Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[Wyatt earp]

Which is fine if you can tell us one thing that DumBama did to improve the economy.

SANE QUESTION! Congratulations, you are doing better than 95% of conservatives.

Here is the fair answer:

How Have Barack Obama’s Policies Affected Economic Growth?

That piece of shit of a Potus was so anti jobs it wasn't funny.


Plane stupid? Obama praises Boeing plant he tried to CLOSE during visit to aircraft factory

 

[pinqy]

51 percent of the people that even HAVE a job make less than 30k a year.

38% make less than 20K per year


71 percent make less than 50K a year....so tell me again what a great job the Barrypuppet has done?

If you work an hour a month, you are considered "employed" by the Barrypuppet admin...so stow your stupid bullshit and try to pry your lips from the skinny shanks of the Barrypuppet.

CORPORATISM is not Obama's fault and you know it so stop lying.

BTW, Do you have any link backing your lies? Stop lying and when you make a claim provide some proof. OK? Are you too lazy to provide proof? I think you are merely a liar.

God has a place to you liars!

Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year

40% percent of U.S. make less than $20,000. The fed government considers a family of 4 making less than $24,250 to be impoverished. « InvestmentWatch

First that's data for 2014. things have gotten a lot better (Median household income went up a lot in 2015)
Second, those figures don't differentiate between full and part time workers. Low wages don't necessarily mean hardship.

 

[AntonToo]

The number of people not in the labor force has gone up under every President. And what do you mean time-warp to the mid seventies? What resemblance are you seeing?

View attachment 91552

We were talking about policy right?

What policy could have Obama implemented to prevent aging population from retiring and younger people from getting more education?

Here are pre-Obama and even pre-Bush estimates on LFPR decline due to demographics (read not due to economy)

Obama didn't cause that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

51 percent of the people that even HAVE a job make less than 30k a year.

38% make less than 20K per year


71 percent make less than 50K a year....so tell me again what a great job the Barrypuppet has done?

If you work an hour a month, you are considered "employed" by the Barrypuppet admin...so stow your stupid bullshit and try to pry your lips from the skinny shanks of the Barrypuppet.

CORPORATISM is not Obama's fault and you know it so stop lying.

BTW, Do you have any link backing your lies? Stop lying and when you make a claim provide some proof. OK? Are you too lazy to provide proof? I think you are merely a liar.

God has a place to you liars!

Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year

40% percent of U.S. make less than $20,000. The fed government considers a family of 4 making less than $24,250 to be impoverished. « InvestmentWatch

Bet you've seen this:

"After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015

 

[pinqy]

The number of people not in the labor force has gone up under every President. And what do you mean time-warp to the mid seventies? What resemblance are you seeing?

View attachment 91552

Oh, and I like how you framed the chart to make it look like we're at a comparative low point. But let's look at all available data:

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

 

[Anathema]

But you have no evidence to show any reason to distrust them. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to manipulate the statistics to a desired outcome because far too many people would have to coordinate together and there is too much oversight and sharing.

My reason to distrust the statistics is largely the organization(s) that they are compiled by.... the US Government, which hasn't been legitimate since 1865, if not earlier. It now exists,largely in a cloud of lies, damn lies and statistics; none of which do I believe without multiple sources of non-governmental confirmation.

 

[pinqy]

But you have no evidence to show any reason to distrust them. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to manipulate the statistics to a desired outcome because far too many people would have to coordinate together and there is too much oversight and sharing.

My reason to distrust the statistics is largely the organization(s) that they are compiled by.... the US Government, which hasn't been legitimate since 1865, if not earlier. It now exists,largely in a cloud of lies, damn lies and statistics; none of which do I believe without multiple sources of non-governmental confirmation.

Oh. You're one of those who think "The Government" is some kind of monolith. Every agency is different. BLS, BEA, and Census really are non-political...it's hammered into their culture.

