Thank You, Trump! No Thanks To Obama!

Thank You, Trump!  No thanks to Obama!

Remember when prog economists told us these jobs were never coming back and 2.2 percent average GDP was the new normal!  

"A gauge of factory activity in the U.S. Upper Midwest improved to the strongest level in over three years in December, led by much stronger readings on new orders and production, according a private survey released on Friday.

Marquette University and the Institute for Supply Management-Milwaukee said their seasonally adjusted index on manufacturing in the Milwaukee region rose to 65.57 this month from 59.62 in November.

The December figure was the highest since November 2014 when it was 68.9.

A reading above 50 indicates regional factory activity is expanding.

The upbeat snapshot of upper Midwest business activity coincided with a jump in a similar measure for the Chicago area.

On Thursday, MNI Indicators and ISM-Chicago said their jointly developed Chicago Purchase Management Index rose to 67.6 in December, the highest since March 2011.

The Marquette University and Milwaukee ISM survey's component on new orders, a proxy on future activity, increased to 88.33 from 66.46 last month, while its production gauge improved to 72.65 from 57.94.

Not all the components improved in December. The survey's employment index fell to 58.67 from 61.73, while its six-month outlook gauge slipped to 71.43 from 73.33."

https://www.reuters.com/articl...-years-idUSKBN1EN19G

BTW, industrial unemployment is 2.7 percent, the lowest in history.

 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Original Post

I don't care what the crying slops say, a pall was lifted off of the country last November, and we still have a long way to go to get out from under the oppression of the demoslops, but hopefully we can. They caused and continue to cause a lot of damage, but every day more and more folks are getting sick of them and speaking up.

As much as  Liarstraights loves his little charts, I wonder how he'll spin this one. Unemployment numbers are falling at the exact same rate they've been falling for the past 8 years.

_________________________________________________

Unemployment figures for December 2017 will be released on Friday, January 5, 2018.

National Unemployment Rates | 2008 - 2017
  Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
 2017  4.8  4.7  4.5  4.4  4.3  4.4  4.3  4.4 4.2   4.1  4.1 
 2016  4.9  4.9  5.0  5.0  4.7  4.9  4.9  4.9  5.0   4.9   4.6   4.7
 2015  5.7  5.5  5.5  5.4  5.5  5.3  5.3  5.1  5.1   5.0   5.0   5.0
 2014  6.6  6.7  6.7  6.3  6.3  6.1  6.2  6.1  5.9   5.8   5.8   5.6
 2013  7.9  7.7  7.5  7.5  7.5  7.5  7.3  7.2  7.2   7.2   7.0   6.7
 2012  8.3  8.3  8.2  8.1  8.2  8.2  8.2  8.1  7.8   7.9   7.8   7.8
 2011  9.0  8.9  8.8  9.0  9.1  9.2  9.1  9.1  9.1   9.0   8.6   8.5
 2010  9.7  9.7  9.7  9.9  9.7  9.5  9.5  9.6  9.6   9.6   9.8   9.4
 2009  7.6  8.1  8.5  8.9  9.4  9.5  9.4  9.7  9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
 2008  4.9  4.8  5.1  5.0  5.5  5.6  5.8  6.2  6.2   6.6   6.8   7.2

 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/l...-monthly-update.aspx

betternu said

As much as  Liarstraights loves his little charts, I wonder how he'll spin this one. Unemployment numbers are falling at the exact same rate they've been falling for the past 8 years.

---------------------------------

The closer we came to the end of mobumba

Employers started saving their money after barark snuck in,
scared the hell out of all business with the polls saying, They didn't
know what to expect........
 
The expectation of his exit is shown in the lowest rates ever...
Thank you Trump,,

Thanks, This is what I was looking at before...

