American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413738]However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.

The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20%?

The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.

The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.

However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.

However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.

Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.

Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.

To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.

The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.

Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"[/QUOTE]Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.

Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful.

Esten, while you assert ObamaCare and the Financial regulations are a done deal I must respectfully disagree. These Legislative Acts are reversible. Perhaps you are familiar with the 18th Amendment which was ratified on January 16,1919, and took effect on January 16,1920. In case you are not familiar with the 18th Amendment it was known as Prohibition. Now this was an AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States and not a mere LEGISLATIVE act. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment on December 5,1933, yet a second AMENDMENT. If the American people can enact an amendment then repeal it with yet another amendment, don't you think they can reverse a mere legislative act? I believe that is exactly what will occur. I also believe the House and the Senate will pass legislation which Obama will veto and some vetoes will be overridden and Obama will be diminished with each veto of legislation demanded by the people that crosses his desk. His hubris will be his down fall.

Black Shirt, well maybe if the liberal's hadn't controlled education for so many years with their 'feel good' and 'there can't be any losers everyone has to win' approach to education which did not stress the hard sciences you are probably right we would have less unemployment. But what we got is kids that graduated with 'soft' degrees from universities but can sing a mean 'cum by ya'. If you look at the countries that rate above the US in the hard sciences you will find they don't give a damn about social engineering, have longer scholastic years, reward academic success and punish failure. Their primary mission is the hard sciences since they have realized that is where real growth comes from, people who can do things!

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413753]Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.

Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful. [/QUOTE]You are correct, unemployment in the Great Recession has clearly has made matters much worse.

I don't concur with your analysis of America's capabilities. We did invent the doughnut, after all. However, I think somewhere within your statement there is an important fact (maybe I just put it there because I like you) and that is that America must compete. On the global stage, productivity is king. We as a society have allow certain forces (organized crime. I mean organized labor) to distort the dynamics of our productivity by increasing labor costs in many different ways making us less competitive.

I think your friend, who is probably a lovely guy to hang with, is mistaken. The recession of 2000 lasted 11 months during which the peak unemployment ran a little under 6.5. The first dip of the current recession ran Dec 2007-June 2009 or 18 months, by far the longest in modern US history, with peak unemployment of 10.2. However, the GDP 'growth' in Q3 & Q4 of 2009, which technically ended the Great Recession, is suspect at best. The growth was, in my opinion, an artificial byproduct of governmental interference and has dropped of precipitously since then creating a double dip in declining GDP, while not yet technically qualifying as a double dip recession.

I stand by my assertion that had the federal government done nothing, we'd already be well on our way to recovery.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413753]Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.[/QUOTE]I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.

If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/[/url] The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.

According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.

Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted [i]against[/i] The Stimulus and [i]against[/i] ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even [i]they[/i] Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413765]I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.

If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/[/url] The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.

According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.

Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted [i]against[/i] The Stimulus and [i]against[/i] ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even [i]they[/i] Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim. [/QUOTE]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413767]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.[/QUOTE]Black Shirt:

I think that there are two different recoveries being discussed here. The first, is the overall economic recovery (which hasn't shown up yet) and the recovery of equity prices on Wall St, which has been pretty good.

While the two are often related, as I mentioned earlier, the general relationship is that Wall St. Is a leading economic indicator. That is to say that what is happening in the stock market presently is indicative of what the prevailing outlook is for the future (among equity investors. You are correct that the stock market recoveries from 2001 and 2007 are vastly different. The asset bases going into both were also different. Each one was driven by a asset valuation bubble, dotcom stocks in the former and real estate in the latter. The primary difference, in my opinion, is that while many dotcom stocks went to 0% of their former values, real estate may have dropped to 60% of its former values and in the former unemployment didn't exceed 6.3. Both scenarios were disastrous. However, if real estate had gone to 0, we'd be breaking up the furniture to put in the fire place and roasting squirrels and acorns for dinner. Side note, the scenario where I could see certain real estate going to 0% is in the case of contamination from an NBC attack.

