What will it take for the media to notice how pathetically laughable it is to say the bad news is better than what was expected? How long will this go on? It's getting surreal!
UPDATE: Obama reacts:
“This morning, new figures show the economy produced 67,000 private sector jobs in August, the eighth consecutive month of private job growth. Additionally, the numbers for July were revised upward to 107,000. Now that's positive news, and it reflects the steps we've already taken to break the back of this recession.”Surreal!
Posts
158 comments:
Getting? We passed surreal a few miles back...
Obama's presidency is horrible but it's better than I expected.
"What will it take?"
There's an election coming up.
Haven't you noticed?
How long will it take, asks Ann.
I'm pretty confident that, starting Nov 3, you will see a different approach from the usual suspects in the media. At that point bad news will be proof positive that O and the Dems were right all along. It will all be the fault of the newly elected, but not yet empowered, Rep congress.
It's getting surreal!
Getting?
What will it take for the media to notice how pathetically laughable it is to say the bad news is better than what was expected? How long will this go on? It's getting surreal!
Kinda reminds me of Bagdahd Bob who would claim THERE ARE NO AMERICANS IN THE CITY!!!
Maybe he's writing for the NY Times now who knows...
The performance-versus-expectations is very relevant if you have any money in the stock market. The market reacts to these kinds of numbers based on their relation to the "expected" value, not their absolute value. To wit, the stock market shot up after this report was released, almost certainly because the jobs numbers were "better than expected." So this is not really surreal--at least not any more surreal than the fact that billions of dollars disappear or get created every day in stock markets.
They need to start using a Thesaurus.
Fewer than expected by whom? So they're celebrating a bad forecast?
Kinda reminds me of Bagdahd Bob
That's funny. I can see a campaign ad where Bob assures us that the the stimulus is working as planned. The voice should be that of Joe Biden.
Media take notice of what? They are writing this tripe for the administration.
"We seem to be in the early stages of what might be called a 'growth recession,'" said Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch.
A "growth recession" is what they used to call a "jobless recovery" back when a Republican was president.. says James Taranto Aug 27. Wall Street Journal.
The good thing is the press has just about given up on even claiming they are not biased. The economic news this summer has finally caused them to accept the fact they are in the tank.
Tick Tock. November is coming.
It will last until our generation, the baby boomers, have faded away and no longer control mainstream media. Our kids have more skepticism and common sense. I know that goes against conventional wisdom. However, I have taught and coached these kids. They can smell bullshit much better than wide eyed baby boomers. Of course, they may take away our Social Security...that's a topic for another time.
How's this for a headline?
"As Expected, The Old Media Tried To Protect Obama From The Mess He Has Created."
Life is unexpected.
It will last until our generation, the baby boomers, have faded away and no longer control mainstream media. Our kids have more skepticism and common sense. I know that goes against conventional wisdom. However, I have taught and coached these kids. They can smell bullshit much better than wide eyed baby boomers. Of course, they may take away our Social Security...that's a topic for another time.
HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!
The thing is.. if expectations are hardly ever met.. why is it news when they continue not to be met?
Sure, it's a shit sandwich, but it's smaller than expected so you don't have to eat so much.
Such a deal!
Q: What's the difference between a NYT story and a White House press release?
A: It depends who's President.
If you buy the NYT you are getting double taxed.
Wait till it is revised down. Then it will be unexpected again.
Trey
The Lefties will never stop making excuses for The Zero the same way they do for Willie and FDR's handling of the Depression.
If they admit one of them was wrong, there would be mass suicides.
Hmm...
The media function like huggers in the special olympics.
They decided to expect the worst and suddenly all news was good news.
Oh, noooow it's surreal! Let me tell you something:
Picturing you pulling the lever for these dorks - that's surreal.
The Lefties will never stop making excuses for The Zero the same way they do for Willie and FDR's handling of the Depression. If they admit one of them was wrong, there would be mass suicides.
Hmm...
Given the left's ability to get anything right outside of a violent, property-damaging protest, I wouldn't push too hard for this unless you own stock in either hospital ICU machine or Dodge Charger parts manufacturers.
The constant barrage of unexpected bad news is not only surreal, it's like a Monty Python sketch. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Let's see this November and in 2012 how Obama and his buddies have matched up to people's expectations.
And conservative ideas how to correct the jobs situation is.....?
More tax cuts? Subpoenas? Investigate Black Panthers? ACORN?
The economic news this summer has finally caused them to accept the fact they are in the tank
"Finally caused them to accept?" !
They were in the tank from the moment Obama was just a gleam in George Soros' eye. And they patted themselves on the back for it. Just ask Ezra Klein.
"Picturing you pulling the lever for these dorks - that's surreal."
It is, and very disappointing. I expect many of my friends, some very smart, hard working and good people, will vote poorly again; because they just are emotionally incapable of voting for a conservative, even if they think him/her superior.
Emotional and ideological inertia is too much for some people to escape, regardless of the stakes. I think half of all conservatives are reformed liberals, but few liberals grew into their point of view. They graduated with it...from high school, and will go to the grave with it.
"And conservative ideas how to correct the jobs situation is.....? "
For the government to quit acting as if they have the right to take anything they want from anyone.
And conservative ideas how to correct the jobs situation is.....?
STABLE taxes. STABLE regulations. CUT government spending. REPEAL ObamaCare. Give businesses the confidence that they know what the hell the playing field will look like for the next 5 years.
And conservative ideas how to correct the jobs situation is.....?
More tax cuts?
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that by allowing the private sector to keep more of thier earnings is simply hammering nails into the economy's coffin.
Seriously garage, what exactly is your problem with people being allowed to keep more of thier earnings? You throw out a lot of snark but I don't see you offering any answers.