If the actual rate is higher than the natural rate, the economy is in a slump (more technically known as a recession), and if the actual rate is lower than the natural rate then inflation is expected to be right around the corner (because the economy is thought to be overheating).Nov 9, 2017

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-...unemployment-1148118

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-...rve-overview-1146802

 

Kraven posted:

betternu said

As much as  Liarstraights loves his little charts, I wonder how he'll spin this one. Unemployment numbers are falling at the exact same rate they've been falling for the past 8 years.

---------------------------------

The closer we came to the end of mobumba

Employers started saving their money after barark snuck in,
scared the hell out of all business with the polls saying, They didn't
know what to expect........
 
The expectation of his exit is shown in the lowest rates ever...
Thank you Trump,,

One comment about the chart: the unemployment numbers seemed to start decreasing faster starting in 2011. I might note that Republicans took the House in November 2010 and in the Senate gained enough seats to block Dem legislation. I suspect that knowing the cast of idiots in the District of Columbia were blocked from creating more stoopid legislation helped.

SirWasabi posted:

Republicans can spin all that want. The charts posted by each one of you show the same steady decrease for the past 8 years. Republicans can ignore the facts all they want, it still doesn't change them.

And dimms can create "facts" all they want, but that doesn't dispute the truth of history:

Obama’s Stimulus: Five Years of Keynesian Fairy Dust

The country just “celebrated” the five-year anniversary of the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly referred to as the “stimulus.” The White House wants us to think the legislation was a success, publishing a report that claims the stimulus “saved or created about 6 million job-years” and “raised the level of GDP by between 2 and 3 percent from late 2009 through mid-2011.”

These seem to be preposterous claims. According to data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s interactive website, the current recovery (red line) is the weakest expansion since World War II. And keep in mind that this anemic recovery started in the summer of 2009, right about the same time as the stimulus was beginning. So if the President’s plan was effective, it should be apparent in the growth numbers.

https://www.cato.org/publicati...keynesian-fairy-dust

 

SirWasabi posted:

Wait, weren't we talking unemployment? Why deflect to another topic?

Tell me SPECIFIC legislation that has been passed by the TRUMP Administration that caused this 'new data'? I'll wait.

If you bothered to look at the link, you would have seen another chart after the teaser:

To be fair, Ol'bama would be second worst, but since so many of the new hires were part time Ol'bamadidn'tcare employees and many other people were cut to part time from full time and would be reflected in the U-6 rate and not the U-3 rate; it's probably a tie for worst. That said, GDP growth is necessary for employment growth. I believe when the GDP rate is less than 2%, there usually isn't any real growth in employment because most economists assume that technology and efficiencies make up about 2% growth. That reality sums up this chart, and yes some of the employment numbers reflect 'Boomers leaving the workforce, both willingly and unwillingly:

Image result for workforce participation rate

 

As to legislation that has produced better than Ol'bama numbers, it will be a year or three from now before we will have a good answer on that. Now as to regulations, now there we have some idea on that because they can have a more immediate effect. Trump has gone the opposite direction from Ol'bama.

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

http://www.heritage.org/govern...100-billion-annually

Boom: Trump deregulation already saves $378 million, billions next year

http://www.washingtonexaminer....year/article/2642267

Stanky posted:

As to legislation that has produced better than Ol'bama numbers, it will be a year or three from now before we will have a good answer on that. Now as to regulations, now there we have some idea on that because they can have a more immediate effect. Trump has gone the opposite direction from Ol'bama.

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

http://www.heritage.org/govern...100-billion-annually

Boom: Trump deregulation already saves $378 million, billions next year

http://www.washingtonexaminer....year/article/2642267

So, no legislation passed by the Trump Administration has done anything to change the numbers,at this time,  by your own admission.

And your two big sources are a conservative rag equivalent to the National Enquirer and a Conservative Forum, by their website's admission.

Gotcha.

 

 

SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:

As to legislation that has produced better than Ol'bama numbers, it will be a year or three from now before we will have a good answer on that. Now as to regulations, now there we have some idea on that because they can have a more immediate effect. Trump has gone the opposite direction from Ol'bama.

