I would prefer that each of these assertions be followed by credible documentation. Nevertheless, they seem accurate.

I was skeptical that consumer confidence had risen so far since President Obama's inauguration. Nevertheless, the following website seems to substantiate that:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Conference-Board-Consumer-Confidence-Index.php

If anyone disagrees with any of these assertions, please document your disagreement.

 

Why do parties want to be tied to either Tea Party or Occupy. That's Willy Wonkers!

 

The stock market will go up or down no matter who is in office.
So many people have stopped looking for work they are no longer counted as unemployed.

 

"Despite the fact that Wall Street tends to prefer Republican candidates, the stock market historically has performed better under Democratic presidents.

"Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year.

"To be sure, the Dow is up more than 7% this year, on pace for a fourth straight year of gains."
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

That comes from The Wall Street Journal.

The US. Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees with Occupy Democrats about the unemployment rate when Barack Obama took over from George the Lesser. However, it says the unemployment rate has declined to 5.4%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

I see no reason to believe that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the unemployment rate.

 

It's fairly common knowledge that the Fed has been artificially propping up the markets via the printing presses.


Stock Markets: Why They’ve Moved Beyond Reality

5/27/15

Stock markets are soaring. The S&P 500 is at all-time highs. Other key stock indices across the globe are rising. With this, we hear the mainstream and politicians telling us that this is happening because overall global economic conditions are improving.
If this is the case, why do the economic data tell me the opposite? In my opinion, as a student of the markets for over 30 years, the only factor holding up the global economy is the massive amount of money printing. Take that away and global growth will plunge.

Yes, money printing by the Federal Reserve has stopped now ($4.0 trillion later), but it prevails across the globe as other major central banks continue to print.




Proof of Federal Reserve Stock Market Manipulation[/url=

5/29/2015

The fact that the U.S. banking system is awash with $2.6 trillion in excess reserves points to nothing more than U.S. Federal Reserve stock market manipulation.
Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has always extolled the virtues of extravagant bond-buying schemes as a way to loosen interest rate pressures and goose a slow-moving economy.

For most of the Fed's 100-year history, the growth of reserves in the banking system was flat – at least relative to the relentless surge Bernanke's tenure brought with it.

Excess reserves totaled $1.5 billion in February 2006 when Bernanke stepped in as chairman.

He left in February 2014. At that point they had grown to $2.5 trillion – a more than 160,000% increase!

To say it's "unprecedented" falls short of capturing just how much this central bank intervention turned the Federal Reserve's traditional role on its head.

 

$18 trillion in debt and counting....

 

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation
http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/05/09/marine_c0-49-872-557_s561x327.jpg?314824a48c87f5c6a07845736b2b2f1fd65241fd

 

NY Times: Middle Class Continues to Shrink Under President Obama
New York Times, Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up:
The middle class that President Obama identified in his State of the Union speech last week as the foundation of the American economy has been shrinking for almost half a century.
In the late 1960s, more than half of the households in the United States were squarely in the middle, earning, in today’s dollars, $35,000 to $100,000 a year. Few people noticed or cared as the size of that group began to fall, because the shift was primarily caused by more Americans climbing the economic ladder into upper-income brackets.
But since 2000, the middle-class share of households has continued to narrow, the main reason being that more people have fallen to the bottom. At the same time, fewer of those in this group fit the traditional image of a married couple with children at home, a gap increasingly filled by the elderly.

 

Silent misery: Actual US unemployment 37.2%, record number of households on food stamps


As the White House proclaims a recovery is occurring, and the stock market has a head of steam, millions of Americans and their dependents are being left out of the recovery, according to a set of economic indicators.
Perhaps the most worrying yet least reported aspect of the so-called US recovery involves the national labor picture. Although the official US unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, this figure obscures the reality, according to an influential Wall Street adviser.
In a leaked memo to clients, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of Americans out of work at an astronomic 37.2 percent, as opposed to the 6.7 percent claimed by the Federal Reserve.
“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said.
“Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work,” he and colleague Megan Russell reveal in their client report, which was leaked to the Washington Examiner.
Contrary to expectations, a drop in the unemployment rate, Marotta argues, is presently a sign that the unemployed are simply dropping out of the job market.
The “officially-reported unemployment numbers decrease when enough time passes to discourage the unemployed from looking for work,” said Marotta andRussel. “A decrease is not necessarily beneficial; an increase is clearly detrimental.”

http://rt.com/business/us-unemployment-economy-crisis-assistance-006/

 

Change under Obama...
the tie, some gray hair.

