Obamanomics

| June 3, 2019

economics

Here’s our Poetrooper with another article, this one about how well (or not) the previous administration handled the largest economy on the planet. Don’t worry about the charts; I’ll take them at face value until I see the data behind them.

Here’s Poe:
The Obama economic disaster revealed in one glance

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has produced a summary report showing key performance measurements of America’s economy during the eight years of Obama/Democrat malfeasance. It’s another trip through the looking glass where everything that should be up is down while everything that should be down is up, and in the case of student loans, food stamps and federal debt, up stratospherically. Here’s the snapshot from Gateway Pundit:

obamanomics

When your liberal friends and relatives go on a silly rip about how great Obama’s economy was, whip this out—and be sure to point out that these numbers aren’t from a Republican source, but rather are analyses from the politically independent Federal Reserve, performing one of their assigned federal functions. Gaze upon these graphs for a while and contemplate whether or not the Obama administration was embarked upon a Cloward-Piven strategy to bring this nation to such a precarious and perilous financial state as to justify a massive federal seizure of local programs and local governance, centralizing all power in Washington, DC, the Democrat dream.

We dodged a bullet by keeping Hillary Clinton from continuing this destructive social, financial and amoral race to the abyss. Many of us reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 as the lesser of two evils. We shall vote for him in 2020 as the savior of this great nation that Obama couldn’t kill.

Thanks, Poe, and keep ’em coming.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Economy, Guest Post, Taxes

Comments (123)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    “…but rather are analyses from the politically independent Federal Reserve, performing one of their assigned federal functions.” Oh, that word – independent – is painful for dumbocraps to read. It makes their heads explode.

    Dadburnit, Poetrooper, you just shot a hole in all those claims of ‘wunnafulla, wunnafulla’ hogwash about that administration.

    What’s next? Are you gonna prove that carbon dioxide is NOT a heat source and get the Greenbeans and AlGoreans and Warmunistas screeching hideous noises at us all?

    By the skin of our teeth, it was. Thanks!!!!

  2. 5th/77th FA says:

    I don’t need no stinkin chart to tell the difference in MY economy from just the short time that dTrumpster and the other adults took the helm. I can look at a payroll voucher or my 401K.

    That being said, until the seagull swoops in with his empirical data, we won’t know the true story. /SARCASM/

  3. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Oh, shit… Poe gonna trigger someone… all that collected and massaged empiric data gonna get flushed down the crapper.

  4. Hondo says:

    Um, a link to larger versions of the charts that one can actually read – or a link to their source – is needed.

    As the old proverb says: “Доверяй, но проверяй” (Latin alphabet: “Doveryai, no proveryai”; translation: “Trust, but verify”.) That’s alway a good strategy, and we should always facilitate that regarding claims made in articles here.

    It’s been my experience that those with nothing to hide are quite willing to provide references.

    • Poetrooper says:

      Hondo, I first came across this at either Breitbart or Daily Caller. Finding it interesting, I then followed their link to Gateway Pundit, where, by the way, it is somewhat easier to read. At GP I followed the link to the Federal Bank of St. Louis site but after a cursory search could find nothing more regarding the provenance of the graphs. Back at Gateway, I found link to the author of the piece and then found this at Amazon regarding that person:

      “Ted Malloch―bon vivant, scholar, diplomat, businessman, sportsman … brings us along on some of his greatest adventures.” ―Linda Bridges, Editor-at-Large, National Review

      “A former Yale professor and senior business executive whose contact list includes the most powerful leaders in business, media and politics, Ted Malloch has seen it all, done it all, and now is telling all. From his appointment as sergeant in the Toilet Patrol (reserved for children deemed “gifted”) to his appointment as scholar-diplomat by the US State Department to a peek behind the curiosity curtain at the Davos meeting to how he lost millions in the dot-com bubble to his one-person seminar for the chairman of Toyota, it’s all here. With names.”

      Thinking that the graphs should be reliable if a major site like Breitbart or Daily Caller had validated them by posting, I wrote my short piece and fired it off to Thomas Lifson at American Thinker who also posted it.

      Whatever its provenance, or even its accuracy, it sure triggered our resident snowflake, didn’t it? I’d say Ed was justified in posting it just for its entertainment value. Little Larsie hasn’t had his panties twisted into such a knot in recent memory.

      God I love this Internet. I find it quite satisfying when an old geezer in Arkansas can tweak a silly twit way out there in Berkeley like this. In fact I do believe this posting establishes a new record for the number of times Larsie girl tells me I’m fulla shit on a single article.

      Gotta love it–thank you Al Gore!

    • Fjardeson says:

      Hondo, reminds me of something my Dad taught me when I was young.

      “Trust your friends, but cut the cards.”

  5. Commissar says:

    No links to the source?

    You are full is shot Poe. As usual. Though these regulars will lap it up because they WANT to believe.

    The economy under Obama went from the disaster in in Bertie’s during the financial crisis to a booming economy. Not everyone was doing well and not every metric was great. Which is what liberals have been saying about the status quo do both the way our economy is structured not working well for too many to justify and the way we measure the strength not reflecting the reality in most people’s lives.

    However, by every major metric that generally currently used to measure the economy the trend lines were very positive. All these trend lines are the same performance metrics Trump is using to take credit for an economy he merely inherited and then added nitrous to by both a trillion in tax cuts and a trillion in deficit spending.

    Link your source. I looked on the bank’s publication page and while there are dozens of reports over the Obama years none of the summaries indicate there is a report that has the conclusions you claim.

    Link the report.

    Either you are completely full of crap or you cherry picked a few charts that have downward lines.

    The same damn metric democrats have been saying is wrong with the economy.

    And the same damn metric that are STILL wrong with the economy under Trump.

    Poe you have been a political propagandist for three decades and you know it.

    • Commissar says:

      Damnit I hate trying to type long responses on my phone a few typos in a row and autocorrect just substitutes random words.

