Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/

Thank you, President Obama.

I'm guessing that around the end of the second week in November they'll suddenly find that this was a mistake and restate.

Yay.

It was evident at lunch how everyone seemed to have a lot of extra spring in their steps because of this news.

CitadelGrad wrote:recession is over

I didn't even get my turn on the swings.

CitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/

Thank you, President Obama.

The Citadel Sucks

What the fuck is your problem? Trying to get fired up for Saturday?

Wow it was over in June of 2009?
I didn't know...or anyone else.

CitadelGrad wrote:What the **** is your problem? Trying to get fired up for Saturday?

Geez, it is Furman Citadel week. What dja expect

CitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/

Thank you, President Obama.

I thought maybe this, like everything else in the last 19 months, was Bush's fault.

ASUG8 wrote:Yay.

It was evident at lunch how everyone seemed to have a lot of extra spring in their steps because of this news.

The stock market certainly had a spring its step today.

that's a very annoying picture

CitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/

Thank you, President Obama.

well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?

AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?

No.

Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?

No.

Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

Z?

crickets......

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?

No.

Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

Do your homework, Jellydonut!!

The methodology DOL uses to determine "unemployment" was modified in 1992 and again in 1996. The "real" figure, unadjusted, is closer to 18.6%. If you include the workforce that have elected to stop looking for work since exhausting their unemployment benefits, the figure breaks 20%. At 50 and having worked since I was 12, I've been through every recession in modern time. I've seen friends lose their jobs, careers, and homes. The current is the worse by far. I'll acknowledge this isn't like The Great Depression (though not alive, my grandparents were all dustbowlers and I had to study and do a term paper on it my SR year, so I'm reasonably familiar with the severity). But to declare that Obama has done a good job economically, would be akin to declaring Bush the wisest President of the past century.

Get real. Obama's "Casey Jones" economic policies shoved the train throttle on full and broke off the brake lever. Absent a congressional change and Obama's being voted out in 2012, this recession will last the remainder of this decade. If, however, Congress gets new leadership and Obama hits the road in '12, it's possible for the economy to establish a toe-hold by late 2013, and return to pre-'06 levels within 3 years.

I REALLY wonder if you actually believe the bullshit you expel, Jelly.

Things were going down the tubes long before Obama came along thanks to 8 years of absolute mismanagement of our country's economic policies by REPUBLICANS (remember, they had 6 YEARS OF POWER!). Obama has at least saved the financial markets.......I'm doing quite well since he became President.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?

No.

Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?

GDP contraction and high unemployment have a pretty strong correlation, yes?

CitadelGrad wrote:I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?

Fed policy didn't cause the recession of the 80's... it played a huge part in fixing it, though. Yeah, I have heard of Paul Volcker... and I've given him quite a bit of credit on here and on AGS for a long time. It's a shame Reagan fired him... and, I'm very glad he's been the head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board for the full of Obama's first term.

CitadelGrad wrote:GDP contraction and high unemployment have a pretty strong correlation, yes?

Yeah. No doubt there's a correlation... But, it lags behind GDP. Unemployment didn't return to acceptable levels in the 1980's recession until almost 2 years AFTER the recession was over. Unemployment actually peaked after the recession officially ended in the 80's recession. Unemployment has peaked in this recession AFTER it was officially over (the peak was October '09).

Saying unemployment is still high doesn't mean we aren't in recovery.

mainejeff wrote:Things were going down the tubes long before Obama came along thanks to 8 years of absolute mismanagement of our country's economic policies by REPUBLICANS (remember, they had 6 YEARS OF POWER!). Obama has at least saved the financial markets.......I'm doing quite well since he became President.

What a canard! Bush led us through a terrorist attack and two wars. Only one of those three economically destructive events was a choice on Bush's part.

Clever Democrats like Clinton know how to surf an economic wave, but Democrats have not been able to create wealth, growth or economic value for nearly a century.

I could use a good slave or two..

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?

Fed policy didn't cause the recession of the 80's... it played a huge part in fixing it, though. Yeah, I have heard of Paul Volcker... and I've given him quite a bit of credit on here and on AGS for a long time. It's a shame Reagan fired him... and, I'm very glad he's been the head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board for the full of Obama's first term.

CitadelGrad wrote:GDP contraction and high unemployment have a pretty strong correlation, yes?

Yeah. No doubt there's a correlation... But, it lags behind GDP. Unemployment didn't return to acceptable levels in the 1980's recession until almost 2 years AFTER the recession was over. Unemployment actually peaked after the recession officially ended in the 80's recession. Unemployment has peaked in this recession AFTER it was officially over (the peak was October '09).

Saying unemployment is still high doesn't mean we aren't in recovery.

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Fed policy did cause the 81-82 recession. This is accepted by every economist in the country, including Volcker. His primary concern was ending high inflation rates by raising interest rates. He knew it would drive the economy into a recession. It was the reason why Carter resisted appointing him to the Fed. Jimmy didn't want to campaign in the '80 election while the country was in a recession. I used to work at the Fed and have seen written comments and video interviews with Volcker who confirmed all of this.

I have no idea why you think Reagan fired Volcker. It simply did not happen. Reagan actually re-appointed Volcker in 1983 despite pressure from many in Congress and on Wall Street that he not do so. Reagan also appointed everyone to the Federal Reserve Board whom Volcker recommended. Reagan was also publicly supportive of Volcker, even when much of the public wanted his head during the period of very high interest rates and recession.

Your unemployment and GDP figures are wrong. The recession of the early 80s lasted from July '81 until November '82. Unemployment in July '81 was 7.2%. Unemployment in November '82 was 10.8%, which was the peak. That rate remained the same in December of '82, then began a decline and did not rise to that level until again until the recent recession.

You claim that unemployment peaked after the end of the early 80s recession. In fact, peak unemployment coincided with the last month of that recession and began falling the next month.

Guys, guys.

Arguing with SK is like arguing with your great aunt with Alzheimer's in the rest home cafeteria. You aren't going to change her mind, and you just need to recognize that she lives on a different planet and does not realize that she has sh!t stains on her moo moo and thinks her first boyfriend from 1939 still lives next door and is real swell.

Tell that to the backlog of cases of people waiting for an initial or reconsideration of their disability claims. Do you know how many people actually admit they got laid off instead of having to "stop work due to my disability,"?

D1B wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
No.

Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

Z?

crickets......

D?

dipshit........

Stocks way up!

August home starts up a whopping 10.5%!

Consumer demand catching fire!!!


GObama!!!!!