Obama economy continues to roar ahead

[Zenotetsuken]

Except that most of what Trump has said, was said by Democrats - illegals are bad, walls, etc... Trump wasn't racist until he disagreed with Democrats.

Anyone fighting against Democrats at this point in history would be called Racist/Bigot/Sexist/etc no matter what view was held. By having an (R) in front of the name, your views are "evil" even if they are the same views the Democrats hold.

Trump at least has the balls to speak the truth and attack when provoked. He is the answer to years of the GOP knuckle toeing to the Democrats - and it's why an outsider won time and time again.

He isn't perfect... far from it. But he's better than the other 16... and a turd would be better than Hillary.

And it is perfectly fine for you to think that. It is a free country. I just disagree with you, nothing more.

I feel that the situation we are in right now is a direct result of 20+ years of the Democratic party moving further and further right to "Compromise" with Republicans, but Republicans also moving further and further right, to avoid being seen by their constituents as "Soft" on a subject.
The majority of people have been pushed down so low by being forced to bear the burden of every decision the establishment makes, that people are lashing out at everything they can see that...
A) Doesn't match their views/priorities,
B) Doesn't match their life experiences,
C) Costs money that they feel is theirs, and should be going to what they choose.

It is the perfect shitstorm. Everyone sick of being treated like shit, but unable to direct their ire where it actually belongs, so it just sprays out and covers everything.

[Felya]

People not in the labor force are NOT a part of u5, u5 is certainly broader than u3 but all of the u stats deal with the labor force.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

No, they are part of the U5 in comparing the working, to those who aren't. That link is explaining what the work force is being compared against, not what is independently compared to it self. That's what they mean by:

as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

You can see how your prior assertion is wrong, in comparing the changes in each on that link...

[BannedForViews]

Actually it is because when Obama took office they put things that were off the books, such as the wars, and put them on the books. Hence the huge change in the deficit the year he took office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us...dget.html?_r=0

"
Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

“The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

Nearly $70 billion of the just-enacted $787 billion economic recovery plan reflected the bookkeeping cost of adjusting the alternative tax for a year.
"

Honestly what a worthless article. Maybe read it before you post it. Those were quotes. They made me laugh. The last one says that even if this is true, which it isn't, it would only have affected that last year by 70 billion, out of nearly 1.6 trillion. Try again please. He spends money like he is a central African dictator. Oh wait, where is Kenya again?

[Lenonis]

He spends money like he is a central African dictator. Oh wait, where is Kenya again?

Yeah, if this is where you are coming from there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with you.

[Bollocks]

Your opinion is not of interest to me. The CBO cannot properly predict revenue changes based on tax rate changes. The reason is quite simple. They use a rather linear approach to a problem which is anything but, and even then it's still guess work. You can't know what the price of Apple will be next year anymore than you can know what current tax revenues will be, let alone tax revenues after a change in rates. THIS is common knowledge, to anyone who knows a damn about this stuff. I patently reject any assertion that tax cuts will raise the debt by 10 trillion. It's a joke of an argument, ignoring the glaring fact that the government spends too much anyway, but you can't ever talk to a liberal about cutting spending, only raising taxes.

Except Trump doesn't plan to cut spending on the biggest things the goverment spends money on. This are statements of his:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ocial-security
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pro...162743985.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...tary-spending/

He doesn't plan to cut spending on the biggest blocks, while at the same time he threatens to engage in trade war with China by putting a 45% tariff on their goods(1)
(1)http://time.com/money/4282166/donald...iff-plan-cost/

Even supply side economists agree that tax cuts have to be accompanied by cuts in goverment spending.

[Orbitus]

Your opinion is not of interest to me. The CBO cannot properly predict revenue changes based on tax rate changes. The reason is quite simple. They use a rather linear approach to a problem which is anything but, and even then it's still guess work. You can't know what the price of Apple will be next year anymore than you can know what current tax revenues will be, let alone tax revenues after a change in rates. THIS is common knowledge, to anyone who knows a damn about this stuff. I patently reject any assertion that tax cuts will raise the debt by 10 trillion. It's a joke of an argument, ignoring the glaring fact that the government spends too much anyway, but you can't ever talk to a liberal about cutting spending, only raising taxes.

" Then you add in his immigration bullshit, that would add another $1 trillion and take 20 years, the wall which is estimated to cost between $25 and $100 billion and stop NOTHING."

Just read the above. What the hell are you trying to say. Will it cost a trillion, or 25 billion, or 100 billion? A wall will not cost a trillion, and it will not take 20 years, so try to be clearer with your criticism.

To your last response, I am well aware of the difference between the two, but I appreciate your concern in my knowledge of such things. Unfortunately Obama didn't reduce shit.

