Markets 9-2-2020

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets



DOW


▲
29,100.50

+454.84
+1.59%





NASDAQ


▲
12,056.44

+116.78
+0.98%





S&P 500


▲
3,580.84

+54.19
+1.54%



Closed at 29,,000+ .

Capitalism rules

Fuck bernie,AOC, and Lizzie - who will destroy the American economy with their Soylent Green new Deal and other socialist Trillions in marxist socialist boondoggle spending.



Marxist Scialism is the enslaver of people.

Excellent-- I'll let my sister know that despite her being unemployed and unable to get an interview in her field-- that the markets are doing well. I'm sure that'll make her happy.

It is a sign of an improving economy .

You have my prayers for your sister.

if china had not loosed the Wuhan virus on the world - we would be at December 2019 - with record employment and a booming economy. Only 2/3 of a year better.



One who hates an improved economy and employment - needs to join the racist , Marxist DPST party.

One will fit right in with the socialist Totalitarians.

The stock market-- contrary to what some will tell you-- is not the economy. Its the top tier of the economy. One of the great ways to send your stock prices soaring is with profitability-- and the shareholders don't care if that comes from increased sales.. or from laying off hundreds of employees and shifting margins around.


Yep.. unemployment was at record lows before COVID. However-- I know a lot of folks who were having to work 2 jobs to survive. Sure-- they were "employed".. but that doesn't mean they were prosperous. In addition-- just like with Obama's doctored numbers-- those who have been unemployed beyond a certain amount of time are not counted in the numbers. There are a lot of folks in manufacturing who fit that label.



I love an improved economy and employment. I also love the nuances that go with both of those things.

I Do hope you both fare better under harris' socialism
It will be a rude awakening.

The DJIA went up 12,000 points under Obama/Biden. The DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P500, and the Wilshire5000 all set all time highs under Obama/Biden. Capitalism ruled under Obama/Biden. Plus the deficit went down to under 584 Billion. Thanks Obama/Biden.

The DJIA went up 12,000 points under Obama/Biden. The DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P500, and the Wilshire5000 all set all time highs under Obama/Biden. Capitalism ruled under Obama/Biden. Plus the deficit went down to under 584 Billion. Thanks Obama/Biden. Originally Posted by adav8s28

bullshit. you are using one of several methods to measure deficit growth.


https://www.thebalance.com/national-...-obama-3306293


here is where you get your figure of 584 Billion. you are picking this method of purpose to mask the real numbers


Method 3: How Obama's Policies Increased the Debt

The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done that for many of them.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contributed $830 billion between 2009 and 2019.7 More than 90% of its budget impact occurred by the end of 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects. Like the tax cuts, the ARRA stimulated the economy after the 2008 financial crisis.
Obama's largest contribution to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.8
Obama also increased military spending. The highest level of spending occurred in 2011. The $854.5 billion spent included:

• Department of Defense base budget: $528.3 billion
• Spending by defense-related agencies: $166.7 billion
• Homeland Security: $41.9 billion
• Veterans Affairs: $56.4 billion
• State: $50.1 billion
• FBI and Cybersecurity: $7.8 billion9
  
  
  
• National Nuclear Security Administration: $10.5 billion
• Overseas Contingency Operations for DoD and defense-related agencies: $159.5 billion10

Using this same methodology, Obama’s total defense spending was $6.3 trillion:

• 2010: $857.7 billion11
• 2011: $854.5 billion12
• 2012: $816.3 billion13 14
• 2013: $746.1 billion15 16
• 2014: $753.3 billion17 18
• 2015: $735.4 billion19 20
• 2016: $767.2 billion21 22
• 2017: $773.5 billion23 24

As a result, Obama’s policy of increased defense spending added $1.3 trillion to the debt over the baseline established by Bush.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added to the debt after 2014. That’s when the health insurance exchanges opened, and coverage was extended to more low-income people. Obamacare's tax increases offset these costs by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019.25
When all of this is added up, Obama and his policies increased the national debt by $2.8 trillion.


Method 1: Debt Added Since Obama Took Office

The largest number comes from calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. When Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left office on Jan. 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion.1 It explains why some would say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt—more than any other president.



Method 2: Obama's Budget Deficits

The second method is to add up all of the budget deficits incurred while Obama was in office. You shouldn’t hold any president accountable for the deficit incurred during the first year. Most of that deficit belongs to the previous president since he created the federal budget for that year.


