Americans' confidence in economy lowest since 2014

[Caine Mutiny]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Too bad the left have been gaslighting the "Crisis" of Climate Change in pursuit of "Green Energy" and fighting Repbulican's on nuclear energy for the last, I don't know, 40 years, huh?  Well, "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" for 40+ years, that is.  Nuclear energy is about what, 20 years in the making, that the left have been fighting against... slowly starting to come around.

1. Climate change is a crisis. 
2. We should pursue green energy. 
3. We should pursue nuclear energy, particularly nuclear fusion. 
 

I have believed in the above 3 points for years. I see no contradiction between them. 

[Alias Detective]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Pretty sure it was Twin Lakes. They had a little cabin right on it with a dock. One of my parents is from there, the big city! The other one from Moville. 

Lake Marie - John Prine

[WhiteWonder]

3 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

1. Climate change is a crisis. 
2. We should pursue green energy. 
3. We should pursue nuclear energy, particularly nuclear fusion. 
 

I have believed in the above 3 points for years. I see no contradiction between them. 

I agree with 2 and 3... as far as 1 goes, climate change is of course real... crisis? no. global warming? no

and this is coming from someone who cares a great deal about nature, the environment, recycling, not being wasteful with energy, etc. I just happen to believe in natural climate cycles that have existed forever, and long before humans. I also question how much data is being cherry picked to prove a certain argument when there also exists data (such as satellite data and lack of severe weather trends) that contradicts. 

[Caine Mutiny]

Just now, WhiteWonder said:

I agree with 2 and 3... as far as 1 goes, climate change is of course real... crisis? no. global warming? no

and this is coming from someone who cares a great deal about nature, the environment, recycling, not being wasteful with energy, etc. I just happen to believe in natural climate cycles that have existed forever, and long before humans. I also question how much data is being cherry picked to prove a certain argument when there also exists data (such as satellite data and lack of severe weather trends) that contradicts. 

Of course I strongly disagree and I think you’re ignoring scientific consensus but you know what? I’m tired of arguing it. I think most people are. If you agree on points 2 and 3 we can have consensus. Whether you accept the crisis of man made climate change or not, it should be obvious to anyone that we benefit from finding alternatives to fossil fuels. 

[WhiteWonder]

3 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Of course I strongly disagree and I think you’re ignoring scientific consensus but you know what? I’m tired of arguing it. I think most people are. If you agree on points 2 and 3 we can have consensus. Whether you accept the crisis of man made climate change or not, it should be obvious to anyone that we benefit from finding alternatives to fossil fuels. 

I would never sit here and tell anyone that man has no impact... what I will debate and argue against is it being a crisis. Anyone can claim something is a crisis and find data to support their claim while ignoring any data that does not support said claim. 

but moving past that, I am all for finding alternative energy sources. not because I think fossil fuels need to be replaced, but because I believe it is always a good thing to have as many different energy sources as possible. 

[Fnord]

50 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

I would never sit here and tell anyone that man has no impact... what I will debate and argue against is it being a crisis. Anyone can claim something is a crisis and find data to support their claim while ignoring any data that does not support said claim. 

but moving past that, I am all for finding alternative energy sources. not because I think fossil fuels need to be replaced, but because I believe it is always a good thing to have as many different energy sources as possible. 

China has completely cleaned our clocks when it comes to renewable energy. As a result they are much better positioned to absorb the oil shock than the US is presently. While big oil has obfuscated the issues and we argue about what is already considered settled science by the vast majority of the scientific community (along with oil companies, the US gov't and military, and dozens if not hundreds of foreign governments), we've totally focked ourselves from an energy standpoint, and done so willingly. 

What kills me is the folks (obviously not you) that piss and moan about clean energy failing to understand that the less reliance we have on fossil fuels, the better it is not just for mother earth but for economic and national security.  

[TBayXXXVII]

1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said:

1. Climate change is a crisis. 
2. We should pursue green energy. 
3. We should pursue nuclear energy, particularly nuclear fusion. 
 

I have believed in the above 3 points for years. I see no contradiction between them. 