Stock market recoveries in general tend to be more V-shaped than economic recoveries. My theory as to why this occurs is pretty straight forward. When the shit hits the fan, you stop spending, you get rid of all obvious unnecessary expenditures and then you start to cut your variable costs, the largest of which is usually manpower, and you do more with less. What often happens is that improvement in profitability makes up for the lost volume in sales. Companies enjoy this leaner, more profitable phase and want to milk it as long as possible before eating into that new-found profit margin with additional overhead, related to expansion. Additionally, no one wants to take on new, unnecessary risk until they know that they are out of the woods.

Therefore, it would be consistent with my thoughtful analysis that coming out of the stock market crash, that precipitated the Great Recession, equities rebounded as expected based upon normalization of asset values (I. E. The market was so oversold that certain assets were clearly undervalued) improved profitability and the collective expectation that economic recovery would come along at some point within historical parameters. While this last item has not materialized, the first two did. Further, because of all of the additional risk that has been heaped on corporations, they do not know what the costs of expansion will be so they hold cash and do not invest in their businesses. That fact keeps somewhere between US$2-3T of cash invested in liquid securities and cash equivalents instead of office buildings, tractors, and the like. Further, the US citizenry is completely in the dark about what to do, so they too are sitting on their cash (about US$6T) which similarly is invested in publicly traded equities, money market accounts and the like rather than flat screen TVs, barcaloungers and other fundamental necessities of life. All of this additional cash in the investment marketplace represents increased demand for a relatively limited supply of securities (not too many new issues hitting the market these days) . Further pumping the market (to the benefit of those long and not to the benefit of the public at large) has been QE I (quantitative easing episode one) which over the past 28 months or so saw the Fed blow some $2.4T in a failed effort to jump start something. All the more reason that QEII (the coming second round of $600B+) is a bad idea. If you think Wall Street only got bailed out through TARP and stimulus and other deals you read about in the paper, you're missing most of the graft. These institutions received billions of direct cash payments in order to stimulate lending and easing credit. Rather than extend credit, they reduced credit and stuck the cash on the balance sheets to firm up their reserves. They then invested those and other govt-provided funds (fed rate is practically zero) into a fixed market where they are guaranteed a positive return. If you can borrow money at zero cost and invest it in a guaranteed security that will yield you 1% real return with absolutely no risk at all, why would you waste your time trying to lend money to a small business? The government has further exacerbated the crisis by allowing Wall Street to write their own bailout plan.

So this is what we've got:

Shitty economy, high unemployment, no credit, companies unwilling to expand, no growth prospects on the horizon

This is what the government has done to fix the problem:

-increased risk and uncertainty for employers.

-massively increased the cost of adding new employees.

-extended unemployment benefits to over three years (deterrent to seeking employment)

-provided banks with a risk-free arbitrage opportunity which prevents them from transacting in their normal course of business (I. E. Providing capital to individuals and companies)

-looming tax increases which will further harm individuals and companies.

-massively increasing federal debts.

-Trillions of dollars being wasted by the Fed to support Wall Street profits.

-devaluation of the dollar (15% so far)

Seems like all is well. I still can't figure out what all those voters were so worked up about. It was probably something on Fox news.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413767]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.[/QUOTE]Mea culpa, Black Shirt, I think I misconstrued what you were trying to say.

In terms of stock market recovery, there definitely has been one, and it's been good. Personally, I think it has more to do with low interest rates than anything. Essentially, publicly-traded companies can borrow at historically low costs. They've got access to capital and can issue debt at ultra-low rates. This affects their multiples and the price of stock in general. A good discussion of this is found here: [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idINN0525953020101105?rpc=44[/url]

While low interest rates have helped large companies, it has definitely hurt others. As the article notes, they have had a negative effect on the elderly living on fixed incomes. More directly, though, they have seriously hurt small businesses. As any small business owner can tell you, credit is hard to come by these days. I've recently switched my company to a new bank after the old one was taken over by the FDIC, and we're lucky business is good because otherwise most banks won't give you a second glance. They can essentially arbitrage their funds and stay out of the lending game entirely. Their returns are lower, but they have no risk. That's also a function of interest rates, and it also has something to do with the Fed's decision to buy bonds.

