Any predictions for tomorrows employment report?

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Hi, Margin. I wondered where you were.

Y'all are wasting your time on Markle. He doesn't really understand any of this; he just has his prepackaged talking points replete with right-wing propaganda. You see, everything that happened to the US when GWB was President was just fine and dandy. But once President Obama took office, all hell broke loose. Those of you who remember it differently need to take a pill and report immediately to Sector 4.

As you know Floridatexan, I've handed MarginCall his behind any number of times about the housing collapse. It must have really crushed his ego. He loves to think of himself as an EXSPURT on financial matters. He may be with regard to stocks and bonds but he doesn't know the optionee from the optionor in real estate. Wasn't it "Dirty Harry" who said that a man has got to know his limitations.

Unlike MarginCall, I don't NEED to be the expert about everything. That's why I hire people.

I'm sure you are an expert at filling in a HUD 1 and you probably have a title insurance company on speed-dial. You see, your profession is one of process. You are a paper pusher and hardly a glorified one. Your profession doesn't require an understanding of why the housing market crashed which is perhaps why you haven't really grasped what happened and who you should blame. You've blamed Democrats and poor black people...and probably Jimmy Carter at some point, I'm sure of it. You're right, I do understand stocks and bonds....and how financial regulation, the Fed and its institutional participants affect the economy, especially one of its largest components - housing. Your knowledge of housing seems to begin and end with "a quaint two bedroom, two bath home on a half acre of majestic oak trees". By all means, tell us how Barney Frank caused the housing crash as GW and the Republicans failed to use their majority control to alter the course of financial devastation because they were afraid of being called racists.

For Markle. I posted this to another thread on the GD forum. But it will be beneficial to you too. It's the dialogue from a movie scene...
__________________________

You are all pretty much screwed. You do not know it yet, but you are the ninja generation. No income, no job, no assets. You’ve got a lot to look forward to.

Someone reminded me the other day that I once said, greed is good. Well it appears greed is not only good, it is legal. We are all drinking the same kool-aid.

But it is greed that makes my bartender buy three houses, he cannot afford with no money down. And it is greed that makes your parents refinance their 200,000 dollar mortgage for 250,000 dollars. Now they take that extra 50,000 dollars and go to the shopping mall so they can buy a new plasma TV, cell phones, computers and an SUV. And hey, why not a second home while we are at it.

Gee Wiz, we all know the prices of houses in America always go up. Right?

It is greed that makes the government of this country cut the interest rates to 1% after 9/11 so we can all go shopping again.

They got all these fancy names for trillions of dollars for credit, CMO, CDO, SIV, ABS. You know I honestly think there are only 75 people in the world that knows what they are.

But I will tell you what they are, they are WMDs. Weapons of mass destruction.

When I was away, it seemed that greed, got greedier. With a little bit of envy mixed in.
Hedge fund managers came home with 50 to 100 million bucks a year.

So Mr. Banker, he looks around and says.
My life looks pretty boring.

So he starts leveraging his interest up to 40%, 50% to 100%. With your money not his.
Yours. Because he could.
You are supposed to be borrowing not them.

And the beauty of the deal is no one is responsible.

Because everyone is drinking the same kool-aid.

Last year ladies and gentlemen, 40% of all corporate profits came from the financial services industry.
Not production, not anything remotely to do with the needs of the American public.
The truth is we are all part of it now.
Banks, consumers they are moving the money around in circles.
We take a buck, we shoot it full of steroids and we call it leverage. I call it steroid banking.

It is clear as a bell to those who pay attention. The mother of all evil is speculation. Leverage debt. The bottom line is, it is borrowing to the hilt.
And I hate to tell you this, but it is a bankrupt business model.
It will not work. It is septicemic, malignant and its global. Like cancer, it is a disease.

Perfect, NaughtyBob.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:It is simple, the Republicans spent to much money. Although the Medicare Part "D" passed by them was less expensive than the one sought by Democrats.

Compared to the massive spending of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats today, what they spent was drop in the ocean.

Then I suppose that your continued and unending ranting about how the Democrats are responsible for ALL of our nation's fiscal ills can be construed as partisan spin..... I always thought so!

Please show us all where I ever said that Democrats are responsible for ALL our fiscal ills. I think you'll find that it is President Barack Hussein Obama who has said that HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING...EVER.

