Trumponomics driving down employement numbers, what a shocker

The Russia Tax Cut promised:

Growth of at least 3% (Last year: 2.9%)
Income gains of at least $4,000 (Last year: wages flat with inflation for most workers)
Increased revenues (Last year: 2% fewer revenues than 2017)
Reduce Trade Deficit (Last year: largest trade deficit ever)
Stop outsourcing and offshoring (BMW, Carrier, Harley Davidson, etc.)
Reduce the deficit (Deficit now 77% higher)
 
LV426 said:
The Russia Tax Cut promised:
Growth of at least 3% (Last year: 2.9%)
Income gains of at least $4,000 (Last year: wages flat with inflation for most workers)
Increased revenues (Last year: 2% fewer revenues than 2017)
Reduce Trade Deficit (Last year: largest trade deficit ever)
Stop outsourcing and offshoring (BMW, Carrier, Harley Davidson, etc.)
Reduce the deficit (Deficit now 77% higher)
Click to expand...

LIE and LAME. Of course, you can provide us with a link to this fabricated promises you are claiming right dumb fuck.

Dumber still, the notion that tax increases are good for economic growth and that we have a Revenue problem in this country. MORON.
 
LV426 said:
The Russia Tax Cut promised:

Growth of at least 3% (Last year: 2.9%)
Income gains of at least $4,000 (Last year: wages flat with inflation for most workers)
Increased revenues (Last year: 2% fewer revenues than 2017)
Reduce Trade Deficit (Last year: largest trade deficit ever)
Stop outsourcing and offshoring (BMW, Carrier, Harley Davidson, etc.)
Reduce the deficit (Deficit now 77% higher)
Click to expand...

GDP growth under Obamunism in 2016 = 1.6%.
Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great Recession
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/pay-gains-under-trumps-best-since-the-great-recession.html
Deficits during Obamunism = On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. It explains why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president.
 
Truth Detector said:
That is a LIE you dishonest dumb fuck. GWB ended his term with a net increase of 1.348 million jobs. Most of these job loses were a result of the Democratically caused mortgage implosion resulting in a massive recession that we didn't really emerge from until Obama left office.
Click to expand...

First, the losses were a result of the two parties repealing Glass Steagall. Removing the firewall between the retail banking/lending side and the investment banking side. Prior to the repeal, the investment banks were cautious on what loans they would buy and package from the retail side. Thus the retail side had to be more cautious in their lending practices, because if they wrote a lot of subpar loans, they would get stuck with them on their books.

Second, the recession was over in the early months of 2009. The mass influx of money via QE programs and the fed funds rate going to zero (and being held there for years) ended the recession. The way the Obama admin and the Fed went about it was why it was such an anemic growth out of the recession. We are now paying the price for the QE programs and the low interest rate environment. So not only did Obama have a weak recovery, he also left us extremely vulnerable to the next recessionary time frame.
 
Superfreak said:
except it is not.

Under Obama, the labor participation rate fell consistently throughout his two terms. Under Trump, it has begun ticking back up slowly. Labor participation is up 0.3% since Trump took office, while unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 4%. So he gained 0.7% on unemployment while labor participation increased .3%... net gain is 1% in the two years he has been in office.

Under Obama, Unemployment rate went from 7.8% to 4.7%, while labor participation rate went from 65.7% to 62.9%. So he gained 3.1% on the unemployment side and lost 2.8% on the labor participation rate. His net was a gain of 0.3% during his 8 years.

That shows just how anemic the growth was under Obama.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to do Jr High math.
Labor participation is a percentage of adult population.
Unemployment is a percentage of labor participation.

You can't add the differences of the 2.
 
Truth Detector said:
Lying Dumb Fuck:

2001 = 136.297 Million
2008 = 145.362 Million

145.362 > 136.297 = 9.065 Million.

Percent of population employed in 2008 = 66%. Percent under Obamunism in 2016 = 62.8%

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.pdf
Click to expand...

145.362/.628 = 231.149 Million people in the US according to you.

