Thanks for your perspective Wayne... I've noticed the same thing. But for those that have jobs, and who have some measure of confidence that whatever job they have is recession-proof, isn't that always the way? If you have the disposable income, and you think you will continue to have it, why would your shopping habits change?
Good article - and there you go. I still say calling it a recession is a bullcrap way to try to placate people. The government does not want the bad reaction it could expect if it was called what it really is.
I think if you told my 93 yr old mother that this is a depression, she would find that quite amusing, then give you chapter and verse about what a real depression looks and feels like.
The Viking wrote:
Guess you TV has been off today? This was passed early this morning by the House. It had nothing to do with the market worrying if it wouldn't pass. Not sure where that came from? It was the economic numbers and people realizing that we just added $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years, and S&P will most likely downgrade us because the Dems wouldn't allow enough cuts.
If you can't make your argument without lying, then maybe your argument is flawed. If we get downgraded it will because the Republicans refused to entertain revenue increases.
You really can't read or keep up with things can you? S&P flat out said, there has to be at least $4 trillion in CUTS and that probably wouldn't be enough! Nothing about revenue. That is a Liberal scare tactic. And Pelosi came out today saying there were TOO many cuts. Libs just don't get it!
WayneH wrote: I'm not looking at any history. I'm just telling you what I am observing.
Famous last words of a fool! Just What Obama did! One of the most ignorant and arrogant statements anyone can make. Screw history. It is irrelevant, I trust my observation of my own little bubble in my own little world more.
Archer - my dad's been talking to my 94 year old grandpa and his 92 year old brother. Interesting, since they say this is EXACTLY what the depression looked like -again, barring the drought.
They were all teenagers together during that time - grandpa apparently remembers it vividly. Perhaps being different parts of the country, different lifestyles (thought probably similar economic status), they will have different points of view. Not to be sexist, but the women also saw it different than the men did - that was clear to me by the things my grandma used to say.
I already do a great number of things my grandmother taught me - things she did during the depression. (She got married in 1933 to my other gramps) All to save money, be frugal, make things last longer. I do, however, draw the line are reseaming sheets. I slept on those enough as a kid - I hate em. I just "repurpose" the sheet, to use the modern (bullhonkey) term.
The Viking wrote:
Guess you TV has been off today? This was passed early this morning by the House. It had nothing to do with the market worrying if it wouldn't pass. Not sure where that came from? It was the economic numbers and people realizing that we just added $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years, and S&P will most likely downgrade us because the Dems wouldn't allow enough cuts.
If you can't make your argument without lying, then maybe your argument is flawed. If we get downgraded it will because the Republicans refused to entertain revenue increases.
You really can't read or keep up with things can you? S&P flat out said, there has to be at least $4 trillion in CUTS and that probably wouldn't be enough! Nothing about revenue. That is a Liberal scare tactic. And Pelosi came out today saying there were TOO many cuts. Libs just don't get it!
And you need a course in reading comprehension, my post was not directed at the S&P, it was directed at you for saying the house voted early this morning, and therefore concern over the passage of the bill had no effect on the stock market.
As I posted earlier, the house voted this evening, after the market had closed.