Well Durbin thinks so because he said the only they have not is because of the Republican filibuster. when John Kyl tried to tell him it only takes 51 votes to pass in Senate, turban said, well we only have 53. disgusting lying sack of elephant s***.

Well Durbin thinks so because he said the only they have not is because of the Republican filibuster. when John Kyl tried to tell him it only takes 51 votes to pass in Senate, turban said, well we only have 53. disgusting lying sack of elephant s***.

It takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate when Democrats are in charge.

QE3 looks like it could be the catalyst that sends this market down to 1040ish SPX. But they may try to make one run up to the 1365-1370 level. This market will go back to where the run started in 1995, in the 500's. Timing wise if there is any correlation to the 2007mkt, it could happen in October 2012.

As I have been saying for well over a year, ITALY will take down Europe.

Krugman's been saying to keep an eye on Italy, too!

Krugman's been saying to keep an eye on Italy, too!

 

 

Your killing me smalls!!!!!!!

Your killing me smalls!!!!!!!

 

Does what he's saying about market spreads (there's several more posts by him in the past several days on the same issue if you're at all curious) make sense?

It set the template for the future. In the future, Neil, no president — in the near future, maybe in the distant future — is going to be able to get the debt ceiling increased without a re-ignition of the same discussion of how do we cut spending and get America headed in the right direction. I expect the next president, whoever that is, is going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again in 2013, so we’ll be doing it all over.

 

"in the future, a routine operation to deal with a stupid procedural functionality will be used as hostage against selling the country out to our s*** agenda"

 

this is probably the worst outcome.

As I have been saying for well over a year, ITALY will take down Europe.

 

 

I could see that, especially because we deal with a government backed Italian company. Let's just say they are not in pretty shape. The risk is extremely high.

Yikes. The DJIA is really nosediving lately.

It's reflecting the slew of terrible economic data lately.

It's reflecting the slew of terrible economic data lately.

Don't patronize me buddy.

Debt Deal Relief Rally!

Yeah, this is worth sharing, since we hear pretty often in this thread that the stimulus clearly failed since it was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% when it actually shot up to 10%.

 

The latest GDP revisions for the actual months at the end of 2008 are much, much, much worse than the original numbers on which the stimulus was based. Had those numbers been available at the time, then an estimate of $800 billion in stimulus would probably have wound up saying 10-11% unemployment, with much bigger holes if there were no action taken. (PS, link is to the economist)

On January 10th of 2009, Ms Romer and Jared Bernstein, economic adviser to Vice-President Joe Biden, released a now-infamous assessment of the likely effect of a "prototypical" stimulus package worth about $800 billion. A day earlier, the BLS announced a rise in the unemployment rate to 7.2%, after a December employment drop of 524,000. November's employment drop was revised from 533,000 to 584,000. In their analysis, Ms Romer and Mr Bernstein projected that without stimulus, employment might fall to just under 134m, from a previous recession peak near 138m. With stimulus, by contrast, employment should be close to its previous peak by the end of 2010. Stimulus would limit growth in unemployment to about 8%, falling to 7% by the end of 2010.

 

President Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, and a stimulus bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 26th. A stimulus package worth $819 billion passed in the House just two days later.

 

Two days after that, Americans received grim news about the economy: in the fourth quarter of 2008, GDP contracted at a 3.8% annual pace—the worst quarterly performance since the deep recession of 1982. More bad news hit on February 6th, when the BLS released new labour market figures. It reported an employment decline of 598,000 in January, following on revised drops in employment of 577,000 in December and 597,000 in November—a three-month drop of 1.8m jobs. On February 10th, the Senate passed its version of the stimulus, worth $838 billion. In conference committee, the bill shrank to $787. On February 17th, Mr Obama signed the bill into law.

 

.....

Unfortunately, the situation was far more dire than anyone in the administration or in Congress supposed.

 

Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data.