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

http://www.heritage.org/govern...100-billion-annually

Boom: Trump deregulation already saves $378 million, billions next year

http://www.washingtonexaminer....year/article/2642267

So, no legislation passed by the Trump Administration has done anything to change the numbers,at this time,  by your own admission.

And your two big sources are a conservative rag equivalent to the National Enquirer and a Conservative Forum, by their website's admission.

Gotcha.

 

 

And you believe in instant gratification by magic wand and not by real world actions, gotcha. Only a primitive mind would think that a single man creates a good or bad economy all by himself. Sort of like the belief that thunderstorms are the result of the chief goddess catching the boss god fooling around again.

Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:

As to legislation that has produced better than Ol'bama numbers, it will be a year or three from now before we will have a good answer on that. Now as to regulations, now there we have some idea on that because they can have a more immediate effect. Trump has gone the opposite direction from Ol'bama.

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

http://www.heritage.org/govern...100-billion-annually

Boom: Trump deregulation already saves $378 million, billions next year

http://www.washingtonexaminer....year/article/2642267

So, no legislation passed by the Trump Administration has done anything to change the numbers,at this time,  by your own admission.

And your two big sources are a conservative rag equivalent to the National Enquirer and a Conservative Forum, by their website's admission.

Gotcha.

 

 

And you believe in instant gratification by magic wand and not by real world actions, gotcha. Only a primitive mind would think that a single man creates a good or bad economy all by himself. Sort of like the belief that thunderstorms are the result of the chief goddess catching the boss god fooling around again.

Wait, Thor doesn't make thunderstorms?

heil Trump, savior of mankind, destroyer of Obama Policies, Grabber of P****, has saved the American Economy. But a single man can't create an economy all by himself. Sort of like the belief that Hillary can make it rain as a result of catching Bill cheating. Tell me more of how Trump, single handedly, saved our economy while you tell me a single man can't save our economy.

Where did I say that Trump all by hisself is making the economy better. People who decided to invest in their businesses and hire new employees are doing that. The Trump appointees are cutting regulations and businesses seem to like that enough to grow their businesses and hire people. That should be simple enough for any maroon to understand.

 

 

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

SirWasabi posted:

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

Unfortunately newspapers leave out the word "administration" and omit the contributions of congress in creating titles for their articles. As to the U-3 unemployment numbers you listed, they are very much cooked and often don't reflect reality; someone who stopped looking for work isn't counted. Also it's usual for economies to recover quickly after a recession, but unfortunately employment is a lagging economic indicator and usually it takes goobermint intervention to drag out recoveries and employment like during the Great Depression.

Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

Unfortunately newspapers leave out the word "administration" and omit the contributions of congress in creating titles for their articles. As to the U-3 unemployment numbers you listed, they are very much cooked and often don't reflect reality; someone who stopped looking for work isn't counted. Also it's usual for economies to recover quickly after a recession, but unfortunately employment is a lagging economic indicator and usually it takes goobermint intervention to drag out recoveries and employment like during the Great Depression.

So, now we're back to "unemployment numbers are cooked. fake news'. Didn't this topic start to taut the economic numbers under Trump? Didn't you defend the unemployment numbers with the 'Congress was taken over by Republicans', in this very thread? Now, the numbers are cooked and don't count? Republicans have a funny way of trying their dead level best to ignore facts. It has to be a product of living inside the Republican bubble.

SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

Unfortunately newspapers leave out the word "administration" and omit the contributions of congress in creating titles for their articles. As to the U-3 unemployment numbers you listed, they are very much cooked and often don't reflect reality; someone who stopped looking for work isn't counted. Also it's usual for economies to recover quickly after a recession, but unfortunately employment is a lagging economic indicator and usually it takes goobermint intervention to drag out recoveries and employment like during the Great Depression.

So, now we're back to "unemployment numbers are cooked. fake news'. Didn't this topic start to taut the economic numbers under Trump? Didn't you defend the unemployment numbers with the 'Congress was taken over by Republicans', in this very thread? Now, the numbers are cooked and don't count? Republicans have a funny way of trying their dead level best to ignore facts. It has to be a product of living inside the Republican bubble.