Oh no, there's no contradiction, that's true.  It's just that the first one isn't real, the second one is a waste of time based off of the first one, again, not being real.  If the entire time, we were putting effort into nuclear energy, we'd most likely be better off and not have to worry about fossil fuelsAlso, let's be honest, the fact that the Democrats have been gaslighting the whole Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change crap for my entire life, there's a 0% chance that it'll ever change.  They'll just refocus the talking point... you know, like 'Global Cooling is a problem'... 'Well, it's actually Global Warming'... 'Really, it's "Climate Change"'.  It'll just be something else that rubes can be scared about.

Democrats never let a picket sign go to waste.  They just keep creating new victims.

[Fnord]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

What kills me is the folks (obviously not you) that piss and moan about clean energy failing to understand that the less reliance we have on fossil fuels, the better it is not just for mother earth but for economic and national security.  

As if on cue:

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh no, there's no contradiction, that's true.  It's just that the first one isn't real, the second one is a waste of time based off of the first one, again, not being real.  If the entire time, we were putting effort into nuclear energy, we'd most likely be better off and not have to worry about fossil fuelsAlso, let's be honest, the fact that the Democrats have been gaslighting the whole Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change crap for my entire life, there's a 0% chance that it'll ever change.  They'll just refocus the talking point... you know, like 'Global Cooling is a problem'... 'Well, it's actually Global Warming'... 'Really, it's "Climate Change"'.  It'll just be something else that rubes can be scared about.

Democrats never let a picket sign go to waste.  They just keep creating new victims.

 

[TBayXXXVII]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

Sherrill campaigned big time on freezing utility rates her "first day in office" ... sound familiar? 

What she has actually done is sign an EO requesting the Board of Public Utilities to simply consider pausing rate hikes, not actually block or freeze them. the BPU can still approve rate hikes if utilities justify them. 

Exactly.  But, Democrats will still keep electing these people.  

[JuneJuly]

2 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

In the article I posted earlier in the Iran thread, the writer mentioned that typically stock market crashes as a result of energy concerns happens much after the fact- during the actual crisis the market tends to be hopeful of a quick resolve. That’s how the 1973 crisis went down- only about a month after OPEC opened up the oil supply did Wall Street finally suffer a major dip followed by recession- the inflation part occurred right away during the crisis. 
 

If this lesson holds true then once the Strait of Hormuz is open (and I suspect this may be some time away or open on a limited, restricted basis) then we will see a significant correction. 

Smart investors welcome corrections.  But you've been predicting one for years now.  Someday you'll be right.  Someday.  

[TBayXXXVII]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

As if on cue:

 

Before you call someone out, you should lear how to read. (yes, I spelled that wrong on purpose).

[JuneJuly]

On 5/11/2026 at 10:28 AM, JuneJuly said:

New all time high EVERY DAY?  Too soon?

Another one. 

[Fnord]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Before you call someone out, you should lear how to read. (yes, I spelled that wrong on purpose).

Well that seems silly if you're trying to teach me how to reed.

[TBayXXXVII]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Well that seems silly if you're trying to teach me how to reed.

I wasn't... I was making a joke.  Unless I'm wrong that you're not from Minnesota.  In that case, joke wasted.

[seafoam1]

8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Well that seems silly if you're trying to teach me how to reed.

Liberals are so dumb. 

[Fnord]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I wasn't... I was making a joke.  Unless I'm wrong that you're not from Minnesota.  In that case, joke wasted.

I am from MN. Joke was still wasted. As was my mistyping of the word read.

[SUXBNME]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I am from MN. Joke was still wasted. As was my mistyping of the word read.

I caught that and laughed 

 

Also fuk a timscrotch and his climate alarmism

[TBayXXXVII]

2 minutes ago, SUXBNME said:

I caught that and laughed 

 

Also fuk a timscrotch and his climate alarmism

Yeah, I caught it too, I just found it entertaining that he was quick to abandon his initial agenda.

[JuneJuly]

1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said:

1. Climate change is a crisis. 
2. We should pursue green energy. 
3. We should pursue nuclear energy, particularly nuclear fusion. 
 