Or is this in error?

You know that budgets are submitted the year before they are actually carried out, right? Your bar for 2009 should be red, if we are to follow the same BS line of reasoning of whoever originally created that graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

As you know, the budget President George Walker Bush submitted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi never came to a vote. Instead the Democrats attacked the budget for spending to much.

Cute try!

By the way, AS YOU KNOW, President Barack Hussein Obama signed the 2009 budget...in 2009.

Obama signs U.S. budget into law; Oregon gets $211 million in goodies
Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 7:51 PM

WASHINGTON -- For all the critics of the $410 billion spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Wednesday, some local officials across Oregon welcome the new money for everything from education to salmon restoration to upgrading the Pendleton Round-Up.

For more: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/obama_signs_us_budget_into_law.html

You really need to read your own sources.

Wouldn't you say that it is disingenuous at best to lay the entire 2009 budget and deficit on Obama?

Also, are you done with the tax revenue discussion?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:It is simple, the Republicans spent to much money. Although the Medicare Part "D" passed by them was less expensive than the one sought by Democrats.

Compared to the massive spending of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats today, what they spent was drop in the ocean.

Then I suppose that your continued and unending ranting about how the Democrats are responsible for ALL of our nation's fiscal ills can be construed as partisan spin..... I always thought so!

Please show us all where I ever said that Democrats are responsible for ALL our fiscal ills. I think you'll find that it is President Barack Hussein Obama who has said that HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING...EVER.

Or is this in error?

You know that budgets are submitted the year before they are actually carried out, right? Your bar for 2009 should be red, if we are to follow the same BS line of reasoning of whoever originally created that graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

As you know, the budget President George Walker Bush submitted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi never came to a vote. Instead the Democrats attacked the budget for spending to much.

Cute try!

By the way, AS YOU KNOW, President Barack Hussein Obama signed the 2009 budget...in 2009.

Obama signs U.S. budget into law; Oregon gets $211 million in goodies
Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 7:51 PM

WASHINGTON -- For all the critics of the $410 billion spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Wednesday, some local officials across Oregon welcome the new money for everything from education to salmon restoration to upgrading the Pendleton Round-Up.

For more: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/obama_signs_us_budget_into_law.html

You really need to read your own sources.

Wouldn't you say that it is disingenuous at best to lay the entire 2009 budget and deficit on Obama?

Also, are you done with the tax revenue discussion?

How is it disengenuous? Who passed the massively failed TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS STIMULUS plan and who signed it into law amidst much fanfare?

When did our revenues become unimportant?

Markle wrote:
Who passed the massively failed TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS STIMULUS

And who supported it?

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/17/i-didnt-know-romney-supported

ButtMan wrote:

Markle wrote:
Who passed the massively failed TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS STIMULUS

And who supported it?
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/17/i-didnt-know-romney-supported

The New York Post
September 9, 2009

[...]

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently credited Apollo with helping write the stimulus bill and getting it passed. Yet the stimulus' "green jobs" provisions funnel federal tax dollars to unions, green groups and community organizers -- that is, the organizations that make up Apollo."

[...]

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_ktSaBCwrr6MDK2gMz7xqhN#ixzz21hwdh5A5

Ted Bundy was a scumbag, merkle. But Ted Bundy being a scumbag doesn't make Charles Manson be a hero.
Same as Harry Reid being an incompetent politician doesn't make Mitt Romney be a competent one.
You're at a pro wrastlin match, merkel. Because you don't like one wrastler you have to cheer for his opponent.
I don't particular care for pro wrastlin matches myself. Because I don't cheer for a fake just because his opponent is also a fake.

Markle wrote:How is it disengenuous?

Because...

1) The vast majority of the spending in the 2009 budget was submitted by Bush. Of the $3.5 billion that was ultimately spent, you can attribute $400 billion of that to Obama.

2) Tax revenues fell in 2009 to the lowest level since 1997.


Last chance for Markle on the tax discussion.

Also, the stimulus package wasn't $1 trillion. If you're going to place stuff in all caps, it should probably be accurate.

How are the latest GDP numbers working for you. The White House said we're heading in the right direction. 1st Quarter GDP numbers were 2%, 2nd Quarter GDP numbers were 1.5%. How does less GDP growth equate improvement?