What happened to the other 72 million people that the US census says were part of the population in the US?
According to US Census in 2008 the population was 303,528 million
 
Truth Detector said:
That is a LIE you dishonest dumb fuck. GWB ended his term with a net increase of 1.348 million jobs. Most of these job loses were a result of the Democratically caused mortgage implosion resulting in a massive recession that we didn't really emerge from until Obama left office.
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
First, the losses were a result of the two parties repealing Glass Steagall. Removing the firewall between the retail banking/lending side and the investment banking side. Prior to the repeal, the investment banks were cautious on what loans they would buy and package from the retail side. Thus the retail side had to be more cautious in their lending practices, because if they wrote a lot of subpar loans, they would get stuck with them on their books.

Second, the recession was over in the early months of 2009. The mass influx of money via QE programs and the fed funds rate going to zero (and being held there for years) ended the recession. The way the Obama admin and the Fed went about it was why it was such an anemic growth out of the recession. We are now paying the price for the QE programs and the low interest rate environment. So not only did Obama have a weak recovery, he also left us extremely vulnerable to the next recessionary time frame.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what this has to do with my post to the liar. ???? :palm:
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Please stop trying to do Jr High math.
Labor participation is a percentage of adult population.
Unemployment is a percentage of labor participation.

You can't add the differences of the 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is precisely what you can do. If labor participation rate goes up by 0.3% and there are net jobs are zero, then the unemployment rate will increase by the same 0.3%. Despite no jobs being lost.

It is a net effect. So if labor participation rate is going up while unemployment rate is going down, it means the change in unemployment would actually be higher had more people not entered the work force.

So you absolutely compare time periods by the net effect between the two.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
145.362/.628 = 231.149 Million people in the US according to you.

What happened to the other 72 million people that the US census says were part of the population in the US?
According to US Census in 2008 the population was 303,528 million
Click to expand...

The labor market does not count those under 16 years of age.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Please stop trying to do Jr High math.
Labor participation is a percentage of adult population.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to pretend you know what the fuck you are emoting about. Labor participation is the percentage of the adult population that is willing to work or actively working. Moron.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Unemployment is a percentage of labor participation.
Click to expand...

Wrong; unemployment is calculated in about six different ways; the most popular one used by Government and the media is U-3 unemployment rate. It is a statistical calculation based on surveys of adults.

Before you arrogantly presume to lecture others, it helps to know what the fuck you are talking about first.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
145.362/.628 = 231.149 Million people in the US according to you.

What happened to the other 72 million people that the US census says were part of the population in the US?
According to US Census in 2008 the population was 303,528 million
Click to expand...

We are talking about the adult population you fucking moron. The civilian work force. LOOK at the LINK dumb fuck.
 
Superfreak said:
Regardless, if you are going to rebut his assertion (which I agree was wrong), you should in turn be accurate with how you do so. Otherwise you open yourself up to ridicule.
Click to expand...

I wasn't inaccurate. But I appreciate your effort to defend the LIAR. :palm:
 
Superfreak said:
I was correcting two errors in your post.
Click to expand...

No; you were engaging in semantics. My point was to illustrate that it was a lie to claim Bush had a net loss of jobs in his Presidency. Your argument is semantic basically claiming that it was a potato not a potatoe. :palm:
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, that is precisely what you can do. If labor participation rate goes up by 0.3% and there are net jobs are zero, then the unemployment rate will increase by the same 0.3%. Despite no jobs being lost.

It is a net effect. So if labor participation rate is going up while unemployment rate is going down, it means the change in unemployment would actually be higher had more people not entered the work force.

So you absolutely compare time periods by the net effect between the two.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Let's move the numbers to something that will clearly show it.

Adult population is 1,000
Labor participation rate is 50%
Unemployment rate is 50%.

That means that the number of adults working is .5 x .5 x 1000
So only 250 people are working.

Now if we have the same 1,000 people
participation rate goes up to 100%
Using your calculation unemployment has to be the 50% plus the 50% increase in participation rate. That would mean the unemployment would be 100% if we use your math.

But 250 people are still working. Do you see the problem with your approach?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top