Wait till they bring the "saved" jobs bs back out.
Yes, the Diversity Hire is judged by a lower set of standards. So they made up a new one that applies only to his administration.
Woudn't it be interesting to redo Clinton and Bush unemployment rates under the new "saved" jobs standard?
STABLE taxes. STABLE regulations. CUT government spending. REPEAL ObamaCare. Give businesses the confidence that they know what the hell the playing field will look like for the next 5 years.
I'd add PRACTICABLE and STABLE Regulations. Regulations are necessary and even a conservative like me understands that. I just despise stupid regulations.
Libtard: And conservative ideas how to correct the jobs situation is.....?
And all these ideas people have responded with aren't necessarily "conservative" ideas. They are the ideas of the small businessmen who are hamstringed by Obama's actions.
But of course, expecting a parasite to grasp that is a wasted effort. You reflexively want to make it about liberal vs conservative. You would let the nation fall just so you could spew your BDS one more time.
That's funny. I can see a campaign ad where Bob assures us that the the stimulus is working as planned. The voice should be that of Joe Biden.
Somebody should do it. Maybe the Tea Party. Because its not like the GOP will - they might lose their table at Martha's Vineyard.
Job creation will occur when the confidence level rises which it will not so long as Obama's policies are queued up as far as the eye can see. We have two monstrous bills that have been passed and signed into law which remain nascent because the administrative pieces have not been put in place. The business community knows the broad outlines of what this means and knows it not to be good. As the bureaucrats are hired to create and implement the regulations the broad outlines will become very clear and meaningful problems, costly problems with names and numbers. Until we know what these regulations are in the real world, not in the abstract, there will be uncertainty and there will be soft or lagging confidence. The November election may provide some glimmer of hope that our masters realize that they have gone too far, way too far, and as a result we might get some optimism back.
Republicans can provide that optimism by pledging to reverse the expansion of government.
Republicans can provide that optimism by extending tax cuts for all levels for another two or three years.
Republicans can provide that optimism by making it clear that they view money earned by the people as the people's money from which the government takes a tax.
Republicans can provide that optimism by making it clear that they work for the people not the other way around.
The number of jobs declined in August solely because over 100,000 temporary Census jobs came to an end, which was known long in advance. Not counting those Census jobs there was in fact a net gain.
Peter
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Private employers hired more workers over the past three months than first thought, lifting hopes for the weak economy ahead of the Labor Day weekend. But the unemployment rate rose in August for the first time in four months as more people entered the market looking for work.
Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month and both July and June's private-sector job figures were upwardly revised, the Labor Department said Friday.
Stocks surged after the report's release. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 120 points in the first hour of trading and broader indexes were all up.
While the report hardly suggests the economy is out of danger, it's a reassuring sign after weeks of troubling data and comes after some encouraging economic figures in the past week.
Scott Brown, an economist at Raymond James, said he sees no sign of the country slipping back into recession.
"You're still seeing broad-based job gains. It's not strong, but it's positive," Brown said.
So now, according to The Queen, if something isn't as bad as expected...that's really not good?
Is there ANYTHING the tea bagger crew here doesn't whine and bitch about?
@Jeremy
That's certainly good news if you can parse out the temps and part-time employees. The gerrymandering with census employees requires at least that minimal scrubbing of the data.
"It's getting surreal!"
It fell into that category in December of 2007.
But of course the local yahoos don't know that that's when the recession actually started.
They also don't want to hear about the 8% unemployment rate the day little Georgie strolled out of the White House.
Or be reminded of that 800 billion dollar bank bailout bill that HE SIGNED before heading for the "ranch."
Seriously garage, what exactly is your problem with people being allowed to keep more of thier earnings? You throw out a lot of snark but I don't see you offering any answers.
I was asking our new overlords what their plan is. Presumably they want the job as they are running for it. So far, really not much.
How much have your taxes gone up by the way? Tax burdens appear to be at historic lows.
I was asking our new overlords what their plan is. Ceding defeat?
Presumably they want the job as they are running for it.
Why, so they can complain for two years about what they inherited from the last congress?
Scott - If you're told we lost 30 American soldiers in a fire fight, then found out we really only lost eight...would you consider that good or bad?
For crying out loud...this report hasn't been shouted from the roof tops as terrific news, just that things weren't quite as bad as first thought.
What is it about ANY form of positive news that gets YOU and the rest of the tea baggers here so up in arms?
Could it be...because of who the president is?
Were you asleep during the Bush years?
Garage, you are ill informed as to conservative financial ideology. Let me suggest Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, they have lots of stuff that is available and they are even on youtube.
Learn something.
Trey
Scott - Did they or did they not inherit a recession that began in December of 2007?
Was the unemployment rate at about 8% the day Bush left office or not.
Was there a massive deficit left behind or not?
Did Bush sign the 800 billion dollar bank bailout or not?
Tell me what is not factual.
I was asking our new overlords what their plan is. Presumably they want the job as they are running for it. So far, really not much.
Ok, I see you're incapable of answering a simple question.
1. Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
2. The typical middle class family gets well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan
3. They also pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.
4. Families making more than $250,000 pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s.
5. Only the wealthiest 2% of families will give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.
6. No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s, with dividend rates 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
7. Taxes overall, are being reduced below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan
And even with all of this...you can bet your ass there aren't many of the tea baggers here (or anywhere for that matter) who did not in fact get a tax break from this president...yet you and the others continue to whine and bitch.
Where were you big mouths during the Bush years?
Hoosier - Tell us what your GOP buddy's plan is for the economy.
Other than cutting taxes.
Lay it out so we can compare...