The Obama solution? Hire more teachers, cops and firemen. Hire more union employees. Ask some cities how it has worked out for them?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:How is it disingenuous?

Because...

1) The vast majority of the spending in the 2009 budget was submitted by Bush. Of the $3.5 billion that was ultimately spent, you can attribute $400 billion of that to Obama.

2) Tax revenues fell in 2009 to the lowest level since 1997.


Last chance for Markle on the tax discussion.

Also, the stimulus package wasn't $1 trillion. If you're going to place stuff in all caps, it should probably be accurate.

With the interest, the Stimulus is well over $1 TRILLION, how does that translate to $400 BILLION?

How does that translate to $1.3 TRILLION every years for President Barack Hussein Obama and NO budget?

Margin Call wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?
[/quote]

You said yourself that the bar was set low due to a recession and a terrorist attacked. It stands to reason that a generational housing boom due to the Keynesian policies of Bush and the Fed would create an economic bubble, thus leading to increases in revenue. TPTB should have allowed the economy to deleverage in the early 2000s instead of allowing us to hit a veritable wall of debt in 2007.[/quote]



Sorry, but as you know...the revenues of the Bush years were RECORDS, the closest President Clinton came was $2 TRILLION in the year 2000. President Bush's revenues AVERAGED over $2.4 TRILLION for 2006, 2007, 2008.

Your ego must have really been crushed at some recent point. What happened?

Markle wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

You said yourself that the bar was set low due to a recession and a terrorist attacked. It stands to reason that a generational housing boom due to the Keynesian policies of Bush and the Fed would create an economic bubble, thus leading to increases in revenue. TPTB should have allowed the economy to deleverage in the early 2000s instead of allowing us to hit a veritable wall of debt in 2007.[/quote]



Sorry, but as you know...the revenues of the Bush years were RECORDS, the closest President Clinton came was $2 TRILLION in the year 2000. President Bush's revenues AVERAGED over $2.4 TRILLION for 2006, 2007, 2008.
Your ego must have really been crushed at some recent point. What happened?[/quote]

Your argument is pointless. Bush ran a deficit every year he was in office. It doesn't really matter about Bush's "record revenues," because his spending gobbled all of it up and then spent some more.

Yes we already know that Obama's deficits have been the biggest in history. Cue the Markle-graphic we have all seen 150 times already.....

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

AFTER the BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK EFFECT, REVENUES AVERAGED $2.306 TRILLION his last FIVE years. That's $431 BILLION more per year or $2.155 TRILLION increase over five years.

WOW…how did that happen? They resulted in a $2.155 TRILLION INCREASE IN REVENUES?

You said yourself that the bar was set low due to a recession and a terrorist attacked. It stands to reason that a generational housing boom due to the Keynesian policies of Bush and the Fed would create an economic bubble, thus leading to increases in revenue. TPTB should have allowed the economy to deleverage in the early 2000s instead of allowing us to hit a veritable wall of debt in 2007.

Sorry, but as you know...the revenues of the Bush years were RECORDS, the closest President Clinton came was $2 TRILLION in the year 2000. President Bush's revenues AVERAGED over $2.4 TRILLION for 2006, 2007, 2008.
Your ego must have really been crushed at some recent point. What happened?[/quote]

Your argument is pointless. Bush ran a deficit every year he was in office. It doesn't really matter about Bush's "record revenues," because his spending gobbled all of it up and then spent some more.

Yes we already know that Obama's deficits have been the biggest in history. Cue the Markle-graphic we have all seen 150 times already.....[/quote]

BUT, it has taken the Progressives nearly FOUR YEARS to admit that fact.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:How is it disingenuous?

Because...

1) The vast majority of the spending in the 2009 budget was submitted by Bush. Of the $3.5 billion that was ultimately spent, you can attribute $400 billion of that to Obama.

2) Tax revenues fell in 2009 to the lowest level since 1997.


Last chance for Markle on the tax discussion.

Also, the stimulus package wasn't $1 trillion. If you're going to place stuff in all caps, it should probably be accurate.

With the interest, the Stimulus is well over $1 TRILLION, how does that translate to $400 BILLION?

How does that translate to $1.3 TRILLION every years for President Barack Hussein Obama and NO budget?

The stimulus is the stimulus. It wasn't $1 trillion. Stand corrected.

True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion

Conn Carroll

February 12, 2009 at 11:08 am

All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/