President George W. Bush's last budget—for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009—created a deficit of $1.4 trillion.2 That fiscal year began on Oct. 1, 2008, and continued until Sept. 30, 2009. Although most of that deficit occurred after Obama took office, it was a result of Bush's budget. Similarly, the first deficit that occurred after President Donald Trump took office was due to Obama's last budget.


Here are Obama’s deficits by year. They total $6.79 trillion.2


FY 2009: Congress added $253 billion from Obama's Economic Stimulus Act to Bush’s last budget after Obama took office. This emergency funding was to stop the Great Recession. That $253 billion accrues to Obama, not Bush.3 Once the $253 billion is subtracted from the FY 2009 deficit, it means Bush’s true budget deficit was $1.16 trillion.

• FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.300 trillion. Defense spending hit $854.5 billion.
• FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Sequestration forced a 10% cut in spending.
• FY 2014: The deficit was $485 billion. Tax revenue rose to $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2015: The deficit fell further to $438 billion.
• FY 2016: The deficit rose to $585 billion. Congress had added $58.6 billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan.
• FY 2017: The deficit was $665 billion.4 It was $162 billion more than the $503 billion deficit estimated in Obama's budget request.5

Like most presidents, Obama's contribution to the debt was higher. There's a difference between the deficit and the debt. All presidents can reduce the appearance of the deficit by borrowing from federal retirement funds.


For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987.6 There have been more working people contributing to the fund via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits from it. This fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes. The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. As a result, Obama added a total of $8.588 trillion to the debt.


The Bottom Line

Depending on the method you use, Obama contributed between $2.8 trillion and $9 trillion to the overall U.S. national debt. While that’s a large amount, it’s worth comparing to the national debt added by every other president. That's the best way to understand why the U.S. debt is so big.

Even by your own link.. Obama's debt increase wasn't as bad as Reagan and Bush part Deux. Looking forward to seeing Trump added into the mix......


OEB-- I'm not sure why you included me in that. I'm fine-- I have an excellent job that isn't at risk. However-- a lot of folks I know aren't so lucky. You want to cry socialism anytime someone presents something that doesn't march in step with your beliefs-- the fact is.. the stock market is not the economy-- its only a representation of the wealthiest of those in the country. Bezos's wealth crossed the 200 billion mark.. but he has a lot of employees who receive some form of public assistance. You have this notion in your head that I support socialism-- which is false. I support being educated in all the parts of the economy-- not just the ones that paint your guy in the best light. I had the same things to say when Obama bragged about unemployment-- because it was also based on cooked numbers.

Even by your own link.. Obama's debt increase wasn't as bad as Reagan Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Is that so...and this was BEFORE obumers term was ever over!!


Obama's federal debt dwarfs Reagan's
By Sierra Rayne
The Washington Post has an article with the following claim:

Obama's term isn't over, but it is hard to believe he could increase the debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan did.

To arrive at this spurious conclusion, the Post apparently used non-inflation adjusted, non-seasonally adjusted raw total federal debt data from the Federal Reserve, and then proceeded to ignore normalization to either the size of the economy or population, and calculated the percent increase in this metric between January 1, 2009 and the latest data as of July 1, 2014 for Obama as compared to the percent increase between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 1989 for Reagan.

Using this intellectually flawed approach, one arrives at numbers of a 184-percent increase under Reagan and a 60-percent increase under Obama.

The absolute nominal value of the U.S. federal debt has no meaning whatsoever. It is an effectively useless statistic. By the Post's logic, having debt increase by 300 percent from $1 to $3 would be less desirable than having debt increase by 50 percent from $10 trillion to $15 trillion. Factor in higher rates of population growth, inflation, and economic growth under Reagan versus Obama, and it becomes obvious that nominal total debt comparisons are meaningless. Let us not forget that real GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3 percent; the next-highest value since was just 4.7 percent in 1999.

The best metric is normalization to the size of the economy. As is clear from the figure below, under Reagan the federal debt increased from 30.8 percent of GDP in January 1981 to 49.6 percent of GDP in January 1989, for a total increase of 18.8 percent of GDP. By comparison, the federal debt under Obama has increased from 77.4 percent of GDP in January 2009 up to 101.3 percent of GDP as of the latest data release in July 2014, for a total increase of 23.9 percent.

