U.S. Politics

[newtovillagelife]

Trump would be a lot more popular if he had a personality. He talks like a street tough rather than coming from a wealthy family. I will say that when he talks, I do understand him unlike some of the professional PC politicians. It always amazes me that those PC types can talk for an hour and say nothing. In Trump's case, it's his actions that speak rather than his harsh words.

He a nice, caring intelligent guy.

[tamada]

...

Who's Hassert?

So you haven't been keeping up with the data provided. That's cool.

Well as UM alluded, we'd all have to be either brain dead or ferking idiots to keep up with your 'data'.

I prefer the third choice by far... your very own, 100% homogenized faux news.

[newtovillagelife]

First, your charts are not a reflection of the principles that drive the economy.

The old my-data-matters-but-yours-doesn't argument.

Wage growth by month in the Obama and Trump presidencies was almost identical, -- during the Trump years it shows a strong a growing economy, but during the Obama years it was "not a reflection of the principles that drive the economy." Right. Got it.

Non-farm payroll went up in almost a straight line during Obama's term, but that doesn't count, either.

The unemployment rate went from around 10% to around 4% during the Obama years, but that, too, didn't prove anything.

Same with GDP. Up in almost a straight line during Obama, but that doesn't show anything.

The only data that matters is data that shows that Trump is the greatest who ever lived. All other data is either fake news or irrelevant. Right?

Nonsense Trump is doing a great job with the economy. Way better than Obama.

[Udon Map]

Nonsense Trump is doing a great job with the economy. Way better than Obama.

Go back and read my post. I never suggested that Trump wasn't doing a great job with the economy.

There is no question that the economy has done well under Trump, and the statistics bear that out.

But Trump did not turn around a failing Obama economy, because the economy wasn't failing under Obama.

Who's been better on the economy? That depends on what measures you use.

[tamada]

That's an awesome find, mak! Excellent!

From left to right: Nikki Haley, James Mattis, Ben Carson, President Trump, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence, Melania Trump, Mike Pompeo, Sarah Sanders, Ivanka Trump, John Bolton, Kellyanne Conway, John Kelly

...and one of them spoke to the New York Times.

(maybe it's the one manning the bilge pump?)

[tamada]

... We now see daily attacks on Black conservative, Candace Owens.
...

Pity. She's a hottie and quite eloquent.

Then there's that fabulously pouty-lipped but potty-mouthed Michelle Malkin.

"Her rhetoric is so bad that Andrew Sullivan made up the Malkin Award for the most intemperate, hateful remarks of the year. (Both she and Coulter are ineligible for the award, to give others a chance at winning)"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

[tamada]

Commiefornia.
Ubama
Bayrack
EneMedia
Libtards
kommandos
GOPe Mush
Bullshiggerty

"Free Speech allows us all to separate the childish ones from those with a sincere interest."

Yup, it sure as hell does.

[newtovillagelife]

Trump is doing a great job with the economy...Why isn't Fox backing him up ?????? We need to shut them down.



President Donald Trump boasted Monday in a tweet that it’s the first time in more than a century that America’s gross domestic product growth is higher than the unemployment rate.

Except that it’s not.

In fact, the GDP has been higher than the unemployment rate more than 20 percent of the time since 1948, according to actual facts.

Even Fox News wasn’t buying Trump’s tout this time.

Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, also shot down the president’s claim, later quipping about yet another Trump tweet that he’s not the head of the “Council of Twitter Advisers.”

But Trump still hadn’t changed his false tweet as of Monday night.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

6:03 PM - Sep 10, 2018
83.4K
37.9K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Fox News research contradicted Trump in a tweet about two hours after his claim, noting that there have been 63 quarters with a GDP growth rate higher than the average quarterly unemployment rate (several during the Clinton administration).

In 2006, unemployment was about 4.7 percent and quarterly GDP growth was significantly higher than it is now, at 5.4 percent, according to data.


Fox News Research
✔
@FoxNewsResearch
Since 1948, there have been 63 quarters with a GDP growth rate higher than avg quarterly unemployment rate

Recent Quarters with GDP Growth higher than Unemployment Rate:
•Q2 2018
•Q1 2006
•Q3 2003
•Q2 2000
•Q4 1999
•Q3 1999
•Q4 1998
•Q3 1998
•Q3 1997
•Q2 1997
•Q2 1996

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

8:44 PM - Sep 10, 2018
11.4K
6,172 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Twitter had fun with Trump’s fake news — and the takedown by Fox.

[Lone Star]

Wage growth by month in the Obama and Trump presidencies was almost identical, -- during the Trump years it shows a strong a growing economy, but during the Obama years it was "not a reflection of the principles that drive the economy." Right. Got it.

Non-farm payroll went up in almost a straight line during Obama's term, but that doesn't count, either.

The unemployment rate went from around 10% to around 4% during the Obama years, but that, too, didn't prove anything.

Same with GDP. Up in almost a straight line during Obama, but that doesn't show anything.

The only data that matters is data that shows that Trump is the greatest who ever lived. All other data is either fake news or irrelevant. Right?

Straw man argument. All of it.

None of that is what I posted.

