Jump to content

Sad News, The Economy Continues To Improve.


Recommended Posts

Knowing how it breaks some of your hearts I report it anyway. go drink your pain away, people are getting back to work...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/february-jobs-gains-seen-strong-060614362.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers added more than 200,000 workers to their payrolls for a third straight month in February, a sign the economy was strengthening and in less need of further monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve.

Friday's Labor Department report, which showed nonfarm payrolls increased 227,000 last month

The economy, while nowhere near fully healed, has enough momentum to move forward on its own and seems to be gaining strength," said Megan Ellis, an economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston. "For now, the Fed has little to do except sit, wait and hope."

Stocks on Wall Street closed higher on the data, while Treasury debt prices dipped as traders dialed down the prospects for more bond buying by the U.S. central bank.

The dollar rallied to a near 11-month high against the yen and was on track for a fifth straight weekly gain versus the Japanese currency, its best run in almost five years.

Sad_25b340_1460030.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I could tell the economy is improving by watching Nascar. I know it sounds silly to you known Nascar fans so I'll try to break it down to an understand able form. Sponsors spend millions upon millions of dollars each year to advertise their products on Nascar broadcasts, whether it be the tracks, cars or paid ads on TV. Last year was the first time in 10 years that Nascar experience an increase in TV ratings. The more viewers Nascar gains the more sponsors are going to spend to get their product out there. The more they their products out there the more they sell and the more they sell the demand increases creating more jobs and putting more people back to work. People are fickle. The more they see something on tv the more they are going to do whatever it takes to get it. In the 90s the economy was booming and so was Nascar. After about 2000 Nascar tv ratings started taking a nosedive and the economy went to ****. I don't think it's that hard to understand that the success of Nascar has a huge impact on the economy. But myself personally has not yet been able to experience the joy of the economy improving because I'm still out of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

btw in slightly related news, i was watching fox business channel yesterday morning and they had 4-5 experts on talking about how to counteract this news about the improving economy as it relates to the election. for shame!

Please link that cause I have seen them discuss HOW the left is intentionally inflating, spinning the economy to aid Obama and dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious the GOP cares more about their parties election status then the health of the economy. We can see that by tweedle d and tweedle dumb posts here every day. The GOP barely even hides that fact anymore.

if you think the Democrats are any different you are sadly deluded. Getting elected is the primary goal of any politician...anything else takes a back seat. It is far more important to them to keep their gravy train going and to one up the other side than to actually do anything for us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF laissez faire supporting politicians ended up in the white house with a majority in the house and senate.

I'm also not convinced of any real recovery with gas prices getting so high.

Laissez faire? Are you serious? That policy hasn't been used since the Gilded Age and the rise of the Progressive Era (spearheaded by Theodore Roosevelt). It was named such because it looked golden on the outside with the economy being a powerhouse but it was simply covering how horrible conditions for everyone but the upper classes suffered through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: If someone would prefer the country fail as opposed to succeed on any level due to the politics that may involved, would you consider that person a real and true American? Or an anti-American who should consider going to a country bound by the principles they ascribe to. Unless there are no countries like that ANYWHERE.

For the record, I don't know of anyone around here who would want the country to fail due to, say, President Obama's stewardship, but I wonder if someone who hoped and prayed for continued down economy and other problems is a loyal American. Or an anti-American.

I personally don't care how we succeed or who is responsible so long as it all comes out right. But I'll bet some people (nobody around here, of course) actually hope and pray that the country swirls into a toilet hole rather than climb out of recession under a Democrat president. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: If someone would prefer the country fail as opposed to succeed on any level due to the politics that may involved, would you consider that person a real and true American? Or an anti-American who should consider going to a country bound by the principles they ascribe to. Unless there are no countries like that ANYWHERE.

For the record, I don't know of anyone around here who would want the country to fail due to, say, President Obama's stewardship, but I wonder if someone who hoped and prayed for continued down economy and other problems is a loyal American. Or an anti-American.

I personally don't care how we succeed or who is responsible so long as it all comes out right. But I'll bet some people (nobody around here, of course) actually hope and pray that the country swirls into a toilet hole rather than climb out of recession under a Democrat president. Just sayin'.

it's not that simple. that person may see the decisions being made now as short term fixes that will cause problems in the long run

or that person just might be so blinded by bias that they want the country to fail just to prove them right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put it this way.

There on people on this board who were hoping that Chicago was not going to get the Olympics simply because of the Obama connection.

An event that would have been a MAJOR boom for an American city and people here .....I wont name names... were EXCITED it did not come here because of the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put it this way.

