Trump lies shamelessly about his tax-cut plan.

[hunarcy]

Obama's policies were anti jobs, anti business, and hurt not helped the stock market. An honest answer would be that the stock market improved IN SPITE OF Obama not with his help. Hence bragging about the so called Obama market is utter nonsense.

But feel free to post the Obama policies that you feel improved the stock market, you can't because they don't exist but try if you wish.

So the stock market is going up now in spite of Trump.

lol, I win.

And the trump dumb bell is taking the credit Low interest and good earnings are all trumps doing?? lol

Since Trump hasn't signed a single significant piece of legislation, period,

anyone who claims the market performance belongs to a president then it belongs to Obama.

OMG, you're serious! LMAO@you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, do you have an grownup version of that post?

Was that too clear for you? The idea that Obama did anything to help the economy is laughable and only a person who has no knowledge of economics would claim that he did.

 

[hunarcy]

Blues try to be an honest broker here What was the DOW a month or 2 after Obama was elected and what was it when he left ?? And how many were employed during his 8 years in office and how far down did our unemployment sink? These are not difficult questions to answer Even JC sassy or bri could answer them

Obama's policies were anti jobs, anti business, and hurt not helped the stock market. An honest answer would be that the stock market improved IN SPITE OF Obama not with his help. Hence bragging about the so called Obama market is utter nonsense.

But feel free to post the Obama policies that you feel improved the stock market, you can't because they don't exist but try if you wish.

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

 

[eddiew37]

Obama's policies were anti jobs, anti business, and hurt not helped the stock market. An honest answer would be that the stock market improved IN SPITE OF Obama not with his help. Hence bragging about the so called Obama market is utter nonsense.

But feel free to post the Obama policies that you feel improved the stock market, you can't because they don't exist but try if you wish.

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

But you'll believe all of trump numbers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,except his lousy poll numbers?

 

[Winston]

So the stock market is going up now in spite of Trump.

lol, I win.

And the trump dumb bell is taking the credit Low interest and good earnings are all trumps doing?? lol

Since Trump hasn't signed a single significant piece of legislation, period,

anyone who claims the market performance belongs to a president then it belongs to Obama.

OMG, you're serious! LMAO@you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, do you have an grownup version of that post?

Was that too clear for you? The idea that Obama did anything to help the economy is laughable and only a person who has no knowledge of economics would claim that he did.

LMAO

The stock market jumped by 125% and you can credit, not Obama, but Obamacare, for a huge part of that. Health insurers and providers are on the stock market. DU HUH. Man but you Trumpets are absolutely delusional. And those subsidies, well that money went straight into the economy. It is called the multiplier effect. It is basic economics. You want a good example, well how about the doughnut hole. Prior to Obamacare seniors were responsible for all their drug cost while in the doughnut hole. Obamacare provided for the elimination of the doughnut hole in a few years and at the beginning it cut the costs of name brand medications by HALF. So instead of millions of dollars going to the drug companies it went to those seniors. And you know what they did with that money? THEY SPENT IT.

 

[Winston]

Obama's policies were anti jobs, anti business, and hurt not helped the stock market. An honest answer would be that the stock market improved IN SPITE OF Obama not with his help. Hence bragging about the so called Obama market is utter nonsense.

But feel free to post the Obama policies that you feel improved the stock market, you can't because they don't exist but try if you wish.

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

And a full percentage point in the drop is due to video games. Young adult males would rather play video games and live in their parent's basement instead of working a full time job. Another point can be attributed to Obamacare. Millions of people were working simply to have health insurance prior to Obamacare. The Obamacare subsidies provided them the freedom to leave the job providing that health insurance and stay home with their kids, or start their own business, or retire early.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

8 years with no years above 3% GDP. Isn't that what you meant?

That is true but 8 quarters of 3% or better is true also Lets see how many years trump goes without I'm hoping for 4

Only 8 out 32 is NOT good!

 

[eddiew37]

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

8 years with no years above 3% GDP. Isn't that what you meant?

That is true but 8 quarters of 3% or better is true also Lets see how many years trump goes without I'm hoping for 4

Only 8 out 32 is NOT good!

No by historical standards it's not , but taking into consideration coming out of our greatest recession ever it could have been worse Now lets see trump do better

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

8 years with no years above 3% GDP. Isn't that what you meant?

That is true but 8 quarters of 3% or better is true also Lets see how many years trump goes without I'm hoping for 4

Only 8 out 32 is NOT good!

No by historical standards it's not , but taking into consideration coming out of our greatest recession ever it could have been worse Now lets see trump do better

You forgot a few words!

The phrase "caused by the Democrats" should follow the word "ever".