 

We can't know exactly how things would have played out in a world in which key policymakers had better data. If the true scope of the economic disaster in the fourth quarter had been clear, however, it seems certain that Ms Romer's models would have shown a need for more stimulus, that the White House would have agreed to push for more (and perhaps a lot more), and that Congress would have been much more receptive to a bigger bill. A drop of 8.9% does seem much more terrifying, after all, than a 3.8% decline. Bigger stimulus would have reduced the economic deterioration in subsequent months. The Fed might also have been more aggressive.

Yeah, this is worth sharing, since we hear pretty often in this thread that the stimulus clearly failed since it was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% when it actually shot up to 10%.

 

The latest GDP revisions for the actual months at the end of 2008 are much, much, much worse than the original numbers on which the stimulus was based. Had those numbers been available at the time, then an estimate of $800 billion in stimulus would probably have wound up saying 10-11% unemployment, with much bigger holes if there were no action taken. (PS, link is to the economist)

 

Nice to see that real economic numbers only take three years to produce... Or at least reproduce in favor of the president.

If you don't want to labeled as holding the economy hostage, you probably should stop referring to the economy as a "hostage."

 

Senator Mitch McConnell ® - Minority Leader

 

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting," he said. "Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this - it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

Nice to see that real economic numbers only take three years to produce... Or at least reproduce in favor of the president.

You're alleging that the Bureau of Economic analysis here is lying to support the president. Can you produce any evidence to support this seemingly outrageous claim?

If you drop off the ridiculous part of the statement, it raises a legitimate question. How can you implement emergency policy if the true picture doesn't emerge for years?

If you drop off the ridiculous part of the statement, it raises a legitimate question. How can you implement emergency policy if the true picture doesn't emerge for years?

According to others I've read, failing to predict the true magnitude of sharp economic downturns has been a problem for the Bureau of Economic Analysis before.

 

I'm not sure I have a good answer for this. The answer is probably somewhere within the data and assumptions made by the BEA. We see something similar in the BLS jobs numbers...the Birth/Death approximation is a polled/educated guess about what number of jobs are being created or destroyed in a month that aren't counted in the BLS survey, but it can't predict sharp turns, so it winds up damping out sharpness in the data. You can't ignore those extra jobs because they usually exist, but then you wind up with larger corrections months or years later once you realize the scale of the changes.

If you don't want to labeled as holding the economy hostage, you probably should stop referring to the economy as a "hostage."

 

Senator Mitch McConnell ® - Minority Leader

 

That was in response to the "terrorist" cat calls of the other side.

You're alleging that the Bureau of Economic analysis here is lying to support the president. Can you produce any evidence to support this seemingly outrageous claim?

 

I left that out there just for you to miss the point.

According to others I've read, failing to predict the true magnitude of sharp economic downturns has been a problem for the Bureau of Economic Analysis before.

 

I'm not sure I have a good answer for this. The answer is probably somewhere within the data and assumptions made by the BEA. We see something similar in the BLS jobs numbers...the Birth/Death approximation is a polled/educated guess about what number of jobs are being created or destroyed in a month that aren't counted in the BLS survey, but it can't predict sharp turns, so it winds up damping out sharpness in the data. You can't ignore those extra jobs because they usually exist, but then you wind up with larger corrections months or years later once you realize the scale of the changes.

 

It isn't just the BEA. heck the SEC STILL has no idea how the flash crash happened exactly. Its only been a year plus now.

I left that out there just for you to miss the point.

So it's ok to add inflammatory statements to your posts that you can't back up just to inflame people. All Republicans are in favor of brutally murdering poor black babies and using their blood to leaven bread.

So it's ok to add inflammatory statements to your posts that you can't back up just to inflame people. All Republicans are in favor of brutally murdering poor black babies and using their blood to leaven bread.

 

Judging by the posts in this forum, as long as they back up Democratic policies, it is perfectly OK.

So it's ok to add inflammatory statements to your posts that you can't back up just to inflame people. All Republicans are in favor of brutally murdering poor black babies and using their blood to leaven bread.

 

WHO TOLD YOU?!