I've done so many, many times to you Jeremy, but I'll do it once more and then never do it again.
I left the GOP over Bush's presidency and the way his administration operated. I am very critical of the way he handled things and fully aware of what has really happened here.
What you don't seem to grasp or admit is that 1) Opposition to the current crew does not equal support of the former and 2) the current crew is not infallible.
I apologize for using a couple of multisyllabic words there, but I trust you grasp the context.
As I said, it is good news. Anyone getting a permanent, full-time job is good news at this point. You didn't address the second half of my statement, though.
Tell me what is not factual.
The inherit part. See, you 'inherit' your parent's genes, or your sister's hand me downs or your dead Uncle Oswald's antique grandfather lock.
Obama didn't inherit anything. He actively campaigned and asked for the job.
If I hire you to do a job, I don't want to hear you whining two years later that the previous guy left you a mess. That's why I hired you, to fix it, not whine.
Then again when you hire someone who has no prior work experience what do you expect?
Hoosier - Tell us what your GOP buddy's plan is for the economy.
Other than cutting taxes.
Lay it out so we can compare...
Sure.
1) Cut taxes, across the board. In fact, eliminate capital gains entirely. Yes, it works. Allowing more people to retain thier earnings means it goes into the economy and not the sucking maw of the government. This is basic common sense.
2) Across the board 20% reduction in Federal spending. Everything including defense.
3) Dept. of Education - dissolved. It's the state's job, not the Fed.
4) Repeal Sarbanes & Oxley which was nothing but a knee jerk reaction to Enron and has done nothing but stifle new business creation.
5) Repeal Obamacare - for obvious reasons
You'd see unemployment at 5% within the year.
Jeremy: It is customary to put quotes around the writing of others and to credit them for their work.
It's become a running joke. Whatever it is, it wasn't expected. Of course, they expected we'd be living in Shambhala by now.
Seriously garage, what exactly is your problem with people being allowed to keep more of thier earnings?
Probably the same as with people being allowed to vote without intimidation. He would have been a big Lester Maddox fan 50 years ago.
Hoosier Daddy for President!
It's a little beyond surreal that, when history shows cutting taxes always spurs the economy, some people just can't get past the talking points and think for themselves.
Up is down
We have two monstrous bills that have been passed and signed into law which remain nascent because the administrative pieces have not been put in place. The business community knows the broad outlines of what this means and knows it not to be good.
And the business community is braced against a Cap and Trade bill full of CRU AGW nonsense that will drive up their operating costs.
Jeremy cant speak to this, because his mommy pays his electric bill.
If I hire you to do a job, I don't want to hear you whining two years later that the previous guy left you a mess. That's why I hired you, to fix it, not whine.
The mental image of Hoosier hiring Jeremy has had me gasping for air for the last 5 minutes.
We need to cut taxes AND government spending. Why is this so hard to understand? This is why I supported McCain, because he was against tax cuts without spending cuts.
We can't keep paying people not to work. Wake up! We have run out of other people's money!
The "unexpectedly" BS? Just the MSM trying to defend their dream candidate. They want to keep dreaming.
It's a little beyond surreal that, when history shows cutting taxes always spurs the economy, some people just can't get past the talking points and think for themselves.
Obama himself admitted that he'd raise capital gains out of fairness, not that it would increase federal revenue.
See when garage or Jeremy demand solutions but insist those solutions can't include tax cuts its because they know tax cuts work.
Obviously if higher taxes meant better economic conditions then we should be forking over every dime to the government.
So cutting taxes already at historic lows, repealing Obamacare that hasn't even gone into effect, dissolving the Dept of Ed, and repealing Sarbanes would bring the unemployment to 5% within a year? Good God Hoosier.
The mental image of Hoosier hiring Jeremy has had me gasping for air for the last 5 minutes.
Shitter's full!
I was asking our new overlords what their plan is. Presumably they want the job as they are running for it. So far, really not much.
Imagine that, conservatives think that the best thing that government can do for businesses, employees, and consumers is to provide a known set of rules for everyone to play by, keep taxes low so that people can spend more of their money as they choose, and then pretty much stay out of the way and let the market work.
It's almost as if conservatives completely reject the Communist-style command economy model so favored by leftists!
How much have your taxes gone up by the way? Tax burdens appear to be at historic lows.
Yes, all it took to make the aggregate tax burden drop under Democrats was to jump the unemployment rate up to around 10%. People without an income pay a lot less in taxes.
Good God Hoosier.
No..not quite. Just one of the lesser deities.
I don't expect agreement from you garage since you're wedded to the ideology that the Government is the answer to everything and there isn't such a thing as unncessary government spending unless it involves national security.
By the way garage, what are your solutions? I mean the ones that Obama hasn't already tried?
I know I'd love to hear them.
How long will this go on?
It will go on until either (1) the economy actually does turn around, in which case all hail the Great Won, or (2) Republicans take over the House and Senate, in which case the bad news will be because of the nay-sayers and obstructionists.
Obviously if higher taxes meant better economic conditions then we should be forking over every dime to the government.
Yes.
If passing money through the government actually did provide a magically multiplied ROI, obviously everyone should be taxed at 100%.
The government could then spend all of the taxed money, provide everyone a 100% refund of the taxes they paid, and just operate on the "multiplier" profits.
Hoosier Daddy for President!
I would prefer Emperor or at the least Consul.
I was playing Rome: Total War last week and was expaning the boundries of the empire when one of my Gallic cities revolted. I was a bit perplexed as I had constructed some nice pagan shrines, aqueducts and even a library which was supposed to placate the population.