There on people on this board who were hoping that Chicago was not going to get the Olympics simply because of the Obama connection.

An event that would have been a MAJOR boom for an American city and people here .....I wont name names... were EXCITED it did not come here because of the president.

there is that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not that simple. that person may see the decisions being made now as short term fixes that will cause problems in the long run

or that person just might be so blinded by bias that they want the country to fail just to prove them right

Or they just don't want the other party to be right. The short term decision to engage in two wars without funding them when we were already in a deficit situation didn't cause any of the "hawks" to raise an eyebrow. Refusing to recognize that politicos from both parties helped to create this mess, even some of the ones raging against it, tells me that it's less about your first option than the second for 90% of the people who consider themselves to be "conservative". I'm in the 10%, by the way, but I refuse to engage in unrealistic solutions to complex problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or they just don't want the other party to be right. The short term decision to engage in two wars without funding them when we were already in a deficit situation didn't cause any of the "hawks" to raise an eyebrow. Refusing to recognize that politicos from both parties helped to create this mess, even some of the ones raging against it, tells me that it's less about your first option than the second for 90% of the people who consider themselves to be "conservative". I'm in the 10%, by the way, but I refuse to engage in unrealistic solutions to complex problems.

if you are talking about people who recognize that both parties are to blame, then you are talking about a very small minority in here. For the most part, the posters here think one side's **** doesn't stink or will minimize the mistakes of their own party while gleefully posting every misstep by the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how so?

Because the next President will never utter the words "fair share" which is code for higher taxes and uncertainty. The next President will not be anti-drilling and anti-pipeline and will help calm anxiety about future supplies. The next President will certainly not fill the air waves with rhetoric like "hope, change, and transparency" when everyone knows those words usually mean the exact opposite. No, my feeling is the American public had a fling with Obama but now wants to come home to the less attractive but solid wife who can run the household and provide stability in their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Well put it this way.

There on people on this board who were hoping that Chicago was not going to get the Olympics simply because of the Obama connection.

An event that would have been a MAJOR boom for an American city and people here .....I wont name names... were EXCITED it did not come here because of the president.

There were people who expressed the opinion, me included, that Chicago was BROKE and could not afford the Olympics. Big difference. Borrowing Billions more just to have the games is pretty much the stupid economic path we are on now at the Federal level. Debt is killing us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the next President will never utter the words "fair share" which is code for higher taxes and uncertainty. Are your taxes higher than they were four years ago?

The next President will not be anti-drilling and anti-pipeline and will help calm anxiety about future supplies. The debate is in another thread as to whether ANY president can do this (BTW, the last one didn't either).

The next President will certainly not fill the air waves with rhetoric like "hope, change, and transparency" when everyone knows those words usually mean the exact opposite. Or "mission accomplished".

No, my feeling is the American public had a fling with Obama but now wants to come home to the less attractive but solid wife who can run the household and provide stability in their lives. Less attractive? The current GOP candidates look like the woman who had her face ripped off by a chimp. She might be nice to know, but I ain't kissin' that and most Americans are probably in agreement with me. BTW, that is the party that failed to make things stable the last time, so what's the diff now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were people who expressed the opinion, me included, that Chicago was BROKE and could not afford the Olympics. Big difference. Borrowing Billions more just to have the games is pretty much the stupid economic path we are on now at the Federal level. Debt is killing us.

bull to the chit.

I was not going to call anyone out but since you are telling LIES again I will

Your dumb *** exactly who I was talking about.

It had NOTHING ...............and I mean NOTHING to do with Chicago being "broke"

you rooting for a a huge huge economic boost to go to a foreign country in stead of staying here in america. And the ONLY reason you did not want it there was because of Obamas connection to Chicago.

Strait up, you may be a good guy in person but you are nothing more then a liar on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were people who expressed the opinion, me included, that Chicago was BROKE and could not afford the Olympics. Big difference. Borrowing Billions more just to have the games is pretty much the stupid economic path we are on now at the Federal level. Debt is killing us.

Since when is debt "killing us"? 2008? Seriously?huh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the next President will never utter the words "fair share" which is code for higher taxes and uncertainty. The next President will not be anti-drilling and anti-pipeline and will help calm anxiety about future supplies. The next President will certainly not fill the air waves with rhetoric like "hope, change, and transparency" when everyone knows those words usually mean the exact opposite. No, my feeling is the American public had a fling with Obama but now wants to come home to the less attractive but solid wife who can run the household and provide stability in their lives.

The last president cut taxes, opened drilling, and never uttered "fair share". How did that work out for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...