I have believed in the above 3 points for years. I see no contradiction between them. 

The contradiction comes when you cry about a blockage of just 20% of the world's non-green energy all day long. 

CRISIS!  But restricting any use of oil is also a CRISIS!  

[seafoam1]

16 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I am from MN. Joke was still wasted. As was my mistyping of the word read.

"Mistyping". 

[WhiteWonder]

45 minutes ago, Fnord said:

China has completely cleaned our clocks when it comes to renewable energy.
While big oil has obfuscated the issues and we argue about what is already considered settled science by the vast majority of the scientific community 

Two quick points or pushbacks on the above 

1. the US has been hugely instrumental for China, who has tariffs imposed and largely does not import but without reciprocal tariffs, has been a key to created millions of jobs and help fund renewable energy research.

2. the scientific community has plenty of incentive to make climate change seem to be a crisis. Too many people think scientists are only truth tellers and ignore the $. When something is called a crisis, it increases research funding, grants, and research jobs at universities for phd holders who don’t even teach. 

[dogcows]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Exxon is leaving NJ (moving to Texas), because of liberal costs (Gov's Murphy & Sherrill), put on corporations.

JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and TD Bank are moving jobs out of Jersey City to go to Miami.

Interesting fact:  Increase of costs to business are more impacted by the local government than the federal government.

I think different businesses are affected in different ways by local vs national government policies. For example: a drug company dependent on FDA approvals is FAR more affected by the federal government than whatever locality they are in.

As for New Jersey vs Florida?

in the past year, Florida had -0.3% job growth year-over-year. New Jersey had +0.1% for the same time period.

Data: https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/statewide_otm_oty_change.htm

[JuneJuly]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

China has completely cleaned our clocks when it comes to renewable energy.   

They've also cleaned our clocks, and the rest of the world, in non-renewable energy.  Especially coal. At rate increases never seen before.  Their carbon footprint is growing exponentially. 

But hey, they have more solar panels than us!

[Fnord]

14 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:

Two quick points or pushbacks on the above 

1. the US has been hugely instrumental for China, who has tariffs imposed and largely does not import but without reciprocal tariffs, has been a key to created millions of jobs and help fund renewable energy research.

2. the scientific community has plenty of incentive to make climate change seem to be a crisis. Too many people think scientists are only truth tellers and ignore the $. When something is called a crisis, it increases research funding, grants, and research jobs at universities for phd holders who don’t even teach. 

The US has been even more instrumental for China than you say, since their gains have been made in significant part to their propensity to steal foreign IP, especially ours. Another reason Trump should probably not make any deals with them but probably won't be able to help himself. Your typical 400 lb couch potato waste case has more self control than our POTUS.

And of course you're not wrong on your second point, but who has more incentive? Scientists and PHD's scrabbling to get their 5- to 7-figure grants, or oil companies protecting billions of dollars of profit DAILY?

[WhiteWonder]

5 hours ago, Fnord said:

The US has been even more instrumental for China than you say, since their gains have been made in significant part to their propensity to steal foreign IP, especially ours. Another reason Trump should probably not make any deals with them but probably won't be able to help himself. Your typical 400 lb couch potato waste case has more self control than our POTUS.

And of course you're not wrong on your second point, but who has more incentive? Scientists and PHD's scrabbling to get their 5- to 7-figure grants, or oil companies protecting billions of dollars of profit DAILY?

I don't get the point of the first paragraph, other than Trump!  . Trump imposed tariffs on China in his first term (which were kept by the next admin with a few targeted increases as elections approached in 2024) and so far has placed higher ones. What deals are you speaking of? The ones related to easing some of the tariffs in favor of negotiated reciprocal tariffs or deals for China to increase purchases of some american products? This would normally be considered a good thing by Dems, but I get it... Trump!