The charts you provided were not only not sourced (except one), but the data you tried to provide does not drive the economy. For that reason, the source of the charts don't even matter.

If nonfarm payroll and GDP went up as you claim ("almost a straight line"), Obama's economy would have soared. There wouldn't have been 90+ million out of the workforce or 40+ million on welfare -- both the highest in recorded US history.

Obama would also have achieved over 2% annual GDP growth. Obama is the only president never to achieve 2% annual GDP growth. Why didn't he? Because the numbers in your charts don't reflect a strong or upward trend in a growing economy by themselves. Business drives the economy, and the business trends were spiking downward with Obama's "you didn't build that" rhetoric and "eat the rich" mentality. Highest corporate tax in the world didn't help either. Add all the regulations, and it's a very unfriendly business environment.

The downward trends in business and the rollercoaster trends in jobs and payroll and GDP translated to FLAT overall.

There were no upward trends in the driver of the economy -- business.

When I disagree, I state WHY, and I did so with the following criticism relative to your charts. There was no silly talk of "my charts are better just because." However, you chose to characterize it that way. Straw man.

The charts provided by CEA Chairman Kevin Hassett reflected the factors that drive the economy -- business investment, business optimism, business inventory, business expansion, etc. All of those trends were spiking downward leading up to the election, and all spiked north at the time of the election. They're all in the video, and the charts provide dramatic evidence of business optimism after Trump's election.

BUSINESS DRIVES the ECONOMY. The economy doesn't drive business. Business drives hiring. Business drives GDP. Business drives the stock market. And all of those things, as Hassett explained, are driven by forward-looking optimism (which wasn't there prior to the election). And what drives business? More freedom, less regulation, more profit to keep (including individual tax breaks), more investment in the markets, more capital to invest and hire and build. Obama provided none of that. His policies were stifling.

Trump unleashed it all, which caused the surge that is seen today. All cylinders are pumping.

[Lone Star]

I've said all along that it made no sense how Obama's unemployment numbers were going down despite two glaring huge negative numbers that are inescapable and occurred during his administration:

1. Over 90 million Americans out of the workforce, no longer collecting unemployment, and had given up looking for work. That's somewhere between 1/4 and a full 1/3 of the US population. The largest number in America's history.

2. Over 40 million Americans on welfare. The largest number in America's history.

Even though BOTH of those those catostrophic occurrences were happening in America, Obama's unemployment numbers kept going down.

Here's how it happened.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
https://www.investing.com/news/economy- ... ork-449057

This data from Harvard and Princeton more than adequately explains how unemployment numbers could go down under Obama's watch, but Obama would STILL have more Americans out of the workforce (over 90 million) and more Americans on welfare (more than 40 million) than at any time in America's history.

It is an impossibility for anyone to claim a rising economy with so many people out of the workforce and on welfare. But that's how Obama's numbers jived. He counted contract and part-time workers whose jobs went away and eventually left them unemployed and/or making too little to get off of welfare. Those jobs were NOT full time jobs.

Even Donna Brazile, one the heads of the DNC at the time of the election, has since admitted the disparity in jobs and the fact that so many were low-wage jobs that were not sustainable.

More sources:

HuffPo and Reuters - 2013
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/ ... 88365.html

Zero Hedge - with more data from the Harvard/Princeton study
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12- ... -part-time

Quartz - 2016
https://www.cebglobal.com/talentdaily/p ... ew-normal/

Alan Krueger, one of Obama's top White House economists is quoted extensively:

“We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment.

“Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

Investors.com - 2016
https://www.investors.com/politics/comm ... ou-to-see/


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Take that 14.4 million job growth number. That sounds impressive doesn't it? But that job growth is stretched over almost six full years, during which time the working age population grew by 15.8 million.

In that respect, we've lost ground on jobs under Obama.

What's more, that 14.4 million increase in jobs is measured against when the job market hit rock bottom in February 2010. If you compare the current number of jobs to the previous jobs peak in January 2008 -- which is how job growth is normally measured -- the number of private-sector jobs has increased just 5.6 million.

During that time, the population grew by more than 20 million. In other words, there's a jobs gap of more than 14 million.

In Reagan's recovery and in Trump's MAGAnomics, there are MORE JOBS than Americans looking for work.

Meanwhile, the number of people who aren't in the labor force but do want to work is higher today than when Obama took office. And the median length of unemployment is now 11.4 weeks, which is also higher than when Obama took office.

So you see, that's how the Messiah fooled folks. He counted part-time jobs and contract jobs that didn't last. Those temp jobs kept people on welfare and/or put them in the situation where they were in and out of the workforce and repeatedly looking for work as job after job stopped.

It also explains why real numbers in MAGAnomics reflected a huge spike.

And here are the individual charts from Kevin Hasset, which show a clear break in trends at the time of the election.


