to his taste is passed?

[Coito ergo sum]

...reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's he going to do, leave the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if no deficit reduction to his taste is passed?

And, not remove the waste from Medicare and Medicaid...

I always wondered that about that "we'll save $500 billion just by cutting out the waste..." -- well, good for fucking you -- so, that's an admission that the government has been wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and not bothering to cut it out ...

So - let's bring home the troops and cut the waste, and if that doesn't work, we'll raise taxes later. Deal?