      Whatever.

      TLDR version; Poe is full of shit.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        “Damnit I hate trying to type long responses”

        I hate it when you succeed.
        Try to paraphrase. Please.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Where are YOUR links to sources, birdbrain?

        You have none. You have nothing but that deep-seated, boiling hatred toward anything and everything that isn’t DEMOCRAP!! You wallow in it.

        Too predictable for words.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      You’re full of shit as usual. What do you plan on doing after UC Berzerkely? I myself wouldn’t even hire you to be my Night Janitor, you’re way too damned antisocial!

      • Commissar says:

        Infidel, you have demonstrated you lack even the most basic foundation of understanding of politics or economics to make any assessment of whether someone is full of shoot on either topic.

        I have met people more clueless than you but they did not care or make any effort to learn about economic or politics.

        You on the other hand show interest and effort yet remain clueless.

        It is sad.

    • Hondo says:

      Actually, those indeed appear to be screenshots of FRED Charts produced via using online databases of Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) maintained by the St Louis Federal Reserve. I’ve seen (and created) enough of them myself to recognize them – and I’d expect someone who claims to be an “economic expert” such as yourself would recognize them as well.

      Unfortunately, those examples above – which do IMO appear genuine – are not of sufficiently high resolution to allow them to be clearly read. In particular, the text denoting precisely what data is used and the precise data range cannot be made out. Higher resolution charts are needed, or links/info necessarty to reproduce them from StL FRED databases should be provided. (They can be reproduced independently by querying StL FRED databases – IF one knows what specific databases and date ranges were used.) The raw data can also be downloaded and independently analyzed, if one desires and has the time and ability.

      You might want to hold off on call someone “full of crap” until more info is available, Poodle. I suspect the charts above will turn out to be quite genuine – and quite damning. In particular, I’ve seen enough data on the US Civilian Labor participation rate to know that chart is broadly accurate, but may cut off earlier than this year.

      • Commissar says:

        I am not saying the charts are not genuine. But they are at best cherry picked.

        The economic trend by nearly every major metric was extremely positive from the economic collapse he inherited to when he left office.

        So there is no way a Fed Bank has any publication that concludes that the trend under Obama was overall anything but positive and the economy was stronger when he left than when he took over.

        However, like liberals have been saying for decades; the economy and the way we measure it has not been good for everyone and the reality of there are a lot of metrics that show deep unsustainable flaws.

        However, Poe is using different cherry picked metrics to measure Obama’s performance than anything he would use to measure Trump. Since the those areas that liberals have been complaining about have not improved under Trump and the metrics I can make-out in his chart image are still as bad or worse under Trump.

        He may have facts. Cherry picked facts. But he is using them to pain a bullshit narrative. This he is full of shit.

      • Commissar says:

        There are explanations for a lot of the issues that show negative and unsustainable economic trends.

        Some are structural changes. Such as the decline of certain industries.

        Some are intentional structural mechanisms that benefit a few over the interests of the averages Americans and often even against free market principles.

        Some are due to global economic grands and greater economic interdependence and the opening of markets without protecting workers.

        Some are changes in the tax code.

        Some are decline in national investment in infrastructure limiting the ability for the economy to grow in some regions of the US.

        Some are a decline in national investment in the skills and capacity of the American worker.

        Some are due to speculative market forces and rules that allow for market and price distorting manipulation. Particularly automated manipulation exploiting loopholes that allow computers to essentially collaborate and price fix. Activities that would be illegal if humans were doing it.

        And so on and so on….

        Our economy is deeply flawed. But the metrics do not support the claim that Obama was incompetent or at fault for he flaws.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          I’m still working on nominating you for a Guinness®™ World Record for being the most full of shit, just be patient.

          • 5th/77th FA says:

            SECOND….Can we get another AYE?

            ps: we had a second and an aye for this nomination on another thread (WOT?). I refuse to acknowledge his aggravating, self centered, egotistical, opinionated, worthy of the Hemisphere of Insults Ass.

        • Poetrooper says:

          Some this, some that–some, some some…

          Larsie, you sound like your fellow traveler, Ilhan Omar, and her description of 9/11 that “Some people did something.” Neither of you can deny the reality that these things happened but you get all choked up when it comes to admitting who the true perps were.

          You know, I’m wondering if you don’t resemble Omar in more ways than just political alignment. Hey, it’s okay if you do–she’s kinda cute for a commie.

        • timactual says:

          “Some are decline in national investment in infrastructure limiting the ability for the economy to grow in some regions of the US.”

          BS. “Build it and they will come” only works in the movies. Makes a good sound bite, though. I’ll bet you also think that building infrastructure for the Olympic games grows the economy, too. And “The bridge to nowhere”.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        And here we have a May 2019 article about the decline in unemployment, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
        https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/tight-labor-market-continues-in-2018-as-the-unemployment-rate-falls-to-a-49-year-low.htm

        “The Nation’s current economic expansion entered its ninth year in 2018. By the end of the year, the economy had grown for 114 months since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009—the second longest economic expansion on record.1 Reflecting this sustained period of economic growth, the U.S. labor market showed continued strength during the year. Steady job growth continued, and the unemployment rate (the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force) fell to a 49-year low. An indepth look into data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) revealed an array of labor market indicators pointed to continued labor market improvement during the year.2 The employment–population ratio (the number of employed people as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and older) continued to rise, and the number of long-term unemployed continued to decrease.3 The survey data also showed that workers in most demographic groups experienced rising employment and declining unemployment in 2018.”

        Rising employment AND declining unemployment in 2018? A 49-year low in unemployment, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Gee whiz, that’s saying that the economy is strong, healthy and doing well, with good prospects for future growth, instead of the dismal prospects insisted upon somebody else.