Needless to say I didn't even bother with a seige and went straight over the walls, killed the rebels to a man, decimated the population and sold the rest into slavery. It took another 15 turns for the city to recover by they were remarkably loyal.
Order must be maintained.
Good thread - I was waiting for Jeremy's response. I don't know too much about this stuff - I think the govt should be good to businesses of all sizes - watch out for the graft, fix potholes. Hopefully the country will become more healthy.
I also found out that the rebels had called themselves the People's Front of Gaul.
Or was it the Gallic People's Front....oh well doesn't matter now.
I also found out that the rebels had called themselves the People's Front of Gaul.
Or was it the Gallic People's Front....oh well doesn't matter now.
SPLITTERS!
Marxism to the rescue, the pretend work government regulator armies can gin up enough unnecessary inspection jobs fly specking every imperfection to fill in for production jobs lost to the Energy Tax death knell Obama and Hillary have planned for the American economy. This is not surreal...it is the promised redistribution. All you wealthy people making more than $80,000 a year are gonna get skinned.
I was asking our new overlords what their plan is.
As the left believes that they, via government, should overlord over the rest of us, I'm wondering if garage's use of the term "overlord" is not snarky or facetious. Does he believe that only question if who's the overlord, not rather we should have one or not?
It's Recovery Indian Summer!
Off Drudge, 2 headlines say it all:
UNEMPLOYMENT JUMPS TO 9.6%...
Economy LOST 283,000 jobs during 'Recovery Summer' months...
garage mahal said...
So cutting taxes already at historic lows
Oh, come on, that's the biggest crock around this year (next to Recovery Summer, of course).
Hoosier Daddy said...
Hoosier Daddy for President!
I would prefer Emperor or at the least Consul.
Perhaps a triumvirate to more properly administer the Empire: You, Meade, and shoutingthomas.
Hoosier, just do that when you take the cities to begin with. Helps with funding. You can expand faster.
Funny thing is, just keep your taxes low and growth occurs much faster.
The TW games are fucking amazing actually.
Holy crap!! TW fans!!
Hoosier, just do that when you take the cities to begin with. Helps with funding. You can expand faster.
Funny thing is, just keep your taxes low and growth occurs much faster.
The TW games are fucking amazing actually.
Except Empire. Totally top-heavy and too much for current systems.
Hoosier, forget the TW titles and play Sid Meier's Civ titles (currently IV soon to be V). Or, you could always opt for the nerve staple.
"Hoosier, forget the TW titles and play Sid Meier's Civ titles (currently IV soon to be V). Or, you could always opt for the nerve staple."
I've just updated my pre-order (Civ-V).
Well, now I know how you guys fill those empty hours between posts.
Well, now I know how you guys fill those empty hours between posts.
...just...one...more...turn...
I didn't pre-order simply because, despite their relative built-in fan base, I know there will be plenty of copies available hereabouts retail. And I'm sure as hell not downloading a Steam version.
Garage et. al. it's not the tax cuts, beyond making Bush's PERMANENT, it's CUTTING THE SPENDING!
And repealing ObamaCare, for several reasons, and stuffing Cap n"Tax in the shreddr, and revisiting the "Financial Reform"...and how many other 2,000 page bills have been passed?
..just one more turn.
Me too.
Hoosier, just do that when you take the cities to begin with. Helps with funding. You can expand faster.
Funny thing is, just keep your taxes low and growth occurs much faster. The TW games are fucking amazing actually.
Well I'm playing the Europa Barbarum mod for Rome and I find I don't need to do that as often as in the vanilla version. I think it was the minimal garrison I had.
I'm doing a campaign as Sweden now in Empire TW which is quite a challenge. Two turns in as I am about to crush the insolent Danes and Russia, Poland-Lithuania and Courland (yes Courland) decide to declare war on me. Thus my timetable to unite Scandanavia under my rule is being postponed much to my chagrin. I've taken out Courland, occupied Minsk (Poland) but the damn Russians and Poles just. won't. DIE!
I'm laying seige to Moscow right now and about to have the mother of all battles outside Warsaw and am hoping if I can come out victorious in these two fights, they'll sue for peace so I can get on with expanding my empire without these bothersome distractions.
People should know when they are conqured.
Oh, come on, that's the biggest crock around this year (next to Recovery Summer, of course).
Hoosier declined to say how much his taxes have gone up. Care to take a stab?
Hoosier, forget the TW titles and play Sid Meier's Civ titles (currently IV soon to be V). Or, you could always opt for the nerve staple.
HERESY!
Actually I have played Civ since its inception and had a lot of fun with it but I like the TW series as the battles provide a lot more interaction. It isn't quite as 'city building' as Civ but its there. Empire is definitely their best showing thus far.
"People should know when they are conqured."
The Russians told the Poles that for 250 years.
ndspinelli:
I don't know dude (dudette?) - a lot of the millennials are a bunch of ObamaZombies. Their famed "skepticism" is more like the poseur world-weariness adopted by their Pied Piper, John Stewart, who, despite all his famous cynicism is still 95% in the tank for Obama and the Dems.
Jeremy, I make less than 250k a year yet the dividends my stocks pay will be taxed at a higher rate. So yes this middle calss persons tax
Empire is definitely their best showing thus far.
Granted. But even with a decently high-end system with multiple cpu's, the amount of time it takes to process a complete turn is ridiculous. And, no option to take the minor factions out of that mix. I hear they improved that quite a bit with Napoleon, though.
Scott: Is Napoleon stand-alone or do I have to have Empire?
I'm dying to try Napoleon. The naval combat (like all combat in the TW series) looks incredible.
And yes, I do need to try more mods. I usually just crank up the difficulty settings to the highest in vanilla and play every faction.
1. Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
2. The typical middle class family gets well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan
3. They also pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.
4. Families making more than $250,000 pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s.
5. Only the wealthiest 2% of families will give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.
6. No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s, with dividend rates 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
7. Taxes overall, are being reduced below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan.
Note the justification for a massive tax increase - Jeremy is intentionally obscuring that taxes will go up significantly across the board at the end of the year through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That is why he keeps referring to Reagan and the 1990s.
He also ignores that this is just political blather by the President and his minions. When are these tax "cuts" going to be legislated? Right before the election? Maybe. The lame duck session? Even more unlikely. And what happens when the liberals in charge of Congress right now get a hold of them? Does anyone really believe that earned income below $250k is going to be off-limits to these class warriors?
Jeremy has essentially accepted a throwaway proposal as a completed act, and then faulted the rest of us for not acknowledging the brilliance of the Obama economic plan.
Oh, and please quit using the words "wealthiest 2%" and the like. These proposals do nothing to attack wealth and the "wealthiest 2%" are going to be most exempt from this. John Kerry is still going to be worth north of $180 million (after marrying well - twice). He is wealthy. A small businessman who shows $250k before schedule C deductions is not rich. Kerry is. Rockefeller is. A lot of the liberals in Congress are.
There is a commonality here that speaks to the utter banality of government functioning that is conversely good and useful while ruthless and destructive.
<anecdotes altert>
1) An acquaintance in my area is seriously ill. I am not much of an advocate but I do drop by regularly to check on things and now over time we've become friends as I've seen his situation deteriorate.
His mail was backed up. I saw he is getting assistance with housing. I go, "Dude, these people are asking for information. They need to have it now."
"All that's over there." He pointed to another room. It took awhile to sort but I did find what the housing authority needed, proof of income. I mailed it on my way out.
On my return visit I saw more unopened mail from housing authority. It was an alarming notice of cessation of services due to the missing information.
Sent certified, he had to have signed for it.
"Why didn't you open this?"
"I had to go downstairs to sign for it and I was too tired to hassle and you already answered them."
Such a sickly cavalier attitude regarding something so serious. Do people within housing authority know how sick people are that they're helping? I called them to say the requested information was mailed and the date. The timing of the notices was such that it was apparent to me the three items from the authority were sent from different areas. That is, our items were not crossed in the mail, they were garbled within the authority. After a lengthy hold I was told, "We don't have the information yet, but okay." The contrast between the severe phrasing of the notification and the cheerful helpfulness of the girlish authority and her trust that I was telling her the truth "it's in the mail," could not have been more extreme.
2) Insty recapped this edifying interview with John Mackey. You most likely already read this:
Q: What’s the result of the Wild Oats merger?
A: The end result is that it’s been great. Our Wild Oats same-store sales were up like 16% in the second quarter.
Q: Would you do that merger again?
A: No. We’ll never do another merger that requires FTC approval. It was the worst experience of Whole Foods’ corporate life. All my e-mails were examined by the FTC. The $30 million in legal fees. … For what? To prove we weren’t a monopoly? Everyone knows we’re not….
</anecdotes altert>
Ha ha ha. Blogger says:
"Request too large"
Then it posts it anyway.
Odd that the very anonymity and combativeness of a blog would prevent us from a mechanism that would facilitate the organizing of a multiplayer session.
Bruce - "Note the justification for a massive tax increase."
You mean a tax increase for those making over $250,000...right? And were you just as outraged when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan raised taxes over and over again when he realized his massive tax cut created a massive problem?
Taxes aren't going UP on the middle or lower class folks...only those who make much, much more.
And how about that cut off Social Security contributions the wealthy enjoy?
Thank that's fair?
Here's an article that appears today that has some interesting analysis and suggestions...not that anybody here cares what anybody says that they don't already believe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Chip Ahoy said...
Ha ha ha. Blogger says:
"Request too large"
Then it posts it anyway.
I knew a woman like that once, Chip. Fabulous woman.
Hoosier, using his standard inane logic, says Obama didn't really "inherit" any of the current economic woes...because he ran for office and that pretty much negates having time to deal with what was left behind.
The mystical logic of a tea bagger.
When did we go from expecting good news and the bad news was "unexpectedly bad," to now the same bad news is "unexpectedly good?"
Whiplash!!!
The media just lie and lie and lie and lie and I'm not supposed to notice?
Bah!!
I'm sort of inclined to side with Obama on this one. Private sector job creation is what matters. The loss of government jobs -- which is what drove down the numbers -- is probably GOOD for the economy.
Martin said..."The media just lie and lie and lie and lie and I'm not supposed to notice?"
Oh, come on, where is this "lie" you're referring to?
We all know that, other than watching Fox, listening to Rush, Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly...or visiting this site, you don't read or watch anything else anyway.
Stop whining and bitching about the "media."
jeremy Please provide a link to the govt. site supporting the contention that unemployment was 8% the day GWB left office.
Thanks so much.
Revenant said..."I'm sort of inclined to side with Obama on this one. Private sector job creation is what matters. The loss of government jobs -- which is what drove down the numbers -- is probably GOOD for the economy."
Good lord...STOP THE PRESSES!!!
An Althouse regular actually sees something positive about something president Obama says or does??
You may have already been thrown out of the local tea bagger club, Dude...but I'm proud of you for having the guts to side with our president...even if it is probably only this one time.
Jeremy: Hoping to learn something from you and am awaiting link to the Govt. site showing 8% unemployment on the day GWB left office.
Thanks a million.
Jeremy: Treasury Secretary announced that there are lots of jobs available. So that is good news. I suppose those people on the 99 week benefits will be thrilled and they will get cracking at the end of the 99.
