Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[Jitss617]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Left what? Lol

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My only opinion is that the unemployment rate is now irrelevant.
Labor participation has not only not improved, but remains in a decline.
We are now at the same participation rate as the early 1960's. The unemployment rate doesn't include millions of people who have not had a job in a very long time.

The number that matters FAR MORE is underemployment.
This number, historically, has always been lower than the unemployment rate. However since 2008 it is higher.

The labor force participation rate has leveled off at about where it should be. A lower rate can, and at this time is, indicate a good economy so that both parents do not need to work and people are secure enough to retire.

In 1994 the Under rate was 11.8 and the UE was 6.6.

2000 7.1 and 4.0

2002 9.5 and 5.7.

I cannot find a single month since 1996 where the Under rate was lower than the UE.

You are just making things up

I said historically.
Believe it or not America existed well before 1996

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

 

[Mac1958]

It’s like something happened to you in the last month or so.

That's actually correct. Through threads like this one, and conversations that I've had with Trump supporters over the last few weeks (you really nailed it there), I've changed my mind on something.

I used to think that Trump supporters had done their homework and actually knew what caused the Meltdown, that they understood its various ramifications, that they realized the role it played in the economy, that they understood the events and policies surrounding it -- but were just playing the denial game for purely partisan political reasons.

I've recently (as you point out) changed my mind on that.

I am now convinced that (a) they have made no effort to understand what happened up to and after the Meltdown, and (b) are more than content to remain willfully ignorant about it because they're satisfied to remain encased in their alternative, closed circuit, informational and ideological universe.

So yeah, you're right, even on the timing.
.

 

[Indeependent]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Yeah.

So what do you think of the post?
.

It’s pretty clear to everyone we think your post makes you look like an idiot carrying water for the Hussein.

Have I posted something that you feel is incorrect?
.

We all know you are a leftwing hack. You’re trying to make your Hussein look good. Instead you only made the GOP look good.

Hmm. Looks to me like he just posted a graph. I don't know what the hell you're on about.

What they can't quite figure out is that this thread has very little to do with Trump himself.

That's why they get so angry - they don't have a canned response.
.

Yep. These threads are illuminating, Mac. Thanks.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My only opinion is that the unemployment rate is now irrelevant.
Labor participation has not only not improved, but remains in a decline.
We are now at the same participation rate as the early 1960's. The unemployment rate doesn't include millions of people who have not had a job in a very long time.

The number that matters FAR MORE is underemployment.
This number, historically, has always been lower than the unemployment rate. However since 2008 it is higher.

The labor force participation rate has leveled off at about where it should be. A lower rate can, and at this time is, indicate a good economy so that both parents do not need to work and people are secure enough to retire.

In 1994 the Under rate was 11.8 and the UE was 6.6.

2000 7.1 and 4.0

2002 9.5 and 5.7.

I cannot find a single month since 1996 where the Under rate was lower than the UE.

You are just making things up

I said historically.
Believe it or not America existed well before 1996

You also said it was higher since 2008...yet it was higher long before that.

Also, the BLS only started to track it in 1994...there is no history before that because the stat did not exist.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about:

 

[Indeependent]

It’s like something happened to you in the last month or so.

That's actually correct.

Through threads like this one, and conversations that I've had with Trump supporters over the last few weeks (you really nailed it there), I've changed my mind on something.

I used to think that Trump supporters had done their homework and actually knew what caused the Meltdown, that they understood its various ramifications, that they realized the role it played in the economy, that the understood the events and policies surrounding it -- but were just playing the denial game for purely partisan political reasons.

I've recently (as you point out) changed my mind on that.

I am now convinced that (a) they have made no effort to understand what happened up to and after the Meltdown, and (b) are more than content to remain willfully ignorant about it because they're satisfied to remain encased in their alternative, closed circuit, informational and ideological universe.

So yeah, you're right, even on the timing.
.

The meltdown was bi-partisan.
Politicians don’t suffer from economic meltdowns.
Most people I know have learned not to love a party.

 

[Jitss617]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

He left 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving every month under Obama to trump gaining 1,000 manufacturing jobs...
They people had to work at McDonald’s because of Obama’s..

Lol obama is a joke

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

 

[Indeependent]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

He left 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving every month under Obama to trump gaining 1,000 manufacturing jobs...
They people had to work at McDonald’s because of Obama’s..

Lol obama is a joke

Manufacturing quit losing jobs in Feb 2010 and have been growing ever since

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

Was the president selling or buying them?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

He left 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving every month under Obama to trump gaining 1,000 manufacturing jobs...
They people had to work at McDonald’s because of Obama’s..

Lol obama is a joke

One man can only do so much. Obama did quite alot considering his starting point. Trump, just like in life, started with the advantage.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

I agree, except to the extent that Obama tried to artificially manipulate the unemployment rate by making a bunch of "shovel-ready" part-time, short-term jobs. Those were not quality jobs, but the point is that neither Obama nor Trump improved the quality of jobs available, because they can't.

.