Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True- with 94 million people out of work and 96 million working, the "unemployment number" is meaningless.
The "slight of hand" in reporting percentages is fudging the denominator, which is done with the unemployment number. Of course, this is done in attempt to decieve and convince the public that things are not so bad.
Obama has presided over-
1. highest number of unemployed citizens in US history
2. record numbers of citizens in poverty
3. record numbers of citizens on foodstamps
4. lowest job participation rate since 1972
5. lowest home ownership
6. highest accumulation of federal and personal debt
Obama has been a disaster for the US. Oddly, libs still love him.
Jimmy Carter had "malaise"
Barry Sotero has "new normal"
It's all one big facade. The unemployment rate and associated metrics have been bastardized and politicized to the point that they should never be trusted again.
Amen to that. It's all BS anyway for the purposes of market manipulation IMHO.
ANd it has been explained to you that Bernanke's term didnt end until a year after Obama took office and the Chairman has to be chosen from the current bank chairs. He cant just pick anyone as you seem to be claiming.
And it has been pointed out to you that he re-appointed Bernanke in August 2009. barely over 6 months after he took office which in no way really means anything outside of you have no good argument for him having re-appointed him. Even if it had been two years he never should have re-appointed him.
As to your second point there are two points to that. First off, he should have worked to change who can be appointed. The country would get fully behind that but as to the rest, there were Fed members that did not approve what Bernanke did and he could have appointed one of them.
At least it seems you haven't come up with a bogus excuse as to why not a single banker was prosecuted despite Obama's promises to indeed prosecute them since you didn't bother to address what I said as opposed to creating a strawman.
Whatever it is now, it is going to go down over the next few months if not the next year. Our biggest trading partners are sucking wind and it will hit us all soon. I'm on the side lines so I won't be hit hard, but friends that live pay check will really feel it.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
And it has been pointed out to you that he re-appointed Bernanke in August 2009. barely over 6 months after he took office which in no way really means anything outside of you have no good argument for him having re-appointed him. Even if it had been two years he never should have re-appointed him.
As to your second point there are two points to that. First off, he should have worked to change who can be appointed. The country would get fully behind that but as to the rest, there were Fed members that did not approve what Bernanke did and he could have appointed one of them.
At least it seems you haven't come up with a bogus excuse as to why not a single banker was prosecuted despite Obama's promises to indeed prosecute them.
Fed Chairmanships run from February to February, so his reappointment was actually February 1, 2010. The only time that has changed is if someone resigns or dies.
At best the date you are using is re nomination. You could technically renominate someone 3 years 364 days before their appointment.
Second, your argument that He could have just changed the law isnt going to fly here, because I have had this debate with you before, you thought he could just choose who he wanted, and you were wrong.
And further more, even if he could change the law through an act of congress(which i doubt they would have actually went ahead with), that wouldnt be a good idea, it would be no different than kicking a supreme court justice off the bench because you didnt like there political leanings.
third, you believe others monetary policy would work better, you have every right to have that opinion, but it doesnt actually mean you would be right.
Update, Which Bank governor was against Bernanke ???????
It's all one big facade. The unemployment rate and associated metrics have been bastardized and politicized to the point that they should never be trusted again.
What else would you expect from someone so unqualified to be President who has surrounded himself with idiots?
So disgusting and disgusting as well is the number of people who think he is the best thing to happen since gay marriage.
I've argued this many times also.....raising rates are what we should do. The rates are kept low for one reason......to prop up the stock market. That is all the Fed cares about today.
If rates start going up (this should have been done long ago with plenty of warning) people get off the money they are sitting on and start buying. They buy a car before rates go up......they buy houses......they go ahead and invest in their businesses before rates go up.
Manufacturing, housing, construction all kicks in gear.
How much stronger do you think auto sales could possibly be?
According to Autodata, auto sales rose at an annualized pace of 18.17 million during the month, a 10-year high.
...
"If market volatility was having an impact on consumer spending behavior, we would expect them to hold off on the purchases that can be easily delayed, like cars and homes," wrote Neil Dutta at Renaissance Macro in a note. "No sign of that happening yet.
Fed Chairmanships run from February to February, so his reappointment was actually February 1, 2010. The only time that has changed is if someone resigns or dies.
Again, ignore my actual arguments to make up your own to argue against. I'm not going to discuss things that way.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I've argued this many times also.....raising rates are what we should do. The rates are kept low for one reason......to prop up the stock market. That is all the Fed cares about today.
If rates start going up (this should have been done long ago with plenty of warning) people get off the money they are sitting on and start buying. They buy a car before rates go up......they buy houses......they go ahead and invest in their businesses before rates go up.
Manufacturing, housing, construction all kicks in gear.
Not all people think like that. I didnt buy a car or House because of Insurance rates, I did it because I saved for 4 years to be able to pay for the car in full and put 10% down on the house. Now at 23, I have a paid for car and a home of my own. nothing to do with interest rates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