 

Yall blamin the wrong mofucker. One person is not solely responsible for everything that goes on. But since you got time to bitch naybe yoiu can get off your soap box. Plant a tree, help a homeless person, donate time to a civic cause, make someone laugh, and vote harder next time so I don't have to listen to your emo bullshit.

 

The result was phenomenal as reported by Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in the Wall Street Journal article: The Tax-Cut Payoff in Carolina.

Four years ago North Carolina’s unemployment rate was above 10% and the state still bore the effects of its battering in the recession. Many rural towns faced jobless rates of more than 20%. But in 2013 a combination of the biggest tax-rate reductions in the state’s history and a gutsy but controversial unemployment-insurance reform supercharged the state’s economy and has even helped finance budget surpluses.

The tax cut slashed the state’s top personal income-tax rate to 5.75%, near the regional average, from 7.75%, which had been the highest in the South. The corporate tax rate was cut to 5% from 6.9%. The estate tax was eliminated.

Next came the novel tough-love unemployment-insurance reforms. The state became the first in the nation to reject “free” federal payments for extended unemployment benefits and reduce the weeks of benefits to 20 from 26. The maximum weekly dollar amount of payments, $535, which had been among the highest in the nation, was trimmed to a maximum of $350 a week. As a result, tens of thousands of Carolinians left the unemployment rolls.
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#xXx3ErVe6Z8C3W7b.99

 

Change under Obama...in 08 people thought Bush fucked us so bad that we wouldnt see another republican prez for a long time....now after 6 yours of this clown the repubs are a lock in 16... i know you idiots are buying into the Hilary bullshit but its pipe dreams.

 

Concert idea: U.S.Aids.

Pay off the debt. Cure it like those benefits have cured all those cancer.

 

If we are to spend more money on the military, where is the money going to come from? You keep complaining about the growing national debt, remember?

 

Red States vs. Blue States: Lower Incomes and Less Growth in Texas
Posted on March 11, 2014, 9:19 pm

Conservatives, including not surprisingly Governor Perry, hold up Texas as the ideal which they want the nation to emulate. But GDP per capita is lower in Texas than in the blue states of Massachusetts and New York, and has grown by less in Texas than in Massachusetts or New York over at least the last fifteen years. In addition, personal income per capita is not only lower in Texas than in Massachusetts or New York (and very much lower), it is even lower than the US average. Corporations account for a disproportionate share of incomes earned in Texas.
http://aneconomicsense.com/2014/03/11/red-states-vs-blue-states-lower-incomes-and-growth-in-texas/

 

Of the 20 or so Republicans running for president, which ones do you feel are most likely to beat Clinton?

Personally, I can't see Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson, or Carly Fiorina, or 10 others I can't name, coming even close to threatening Clinton. Who can take Rick Perry seriously?

 

There's not a republican I think is a good choice up there.

I'm not sure Hillary can even beat Bernie Sanders....
People just don't trust her. Look for somebody else to enter the ring for the dems if they want a chance.

Presidential elections suck. They offer up these losers for us to choose from but in the end we all lose. Or we're getting it in the end..... whatever. If you've ever been in sales, you know what "option sales" is about. You offer them three choice to choose from. Any one of those options are to the seller's benefit so while the customer thinks he's making the choice, it's already been made. You get what they want to give you. Sucker.
I get better satisfaction for my vote in the state and local elections.

 

Hilary could win. I mean, people already know about the Clinton sleaze factor and still she holds a sizable lead in the race. People who support Clinton have told me that they can still support her because she is a) a woman b) a Democrat c) has experience in the white house. When I ask about her continual scandals they reply uniformly that she is no worse than the other candidates.

When I ask them what her plan is to reduce the deficit, or immigration, or the economy, or terrorism, they get a blank stare or shuffle off. Hillary has offered nothing specific on any of these issues.

The same thing that got Obama elected and re elected is at play here; we want her (him) because she (he) is a woman, (black man).

Reality and the good of the country play no part in the decision. If a viable candidate to oppose her doesn't show up soon we are truly fucked.