I'll add a side note unrelated to our discussion: I sat down with our insurance brokers yesterday to discuss our company's health care plan, and what effect ObamaCare will have on a small- to mid-sized business like ours. Bear in mind that these are health insurance experts. They know this area. While they were quick to point out that there is an extensive amount of uncertainty because many of the ObamaCare regs have yet to be written, at the conclusion of that meeting it was abundantly obvious what is going to happen: We will be dumping 1,000 or so employees onto the public option by 2014. The grandfathering rules and discrimination testing schemes that Congress cooked up are designed to do one thing, which is force employers to drop coverage for their employees and pay the penalties. Indeed, these are representatives who work for an insurance broker, and their livelihood is derived from helping employers figure out how to provide insurance for their employees. Nevertheless, after a two hour discussion, I looked at them and said: I know you don't want to hear this, but it sounds like our only option in a few years is going to be to drop coverage. They just looked at me stone-faced and nodded.

Bear in mind, this isn't a situation where we would mind paying a little more for insurance, say, 20% more than the normal 20% annual increases. But, the penalties associated with ObamaCare are so draconian, and the rules are so far stacked against employers, that there will be no responsible choice left. I could go into details, but it would require too much space and bore you more than I already have. Suffice it to say, it was worse than even [b]I[/b] Expected, and that's saying a lot. This will be an unmitigated disaster if not repealed.

Finally, I'll add one final thought: Anyone watching Obama's apologies over the past few days has to be a bit bemused. The guy is apologizing, but for the wrong things. In effect, he's not apologizing at all. He's sorry [i]that he didn't more clearly get the message out about what the legislation Dems rammed through Congress will accomplish, and about the benefits of the Stimulus? [/i] Huh? In other words, he reads the election results as either: (a) that he didn't discuss ObamaCare and other measures enough in the 40-plus speeches he gave on the topic; or (b) that the American people are too stupid to understand what he was trying to say, over and over again, in speech after speech for the past 12 months. He rejects the idea that people understand and just don't want it.

There have been several dozen articles written over the past few days with the title "Obama Doesn't Get It," or something to that effect. The truth is: They're all correct. This guy's clueless, and we're in dangerous waters for the next two years with him still at the helm.

Stan, WW,

Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.

Ciao

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413787]Stan, WW,

Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.

Ciao[/QUOTE]Heck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.

I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.

You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.

Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413788]Heck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.

I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.

You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.

Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan[/QUOTE]

Actually, right now, stuck in Bangkok but in a good way. Have been using the pseudo-russians, the Uzbeks as stand-ins for the Latinos, quite good but not the real deal. Will do Colombia in April, would be fun to get a posse together, Medellin, Bogota and even Quito. Pretty easy on the pocketbook, tickets are very reasonable.

Black Shirt -

Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.

If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.

Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views, and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.

You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.

Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around, a page out of the GOP handbook, dedicated to portraying their opponents unfavorably. How interesting that Stan directed you there.

About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well. But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm[/url]

The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since April. What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders. While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.

This is all rather depressing stuff, so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun. I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.

Esten,

Thanks for your input. Yes, I have been following your sparring match for awhile. Looks like you have been doing the "fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee" dance.

Living overseas for quite about 4 years now, I am losing my grasp on the political scene in the US, so in a way, I get updated by you guys. And as I said earlier, it is very dysfunctional right now. Kind of losing faith in the system, you know. Obama seems to have really touch a deep nerve with some people and I have never seen that much intensity with any president since Nixon was villified by the adolescent left.

So yes, I will take the prevailing advice given at the moment by the distinguished debaters, I will do my "safari" tonight and see what I come up with. It is possible I could be eaten alive tonight, so pray for my well being.

[QUOTE=Esten;413795]Draw your own conclusions as we all do, but I would caution to supplement anything you read from guys like WW and Stan with additional research from other sources. IMO, one of them has proven to be fact-challenged on far too many occasions to take anything he says seriously. The other has a better grasp of facts and what's going on, but most often presents a subset of available information and spins it to make his point, which is often a put-down.[/quote]I wouldn't put you down, it isn't nice to make fun of the mentally challenged.

[quote=]If you haven't been following the posts and checking their statements this may not be apparent. But here is one giveaway: neither of them can barely make one post without including a jab, insult or rant against Obama, Dems or their values. This is easily verified. And this alone should tell you something about the prism through which they view things.[/quote]I wouldn't be like this if all the Dems weren't degenerates and Obama wasn't trying to foist his marxist agenda on the downtrodden people.