PS. Awaiting link to Govt. site showing 8% unemployment at day of GWB leaving office.
Appreciate your help and patience.
Michael - Unemployment when Bush walked out the door:
It was at 7.6 in January
It was at 8.2 in February
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
Michael - "PS. Awaiting link to Govt. site showing 8% unemployment at day of GWB leaving office."
First of all, this is exactly what I said in a previous posting: "Was the unemployment rate at about 8% the day Bush left office or not."
So I guess when I say it was "at about 8%"...I was WAY off...and it was ONLY at 7.6%.
*Did you also miss the deficit left behind or the 800 billion dollar bank bailout bill he signed? How about the real estate market meltdown?
Did you also not know that the recession began in December of 2007?
Let me know about anything else you didn't know and I'll try to help you out.
There is nothing about lying that is surreal. It is the oldest warfare tactic in the book. Remember the Marxist King is at war with the out of work American bourgeois business owners. Unemployment is like the smell of napalm in the morning to Obama, the smell of victory. But he has to misrepresent his goals so he will not be impeached. A possible impeachment gets closer everyday.
When he was campaigning, Obama said, many times, that families making less than $250,000 per year would not see a tax increase OF ANY KIND. What did the Democrats do in February? They raised the cigarette tax from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack. Guess who does the most smoking? Low income people. For an average smoker, that will be more than $300 dollars/year in increased taxes. They more than doubled the federal tax on chewing tobacco. how many high income people chew tobacco?
Toy
The Calculated Risk website has a great graph depicting the depth and length of joblessness in post-WWII recessions.
traditionalguy said..."There is nothing about lying that is surreal."
What "lie" are you referring to?
As my whimsy leads me - You're actually dragging out a "sin" tax to rail on the president?
I realize the tea baggers here have to really dig deep, but this is just about as dumb as it gets.
By the way, here's some interesting information relating to another president who swore he would never raise taxes:
Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan raised to cover his ass after almost breaking the bank with his massive tax reductions. He raised taxes on Social Security benefits, increased "sin taxes" and established what he referred to as "revenue enhancements."
And this might help:
Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy adviser to Reagan, and in the Treasury under President George H.W. Bush:
“Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut."
Bruce Bartlett again: Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president."
Bartlett again: March 19th - "Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year."
Michael - I see you've slithered back under your wing nut rock.
Facts really get in the way don't they?
Jereymy;
Good lord...STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Reverant can correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly but I believe his emphasize was this:
The loss of government jobs -- which is what drove down the numbers -- is probably GOOD for the economy.
I don't believe our President is all that keen on reducing the number of government jobs.
We want people to pay a lot of taxes, just not a high rate of taxes. I wonder how you do that? As a very wise man once said: "A three letter word: J-O-B-S."
I wonder how you add jobs to an economy? Hint: By making people with money and ambition want to hire them - by reducing the business cost in dollars, time, hassle and regulation to hire them. We are not doing that. We are doing the opposite.
This recession should be history by now, virtually any other President and congress could have pulled it off. But we elected the perfect storm of stupidity.
Good lord...STOP THE PRESSES!!! An Althouse regular actually sees something positive about something president Obama says or does??
Don't get your panties in a bunch, Jeremy. When Obama patted himself on the back for losing private-sector jobs and padding the employment numbers with government employees, I called bullshit. You and the other leftards insisted that that counted as real recovery. Now that the total job numbers are bad, you're ignoring those and focusing just on the private sector.
I'm being consistent; the private sector is what matters. The only thing you're doing consistently is tonguing Obama's balls.
As Adam on Mythbusters says, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
A tax is a tax. A purse-snatcher and a pick-pocket are both thieves. Raising the tobacco taxes are taxation sleight of hand. And tobacco taxes are regressive taxes that have a greater effect on the poor than any other group. Obama broke both the letter and the spirit of his promise.
Toy
c3 said..."I don't believe our President is all that keen on reducing the number of government jobs."
Read it anyway you want, tea bagger, but he said nothing of the kind.
If you think it's better to NOT lose less jobs, that's your problem.
Most people with a fucking brain would differ...including the president.
As my whimsy leads me.. said..."A tax is a tax. A purse-snatcher and a pick-pocket are both thieves. Raising the tobacco taxes are taxation sleight of hand."
Blah, blah, blah.
The president said he would lower the "income taxes" for any family making less than $250,000 and that's exactly what he did.
Whining and bitching makes just puts you into the same category as the rest of the tea baggers who want the president to fail.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
- Barack Obama, September 12, 2008
(Read his lips on YouTube.)
Jeremy: Thanks for the link. If unemployment was 8 percent when GWB left office its only gotten 20 percent worse since then. Thanks for the update. And watch your mouth dickhead.
AC245 - Those are ALL forms of taxes related to "INCOME."
Are you really this stupid?? You actually believe that when someone says they will not increase your "income" taxes, it also relates to gasoline, tobacco, booze, state sales taxes or any other tax related to such products or services?
If a state increases their sales tax would you consider that an "income" tax?
He did exactly what he said he would do, yet you and other tea bagger assholes just can't stand to admit you're ever wrong, or worse yet...to support your own president.
And, as for the tobacco tax you're so concerned about (and I have to assume you're still dumb enough to be smoking at this point in time)...part of the rationale for the tax is related to lessening the heavy burden smokers put on the health industry and of course health insurance rates...by making it more expensive to smoke the damn things.
You're an uneducated twit who evidently understands little if anything about the difference between taxes effecting one's "income" versus taxes that relate to specific usage.
And what difference does it make to you anyway? There's not a snowball's chance in hell anybody as dense as yourself is making anywhere near $250,000.