Consequently, in order for Obama's debt increase to be no larger than Reagan's, Obama would need to reduce the federal debt by 5.1 percent of GDP between now and January 2017.

The other valid comparison is to look at per capita federal debt in constant dollar terms. We can get at this number by multiplying the federal debt as a percentage of GDP (shown above) by real GDP in chained 2009 dollars and then dividing by the population. Via this approach, Reagan increased the real per capita federal debt by $8,584, whereas Obama has already increased the real per capita federal debt by $15,177.

Whichever way you look at it, Obama has already increased the federal debt far more than Reagan ever did.

Is that so...and this was BEFORE obumers term was ever over!!


Obama's federal debt dwarfs Reagan's
By Sierra Rayne
The Washington Post has an article with the following claim:

Obama's term isn't over, but it is hard to believe he could increase the debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan did.

To arrive at this spurious conclusion, the Post apparently used non-inflation adjusted, non-seasonally adjusted raw total federal debt data from the Federal Reserve, and then proceeded to ignore normalization to either the size of the economy or population, and calculated the percent increase in this metric between January 1, 2009 and the latest data as of July 1, 2014 for Obama as compared to the percent increase between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 1989 for Reagan.

Using this intellectually flawed approach, one arrives at numbers of a 184-percent increase under Reagan and a 60-percent increase under Obama.

The absolute nominal value of the U.S. federal debt has no meaning whatsoever. It is an effectively useless statistic. By the Post's logic, having debt increase by 300 percent from $1 to $3 would be less desirable than having debt increase by 50 percent from $10 trillion to $15 trillion. Factor in higher rates of population growth, inflation, and economic growth under Reagan versus Obama, and it becomes obvious that nominal total debt comparisons are meaningless. Let us not forget that real GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3 percent; the next-highest value since was just 4.7 percent in 1999.

The best metric is normalization to the size of the economy. As is clear from the figure below, under Reagan the federal debt increased from 30.8 percent of GDP in January 1981 to 49.6 percent of GDP in January 1989, for a total increase of 18.8 percent of GDP. By comparison, the federal debt under Obama has increased from 77.4 percent of GDP in January 2009 up to 101.3 percent of GDP as of the latest data release in July 2014, for a total increase of 23.9 percent.

Consequently, in order for Obama's debt increase to be no larger than Reagan's, Obama would need to reduce the federal debt by 5.1 percent of GDP between now and January 2017.

The other valid comparison is to look at per capita federal debt in constant dollar terms. We can get at this number by multiplying the federal debt as a percentage of GDP (shown above) by real GDP in chained 2009 dollars and then dividing by the population. Via this approach, Reagan increased the real per capita federal debt by $8,584, whereas Obama has already increased the real per capita federal debt by $15,177.

Whichever way you look at it, Obama has already increased the federal debt far more than Reagan ever did. Originally Posted by bb1961

so the leftists cooked the numbers to hide Obama's fiscal ineptitude ..who knew??


and at least Reagan got something for all that debt .. a strong military that forced the collapse of the USSR without firing a single shot. now that's what i call a bargain!!

I Do hope you both fare better under harris' socialism
It will be a rude awakening. Originally Posted by oeb11

it would be...since it ain't gonna happen


biden/harris will win


no socialism

so the leftists cooked the numbers to hide Obama's fiscal ineptitude ..who knew??


and at least Reagan got something for all that debt .. a strong military that forced the collapse of the USSR without firing a single shot. now that's what i call a bargain!! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

trump was a bargain for putin..

it would be...since it ain't gonna happen


biden/harris will win


no socialism Originally Posted by matchingmole

I see why you post stupid pics all the time because when you post ANY text TRYING show ANY intellect...as you say..."it ain't going happen"

bullshit. you are using one of several methods to measure deficit growth.


