You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?

As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years and the data doesn't show Obama has been pathetic. What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly, where aside from the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited) it's been fairly stable and slowly trending downward in a linear fashion.

You're an actuary right? I can email you the data if you want.

he'd have spent twice as much

Actually Barney Frank is to blame .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just spit out my beverage :rotf2:

Oh Jesus...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/31/dow-p...ince-1933.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The Fed, with its seven years of zero rates and $3.7 trillion worth of money printing, has faced criticism for being too market sensitive. Citigroup's Lee called Yellen's speech "a remarkable transfer to markets of the FOMC's authority to set future policy rates."

For investors, the question ahead will be how long the Fed can continue to keep the market afloat. "

The clothes make him look younger 👍🏻
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?"

Nebe, not I, used 2000 as the baseline to compare to.

"What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly,"

GDP growth is volatile. But the best opportunitiues for big GDP growth, are the years following a recession. That's what Obama inherited, a major recession. Normally, following such a recession, is when you see th elargest GDP growth. It didn't happen. It's been called the slowest recovery froma recession, ever.

Here is GDP growth by year. In Obama's 8 years, his best year saw 2.5% growth. His average was 1.29%. Compare that to the 8 years before him, and the 8 years before that, etc...I'm not sure "pathetic" is that far off.

During Obama's 8 years (2008 - 2015), average GDP growth was 1.29%.
Average from 2000-2007 = 2.7%
Average from 92-99 = 3.8%
Average from 81-88 (after the Carter years) = 3.5%

An 8-year average of 1.29%, seems pathetic to me.

There are some global things that the POTUS cannot control. For example, Obama is dealing with more outsourcing of manufacturing jobs than Reagan ever had to dela with. An allowance needs to be made for that.

But in the job Obama sought and received, he owns this.

"the Great Recession (the thing Bush started "

Please tell us what Bush did to "start" this? Bush didn't tell people to take out mortgages they couldn't afford. Bush didn't tell banks to get involved in fishy derivitives and credit default swaps. The repeal of Glass Seagell allowed banks to do these things. That law was written by a GOP congress, and signed by Bill Clinton.

"You're an actuary right?"

Yep. I presume you are not one.

"it's been fairly stable "

Oh sweet Jesus. Obama can't get annual GDP growth above 2.5%, but you give him credit for the fact that it's "stable". That it's pathetically low doesn't bother you, all you care is that it's stable.

So according to your "logic" here...if Obama has GDP growth of exactly 1.3% a year (no swings), that's somehow superior to Clinton, who had an 8 year average of 3.8% (almost 3x Obama's average), because Clinton's years had more volatility?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by...DP-History.htm

Why do you quote Spence's post and address me?

If you can't even get the facts of this thread right, how can you juggle economic facts :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because Spence thought it was inappropriate for me to compare the current economy to what it looked like in 2000. But you were the one who did that, not me. I was merely explaining to Spence, that I was responding to what you wrote in post #85..."It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close" - your words...

You have an emoticon, or whatever they are called, for eating crow?

OH OH . . . maybe Cruz is not done :spin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IH1fQHdxYU

Here you go Jim, good thing the GOP doesn't have the immoral depravity of the Democrats...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...snt_count.html

saw today that cruz's name was found in some madam's book

of course it was a trashy tabloid but it Wouldn't

surprise me in the least

If you thought yuo were going to show me as a hypocrite, guess again. If I were a registered Republican in Colorado, I would be livid. I want Trump to fail to get the nomination, but not at any cost.

This is the opposite of democracy, it's disgusting. And it's exactly what youride is doing in every state, with superdelegates.

Makes me want to take my guns and occupy a bird sanctuary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't forget coffee

Snacks. Can't forget snacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sachuest takeover by Nebe🏋🏼🍺
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I used to drive to the tip down a beat up dirt road and have that whole place to myself as a kid. When I was even younger I used to play in the bunkers out there.
There's a good reason to protest there.. (If you hate change)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just caught my eye.....and I was trying to recall what exactly Bush did to "start the Great Recession" thing ? :smash:

quite an epic mess the next President will be inheriting from Obama...:uhuh:

Oh for Christ's sake, did he really say that "Bush" started it?

Spence, in your own words, please expand. Bush forced people to take out reckless mortgages??

The repeal of Glass Seagell (spelling), I think, is what allowed banks to get in the business of swapping these fishy mortgages, derivitives, and credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations (only Stephen Hawking understands these things). A Republican Congress repealed the restrictions that allowed banks to get into these risky businesses, and Bill Clinton took his wang out of the intern pool just long enough to sign that into law. If that is somehow Bush's fault, I would just love an explanation as to how.

Bush single-handedly caused the 2008 crisis. What did Bush do Spence, to cause this?

And you work in business in some capacity?

Clinton started th Great Recession with Nafta. Bernie frank pushed the mortgage crisis. Bush pushed us into perpetual war.
Screw the establishment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And here I thought that the pepole who declared war on us, and brought us to our knees on 09/11, had something to do with that.

You want to go there ?

Please explain in detail how Iraq was connected to 9-11 and how they posed a risk to the safety of the United States. While you are thinking on this take time to consider the outcome if Iraq had no oil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Waiting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say Iraq? If you're waiting to catch me saying that Iraq was connected to 09/11, be patient, you are in for a long wait.

Yes, oil. So the fact that Saddam agreed to end the first war (which he started, not us), an dthen he failed to live up to the obligations, had nothing to do with it.

Can you answer a question. If it wass all about oil, why did we give Saddam so many chances to avoid war, by fulfilling his obligations? How many warnings did we, and the UN, give him? You can make a compelling case we should not have invaded. I don't think you can make a case it was all about oil. Who got that oil? I mean, we won the war, where did the spoils go?

China got the first dibs at the oil. Now scratch your head on that one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not totally true. Nobody got dibs, the difference is that US oil companies need to make a profit where as the Chinese just want to secure the energy. Iraq isn't giving it away for free. I think Bush and Co made a gross over-estimation to the influence the US could really bring.

Funny, you overthrow the dictator to promote democracy...then you have to deal with the democracy.

The fact is... China got the oil first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device