brenthutch

You must have missed the above post.

"In terms of average annual growth, the pace of this expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949. (And for which we have quarterly data.) The economy has grown at a 2.1% annual rate since the U.S. recovery began in mid-2009, according to gross-domestic-product data the Commerce Department released Friday." Just what part of "the pace of expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949" do you guys not get? http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Sorry for no clicky, iPad acting up

No I reinforced and expanded on them, as Kallend would say, "you are having some reading comprehension problems today." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Looks like I was right. MSNBC is stuck on outrage after the Trump press conference. I had to turn to CNN for Tillerson's confirmation coverage.

Settle down, I know you are still emotionally scarred from the election results, so I will cut you some slack. I sourced every single claim, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not so. Your failure to understand basic economic terms reflects poorly on you not me.

It's GWB's fault.

What you take, and what you don't take, is entirely your prerogative. I support you 100%.

No, you obviously can't/won't wrap you brain around what the definitions of recession and recovery are, not the HuffPo spin, but the actual definition. I will give you a quick primer. Unemployment rate, deficit, and jobs created are no more acceptable than the workforce participation rate, the number of folks on food stamps or the poverty rate. It is based on something I like to call GDP (gross domestic product). Class dismissed.

You should stick to engineering, when it comes to economics you are in over your head. BTW I did not back down, I doubled down and provide proof. FYI GDP is the accepted metric for determining recession and recovery.

Just where am I backing off of that reality? http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/

It is sad to see you reduced to name calling, although I know it is just your way of conceding the point.

So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan). RR added $1.9 trillion, BHO added $9+trillion. 1.9

I brought it up as an aside to my main point which was the anemic recovery under BHO.

So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan). RR added $1.9 trillion, BHO added $9+trillion. 1.9

You quoted a source from 2012, it is now 2017. Update your information.

Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. CNN says, " By January 2009, the United States had accumulated $10.6 trillion in debt. That's the net amount the country had borrowed from Washington through the Bush years. The gross national debt now stands at $19.7 trillion. That's an increase of $9.1 trillion — not quite a doubling, but pretty close." And that was three months ago. Show me your numbers and sources.

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” BHO If $4 trillion is unpatriotic, I think you would agree with me that $8 trillion is downright treasonous.

I shoud have made clear that I ment that some of Obama's regulations probably have some merit. With regard to the debt you are confusing deficit with debt. You should bone up on the basics before you pop off with the PAs.

1. That is just shorthand, I'm sure somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of regulations there are a few that make sense 2. The most anemic recovery in the modern era and he doubled our debt to do it 3. It depends on how it is done. Repealing Obamacare would cost nothing, in fact it would save billions. Replacing Obamacare is a different kettle of fish.

Obviously you are still hobbled by those goblins.

I don't hate Obama. I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hi jerry, I'm not advocating the rollback of all regulations, just Obama's. I realize this is very confusing for some, but that would not mean going back to the 19th century, just the beginning of the 21st. No burning rivers, no Love Canal, no ozone holes, no acid rain nor any of the other hobgoblins that populate the imaginations of many on this thread.

I agree with you tha coal done wrong is very bad.(ask China) Can you agree with me that coal done right can work. Or is coal evil and beyond redemption?

It's not in the list of the top 100 polluters in the USA. Consider yourself lucky. Others - not so much. It's good of you to be so empathic - NOT. At the time of the review we had a coal fired power plant right in the middle of town. http://onwardstate.com/2015/05/29/state-college-ranked-best-town-in-pennsylvania-14th-in-the-nation/

I knew they were working on that, I was unaware they had made the switch. It kind of makes my point though. Other than cheaper energy for the university, there is no discernible difference.