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contributed $830 billion between 2009 and 2019.7 More than 90% of its budget impact occurred by the end of 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects. Like the tax cuts, the ARRA stimulated the economy after the 2008 financial crisis.
Obama's largest contribution to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.8
Obama also increased military spending. The highest level of spending occurred in 2011. The $854.5 billion spent included:

• Department of Defense base budget: $528.3 billion
• Spending by defense-related agencies: $166.7 billion
• Homeland Security: $41.9 billion
• Veterans Affairs: $56.4 billion
• State: $50.1 billion
• FBI and Cybersecurity: $7.8 billion9
  
  
  
• National Nuclear Security Administration: $10.5 billion
• Overseas Contingency Operations for DoD and defense-related agencies: $159.5 billion10

Using this same methodology, Obama’s total defense spending was $6.3 trillion:

• 2010: $857.7 billion11
• 2011: $854.5 billion12
• 2012: $816.3 billion13 14
• 2013: $746.1 billion15 16
• 2014: $753.3 billion17 18
• 2015: $735.4 billion19 20
• 2016: $767.2 billion21 22
• 2017: $773.5 billion23 24

As a result, Obama’s policy of increased defense spending added $1.3 trillion to the debt over the baseline established by Bush.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added to the debt after 2014. That’s when the health insurance exchanges opened, and coverage was extended to more low-income people. Obamacare's tax increases offset these costs by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019.25
When all of this is added up, Obama and his policies increased the national debt by $2.8 trillion.


Method 1: Debt Added Since Obama Took Office

The largest number comes from calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. When Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left office on Jan. 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion.1 It explains why some would say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt—more than any other president.



Method 2: Obama's Budget Deficits

The second method is to add up all of the budget deficits incurred while Obama was in office. You shouldn’t hold any president accountable for the deficit incurred during the first year. Most of that deficit belongs to the previous president since he created the federal budget for that year.


President George W. Bush's last budget—for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009—created a deficit of $1.4 trillion.2 That fiscal year began on Oct. 1, 2008, and continued until Sept. 30, 2009. Although most of that deficit occurred after Obama took office, it was a result of Bush's budget. Similarly, the first deficit that occurred after President Donald Trump took office was due to Obama's last budget.


Here are Obama’s deficits by year. They total $6.79 trillion.2


FY 2009: Congress added $253 billion from Obama's Economic Stimulus Act to Bush’s last budget after Obama took office. This emergency funding was to stop the Great Recession. That $253 billion accrues to Obama, not Bush.3 Once the $253 billion is subtracted from the FY 2009 deficit, it means Bush’s true budget deficit was $1.16 trillion.

• FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.300 trillion. Defense spending hit $854.5 billion.
• FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Sequestration forced a 10% cut in spending.
• FY 2014: The deficit was $485 billion. Tax revenue rose to $3.02 trillion.
• FY 2015: The deficit fell further to $438 billion.
• FY 2016: The deficit rose to $585 billion. Congress had added $58.6 billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan.
• FY 2017: The deficit was $665 billion.4 It was $162 billion more than the $503 billion deficit estimated in Obama's budget request.5

Like most presidents, Obama's contribution to the debt was higher. There's a difference between the deficit and the debt. All presidents can reduce the appearance of the deficit by borrowing from federal retirement funds.


For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987.6 There have been more working people contributing to the fund via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits from it. This fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes. The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys. As a result, Obama added a total of $8.588 trillion to the debt.


The Bottom Line

Depending on the method you use, Obama contributed between $2.8 trillion and $9 trillion to the overall U.S. national debt. While that’s a large amount, it’s worth comparing to the national debt added by every other president. That's the best way to understand why the U.S. debt is so big. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You are welcome to have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Above you have used the balance as a source. The link below is from the balance. Guess what the deficit number for 2017 is? It's 585 Billion. Who was president in 2017? President Obama. You should be familiar with economist Kimberly Amadeo you have quoted her in the past. Nice try Waco, you lose again.


https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

You are welcome to have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. Above you have used the balance as a source. The link below is from the balance. Guess what the deficit number for 2017 is? It's 585 Billion. Who was president in 2017? President Obama. You should be familiar with economist Kimberly Amadeo you have quoted her in the past. Nice try Waco, you lose again.


https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 Originally Posted by adav8s28

you keep bringing that up, like it matters?

are you disputing this ..


The Bottom Line

Depending on the method you use, Obama contributed between $2.8 trillion and $9 trillion to the overall U.S. national debt.

the 9 trillion figure is accurate. and the least number by method for his total presidency is 2.8 trillion


Obama wasn't prez in 2017

and why don't you just impress me by answering what WTF could not ..

what are the 3 components of the federal debt and which are actually good and which is bad?