2008 $459 Billion Deficit $511.14 Billion Deficit
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1578.77 Billion Deficit
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1421.98 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1384.86 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1148.23 Billion Deficit
2013 $680 Billion Deficit $699.59 Billion Deficit
2014 $485 Billion Deficit $490.89 Billion Deficit
2015 $438 Billion Deficit $438 Billion Deficit

You see, 2009 is Obama. Now you can pretend that Bush actually spent that money, but that's not how that works. If it were, then Bush would get credit for two years of the "Clinton Surplus's"
1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus $101.76 Billion Surplus
1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus $180.72 Billion Surplus
2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus $329.25 Billion Surplus
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus $172.26 Billion Surplus


Source: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of...ted-states.php who used Whitehouse.gov table data.

I mean I guess 1.422 trillion is ACTUALLY less than 1.579 trillion, except both were Obama anyway so it doesn't really matter. But what does matter is look how long it took him to bring those numbers down. And what do we have to show for it? Not a damn thing.

I like the point you try to make though, like it's commendable that the deficit today is 1/3rd of what it was his first year, but look at all the years in between. Then deal with the pesky fact that all the TARP money was paid back with interest.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news...-bailouts-end/

What this ACTUALLY MEANS is that the money you claim Bush and Congress spent BEFORE Obama, was actually paid back, and yet there are STILL massive deficits under Obama. That means he took the payback, then wasted it somewhere else. But he is pretty awesome, and Bush is the devil.

It is clearly obvious you have no fucking clue what is going on here and should no longer be speaking on the matter.

[BannedForViews]

Except Trump doesn't plan to cut spending on the biggest things the goverment spends money on. This are statements of his:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ocial-security
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pro...162743985.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...tary-spending/

He doesn't plan to cut spending on the biggest blocks, while at the same time he threatens to engage in trade war with China by putting a 45% tariff on their goods(1)
(1)http://time.com/money/4282166/donald...iff-plan-cost/

Even supply side economists agree that tax cuts have to be accompanied by cuts in goverment spending.

Trump is a democrat, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to cut things. None of that contradicts my point. To claim he is going to increase the deficit by 10 trillion over the course of four years solely through tax cuts (not counting other "unfunded" things like walls or wars or whatever) is comical. It just won't happen. The government SPENT 3.8 trillion this last year. lets assume an average of 4 trillion over the next four years, or 16 trillion in total spending. to increase the debt by 10 trillion we would have to only collect 1.5 trillion in taxes per year. 33% of all taxes collected by the government are payroll taxes, i.e. they aren't going anywhere.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-worker-feds-0

3.25 trillion were collected in 2015. 33% of that is 1.08 trillion. We would have to collect a maximum of 420 billion dollars through excise, estate, income, capital gains, corporate, and any miscellaneous taxes for this 10 trillion to be real. Or he would have to go crazy with spending. I'm not saying he couldn't TRY to spend a ton of money, but I see no evidence of what it would be on, or that anyone would let him do it, or that we are all of a sudden going to basically stop collecting income and other taxes. This is just fear mongering, plain and simple.

- - - Updated - - -

It is clearly obvious you have no fucking clue what is going on here and should no longer be speaking on the matter.

I understand facts are hard to read and require you to attack my person instead of showing any evidence that you understood what I wrote. I won't hold you ignorance against you.

[Bollocks]

Trump is a democrat, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to cut things. None of that contradicts my point. To claim he is going to increase the deficit by 10 trillion over the course of four years solely through tax cuts (not counting other "unfunded" things like walls or wars or whatever) is comical. It just won't happen. The government SPENT 3.8 trillion this last year. lets assume an average of 4 trillion over the next four years, or 16 trillion in total spending. to increase the debt by 10 trillion we would have to only collect 1.5 trillion in taxes per year. 33% of all taxes collected by the government are payroll taxes, i.e. they aren't going anywhere.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-worker-feds-0

3.25 trillion were collected in 2015. 33% of that is 1.08 trillion. We would have to collect a maximum of 420 billion dollars through excise, estate, income, capital gains, corporate, and any miscellaneous taxes for this 10 trillion to be real. Or he would have to go crazy with spending. I'm not saying he couldn't TRY to spend a ton of money, but I see no evidence of what it would be on, or that anyone would let him do it, or that we are all of a sudden going to basically stop collecting income and other taxes. This is just fear mongering, plain and simple.