But let us test. ADP is the nation's largest payroll company. They are large enough that they can use their admin records as a sample of the country and get a fairly accurate read on non farm, private industry payroll jobs. So comparing to the BLS figures for the same group we would expect to see some divergence in the short run (due to differing samples and methodology) but strong correlation in the long run. If we do not, then there is something wrong with one or both.
One year comparison:

And 15 years:

Is there anything in those two charts that would make the government numbers suspicious?


Unfortunately, it's not as easy to compare the Unemployment rate to Gallup's measure, but while Gallup usually is a little higher, I have never seen any statistically significant difference between the two (The Gallup margin of error is +/-1 percentage point, and BLS is +/-0.2 percentage points)

The Consumer Price Index and the Billion Prices Project (from MIT) also track very closely, remembering that the BPP is online only so a lot of the goods and outlets are different.

 

[Brain357]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

Baby boomers had to retire eventually.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

 

[Anathema]

Oh. You're one of those who think "The Government" is some kind of monolith. Every agency is different. BLS, BEA, and Census really are non-political...it's hammered into their culture.

I'm one of those people who believes the Government is,too large and intrusive on things,which they have no right or need to be intrusive on and far less intrusive than they should be on those things which they should be paying attention to.

 

[jc456]

People out of the labor force skyrocketed under Obama.....it's like a time warp back to the mid 1970's....sadly....

Yeah, if you use fuzzy math that works out.

no, if you include everyone unemployed it's spot on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We were talking about policy right?

What policy could have Obama implemented to prevent aging population from retiring and younger people from getting more education?

Here are pre-Obama and even pre-Bush estimates on LFPR decline due to demographics (read not due to economy)

I never said it was because of the economy. I said it's because we have too many people on the dole.

During DumBama's terms, people went on SS disability in record numbers. During his first year, he doubled the food stamp role alone. In fact in spite of all these so-called jobs being created, all of our welfare rolls are higher than when DumBama took office. We still have record amount of people in poverty.

On a personal note, I'm a local truck driver and spend much of my time in industrial areas making pickups and deliveries. They are all loaded with HELP WANTED signs on the lawns of these businesses. They can't find Americans to work today. They have their HUD house in the suburbs, a generous SNAP's card they get every month, their Obama phone, and free medical under Commie Care. Why work?

In fact, my industry needs over 60,000 new drivers that industry can't find. In desperation, they are now turning to foreigners to do these jobs. They are terrible and dangerous drivers to boot. But what can they do? They can't find Americans that will take the jobs, and the ones that are willing to work, they don't want to quit smoking pot to get a job. Pot smoking is now a priority in America over securing a job or career in this country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh. You're one of those who think "The Government" is some kind of monolith. Every agency is different. BLS, BEA, and Census really are non-political...it's hammered into their culture.

I'm one of those people who believes the Government is,too large and intrusive on things,which they have no right or need to be intrusive on and far less intrusive than they should be on those things which they should be paying attention to.

"""Government is,too large and intrusive on things,which they have no right or need to be intrusive on..."

As proven by Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution.

 

[Bassman007]

Has unemployment and job and GDP growth gone up or down during the Obama years?

OK CONS... START SPINNING, LYING and DENYING!

Duh the dem retard believes that the fake jobs that Obama generated by adding 9 trillion dollars to the national debt are helping make America strong. Kid your argument is assanine like you and your hero. Do you want Hillary to add another 15 trillion? Then the Chinese own us. Find a bridge and jump, because no one needs you.

 

[pinqy]

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

 

[pinqy]

Oh. You're one of those who think "The Government" is some kind of monolith. Every agency is different. BLS, BEA, and Census really are non-political...it's hammered into their culture.

I'm one of those people who believes the Government is,too large and intrusive on things,which they have no right or need to be intrusive on and far less intrusive than they should be on those things which they should be paying attention to.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with reliability of statistics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So are we better off than the entire 1950's and 1960's?