        It’s a mystery where the poodle gets his information, but it is obviously unsubstantiated and seems more like gossip colored by the slacker/homeless crap going on in his vicinity. Or maybe he’s just intentionally ignorant of what is really happening. Don’t know, don’t care.

        I do know that the commuter traffic on the highways has NOT diminished at all; commuter rail services are being forced to add more routes and more trains to accommodate the working population; and the uptick in urban/inner city housing purchases and new builds is going into neighborhoods that were once considered bad places.

        Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this uptick in everything is not intentionally paying attention, and/or does not want to face the reality of REAL statistics.

        • Thunderstixx says:

          I thought they banned his poodledicked ass…..

        • LC says:

          The Nation’s current economic expansion entered its ninth year in 2018. By the end of the year, the economy had grown for 114 months since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009—the second longest economic expansion on record.

          Ninth year… 2018… hang on, let me do the math… oh, right, so basically President Obama inherited a crashing economy and turned it around? Never picked you as a dirty lib, Ex-PH2!

          There are so many different market indices that you can, certainly, cherry pick the ones you like that support a given position. Using the BLS statistics or DJIA as a proxy, the Obama years did pretty well. Here’s a fun DJIA tool that lets you plot the market between two dates:

          https://quotes.wsj.com/index/DJIA/advanced-chart

          Fun fact: Both these statements can be true – (1) Obama was good for the economy, and (2) Trump has been good for the economy.

          • Poetrooper says:

            LC, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the indices you cite; the fact is the Obama administration was on a mission to snuff out fossil fuels. They were hostile to absolutely everything to do with coal production and did their very best to restrict petroleum growth.

            Their mission was not to advance America but to press forward with their campaign to eliminate fossil fuels production, the very things that have now restored America to her prominence in the world.

            Quite simply, Obama was wrong, clearly wrong, unless, of course, his real goal was to take this country down. Considering the primary characters who influenced his upbringing, I’d say that’s a valid consideration.

            • LC says:

              Ah, the proverbial “I reject your reality and insert my own”. The indices I cited (well, Ex-PH2 cited one, and I linked a tool to give you the public DJIA trend over time) ran counter to your argument, so you stick your fingers in your ears.

              And I just looked up some oil numbers for fun – could probably do the same with coal. Using the US Government’s numbers for crude oil production here [1], and using the monthly values since yearly only go to 2017, we can see that that horrible monster, President Obama, averaged a meager month-to-month growth of 0.58% during Jan-1-2009 -> December-31-2016. This contrasts to President Trump’s quite better average growth of 1.18%, or roughly 0.6% higher. But here’s the kicker – during President Bush’s terms, that same average month-to-month growth was a whopping… 0%. So if Obama was doing everything he could to take down America, .. what was Bush doing?

              [1] Source: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m

              Put differently, US crude oil production was 37% higher under Obama than Bush, and if current trends hold, under Trump it’ll be 46% higher than Obama. Good if you’re into oil, but I’m still not seeing Obama as the oil antichrist there.

              And yeah, how horrible of him to try to get the most advanced country in the world in the high-tech world of renewable energy before China corners that market. That’s just terrible, obviously.

              I’ll add another fun fact – we can produce oil and invest in renewable energy at the same time.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                Renewable energy is proving repeatedly ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD to be a failure. You want renewable energy? Fine. Hook yourself up to it.

                Reliable eneergy: in 15 years in this house I’ve had two power outages, both due to bad weather and nothing else.

                Renewables: the power goes out on a recurring basis DAILY.

                I keep track of those things. You don’t. And done’t start preaching at me, LC. There are only TWO reliable sources of electricity: carbon-based fuesl, e.g., coal and gas, and nuclear energy. Hydro? Dams are being demolished because the Greenbeans want them gone because FISH!!!

                • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

                  Very true. Hydroelectric Power is very renewable as well as zero emissions, but the greenie-weenies…

              • Hondo says:

                I’ll add another fun fact – we can produce oil and invest in renewable energy at the same time.

                Sure we can. But ALL of the viable “renewable” energy has ecological baggage and/or other shortcomings that are being grossly downplayed or outright ignored.

                Tidal? Messes with fish migration. Ditto for hydro.

                Solar? Done on a commercial scale, it has a huge impact (there’s only so much incident solar per square meter at any point on earth, so for commercial production it requires a BIG area for collectors). And good luck making it economically viable everywhere on earth to produce base load power (not available 24/7/365 anywhere on earth).

                Wind? Please. Not ready for prime time, and kills endangered birds. Also not particularly useful on calm days.

                Biofuels? CO2 emissions from biofuels are no different from those from oil – and extracting/processing them may actually cost more in terms of overall energy than they save in oil consumption avoided. Although methanol/methane production from cellulose waste would be a good idea – the CO2 will be produced during decomposition anyway, so you might as well get something useful out of it.

                There is one possibility, but environmentalists will scream like they’re being burned alive if you suggest it. That’s breeder reactor nuclear coupled with fuel reprocessing/re-use to produce both base load power and hydrogen. The threat from power-reactor-fuel-derived plutonium being used to make a nuclear bomb is, to be charatible, low enough to be negligible. And hydrogen could replace hydrocarbon fuels very nearly “drop in” with some advances in metallurgy and plastics technology. The resulting nuclear waste could be glass-encapsulated and put in a deep, stable geological formation far below ground. That would buy us about 100 years or so to come up with something better. But good luck convincing the eco-nuts to do anything that involves nuclear. To them, “Nuclear . . . baaaaaaad!” is dogma.

            • NHSparky says:

              Don’t forget nukes. Despite his public prattles, he did everything he reasonably could to kill nuclear power’s future, including his appointment of one if the most virulent toxic anti-Nuke hacks to run of all places, the NRC.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Let me see if I understand this: I cite a valid source, include the backup, and that makes me a liberal???

            LC, you keep proving what a mordant idiot you are. I don’t play politics, you jackass. Keep your insults to yourself.