This is weird, most claims that I see state that the debt generated by Trump would occur during the span of 10 years. Which is sufficient time for a debt like that (11 trillion to occur). This was made with a static model,with a dynamic model I recall being 10 trillion dollars (granted dynamic models are notorious for not bein acurate)

Also the last republican president the USA had, doubled spending. And we have evidence of the effects of tax cuts with no reduction in spending. Sumners made a good case for the supply side economist side:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._kansas_m.html
Albeit tax cuts of kansas, were not as big as Trum's proposes.

[Orbitus]

Trump is a democrat, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to cut things. None of that contradicts my point. To claim he is going to increase the deficit by 10 trillion over the course of four years solely through tax cuts (not counting other "unfunded" things like walls or wars or whatever) is comical. It just won't happen. The government SPENT 3.8 trillion this last year. lets assume an average of 4 trillion over the next four years, or 16 trillion in total spending. to increase the debt by 10 trillion we would have to only collect 1.5 trillion in taxes per year. 33% of all taxes collected by the government are payroll taxes, i.e. they aren't going anywhere.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-worker-feds-0

3.25 trillion were collected in 2015. 33% of that is 1.08 trillion. We would have to collect a maximum of 420 billion dollars through excise, estate, income, capital gains, corporate, and any miscellaneous taxes for this 10 trillion to be real. Or he would have to go crazy with spending. I'm not saying he couldn't TRY to spend a ton of money, but I see no evidence of what it would be on, or that anyone would let him do it, or that we are all of a sudden going to basically stop collecting income and other taxes. This is just fear mongering, plain and simple.

- - - Updated - - -



I understand facts are hard to read and require you to attack my person instead of showing any evidence that you understood what I wrote. I won't hold you ignorance against you.

But you posted no facts, you posted something trying to push off the fault onto Obama, but REAL economists put it where it belongs. Something you cannot say. Because your posts have been full of bullshit just like Trump's speeches. The fact that you are trying to defend him is pants on head retarded.

[stomination]

Uhh, no. If the husband isn't looking for work and is happy not working, he isn't "unemployed", he's a homemaker. He isn't counted in any unemployment measure.

Unemployment has never measured people who don't want to work. It's always been about people who seek work but can't find it.

So basically there is a huge amount of these certain people that are all homemakers...

[satimy]

No, they are part of the U5 in comparing the working, to those who aren't. That link is explaining what the work force is being compared against, not what is independently compared to it self. That's what they mean by:



You can see how your prior assertion is wrong, in comparing the changes in each on that link...

I dont want to get into a semantics argument, the point was if you havnt looked for work or been "spotted" looking for work in the past 12 months then you will have a downward effect on the unemployment rates u4-6

- - - Updated - - -

So basically there is a huge amount of these certain people that are all homemakers...

Disability has also skyrocketed in the past 15 years

[BannedForViews]

But you posted no facts, you posted something trying to push off the fault onto Obama, but REAL economists put it where it belongs. Something you cannot say. Because your posts have been full of bullshit just like Trump's speeches. The fact that you are trying to defend him is pants on head retarded.

I've posted plenty of facts. I've shown numbers, and even done math! What the hell are you talking about.

Are you a REAL ECONOMIST? Which Ivy did you get your degree from?

- - - Updated - - -

This is weird, most claims that I see state that the debt generated by Trump would occur during the span of 10 years. Which is sufficient time for a debt like that (11 trillion to occur). This was made with a static model,with a dynamic model I recall being 10 trillion dollars (granted dynamic models are notorious for not bein acurate)

Also the last republican president the USA had, doubled spending. And we have evidence of the effects of tax cuts with no reduction in spending. Sumners made a good case for the supply side economist side:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._kansas_m.html
Albeit tax cuts of kansas, were not as big as Trum's proposes.

To increase it over the course of 10 years you would need to average 1 trillion a year obviously. Obama did it in 8 years so I guess Trump could do it in 10, but the trajectory is very different in these last few years. He would have to drastically change the landscape in a way that tax cuts just won't actually do. It is not linear. Let me be clear: Tax cuts will reduce income tax revenues under almost all circumstances. It will not do so linearly though. It is a much softer regression. All of this ignores that these estimates are worth about as much as the paper they are printed on, so I don't really understand why people love to talk about them. I guess because you have nothing else to do.


Bush did not double spending. Please provide a source for this claim.
I'm not sure what the point of the Kansas article is. The reduced tax liability was .1% and they didn't see any change, I am not surprised.

[Bollocks]

To increase it over the course of 10 years you would need to average 1 trillion a year obviously. Obama did it in 8 years so I guess Trump could do it in 10, but the trajectory is very different in these last few years. He would have to drastically change the landscape in a way that tax cuts just won't actually do. It is not linear. Let me be clear: Tax cuts will reduce income tax revenues under almost all circumstances. It will not do so linearly though. It is a much softer regression. All of this ignores that these estimates are worth about as much as the paper they are printed on, so I don't really understand why people love to talk about them. I guess because you have nothing else to do.