Yes my statement about Scientists is true. For some reason, a lot of people just blindly think "oh scientists will only tell us facts and also will never leave out other facts that don't support their hypothesis" just how pharma companies are not in it for profit . There are plenty of avenues for Scientists to profit, as already mentioned, and there are science jobs in private sectors and those companies absolutely want to make money. Where is the money in saying "everything is good as is!"  I don't think anyone is saying oil companies don't have a vested interest in propping up their source of fuel... not really a great whattaboutism

[Fnord]

38 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

I don't get the point of the first paragraph, other than Trump!  . Trump imposed tariffs on China in his first term (which were kept by the next admin with a few targeted increases as elections approached in 2024) and so far has placed higher ones. What deals are you speaking of? The ones related to easing some of the tariffs in favor of negotiated reciprocal tariffs or deals for China to increase purchases of some american products? This would normally be considered a good thing by Dems, but I get it... Trump!

Yes my statement about Scientists is true. For some reason, a lot of people just blindly think "oh scientists will only tell us facts and also will never leave out other facts that don't support their hypothesis" just how pharma companies are not in it for profit . There are plenty of avenues for Scientists to profit, as already mentioned, and there are science jobs in private sectors and those companies absolutely want to make money. Where is the money in saying "everything is good as is!"  I don't think anyone is saying oil companies don't have a vested interest in propping up their source of fuel... not really a great whattaboutism

I wasn't attempting a whatabout; I agree with you that scientists (or anyone else with a profit incentive)would be prone to making a CRISIS for personal gain. I'm just saying that the oil companies have much more incentive to mislead folks than some piddly doctor looking for grants.

And I explained in another post what my fears of Trump's "dealmaking" in China could end up doing. Basically he should absolutely not open up the US market any further for Chinese products. Good luck getting them to buy more from us.

[JuneJuly]

21 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I wasn't attempting a whatabout; I agree with you that scientists (or anyone else with a profit incentive)would be prone to making a CRISIS for personal gain. I'm just saying that the oil companies have much more incentive to mislead folks than some piddly doctor looking for grants.

And I explained in another post what my fears of Trump's "dealmaking" in China could end up doing. Basically he should absolutely not open up the US market any further for Chinese products. Good luck getting them to buy more from us.

Imagine walking around scared of what might happen like this little girl. My fears!   

[WhiteWonder]

14 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I wasn't attempting a whatabout; I agree with you that scientists (or anyone else with a profit incentive)would be prone to making a CRISIS for personal gain. I'm just saying that the oil companies have much more incentive to mislead folks than some piddly doctor looking for grants.

And I explained in another post what my fears of Trump's "dealmaking" in China could end up doing. Basically he should absolutely not open up the US market any further for Chinese products. Good luck getting them to buy more from us.

okay, fair, but it's not just piddly doctors looking for grants. How many private sector companies have scientists, for example. 

I guess i'm a little confused in your concern regarding Trump and China. The tariffs he was proposing or has implemented in the past are meant to do the opposite of opening up the US Market to Chinese products. Were you in favor of the larger tariffs? I don't know where you personally stood on the issue but the sky was mostly falling around here back in 2025. Any "TACO" actions, which I personally believe was always the plan as a negotiation tool, but even if you don't believe that would just be backing off of proposed larger tariffs, i favor of trade deals... not making it any easier for chinese products to flood the us market than it was prior to 2025. 

as for getting them to buy more from us, I think they already cut deals for stuff like soybeans, boeing jets, natural gas, etc. I know, I know, yawn... but its something 

[Ray_T]

21 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:

Two quick points or pushbacks on the above 

1. the US has been hugely instrumental for China, who has tariffs imposed and largely does not import but without reciprocal tariffs, has been a key to created millions of jobs and help fund renewable energy research.

2. the scientific community has plenty of incentive to make climate change seem to be a crisis. Too many people think scientists are only truth tellers and ignore the $. When something is called a crisis, it increases research funding, grants, and research jobs at universities for phd holders who don’t even teach. 

honestly I blame the media more than anyone.

on a slow news day, you suddenly see these reports on climate change and renewable energy and such.

 

dont get me wrong, I care about the environment but some of the claims are crazy too.

I do think there is a certain amount of sensationalism that has taken over the media because a lot of these articles now pay out based on how many clicks there are.    if its a ho hum story with minor significance they will jazz it up to make it look like its an emergency because they will get more clicks.    I dont know how many of these stories I read and I'm like, this is far from being an emergency.

but this happens on both sides of the argument.   you have to cast a critical eye on what the news actually is and not get caught up in the emotion they are trying to trigger.