            • LC says:

              You cited a valid source that shows how well the economy did under Obama. Ergo, I called you a liberal. It’s called a light joke, Ex-PH2.

              • NHSparky says:

                Except the economy wasn’t doing all that well. For the first time in recorded history, Obama was the first president to NEVER have a year of 3 percent growth.

                Ever.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                Uh, no, the economy did NO do well under Obama. Unemployment was up substantially, in case you’ve forgotten, LC.

                It’s NOT a joke to call me a liberal, you mope, so stuff it.

                • LC says:

                  Here’s the unemployment stats right from BLS. Call me crazy, but it seems like it skyrocketed during the economic crash (before Obama, in other words), continuing that trend early in his Presidency because you don’t change a ship’s direction on a dime, and then.. what’s that? Oh, yes, year-after-year of improvement until getting back to, and then exceeding, pre-crash levels.

                  https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

                  Or, in simpler form – the unemployment rate in Jan 2009 was 7.8%, and in Jan 2017 it was 4.7%. If that’s ‘up substantially’, I have a bridge to sell you.

                  Also, since the economy is a huge thing, it’s worth pointing out that other economic indicators did great — as I showed below, the markets were showing better growth under Obama at this point in his Presidency than under Trump now. Now, that’s partly because they tanked in the crash, but the fact remains – if you invested $100K in a DJIA indexed fund on Obama’s inauguration, you had $241K the day he left office.

                  • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                    LC – check the numbers out at this link. “The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Many consider it a true indicator of unemployment

                    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

                  • Hondo says:

                    You are aware that the “official” unemployment figure (U3, to be precise) counts as “employed” anyone regularly working even 1 hr/week , right? So everyone who lost full-time work and who can’t now find full-time employment because, say, employers cut full time jobs to avoid Obamacare is counted as “employed” – even if working only a handful of hours weekly.

                    Further, U3 counts only those who’ve actively looked for work within the recent past (4 weeks, if memory serves) – e.g., it doesn’t count discouraged workers who’ve quit looking. Many of those start seeking employment again during a bona fide recovery, when jobs become more plentiful.

                    As a measure of “recovery”, U3 unemployment is effectively worthless. It can actually go down at the same time as the number of jobs is also declining if more people become discouraged and quit looking for work than jobs are lost in a given month.

                    Call me when the US labor participation rate begins rising consistently. If you want a single metric of economic healh regarding employment, that’s the one to look at. And, frankly, it’s still in the toilet.

                    • LC says:

                      All statistics are worthless outside of context – labor participation rate has issues, too, but if we look at those numbers -which have been falling for men 25-54 for fifty years– we see a minor drops or no change up to 2008, then a dramatic -0.6% change to 2009, and that accelerated into 2010.. before slowing down the rate of loss. In 2016 we had a net gain.

                      The way I read that, it’s like being in a car going in the wrong direction – following the crash, employers were a little gunshy on hiring and we were heading in the wrong direction. Per the car analogy, you can’t turn something big on a dime, so the next few years still saw us heading in the wrong direction.. but the rate changed. We lost fewer participants each successive year. It slowed enough in 2015 that come 2016, it gained again.

                      In 2017 it gained the same amount (0.1), and in 2018 it gained nothing. So far, in 2019, the yearly average is a gain of 0.2 – January was a huge 0.5 gain, but it didn’t last. Let’s see what the rest of the year brings.

                      I personally couldn’t care less who the President in when it comes to this; I like to see Americans working. If the numbers go up under President Trump, I’ll be elated. But to ignore the effect of the 2008 crash on these things is asinine.

                      Also, you know there’s a huge discussion about reasons for changes in the labor force – everything from an aging population to people going back to school during prime earning years. I’ll make you a bet it doesn’t cross 66% in Trump’s presidency – if the downturn was that horrible Obama guy’s fault, it should go back up, right? Let’s see.

                    • Hondo says:

                      66%? Hell, LC – I’d be estatic if it got back to 65%. That would be about 5M more people working.

                      There’s historical precedent for it taking literally around 5 years to recover after a clueless administration did its damnedest to FUBAR the US economy. Take a look at Carter’s gang of fools followed by Reagan’s 1st term. From 1979 to 1984, the labor participation rate was essentially stagnant at around 63%, give or take a percent. It wasn’t until around 1984 that the US LPR began steady growth again.

                      That means it took Reagan’s Administration nearly 3 1/2 years to undo Carter’s 4 years of economic mismanagement. Yeah, Carter really did eff up managing the US economy that badly.

                      And the clueless Administration running DC between Jan 2009 and Jan 2017 had twice as long to FUBAR things as did Carter.

          • USMC Steve says:

            Lars, at least you are a consistent socialist democrat Marxist. The real demonstrable fact is that Obama was an incompetent fool intent on damaging our country and he could not pull it off. Though he certainly tried. And the inescapable fact that must just PISS you off to no end it that Trump has unfucked just about everything that Homey the Klown did to us, and our country, at least for the producing sorts who are not insane, is waaay on the upsurge. Other countries aren’t screwing us over every day, people pay less tax to a greedy government, and the socialist democrats are pretty much unable to continue their swath of destruction under Obama. Suck it up lad. You and your kind LOST.

          • USMC Steve says:

            Except the actual facts clearly show in the real world Obama was NOT good for anyone but himself. If you look at the jobs supposedly added, which the BLS apparently did not, almost all were part time shit jobs like burger flipping. If you further look at interest rates during his regime, they were drastically dropped, a sign of a realy sick economy, and stayed almost flat for nearly eight years. I also watched the stock market for eight years of Obama and with over 150,000.00 invested, throughout that time, I made a total of roughly 860.00. The stock market was very cautious and depressed his entire tenure. Most of the folks I know in the Market had similar results. With the same investments under Trump’s economy, I have made over 2600.00 thus far. I don’t know what economic expansion those idiots are talking about, but it is not a real one under that fool Obama.