 

[AntonToo]

Obama's policies were anti jobs, anti business, and hurt not helped the stock market. An honest answer would be that the stock market improved IN SPITE OF Obama not with his help. Hence bragging about the so called Obama market is utter nonsense.

But feel free to post the Obama policies that you feel improved the stock market, you can't because they don't exist but try if you wish.

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When a president isn't a wild man ,half crazy like trump ,it might give people a feeling of confidence,,like they had with Obama

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

 

[AntonToo]

You live in the land of make believe, Obama and his policies did not inspire the stock market to grow just the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Would you be so kind as to explain that? Are you saying that if it were not for Obama, the Dow would be at 30K now, and that there would be hundreds of thousand more jobs? There fact is that there are plenty of jobs right now. The problem is matching qualified workers to those jobs. We are close to full employment.

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

 

[AntonToo]

And it was Obamas fault we had 75 straight months of 6 digit employment,,,,,,and 8 quarters of 3% GDP or more

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, it is his "fault" because they "faked" the numbers. If' he'd really followed progressive ideas, he wouldn't have had to alter how employment numbers were presented but the truth is that under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

 

[AntonToo]

LFPR will be slipping till late 2030s as was well predicted in early 2000 based on demographics (older workforce, retiring baby boomers) and people staying in school longer.

It slipped under Bush, it slipped under Obama and it will certainly slip under Trump...short of 4 year presidency with some temporary acceleration of growth, in which case it will merely stay flat.

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Have you NEVER seen LFPR data in your life? That's ok if didn't because macro economics was not something that interested you...but then please STFU about your degrees and rank amateurs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where did you get your degree in Economics? Must have been Marx-Lenin University!

How is the football team doing this year?

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Really? Where does it say that?

You are really are a moron. You claim to research and post bullshit like that.

The one good point is that you are very good at being a moron. keep up the good work!

 

[AntonToo]

It's called basic research of the issues, you should give it a try.

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Really? Where does it say that?

You are really are a moron. You claim to research and post bullshit like that.

The one good point is that you are very good at being a moron. keep up the good work!

You are 100% clueless, stop embarrassing yourself admiral.

To anyone that has EVER looked at LFPR it is very clear what is in that graph.

Here is 2002 study forecasting LFPR decline through to 2040s from BLS website:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That chart could be used in any high school class as an example of a bad chart. The huge curve in the middle only accounts for 8% of the data. It is useless. It makes people believe in huge changes that are in fact almost minimal. I covers 100 years. Everything after today is pure projection.

That's why I have a degree! Putting rank amateurs in their place is easy!

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Really? Where does it say that?

You are really are a moron. You claim to research and post bullshit like that.

The one good point is that you are very good at being a moron. keep up the good work!

You are 100% clueless, stop embarrassing yourself admiral.

To anyone that has EVER looked at LFPR it is very clear what is in that graph.

Oh, I am the one who should be embarrassed after you corrected your error!

You libtards need to get together, maybe a couple of million or so and all donate your brains, so that scientists can use the one or two neurons that might still be functional in each of them so that at least one of you will have the functioning brain of a normal person.

I have yet to see anything posted from you that ever made sense to even the biggest dullard.

I get tired of reading your posts of utter bullshit and lousy reasoning.

 

[AntonToo]

You are an idiot and disputed exactly nothing.

The scale is appropriate to the range of changes in LFPR.

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Really? Where does it say that?

You are really are a moron. You claim to research and post bullshit like that.

The one good point is that you are very good at being a moron. keep up the good work!

You are 100% clueless, stop embarrassing yourself admiral.

To anyone that has EVER looked at LFPR it is very clear what is in that graph.

Oh, I am the one who should be embarrassed after you corrected your error!

There was no error on my part and no correction, there was only your very public ignorance and various fails at thought.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It means NOTHING! Your chart doesn't even say what it represents for "Participation Rate". That could be anything from answering questions in math class to using birth control.

It's bogus, and you should know that your research sucks!

jesus fucking christ...it is LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE - LFPR is the acronym.

Really? Where does it say that?

You are really are a moron. You claim to research and post bullshit like that.

The one good point is that you are very good at being a moron. keep up the good work!

You are 100% clueless, stop embarrassing yourself admiral.

To anyone that has EVER looked at LFPR it is very clear what is in that graph.

Oh, I am the one who should be embarrassed after you corrected your error!

There was no error on my part and no correction, only your very public idiocy.

Then you should be able to easily point out the the words "labor participation" on the chart you posted.

Since it is not there, we will just attribute it to your pathetic attempts to assuage your self-esteem issues.

Have a nice life, loser!