[quote=]Personally, at one point (way back) I thought perhaps I could learn something from these guys because they evidently have different vantage points in business than I. I think we all learn when we bring different ideas and views to the table. Instead, what I have learned is that they are disgruntled ideologues who have an axe to grind with others who do not share their views,[/quote]Alas, after Tuesday's results, I feel so lonely. Why must I be the only one who thinks like this? Why god? Why?

[quote=] and this permeates much of what they write here. Combined with fact checking I have done, I have come to conclude that most of what they write simply cannot be taken at face value.[/quote]You get what you pay for. Which is exactly why your fact checking in worthless.

[quote=]You would get more accurate information from Fox News. Better yet, a reputable news source like CNN, NY Times or Washington Post.[/quote]I think the bloom if off the rose. The American public no longer trusts the liberal established media. The glaring examples of liberal agendas have dissolved any facade of objectivity. Overt actions of many of these entities, resulting in potential harm to US security haven't helped their reputations.

[quote=]Speaking of media, did you check the link that Stan posted? A website called "hotair.com". I never heard of that site before, so I spent a minute checking out the front page. Guess what? It's another one of these anti-Obama anti-Democrat conservative "news" websites. There are quite a few of them around,[/quote]If you would pay attention to what I am telling you, you wouldn't still be trying to figure out why there are so many anti-Obama opinions out there (hint: it is directly correlated to the majority of Americans that want him to be a one-termer) and why it is so hard to find anyone who still supports him, other than you of course.

[quote=]About your friend's comment on the strength of the recovery, that reminded me I have seen reports supporting that view as well.[/quote]You probably shouldn't rely on Olbermann or Stewart for economic analysis.

[quote=]But it all depends on what metric you look at. Obviously the unemployment rate itself does not indicate a strong recovery. But another metric on jobs is quite interesting; from the recent article below: "Sustained, positive job formation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries". It took 6 months to reach that milestone in the current recovery, vs. 22 months following the 2001 recession under Bush.[/quote]You can whip up some statistics in almost any situation that will support your case. Coming out of Obama's recession, there were 22% more sunny days reflecting the possibility that he might actually be god and while not able to deal with the financial crisis (because he is the least experienced person in Washington) he was doing his best to brighten the situation."Four more years! Four more years!"

[quote=]The rate of job growth though positive is still anemic, though today's number of net 151,000 jobs added is a good sign, the best numbers since April[/quote]Anemic? The unemployment rate has been 9.4% or higher since May 2009 (it's November 2010, by the way) while the true number of those involuntarily out of work has hovered around 16-17.

I had to laugh at the 151K number, it was brought down by the loss of something like 8,000 govt jobs. I believe those were part-time census workers, who never should have been counted in the first place.

[quote=] What's going on is big business squeezing more productivity out of fewer workers, sitting on healthy profits and transferring billions to shareholders.[/quote]You were listening. Damn companies, passing profits on to their rightful owners!

[quote=] While politics dominates the media, in the background big business is effecting a massive transfer of wealth, mostly to the rich.[/quote]Of course they are. The government should step in and seize the fruits of their labor and prevent the owners of these businesses from keeping any of their profits. We should then change the name of the country to Obama-uela, name Obama president-for-life and design some sort of pseudo-military outfit for him to wear along with some big-ass aviator shades.

[quote=]This is all rather depressing stuff,[/quote]I would venture to guess that you say and have said this a lot, throughout your life.

[quote=] so I would concur with Stan on one thing, that you should go have some fun.[/quote]How can anyone have fun in such depressing times?

[quote=] I'll be in BA soon enough myself and am looking forward to it immensely.[/QUOTE]Enjoy, if you can overcome the depressing nature of the world and the deleterious effects that freedom has had on it.

After Democrats having just been "tea bagged" Nancy Pelosi has announced she's running for Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. I think keeping her in the spotlight as a reminder to the American people of the failed Obama agenda is a wonderful idea. Go Nan Go!

[url]http://www.hindustantimes.com/Irritants-apart-Indo-US-ties-will-endure/H1-Article1-622844.aspx[/url]

Interesting to know your comments on this article.