Dow is Up 400!

[Bruin 70]

Blame Trump. China trade talks proceeding. Hey evil one put that recession where the sun don't shine.

[PapaG]

There were zero indicators of a recession other than bought and paid for Fake Globalist News wishing for a recession to defeat Trump.  It’s stupid and people who believed it are stupid.  The market fluctuates and always has.  I’m old enough (was in middle school but knew bullshit even at that age) to remember when an 800-point drop under Reagan in 1987 was called Black Monday by the Fake News Liberal Media.

[Bruin 70]

8 minutes ago, PapaG said:

There were zero indicators of a recession other than bought and paid for Fake Globalist News wishing for a recession to defeat Trump.  It’s stupid and people who believed it are stupid.  The market fluctuates and always has.  I’m old enough (was in middle school but knew bullshit even at that age) to remember when an 800-point drop under Reagan in 1987 was called Black Monday by the Fake News Liberal Media.

On the money! Old Mysfit, the Evil One and  Tweetie are outside with their umbrellas waiting for the sky to fall per the reports of CNN.

[mugtang]

14 minutes ago, PapaG said:

There were zero indicators of a recession other than bought and paid for Fake Globalist News wishing for a recession to defeat Trump.  It’s stupid and people who believed it are stupid.  The market fluctuates and always has.  I’m old enough (was in middle school but knew bullshit even at that age) to remember when an 800-point drop under Reagan in 1987 was called Black Monday by the Fake News Liberal Media.

The bond yield curve has inverted 2 or 3 times in the last 10 months.  That’s a pretty good indication a recession is looming. 

[KUGRDON]

Do you realize how many times it has been inverted without a recession?  I think a recession is coming but not because of anything Trump has done. The recovery has been extraordinarily long and strong. Won’t go on forever.

[KUGRDON]

 

 

[All Hail]

The amount of facepalm financial bullshittery in this thread is outstanding.  I pray you all have financial advisors. 

@KUGRDON the only rational thought in the thread.  It’s easy to say a recession is coming but this comment is vague.  Do you think a recession is coming soon ie this year or next?  There certainly isn’t any conclusive financial data to back that up.  We just had the largest recession in the past 70 years.

 The last time a recession of this size occurred, we didn’t have another one for two decades.  We are far better leveraged than we ever have been before and while global concerns are still relevant, the next recession will likely be a very short term and minor occurrence.

I will acknowledge the media’s role in this as it’s somehow become posh to fan the flames of a potential recession looming on the most ridiculously speculative data imaginable.

We have:

strong job growth, solid gdp, the largest wage increases we’ve seen in some time, “unicorn companies” taking it to the chin (unlike in the dot.com bust.)  basically, the economy looks strong and nothing appears to be unnecessarily inflated or propped up. 

 

[Orange]

3 hours ago, KUGRDON said:

Do you realize how many times it has been inverted without a recession?  I think a recession is coming but not because of anything Trump has done. The recovery has been extraordinarily long and strong. Won’t go on forever.

Funny how it was "slow and weak" when the black guy was in charge.

[PapaG]

4 hours ago, mugtang said:

The bond yield curve has inverted 2 or 3 times in the last 10 months.  That’s a pretty good indication a recession is looming. 

No, that’s a good indicator of the US dollar being strong and the Fed fucking with markets via interest rates.

[PapaG]

26 minutes ago, Orange said:

Funny how it was "slow and weak" when the black guy was in charge.

Not funny how you turn it into a racial thing, racist.  Learn to code.

[KUGRDON]

49 minutes ago, Orange said:

Funny how it was "slow and weak" when the black guy was in charge.

It was for most of his term.  I think we’ll documented that for an extended period of time it was the weakest recovery since the 30’s.  Even Democrats had to come up for an excuse for its weakness, remember the financial institution crisis excuse you parroted?

Also please note I did not credit Trump for extending the recovery.  Neither he nor Obama had much to do with the recovery that was principally the result of action taken by the Fed and the European banks. Even the New York Times acknowledges that.

[Orange]

16 hours ago, KUGRDON said:

It was for most of his term.  I think we’ll documented that for an extended period of time it was the weakest recovery since the 30’s.  Even Democrats had to come up for an excuse for its weakness, remember the financial institution crisis excuse you parroted?

Also please note I did not credit Trump for extending the recovery.  Neither he nor Obama had much to do with the recovery that was principally the result of action taken by the Fed and the European banks. Even the New York Times acknowledges that.

In that case, he carries none of the blame for the "slow and weak" recovery then?  Funny how you omitted that part for 8 years.

[KUGRDON]

OI have said 100 times on here that presidents have very little to do with the performance of the economy. I pointed out the slowness of the recovery in response to the liberals claims about how great the economy was doing.  

I also pointed out the futileness Of most of his recovery efforts and of the clear intent to benefit democratic constituents such as union members, state employees, teachers and such. Moreover, democratic districts got on the average twice as much as republican districts.  It’s not that hard but you do have to read.

Let’s never forget cash for clunkers LOL.  Quick, give me an example of the hundreds of shovel ready projects Obama promised.  Lol

Now go and find a post where I credited Trump for the length or strength of the recovery.

[Bruin 70]

As the lobbies flail around trying to fight Trump's economic success during his presidency. You guys need to get a lance go to Palm Desert and fight those nasty wind mills.

[Orange]

On 9/6/2019 at 11:17 AM, KUGRDON said:

Moreover, democratic districts got on the average twice as much as republican districts.  It’s not that hard but you do have to read.

Democratic districts are more densely populated, you fucking blowhard.  They also provide FAR more tax revenue than republican districts.  ITs noT thAt hArD buT yOu do HavE tO reAd.

I suppose you can assume that the Stimulus did nothing to aid in the recovery, but that would be a dumb assumption.  Stimulus packages stimulate the economy.  It's as well known as gravitational fields.

[Mano]

23 minutes ago, Orange said:

Democratic districts are more densely populated, you fucking blowhard.  They also provide FAR more tax revenue than republican districts.  ITs noT thAt hArD buT yOu do HavE tO reAd.

I suppose you can assume that the Stimulus did nothing to aid in the recovery, but that would be a dumb assumption.  Stimulus packages stimulate the economy.  It's as well known as gravitational fields.

 

Standard GOP reasoning these days, land area, # of districts etc. counts more than # of people.

[Orange]

19 minutes ago, Mano said:

 

Standard GOP reasoning these days, land area, # of districts etc. counts more than # of people.

It's fucking unreal how hard they stick to that theory, too.  For months after the election, dipshits like @PapaG were sharing this meme:

 

First, it was a lie.  She won 487 (but each county she won was FAR more densely populated, and she won more of them by a huge margin; trump won most of his counties by 1%)

https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:5265150031

The real breakdown map of the red/blue states as represented by population is thus:

 

 

[KUGRDON]

Same number of people in every congressional district, unless one district state.  Duh

[Orange]

2 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

Same number of people in every congressional district, unless one district state.  Duh

Democratic districts are FAR more economically productive, and you know it.  Unless you think Wyoming is more productive than a district covering 1/5th of half of Manhattan.

[KUGRDON]

They have far more union members, state and municipal employees, teachers police etc. That’s where the money went, democratic constituencies.  Money did not go to economically productive entities.