          • NHSparky says:

            Hardly. Remember when Obama told us that 2% GDP growth was the new normal?

            Now consider the population expands by 3%, on average.

            So yeah, the economy wasn’t even keeping up with population growth. Less to spread around more people = declining standard of living overall.

            • rgr769 says:

              But that 3% likely doesn’t include all the illegal alien invaders, such as those crossing our borders illegally, and all the visa overstays, as we have no firm numbers or reasonable estimates as to how many of them there are. 12 to 22 million is a pretty big swing.

          • timactual says:

            Why is it that government fans think only government action can grow an economy? Growing and expanding is the natural, default, character of economies. Government “aid” generally only moves the growth from one area to another by taking resources from one group of people and giving them to another group of more politically powerful people. Just another form of “churning”, as Wall St. calls it. Or, to paraphrase a dead white male, “A program(s) full of sound and fury, but improving nothing”.

            • LC says:

              Why do you assume I’m a fan of government, or that I think Obama personally had much to do with any of the growth during his time? Because both are generally false.

              However, some of the complaints here are just ludicrous. USMC Steve made a whopping 0.6% in the market when the DJIA averaged 240%? That’s bullshit, pure and simple. Just as people here don’t like Obama, it doesn’t change the historical data. I know plenty of people who don’t like Trump, but if a liberal tells me tomorrow that Trump is terrible for the economy and they lost money on the market, that’s on them – there isn’t some new reality where the market took a nosedive after his election. Far from it.

    • JarHead Pat says:

      That`s what happens when you are sucking a old hippies commie dick and trying to type on your capitalist phone, please do one at a time, however would I get along without your POTUS bashing ###FEELDABERN2020 right comrade lolololol

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        Bernie Sanders, the idiot Socialist who has NEVER had a real job in the Private Sector, the politician who has become rich since being elected a United States Senator, the socialist who owns multiple homes, the politician who threw in the towel on running for President after getting a sweetheart deal on a waterfront home,…

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      “Link your source.”
      “Link the report.”

      Pretty ballsy, Lars… how many times have many of us here asked for proof of your “facts” or “empiric data”, and you’ve ignored it?

      Hypocrisy, thy name is Lars Taylor!

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        He has no sources, Senior Chief. If someone provides a backup or reference for something, he disputes it but never provides any reference or backup because he’s larstaylor and doesn’t have to.

      • Commissar says:

        When I use links in my posts they get filtered.

        I can start trying again since my posts now seem to get less filtered than they did in the past.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          That is pure BS, Taylor.

          Other people who post here use links repeatedly and they are NOT filtered.

          It’s bad enough that you constantly dispute everyone else’s viewpoint with no references at all, but when you add some sort of “discrimination because LINKS” to it, you are digging the hole you’re in deeper and deeper.

        • Hondo says:

          As far as I know, Poodle, your posts are not selectively filtered if they contain links.

          EVERYONE’S posts are put in pending if they contain more than a certain number of links. Jonn set that up years ago as a first-level filter to cut down on spam (much of which contains little more than lists of links hawking questionable products).

          You’d know that already if you’d ever bothered to do your homework by reading the site FAQ (now “READ BEFORE YOU POST”) link in the top site banner (see item 18). But apparently doing so is too much work for you.

        • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

          Don’t pull that “my posts are filtered” bullshit, Taylor. You’re posts are put in moderation because of your vitriol… you RARELY post anything with links here to back up your claims. How come I can post links with no problem, even when I have multiple links in a single post?

          Another lie from you… goes up there with lying about why Jonn banned you. It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it? DA MAN is keepin’ you down again?

        • timactual says:

          “When I use links in my posts they get filtered.”

          Curious. None of the rest of us seem to have that trouble. Did you get a waiver for your AFQT score?

    • Poetrooper says:

      “Poe you have been a political propagandist for three decades and you know it.”

      Actually, I don’t–do you have any data to support your claim?

      Heh…

    • Berliner says:

      Truth hurts… sorry for your pain, seek meds.

  6. Ex-PH2 says:

    Cloward & Piven: that sounded familiar. I knew I’d read some of their stuff a while back. Here it is:

    The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.

    Geniuses! This is where that utterly brilliant /s twit Occasionally-Conscious got part of her “guaranteed income” idea in her Green Nude Eel proposal. Brilliant! She did miss the point of that proposal, but she misses the point of a lot of things.

    • David says:

      hell, I was wondering what a Christian comedian and a manic actor had in common…

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        No, those are OTHER guys.

        This Cloward & Piven pair did their work and released this in the 1960s.

    • rgr769 says:

      Actually, the first step of the Cloward-Piven strategy is to create a mass of low/underclass people to overload existing welfare/benefit systems in order to collapse them. This, according to Cloward & Piven would eventually crater government systems, leading to a socialist revolution, ending our representative republic. That is why the D-rats and their useful tools want to keep the illegal alien invasion “progressing.”

      P.S.: AW, did you post this article just to trigger the Squidward?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Naw, he didn’t do that, did he? Naw, it was just a good article that provides useful information, right? Right?

      • Thunderstixx says:

        Unfortunately for those that believe in the Cloward Piven strategy and the result that there will be a socialist revolution resulting in a socialist state after the government has been overwhelmed are taking the wrong side.
        The revolution started by the overload of losers won’t result in a socialist takeover…
        Think about this, the socialists don’t have the guns, they may have some armed protection, but I sincerely doubt that no matter how much that armed security is paid, I doubt they will keep going after the people looking to get rid of the socialists after most of that security detail has been shot.
        This is real life, and we capitalists are the ones with the guns and we WILL be damned before we let people like the poodlefucking asswipe take them away from us…..
        In other words, this isn’t an Equalizer movie or John Wick movie where security continues to hunt them after the majority has been killed…
        They’re all dumbfucks and they really need to watch what the ask for, they just might get it…

        • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

          There won’t be a revolution to start things off that model is suspect in my opinion, socialism is usually voted in piece by piece. Often using such emotionally clad terms as, “for the children” “to help the poor” or my personal favorite, “what’s fair”…

          For me socialism in a nation like ours never comes at the point of a gun, that is however the only way to get rid of it after it’s destroyed your infrastructure and economy.