I'm not anti environment.   There is a place for environmental regulation and there is nothing wrong with wanting to breathe clean air.    but people dont fully realize the motovation of the person writing the article.    like I said, this happens on both sides of this argument.  there is a lot of misinformation out there and an awful lot of .... we will say embellishment.

I could go further, but I suspect there is no point.    all I'm saying is cast a critical eye on the crap the comes out in your internet feeds.

[WhiteWonder]

2 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

honestly I blame the media more than anyone.

on a slow news day, you suddenly see these reports on climate change and renewable energy and such.

 

dont get me wrong, I care about the environment but some of the claims are crazy too.

I do think there is a certain amount of sensationalism that has taken over the media because a lot of these articles now pay out based on how many clicks there are.    if its a ho hum story with minor significance they will jazz it up to make it look like its an emergency because they will get more clicks.    I dont know how many of these stories I read and I'm like, this is far from being an emergency.

but this happens on both sides of the argument.   you have to cast a critical eye on what the news actually is and not get caught up in the emotion they are trying to trigger.

I'm not anti environment.   There is a place for environmental regulation and there is nothing wrong with wanting to breathe clean air.    but people dont fully realize the motovation of the person writing the article.    like I said, this happens on both sides of this argument.  there is a lot of misinformation out there and an awful lot of .... we will say embellishment.

I could go further, but I suspect there is no point.    all I'm saying is cast a critical eye on the crap the comes out in your internet feeds.

I agree with you 100%. I don't personally click on many news stories that pop up in my feeds but the embellishment (from either side of an issue) is always present.

Sensationalism sells. 

[Maximum Overkill]

23 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Climate change is a crisis. 

Did Autistic Greta tell you that? The world ended 5 years ago according to her 

[Ray_T]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

I agree with you 100%. I don't personally click on many news stories that pop up in my feeds but the embellishment (from either side of an issue) is always present.

Sensationalism sells. 

its true.   and if you as a person get upset, you are more likely to click on more related articles.

at that point it turns into a feedback loop.    Thats how you get extremests on both sides of an issue.

and Now a lot of people are of the opinion that if you are not fully on my side you are the enemy.    The reality is far from the truth.    most people are in the middle (or at least start there until they start going down one of the paths that lead to the extremes)

some of that comes from naivety.   some of that comes from not fact checking some of the articles.   and some just comes from people believeing everything they read.    Thats a dangerous place to be. 

[JuneJuly]

On 5/8/2026 at 10:21 AM, Sean Mooney said:

Markets haven't set an all time record in a while....certainly not "every other day"

Where is this woman at?

Every day now.   3 days in a row.  LOL

[seafoam1]

On 1/27/2026 at 3:23 PM, FrancieFootball said:

https://apnews.com/article/consumer-confidence-economy-spending-inflation-conference-board-f36b997dc46ac9c3577d05db52166846

Not a good sign.

Liberal confidence should NOT be high.

You losers always, in the end, are losers. 

That's why you whine and cry so much. 

[HotRod]

Inflation is the highest in 3 years.  I did not vote for this.

[seafoam1]

1 minute ago, HotRod said:

Inflation is the highest in 3 years.  I did not vote for this.

I'm doing great. 

[supermike80]

Consumer confidence has always been a poor barometer of the economy.   My first year econ professor told us that, back in 1985

[JuneJuly]

20 hours ago, HotRod said:

Inflation is the highest in 3 years.  I did not vote for this.

3.8%?

Meh, means nothing when the S&P is up 24% in the past 16 months.  Peanuts.  

[Sean Mooney]

20 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Consumer confidence has always been a poor barometer of the economy.   My first year econ professor told us that, back in 1985

There has been a bad correlation for a few years now with people's perception of the economy versus what the economy actually is.

 

[HotRod]

15 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

3.8%?

Meh, means nothing when the S&P is up 24% in the past 16 months.  Peanuts.  

The S&P doesn't pay for my gas groceries rent