New Business Applications (dotted line is the trend line -- applications take off and easily exceed the trend)


Capital Goods Orders & Shipments (dotted line is the trend line -- downward -- prior to the election)


Business Conditions (dotted line is the trend line -- flat -- prior to the election)


Blue Collar Jobs (dotted line is the trend line -- downward -- prior to the election)


Private Nonresidential Fixed Investment (exceeds CBO estimates of June and April 2017)


Business Investment - Nonresidential Fixed, Structures, Equipment (dotted line is the trend line -- downward -- prior to the election)

Either Obama was NOT intelligent enough to know how to do it, or he was purposely stifling business growth in the US. Neither one is good.

Trump unleashed the drivers of the economy by simply doing the opposite of what Obama did.

[Lone Star]

Trump has closed the PLO mission in Washington, DC.

The closure is a result of a provision that states that the mission will close if the PLO makes no effort toward peace.

More than $250 million in aid to the PLO is also in the works to be cut.

More financial aid needs to be cut to other countries.

GLAD TO SEE IT.

[Udon Map]

Straw man argument. All of it.

None of that is what I posted.

The charts you provided were not only not sourced (except one), but the data you tried to provide does not drive the economy. For that reason, the source of the charts don't even matter.

Q.E.D.

As I said,

The only data that matters is data that shows that Trump is the greatest who ever lived. All other data is either fake news or irrelevant. Right?

So I'm not going to waste a lot of time demonstrating the sources of my data. I'll post one in case anyone else is curious; but you'll obviously label it fake news or irrelevant.

The unemployment data is from the Bureau of Labor Statics. As you can see, this is a graph of the unemployment rate during the Obama years.

So which one is it this time, -- is this fake news? Or doesn't it matter?

[hairyharry]

The ingenuity of Americans never fails to amaze me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45484856

An easier why to dispose of that extra income and an idea I hope the Thais don't copy
(precisely) lol

still winning?

[Lone Star]

. . .

That screenshot is correct. I never said that any of your charts were wrong. I said that the data they represented did not drive the economy.

The part you're missing is HOW Obama was able to make his numbers look that way with 90+ million Americans out of the workforce and 40+ million on welfare -AND- those numbers did NOT drive the economy. If they did, Obama would have achieved 2% annual GDP. It didn't happen. Business drives the economy with good, full time jobs.

I'll say it one more time for those reading: Part-time and contract jobs were how Obama's unemployment numbers hit a downward trajectory. Those types of jobs amounted to 94-95% of the 10 million job numbers. Even Obama's own economic analyst admitted it (source provided). People were bouncing in and out of part-time and contract jobs and not making enough to get off of welfare.

I provided multiple sources with that same data.

[papafarang]

The ingenuity of Americans never fails to amaze me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45484856

An easier why to dispose of that extra income and an idea I hope the Thais don't copy
(precisely) lol

still winning?

[Udon Map]

That screenshot is correct. I never said that any of your charts were wrong.

Enough with the word parsing games. You never said that my charts were wrong, true; you merely complained that they "were not sourced." If you agree that the charts are correct, what difference does it make where I got them? You know that they're right; why complain about the source, if not to hint at the possibility that they might not be accurate, or, as President Trump likes to call it, that they might be fake news?

Enjoy the rest of the conversation. It's the same nonsense, -- wash, rinse, repeat. No matter what we're talking about, Trump does it better. Got it.

[Lone Star]

That screenshot is correct. I never said that any of your charts were wrong.

Enough with the word parsing games. You never said that my charts were wrong, true; you merely complained that they "were not sourced." If you agree that the charts are correct, what difference does it make where I got them? You know that they're right; why complain about the source, if not to hint at the possibility that they might not be accurate, or, as President Trump likes to call it, that they might be fake news?

Enjoy the rest of the conversation. It's the same nonsense, -- wash, rinse, repeat. No matter what we're talking about, Trump does it better. Got it.

You're full of straw men. I never said that Trump does it better.

I said that the data they represented did not drive the economy.

The part you're missing is HOW Obama was able to make his numbers look that way with 90+ million Americans out of the workforce and 40+ million on welfare -AND- those numbers did NOT drive the economy. If they did, Obama would have achieved 2% annual GDP. It didn't happen. Business drives the economy with good, full time jobs.

I think that you may be out of your depth to be able to discuss this intelligently. There is no other explanation when you continue to not only ignore all of my sourced information, but I've had to correct you three times or more about my reasons for discounting your charts.

One more time for good measure:
I said that the data they represented did not drive the economy.

Nothing about your silly straw man comments about "Trump does it better" blah blah blah.

[Lone Star]

US job openings have climbed to a RECORD 6.9 million!

This has also caused workers to quit old jobs and take better-paying new jobs.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

[Lone Star]

Small business optimism surges to highest level ever, topping previous record under Reagan

CNBC is reporting that the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index jumped to 108.8 last month, the highest level ever recorded in the survey's 45-year history.

My emphasis added:

U.S. small business optimism surged to a record in August as the tax cuts and deregulation efforts of President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress led to more sales, hiring and investment, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Business.

The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index jumped to 108.8 last month, the highest level ever recorded in the survey's 45-year history and above the previous record of 108 in 1983, set during the second year of Ronald Reagan's presidency. The August figure was up from a 107.9 reading in July.

STEADY WINNING.

[Udon Map]

I never said that Trump does it better.

Could'a fooled me.