          Socialism, you can vote your way in but you have to shoot your way out.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            So are you saying, VOV, get some range time in?

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            SOCIALISM, a form of Government so terrific that it has to be kept upon a population at gunpoint once inflicted.

            “I RISKED LIFE AND LIMB to escape from Capitalism!” said no sane person ever.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          The dumbass socialists screech that they want to start a Revolution while at least 90% of them can’t even start a lawnmower or figure out which bathroom to use!

          • A Terminal Lance Coolie says:

            And that, API, is why I’m not worried about a armed revolution against the current government, just the one that comes after…

      • AW1Ed says:

        No, I posted this because Poetrooper is one of the several members I edit for. We had a bit of back-and-forth about the charts, and he convinced me to post. That Lars would be on this like a duck on a June bug was patently obvious, and I for one would have been disappointed if he didn’t show.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    Whatever. TLDR version; Poe is full of shit. – L.Taylor

    No, he’s spot on! Nailed it completely, including the reference to Cloward & Piven.

    And here’s the Fed’s chart of recession probabilities from July 1967 through March 2019.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RECPROUSM156N

    And I can certainly find more such information with no difficulty.

    To say that no one is impressed with Lars Taylor’s public exhibits of angst, bile and spittle is an extreme understatement. Anyone with a basic scan of employment statistics, wages and housing purchases/starts can figure out that things are thriving.

    Keep it up, Poetrooper!

    • Commissar says:

      Your post shows a spike to 100% probability of recession DURING the 2008-2010 recession.

      It is tautological to show that there is a 100% chance of a recession during a recession.

      That recession was already underway when Obama took office.

      Then we recover under Obama and by the end of his administration the probability of recession was less than 1% and essentially the normal background noise level of recession.

      So you link does not support Poe’s claims or your in any way whatsoever.

      Do you even understand the stuff you read and draw “conclusions” from?

      Also, did you bother to notice the huge 10 fold increase in probability of recession over the last year? Under Trump. Go ahead and scale the chart to the 1y tab.

      • Thunderstixx says:

        You must be talking about the summer of recovery where 500K jobs/mo were going to be added…
        Ummmmmmmm…………
        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
        What a dumbass !!!
        So tell me, do you really take stupid lessons or are you just born that way poodlefuck ???
        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          I remember that load of horse manure announced in 2010. Two years later, CNN asked ‘where’s the recovery?’

          https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/opinion/thune-obama-jobs/index.html

          President Obama claimed that “the economy is headed in the right direction,” and Vice President Joe Biden confidently predicted the creation of 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner published an op-ed in The New York Times boldly entitled “Welcome to the Recovery.”
          Two years later, Americans are still waiting for the recovery. Today’s job figures are well below the 250,000 to 500,000 jobs per month that Vice President Biden forecast. This year, the economy created a dismal 77,000 jobs in April and just 69,000 jobs in May, less than half of the 150,000 jobs needed each month just to keep up with population growth. Unemployment, which the White House predicted would shrink below 6% by April 2012, has remained at or above 8% for 40 straight months.
          It doesn’t take an economist to realize the president’s economic policies have spectacularly failed to make things better. – Article
          That’s from CNN, 2012. Amazing it was, how they swapped ends later on when dTrump became the GOPer candidate and Hillary was the one they wanted… and did’t get….

          Two years later and despite the approval for $787 billion in so-called stimulus spending, nothing happened.

      • Hondo says:

        If I remember statistics correctly, the probability of occurrence for something that is known to have already occurred is indeed 100%.

      • Poetrooper says:

        “It is tautological to show that there is a 100% chance of a recession during a recession.”

        How other do you show the chance of a recession during a recession other than to state the chance at 100 percent?

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Poetrooper, that sentence of his doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s either gobbledygook like that with him, or incomplete, ungrammatical non-sentences.

    • rgr769 says:

      See PH2, the Commie-sar is way smarter than you and the rest of us, cuz he was carefully indoctrinated in the People’s D-rat Socialist/crypto-commie school of Berzerkeley. If he reads anything inconsistent with the Party Line, it is a lie and you are stoopid.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Well, it isn’t rocket science to come up with verification of something, is it, rgr769?

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Constantly repeating yourself, which is what YOU do, Taylor, is the substance of tautology. You can’t even use correct terminology.

      The recession you harp on and blame on Republicans began when Bill Clinton, in 1995, turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment act into a scam using HUD to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – BOTH OF THEM – to approve subprimes mortgages to low income applicants.

      Under HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the agency became particularly aggressive, in 2000 making a goal of over $1 trillion in new loans to low-income minority households. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to make at least half of their loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, mainly minorities.

      Banks suddenly found that regulators had the power to refuse their branch expansions or reject a merger if they weren’t making enough loans to otherwise unqualified minority borrowers. So they played along. They made the loans, and Freddie and Fannie bought the loans right back. It was like a game of musical chairs, and the Fed kept the game going in the early 2000s by cutting interest rates.

      Every time Republicans in Congress or President Bush talked about reforming housing programs, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut threw fits, threatening to gum up Congress and implying that GOP lawmakers were racists.

      This started with the DEMOCRATS, you ignoramus. It did NOT start with Republicans. It continued right through into the Obama administration and you cannot blame the Republicans for something that was started by a Democrat President, Bill Clinton.

      Your ignorance of LOTS of things, including financial history, is obvious to even the casual observer.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        In addition to the Charlie Foxtrot of making stupid loans mandatory, the government was “monetizing” them through purchasing loans and bundling them as securities.