Quit whining and bitching and try to be more of a supportive American.
Michael said..."Jeremy: Thanks for the link. If unemployment was 8 percent when GWB left office its only gotten 20 percent worse since then. Thanks for the update. And watch your mouth dickhead."
But that isn't what you were challenging, was it, asshole?
The unemployment rate was climbing for months before Obama took office, just as the real estate market was tanking and the banks were holding out their hands to little Georgie for their 800 billion dollar bailout. (Why aren't you whining about that?)
You thought I was wrong, and now that you see that I wasn't...you're still too gutless to admit it.
The recession stated in December of 2007, and Bush left Obama holding the bag.
Try reading more and posting tea bagger drivel less.
During the 12 years that the Republican Party controlled Congress, unemployment dropped one point.
During the three and a half years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, unemployment has risen five points, more than doubling.
If we want to blame politicians for the economy, fine. Bush was bad. Obama is, so far, worse. But worst of all? Congressional Democrats.
In fact, the only people who appear to be GOOD for the economy are Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Congressional Republicans. Sadly, only one of those three groups are eligible for your votes in 2010 and 2012. :)
Chip:
Good post about the Whole Food guy Mackey. That anecdote says it all about govt and govt red tape.
You obviously endeavor to be well informed. I wonder how many Americans [out of 100] heard that story about the Wild Oats merger? I bet fewer than 3 out of 100 adults. It's sad becasue information is so important in the daily war of ideas.
Jeremy, why can't you be civil? I haven't called you any names. Shame on you.
If states want to increase their tobacco taxes, that is up to them and their citizens. A candidate should not make a promise not to increase taxes of any kind for a certain income group and then sneak in another tax and say, "Any" only meant income taxes. That is not the only kind of increase in taxes or fees that low to middle class people will get hit with. I guess they should have pinned him down on that before they voted for him.
The federal cigarette tax does not offset the costs of health care for smokers. It is used to fund the S-CHIP medical insurance program for low income children who do not qualify for Medicaid. That is a questionable way to fund a health program for the poor--to make it dependent on a "sin tax" paid disproportionately by the poor, but that is just one of those strange things Democrat lawmakers do, I guess.
Whether smokers actually cost health care more in the long run is debatable. Although they get much more lung cancer and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), they also live lives that are about 14 years shorter, on average, so they miss out on a lot of Alzheimer's disease and other chronic debilitating diseases that are very expensive to manage for several years. Unless it is caught early, lung cancer does not tend to be one of the long lasting cancers.
I have never been a smoker and I am highly educated-- in a health care profession. I actually despise smoking and its consequences, but I don't like seeing the Federal government take advantage of smokers just because they are easy to gang up on. Smokers are already paying over $3 per pack in many states, just for state taxes. Remember--smoking is an addiction that is very difficult for most people to break. For most of the other related health issues, smoking is one of several contributors. Should there be a tax on all men with waist sizes over 40 inches, and women over 35 inches?
Toy
Taxes aren't going UP on the middle or lower class folks...only those who make much, much more.
I don't know what planet you live on, but in this country, taxes are going up significantly at the end of the year, across the board. It is called the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts.
As far as the Medicare income cut-off, you have to ask whether Medicare is anything like an insurance program, at least for the future, or is it entirely a tax to support a welfare program.
Keep in mind that someone who is at the cutoff for these programs is not going to get any more in benefits than someone who is at a much lower level. So, how can you justify this as a payroll tax? If these taxes aren't capped, they are income taxes, not payroll taxes. And that just means that even more income taxes are being levied on those who create the most jobs. Which philosophy is one of the big reasons that unemployment is so high.
The president said he would lower the "income taxes" for any family making less than $250,000 and that's exactly what he did.
Do you make this sort of thing up? What tax cuts have I seen since he came into office? I am looking at a tax increase at the end of the year. But I am still waiting for my tax cut.
During the 12 years that the Republican Party controlled Congress, unemployment dropped one point.
During the three and a half years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, unemployment has risen five points, more than doubling.
This has to be remembered. We are always getting hammered about Bush's first years or last years, or Reagan's first years, but what is ignored is that those were during a Democratic Congress.
Congress appropriates money and Congress enacts sweeping legislation that massively increases the size and cost of government like health care "reform" and financial "reform". All the President can really do, in the end, is say yah or nay.
Democratic Congresses are bad for the economy, and this one is probably the worst since the one that passed the Great Society and War on Poverty into law (while allowing LBJ to botch the Vietnam war so badly that 57,000 Americans died, and they still forced us to lose).
Growth in Jobs Beats Estimates, Easing Concerns
By MOTOKO RICH
American businesses added more jobs in the last three months than originally estimated, calming fears of a double-dip recession.
Revenant said..."During the 12 years that the Republican Party controlled Congress, unemployment dropped one point. During the three and a half years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, unemployment has risen five points, more than doubling."
Bullshit.
Revenant: During the 12 years that the Republican Party controlled Congress, unemployment dropped one point. During the three and a half years that the Democrats have controlled Congress, unemployment has risen five points, more than doubling."
LibtardJeremy: Bullshit.
Nope. Its a fact. And the difference is even greater if you allow Republicans to use the new "saved" jobs standard applied to DHOTUS.
Jeremy: By MOTOKO RICH
American businesses added more jobs in the last three months than originally estimated, calming fears of a double-dip recession.
And the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 g a week
/fixed
Damn, Libtard. You'll swallow anything.
Historically, the economy has always done better under a Democratic president.
It's a fact and there's not one of you tea baggers that can prove otherwise.