Just bloody look at it:



This are significant tax cuts, and as stated before not accompanied by cuts in spending. Its insane. Also the difference in Obama is that this losses would be generated only through his tax cuts.

I think it was Krugman that wrote an entire book debunking the tax cuts myth, specially in the case of Reagan.

Bush did not double spending. Please provide a source for this claim.
I'm not sure what the point of the Kansas article is. The reduced tax liability was .1% and they didn't see any change, I am not surprised.

http://mercatus.org/publication/spen...-george-w-bush
I don't know how reliable mercatus is, but it seems to bte the only paper I found directly related to the bush administration, specifically spending.

My bad on the kansas paper.

[Felya]

I dont want to get into a semantics argument, the point was if you havnt looked for work or been "spotted" looking for work in the past 12 months then you will have a downward effect on the unemployment rates u4-6

It's not semantics to state the aggregator versus the sum.

Same with retired for a year and not looking for work, counting towards U3. No one is saying they are perfect, just giving a legitimate measurable value. That value saw the hight of 10% within last 8 years, which is a variable that dropped to 4.9%. The motivating factor to change the to U5, shouldn't be feels.

In fact, U3 is the median inclusion point, using U5 is specifically closer to the maximum inclusion of those not working. U4 would include discourage workers, but that still doesn't meet the feels. The reason for that is that both U5 and U6 include something the other 4 do not... The word marginally and the start of including retirees, because it relies on people not realizing the connection.

[Endus]

It's not a conspiracy; it's human nature especially for politicians to aggrandize, speak hyperbolic rhetoric and outright lie. Using bullshit statistics is just an extension of this; the problem is you worshiping your false god of cherrypicked and irrelevant data.

Yeah, this is exactly as nutty a conspiracy claim as arguing that the government faked the Moon landings to "beat the Commies". You have literally no evidence, and want to throw out all the data we DO have because of some shadowy government conspiracy to fake that data for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

You do realize politicians don't come up with these numbers, right? It's BLS staff that do.

[xChurch]

Except that you are talking about false data because people who lost jobs and haven't found one after a year are no longer counted as unemployed and thus the false narrative of 5% becomes total bullshit because people STILL don't have jobs.

A simple, "Yes I believe such a conspiracy exists" would have worked just fine.

[satimy]

It's not semantics to state the aggregator versus the sum.

Same with retired for a year and not looking for work, counting towards U3. No one is saying they are perfect, just giving a legitimate measurable value. That value saw the hight of 10% within last 8 years, which is a variable that dropped to 4.9%. The motivating factor to change the to U5, shouldn't be feels.

In fact, U3 is the median inclusion point, using U5 is specifically closer to the maximum inclusion of those not working. U4 would include discourage workers, but that still doesn't meet the feels. The reason for that is that both U5 and U6 include something the other 4 do not... The word marginally and the start of including retirees, because it relies on people not realizing the connection.

Again many people were unemployed for such a long period of time that they fell out of any of the u measurements. The problem with that is that its hard to measure but can greatly impact the u1-6 numbers. They really should make a u7 which is every non disabled, non institutionalized person under the age of 65 versus all of the full, seasonal and discouraged workers.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, this is exactly as nutty a conspiracy claim as arguing that the government faked the Moon landings to "beat the Commies". You have literally no evidence, and want to throw out all the data we DO have because of some shadowy government conspiracy to fake that data for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

You do realize politicians don't come up with these numbers, right? It's BLS staff that do.

I don't think its nutty for the moon landings to be faked, the cold war was a crazy time. And the IRS is also not run by politicians but definitely has done politically motivated actions recently. Hell Ronald Reagan made the Fed change the calculation for CPI because it was too high.

[Bollocks]

@JacquesPierre Cut everything I said, trump just released a new tax plan. Im running numbers for the new plan, so far nothing surprising, just the typical republican plan.

[BannedForViews]

This are significant tax cuts, and as stated before not accompanied by cuts in spending. Its insane. Also the difference in Obama is that this losses would be generated only through his tax cuts.

I think it was Krugman that wrote an entire book debunking the tax cuts myth, specially in the case of Reagan.
.

Nominally they are significant, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Also Krugman doesn't know shit.

[Bollocks]

Nominally they are significant, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. Also Krugman doesn't know shit.

He wrote the book during the 90s. 90s krugman best krugman man.
Also he did not win a noble for nothing.

Its journal day in r/economics come by, there are a lot of papers if you are interested.