        They pr vented bankers from legitimately basing loans on risk, which is 100 percent required of any loan/bank system, then removed the risk through buying it off the bankers.

        Of -course- they made stupid loans fast, and sold them faster.

        The entire system was a plan to wreck the most stable financial system on earth, and wreck everyone else that depends on it.

        Because then, of course, Socialism will finally “make sense”.

        Remove any better system, and we can finally have Socialism in our time, yadda yadda…. no deathcamps this time, and no catastrophic failures, swearsies! And no pesky contrasts with freedom or prosperity.

        That fools try to sell it here is just proof of Fools being Fools.

  8. Claw says:

    The Whiz Wheel®™ was able to spell out the following from the random Scrabble tiles strewn about in the picture:

    “COMMYZAHR”: which spins up a base score of 30. Multipliers of 2 through 11 may be used as the reader deems appropriate./s

  9. 5th/77th FA says:

    Well it sure didn’t take long for this thread to turn to seagull sh^t, did it?

    Why am I not surprised?

  10. 26Limabeans says:

    Under Bush and before, I had decent CD interest income (5-6%)
    Under Obama I got chump change for my CD income (0.5-0.8%)
    Under Orange Man I’m getting (2.5-3%)

    CD’s keep up with inflation. You don’t really make any profit but you don’t lose anything either. During the Obama years preservation of capital was the goal. Banks are sitting on a mountain of cash and Trump is opening the door to opportunity while the Democrats are freaking out that the poverty stricken just might get a decent job and open that door to prosperity.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      To be fair the conditions that led to those higher rates in the first place were often based on the derivative trading of mortgage financing in the market. Conditions that were never going to be able to continue because once the derivative market got a hold of mortgages there was no situation that was going to resolve without a crash. The pressure to generate more revenue through rather “relaxed’ approval of mortgages was immense amongst traders and we saw houses worth nothing being approved for mortgages valued well above the true real estate equity positions.

      Your shitty returns under Obama had nothing to do with his administration and was more inline with market corrections after a crash when all money tightened up.

      With some capital opening back up again you’re seeing a bit of a rise in rate of return, it remains to be seen whether or not 3% GDP expansion will create a rise in returns or your current rates represent the new normal.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        “or current rates represent the new normal”

        I’m betting flat or a slight decrease until the 2020 election. An 18 month CD is the sweet spot today. Maturity on or about election day.

        Trump favors low rates.

      • Commissar says:

        This.

        And both parties are to blame for why the regulatory changes in derivatives and securities markets happened in the first place, why it was unsustainable, and the massive consequences leaving taxpayers and many homeowners holding the bag.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        The crappy returns under Obama had more to do with Bill Clinton’s financial mischief in the 1990s than anything else, so you can still blame it on DEMOCRATS!!!!! 🙂

      • USMC Steve says:

        And WHY do you think the market went to shit under Obama’s regime. Although LC insists it gained l000 percent daily or some such other fictitious shit. It had a lot to do with Obama forcing banks to give loans to scum who could not and would not pay the loans back for homes, and such other socialist endeavors. So, yes, it had much to do with Obama. His policies scared the shit outta investors and they reacted accordingly.

  11. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    It’s easy enough to replicate the charts above at the FRED site.

    Home ownership dropping from a high of 69.4 to a low of 63.4 percent looks bad on a chart that only shows 8 points from 62-70 percent. However not at all unexpected when you consider the real estate crash that occurred after the 2008 bust which had little to do with Obama. He was not a senior legislator nor was he the executive when all the deals and laws were done to escalate the housing bubble during the late 90s early 00s…a six percent drop after the greatest drop in real estate in a hundred years is nothing unusual in any event.

    Trump’s historic low unemployment numbers for blacks and hispanics are numbers that were headed downward under the last years of the Obama administration, Trump has continued that trend but he hardly started it.

    Similarly the idea that food stamp usage rose during the worst economic crash in decades shouldn’t surprise anyone, and again Obama didn’t cause or create any of the conditions that led to that crash.

    There are a great many reasons to dislike the Obama administration. I can name several that have nothing to do with the economy, but blaming him for the aftermath of a devastating housing bubble crash created by previous administrations is an inaccurate assessment for my money.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      “blaming him for the aftermath of a devastating housing bubble crash created by previous administrations is an inaccurate assessment for my money”

      It was his buddies Dodd and Frank who have left the building. Ted can longer speak and Harry is planning his own demise.
      Greenspan gave ample warning.
      Hell. I rode the peak and dumped a dump for major dollars on Greenspans warning.

      Obama made it worse. Much worse.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        Actually Obama made it better for the people he was beholden to as I recall it. Those people weren’t you and I though.

        In a true capitalist society the big banks would have gone belly up and those companies would no longer darken Wall Street with their presence.

        Their owners were smart enough to buy the right politicians to make sure that when the shit hit the fan they’d get a free get out of bankruptcy now card from the administration.

        • Commissar says:

          Yeah. They should have been left to fail.

          Since they used their money to buy politicians to make sure they faced no consequences and to steal trillions from the American people I think they should be lined up against a wall and shot.

          But that is the free market “communist” in me speaking.

          Letting the banks fail the free market part. Lining the bankers against the wall and shooting them for stealing trillions is the “communist” part.

      • Commissar says:

        Nonsense. And to claim “Greenspan gave ample warning” is most ridiculous of all.

        Greenspan was one of the most prominent advocates for the regulatory changes that led to or contributed to the collapse, and he was the most vocal opponent of those actually trying to give warnings of the looming collapse.

        Most famously using deeply flawed and already debunked exotic theory about real estate markets to convince the American people and congress there was nothing to be concerned about.

        His position was 1) that transaction costs in real estate limited the profitability, investment timeline, and volume of real estate speculation thus making a speculative bubble almost impossible. And 2) that there was no duck thing as a national real estate market but instead countless local markets do even if there was a demand (and thus price) collapse in one market there would have to be a corresponding average demand increase across other markets.