Economic Report of the President:
With twenty years on each side and since some of the ups and downs of the U.S. business cycle lie beyond the direct control of policymakers, one would expect similar results in the two groups. Not so. Instead, one discovers below a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.
% Per Annum
Democrat
GDP Growth 4.1%
Employment 2.9%
CPI 4.0% 5.1%
DJIA 8.1% 6.5%
Dollar +0.8% -3.6%
Republican
GDP Growth 2.9%
Employment 1.7%
CPI 3.0%
DJIA 0.9%
Dollar -5.9%
Fen - You can whine and bitch and cry and throw shit at the facts, but we all know you're just an uneducated tea bagger who could care less about our president succeeding or America getting through this recession.
Why waste your time posting tea bagger drivel when you could pick up a newspaper or even a book and educate yourself?
Facts don't lie...but you do on a regular basis.
You're a little man with little to say.
JeremyLibtard: just as the real estate market was tanking and the banks were holding out their hands to little Georgie for their 800 billion dollar bailout. (Why aren't you whining about that?)
Actually, alot of people were here complaining about Frannie and Freddie. People like you called them racists.
JeremyLibtard: blah blah blah tea bagger blah tea bagger
blah blah blah
I'm not part of the Tea Party
And no, you still cant suck my balls, sicko perv.
Go back to your NAMBLA rally.
JeremyLibtard: Historically, the economy has always done better under a Democratic president.
Jimmy Carter? Echo?
Clinton, yes. But only beacause of the "Peace" Dividend gift from Bush.
The current economic mess was created by Dems in Congress. Bush even went to them twice, warning about Frannie and Freddie, warning that the bubble would burst. For that, he was called a racist.
JeremyLibtard: And chocolate rations have been increased to 20 g a week. And I'm infatuated with teabagging. Can I suck your balls please?
*snicker*
If you had an argument that could stand on its own, you wouldn't need to constantly spice it with ad homs.
Fen - You really need to start reading before posting.
You sound like an uneducated little kid who's trying to play with the adults.
And why are you throwing your fellow tea baggers under the bus?
Are you ashamed?
Jeremy, whats even more dishonest than your usual is the way you credit a Democrat President for a good economy that was actually created by his predecessor.
Unless its a bad economy, then you excuse the Democrat President and blame his predecessor.
Fen - "The current economic mess was created by Dems in Congress."
This is precisely why I say you're uneducated.
The Republicans were in the majority of Congress for approximately 12 of the past 14 years, and Bush held the White House for 8 of the past 91/2 years, yet you somehow feel the minority was running the government.
The recession (ONCE AGAIN)...BEGAN...in December of 2007.
The Bush administration (and yes, the Democrats certainly carry some of the blame) were asleep at the switch...and that's how we got where we are.
You and other suddenly feel president Obama is the one who should shoulder the blame for a recession that began way before he even took office or was even elected.
Yet you push aside any suggestion that your little favorite, Georgie...had anything to do with it.
That's just tea bagger bullshit and any thinking person (who reads) knows it, too.
Throw all the shit and lies you want, Fen...but even you know you're lying and skewing the actual facts so you can look good to your fellow wing nut buddies.
JeremyLibtard: blah blah teabagger blah blah teabagger blah
Flirt with me all you like, you still cant suck my balls.
You sound like an uneducated little kid who's trying to play with the adults.
Classic projection. Your mommy pays your electric bill.
Fen - If indeed, you can actually read...take another shot at digesting this, because what you're saying is not born out by the historical FACTS.:
Economic Report of the President:
With twenty years on each side and since some of the ups and downs of the U.S. business cycle lie beyond the direct control of policymakers, one would expect similar results in the two groups. Not so. Instead, one discovers below a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.
% Per Annum
Democrat
GDP Growth 4.1%
Employment 2.9%
CPI 4.0% 5.1%
DJIA 8.1% 6.5%
Dollar +0.8% -3.6%
Republican
GDP Growth 2.9%
Employment 1.7%
CPI 3.0%
DJIA 0.9%
Dollar -5.9%
Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents.
If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result.
There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Fen - "The current economic mess was created by Dems in Congress."
Libtard: This is precisely why I say you're uneducated.
Coming from you, thats doesn't mean much.
Here's video of the GOP trying to fix the CRA, and Dems likes you calling them racist for trying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Libtard: There's just no way around it
Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.
And next time you steal someone else's propaganda, at least put a link up.
Fen - Why not take a shot at actually researching the facts before posting tea bagger drivel you rely upon?
My job isn't to provide you with the research, nor the links.
If you feel it's in error, then find something other than your own wing nut opinions to dispute it.
All you do is repeat the same bullshit anyone can hear via Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest of the liars who want our own president to fail.
It's the GOP's only chance...because they offer absolutely nothing of substance to shore up their party of "NO" behavior.
Fen - Oh, and I love your dismissal of "statistics."
What exactly do YOU use to support economic data?
Ball sucking contests?
Libtard: What exactly do YOU use to support economic data?
For starters, I include data that accounts for the fact of every GOP administration having to come in and rebuild Defense and Foreign Policy, ie. we create a Peace Dividend via victory over the Soviets, you squander it in 2 years.
Your "statistics" are more akin to this:
Democrat Libtard spends all his savings on beer and women. Blames Mommy's "malaie" when his power is cut off.
Libtard's Mommy and Daddy pay to have Libtard's clutch fixed, since he squandered the money she lent him to keep his car maintained.
Democrat Libtard spends squanders his parent's surplus on cattle futures and the IT bubble.
Libtard's Mommy and Daddy pay to have Libtard's AC unit replaced, since he cancelled his service contract so he could buy more beer.
Democrat Libtard spends all his savings for the SEIU and Teachers Union to blow him
Post a Comment