U.S. Consumers Still Pessimistic
… WHICH MEANS THEY AREN’T SPENDING || By FITSNEWS || America’s promised economic rYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
… WHICH MEANS THEY AREN’T SPENDING || By FITSNEWS || America’s promised economic rYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
14 comments
DUH!!!!!…Can you give us ANY fundamental changes that have taken place that would give us cause for OPTIMISM…???
I find it amazing (not really) that FITS is perpetually SURPRISED…after six-plus years of a failing economy that the same idiots are always dumbfounded when bad numbers are reported, again and again……
Obama has been propped up by fudged-data and a fawning media that told us “W’s ROBUST – low unemployment, rising wages, and opportunity – economy was one of the worst EVER…Maybe that’s it…
Dumb@$$#$…
Bubbles are real pretty til they pop.
Hmmmm…A bubble that lasted most of the 8 years of Bush…as he dealt w/ National security issues that Clinton NEGLECTED for two terms while he Lewinski-ed all day long…..
You may need to study the US economy. Downturns are cyclical..and good leadership makes them short-lived (like six months)…Obama’s has been more than 6 years…w/ no end in sight (except the 2016 elections)….
Downturns are cyclical. Like the one GWB caused in 2007? Worst since the Great Depression. How long did that last, like 8 years? The difference in duration is typcially due to a) how badly the GOP Presient makes it, and b) how hard it is for the following Democratic President to fix it.
Democrats damaged the economy by LOUDLY announcing their NO DRILL policy. Speculators knew they could by for a dime and sell for a $100 (figuratively…so stop jacking off Dumb@$$, thinking, in your desperation, you’ve caught me in a numbers breach)….
Even McCain had enough sense to tell you how stupid NO DRILL was…AND: you FORCED banks to lend to bad customers…via the Liberal-created CRA (look it up.) ….When all those notes came due…and your constituents laughed in your face and told you (or the bank you forced) to get F*#ked….guess what happened to the economy…with all those federally backed loans???
That said: any capable president would have FIXED the problems by now. Obama has just made it worse….
Shut up idiot. You have no facts, economic training or analytical capability outside of taking a crap. I’m done with you today.
SO how do you explain GWB’s 2001 to 2004 record of higher than average unemployment when he didn’t even have a downturn? Odd?
No matter WHEN under Bush, if you use REAL and F-T employment, Bush’s unemployment rate was ALWAYS lower than Obama’s….
And Bush had to deal w/ the Clinton/Reno Microsoft shake-down lawsuit Recession of 2000 and 9-11. Bush – as a leader is SUPPOSED to do- brought us out of those BRILLIANTLY, simply by incorporating freedom for honest people…..
And if the Democrats would not have FORCED the Community Re-Investment Act on Banks, making them lend to the high risks, there would have been no housing bubble. The Bush Administration told Congress it was coming over and over…The Democrats DID NOT CARE…
The Clinton/Reno Mcrosoft shake-down Lawsuit Recession of 2000? What are you – on drugs? I swear, I hate talking with you because it’s like having a conversation with a pin wheel. Just shut up and go away. Support some facts, or blow off.
To put it in perspective, year to date average is 101, versus 2014 average of 87, so pessimistic is probably around 65, thus a fluxuation between 95 and 110 is not a huge deal. Historicaly, it was it’s highest in recent memory between Jan 1997 and Dec 2000 when it averaged 132. In the first eight years of the millenium – 2001 through 2008 it averaged 93. Hey Tango, is that when your boy was running the show? Now who was President in that 97-2000 period? Gee – I don’t remember. Can you? And BTW – it averaged 92 under Reagan, and 84 under Bush 1. Tootles.
Mmmmmm … Relying on Gruberment stats, again. Rocky: When will you ever learn that Gruberized g’ment spewing number are almost pure spin, spliff and sputter.
(Even those spun g’ment numbers under Reagan are misleading. When He took office [from Brother Jimmy], Consumer Confidence was in the low 70’s. After His tax cuts began to take effect, the CC jumped to over 100 and was steadily up … until that “read my lips” fool showed up in the high chair.)
Eddy – you have to have a measurement somehow. I doubt PhD guys at Labor and Commerce cook the books. Else GWB’s would look a lot better. As for Reagan, either his tax cuts or his huge spending increases.
Consumer confidence will not improve until we all get a huge, permanent, nation wide tax cut.
Oh, oh, you mean you admit we need thriving middle and working classes to drive demand to keep the economy humming?
You mean you admit there are simply not enough human beings in the 1% to actually drive an economy anywhere except into the ground even if most of the money goes into their hands so they can gamble on Wall Street?