        In fact it was those already debunked theories that were being used to justify the high ratings on mortgage backed securities. High ratings that magnified the extent and damage of the collapse since it allowed for a massive influx in capital from funds and state/municipal/organizational accounts that would have otherwise been prohibited from investing in the real speculative real estate/mortgage securities.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Alan Greenspan did NOT do anything of the kind.
          In the early 2000s, when Greenspan presided over cutting interest rates to levels not seen in many decades, which led to subprime mortages later on, he took exactly the opposite tack shortly thereafter.

          In a 2004 speech, he suggested more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to prevailing market interest rates. Under Greenspan’s tenure, interest rates rose.

          This increase reset many of those mortgages to much higher payments, creating even more distress for many homeowners and exacerbating the impact of that crisis. That means that it could have been stopped before the crisis began, but THANKS TO DE3MOCRATS OPPOSITIONS AND OBJECTIONS, it continued and went on until the financial mess CREATED BY A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT AND SUPPORTED BY FRANK AND DODD went belly.

          • Commissar says:

            Greenspan did everything I described and the statements and positions attributed to him were public and easily verified if you had bothered.

            Claiming interest rose under Greenspan is a lie. While interest rates fluctuate during the course of a Chairperson’s tenure Greenspan’s trend line was sharply down.

            You may be remembering he rose rates early in his tenure because inflation was over 5%. But then he lowered them again substantially and they were much lower under his tenure than they were under his predecessor Volcker.

            In fact a primary reason he was appointed was because he was a strong opponent of low interest rates.

            The rest of you post is nonsense and shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the crisis.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Go ahead: DON’T read anything for comprehension. Just look for a chance to start a fight over nothing, as always, Taylor.

            Here we go:
            Alan Greenspan’s Controversial Legacy

            Although he presided over one of the most prosperous periods in American history, Greenspan is remembered by some as making some significant errors. One was in the 1990s when the Federal Reserve took action to slow economic growth in response to fears of inflation. This action resulted in an unforeseen economic downturn. Although Greenspan eventually reversed those actions, in a 1998 speech he conceded that the new economy might not be as susceptible to inflation as he had first thought.

            And although in the early 2000s, Greenspan presided over cutting interest rates to levels not seen in many decades, some criticized those rate cuts as contributing to a housing bubble in the U.S., which resulted in the subprime mortgage financial crisis that began in 2007.

            In fact, in a 2004 speech, Greenspan suggested more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to prevailing market interest rates. Under Greenspan’s tenure, interest rates raised. This increase reset many of those mortgages to much higher payments, creating even more distress for many homeowners and exacerbating the impact of that crisis. Investopedia June 23, 2018 – James Chen. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/alangreenspan.asp

            Greenspan officially supported cutting interest rates but took the opposing view, which was that they should be RAISED.

        • timactual says:

          I think you may be confusing actual real estate with paper real estate. Greenspan is right, speculating in real real estate, where you take actual possession of the land, does make speculation more difficult. Speculating in real estate mortgages, however, is not cumbersome. That is where the problem was/is. You can probably buy and sell a house several times a day while the original purchaser is still living in it, all the while thinking they are the only owners.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      As I indicate above, VOV, it started with Bill Clinton, and continued during the Bush administration with Dodd and Frank bullying Republicans who tried to put a stop to it.

      You cannot blame GOPers for something done by Democrats. Obama was too weakminded and uneducated, despite his Harvard stay, to have been able to stop what had been underway since the Clinton administration.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        Actually I blame both parties, Clinton did not have a Democratic majority and Bush wasn’t held at gunpoint.

        What you refer to is the reality of corporatists in both parties doing the bidding of their masters on a bipartisan level to move the interests of the real power brokers in a direction to obtain even more of the wealth of the nation without regard for the ramifications to the rest of the population.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          True. I can see both sides of that coin, the difference being that Clinton was a bully and Bush was the opposite – didn’t want an “trouble”.

        • USMC Steve says:

          Clinton did indeed have a democrat majority for his first two years. But the stupid assholes were insane then too, and told Clinton he had to do what they told him. Slick Willy was having none of that, so nothing got done during those two years.

      • Commissar says:

        It is absolutely both parties. The regulatory changes that led to the market collapse started in 1982, under Reagan, continued under Bush sr., expanded under Clinton, and Bush and Bush admin folks went out of their way to assure the public everything was fine, and to oppose people trying to warn the public.

        As far as the private sectors there are countless people to blame. Some should have been charged.

        In the public sectors are hundreds of politicians and appointees to blame.

        Greenspan is largely the person who is regarded holding the most blame because he was a prominent advocate of the policies that led to the collapse, a vocal opponent of those warning of a collapse, and in the exact job at the exact time where he could have acted to try to stop or mitigate the impact of a collapse and he had a duty to act.

        If all the presidents I do hold Clinton most at fault. Not just because, like Reagan and Bush, he supported the structural changes that led to the collapse, but because he is a democrat and I consider his support for deregulating the banking and the finance industries a betrayal of the American worker, the middle and lower classes, and democrat voters.

  12. Hondo says:

    FWIW: I’ve done some digging, and the original GP article (which PT didn’t write, but used above as source) does indeed appear to have some serious issues and/or omissions. Without further data, I cannot recommend accepting the conclusions in that article except for those regarding the Civilian Labor Participation Rate – and I can only accept those because in the past I’ve independently located and used the same data, so I know that one to be correct (if incomplete).

    More to follow as time permits.

  13. Roh-Dog says:

    Paulson and Geithner should be in jail, along with Dick Fuld.
    Letting markets choose their own bottom is the definition of free market, what they’ve structured is a engineered economy and that it antithetical to Freedom.
    Be damned the ‘liquidity’.