So that's your stance, that we didn't get as bad as the 50's and 60's under DumBama? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

Remember too that in the 50's and 60's, many women didn't work so they could stay home and raise the family. As a child of the 60's, I can tell you that was the norm, so of course they were not in the workforce. Back then, the only women who did work full-time were unmarried women which there weren't many of around at that time.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

By YOUR claim, if a higher participation rate means better economy than we are better off now than anytime before 1978. I don't think we are.

The point you missed is that we have record high amount of people no longer in the workforce; the worst it's been since the 70's when women started to work full time and some even being heads of single parent households. Since that time, the participation rate increased for many years. But today, women still work full time jobs. Now you might have a point if there was a sweeping trend of stay-at-home mothers in this country, but that never happened. In fact if anything, more women graduate college than men these days, and we have more working mothers than ever.

Thank you for making my point: that the participation rate is affected by non-economic factors and does not necessarily reflect the health of the economy. The main reason for the drop in the participation rate is the aging population.

No, that's not it. Our aging population continued to work after retirement. This chart from the BLS only goes into 2012, but that's when we seen the biggest jump in people dropping out of the workforce:

 

[Anathema]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with reliability of statistics.

It has to do with my inability to Trust pretty much anything that has to do with the Government. Especially when it has to do with things they have no business being involved in to begin with.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is fine if you can tell us one thing that DumBama did to improve the economy.

SANE QUESTION! Congratulations, you are doing better than 95% of conservatives.

Here is some of answer:

How Have Barack Obama’s Policies Affected Economic Growth?

Stimulus created 1-3 million jobs and lowered unemployment by 1-2% points during these tough years.

He also extended Bush's tax cuts, except top bracket ones by signing American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

What the article DOESN'T cover is stabilization of financial institutions (aka Bailout) and monetary policy.

Here are some estimates on those effects;

2 economists imagined a financial crisis without stimulus or bailouts. It’s … ugly.

Both your links are filled with crystal ball assertions. What if, might have, could have been........

The first link was from Equity.com. It's star employee is a woman by the name of Salvia Davi. While I could not find any radical positions she took in politics, her main interests are music and the NY food bank, so reasonable to assume she's pretty liberal.

The Pork Bill couldn't have stimulated anything. You can't stimulate the economy by concentrating on a few particular sectors of the economy, and the few bucks that most of us got in our paychecks by robbing Social Security. Trust me, I'm a working stiff myself, and the extra money was so small it was barely noticeable.

The way to stimulate the economy is a broad nationwide increase in income across the board. That did happen, but not because of DumBama or any of his policies.

Two things took place: First of all, the federal reserve pumped in trillions of dollars to over inflate the stock market, also known as quantitive easing. Since that time, the stock market became a bubble and is still a bubble today. All bubbles burst. We seen this with the technology bubble in the 90's and the housing bubble in the early 2000's.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-f...et-s-move-since-2008--analysis-194426366.html

That was the financial sector responsible for the rich getting richer. But what about the poor getting poorer? That was greatly remedied by the decrease in fuel prices thanks to Fracking. Because of fracking, it reduced the price of all petroleum products and natural gas. This put money in the pockets of Americans rich and poor alike. It didn't matter whether you used natural gas to heat your home, propane, gasoline for your car or public transportation for that matter, diesel fuel for trucks, everybody in America got some sore of financial benefit from the lower cost of fuel.

 

[AntonToo]

Both your links are filled with crystal ball assertions. What if, might have, could have been........

Ok now you are going dumb.

Economic analysis is NOT comparable to simply making things up (yea thats what crystal balling is).

Now as it happens there is no way to simply observe what could have been in absence of policy, so such economic analysis is our best and most reasonable take at facts.

That is how economics works - you take actuals, subtract estimated policy effects and arrive at without-policy baseline. There is no functioning crystal ball and there aren't better methods, it's the best we have and we must reasonably go with best available information.