I just assumed that the same administration would cook the numbers the same way before and after the midterm election and noted that the chart showed a faster decline after the midterm election. There's no way to sugar coat the feecal recovery that started in 2009 and the $10 Trillion of borrowed money. 

Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

Unfortunately newspapers leave out the word "administration" and omit the contributions of congress in creating titles for their articles. As to the U-3 unemployment numbers you listed, they are very much cooked and often don't reflect reality; someone who stopped looking for work isn't counted. Also it's usual for economies to recover quickly after a recession, but unfortunately employment is a lagging economic indicator and usually it takes goobermint intervention to drag out recoveries and employment like during the Great Depression.

So, now we're back to "unemployment numbers are cooked. fake news'. Didn't this topic start to taut the economic numbers under Trump? Didn't you defend the unemployment numbers with the 'Congress was taken over by Republicans', in this very thread? Now, the numbers are cooked and don't count? Republicans have a funny way of trying their dead level best to ignore facts. It has to be a product of living inside the Republican bubble.

I just assumed that the same administration would cook the numbers the same way before and after the midterm election and noted that the chart showed a faster decline after the midterm election. There's no way to sugar coat the feecal recovery that started in 2009 and the $10 Trillion of borrowed money. 

Except to give the GOP donors a $1.5 Trillion tax break? Add 15% more to the national debt, while screaming about the national debt? Republicans are hilarious.

SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:
Stanky posted:
SirWasabi posted:

The misleading, sensationalizing title of your sources claim Trump's deregulation is the reason for economic growth. Last time I checked, referring to a person , by name, is referencing a single person. What's next, buttercup? Evidently a simple moron can't understand. You're still not getting it. The jobs numbers and the economy are following the same trend they've followed for the past 8+years. I do agree, it should be simple enough for a moron to follow, but you're not. 

Unfortunately newspapers leave out the word "administration" and omit the contributions of congress in creating titles for their articles. As to the U-3 unemployment numbers you listed, they are very much cooked and often don't reflect reality; someone who stopped looking for work isn't counted. Also it's usual for economies to recover quickly after a recession, but unfortunately employment is a lagging economic indicator and usually it takes goobermint intervention to drag out recoveries and employment like during the Great Depression.

So, now we're back to "unemployment numbers are cooked. fake news'. Didn't this topic start to taut the economic numbers under Trump? Didn't you defend the unemployment numbers with the 'Congress was taken over by Republicans', in this very thread? Now, the numbers are cooked and don't count? Republicans have a funny way of trying their dead level best to ignore facts. It has to be a product of living inside the Republican bubble.

I just assumed that the same administration would cook the numbers the same way before and after the midterm election and noted that the chart showed a faster decline after the midterm election. There's no way to sugar coat the feecal recovery that started in 2009 and the $10 Trillion of borrowed money. 

Except to give the GOP donors a $1.5 Trillion tax break? Add 15% more to the national debt, while screaming about the national debt? Republicans are hilarious.

You're forgetting about the future $10 Trillion of debt gifted to us from the Ol'bama Administration and 111th Congress unless the economy shows a great deal of growth to pay for some of that spending and people leave entitlements for employment. I doubt that there will ever be 60 votes in the Senate to fix entitlement spending and the last time Republicans had a super majority was during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War. I also remember reading that a rise to 2.4 or 2.5% GDP from the previous administration average pays for the "Trump" tax cuts. If memory serves me, I believe a rise to an average 1.9% GDP growth rate means that the debt over 10 years adds up to $1 Trillion but if it stays at the average of the previous administration the debt would be $1.5 Trillion.

Federal Debt Projected to Grow by Nearly $10 Trillion Over Next Decade

The U3 isn't so much cooked, as misleading.  It contains only those actively seeking work and counts part time employees, seeking full time employment,  the same as the full time employed.  That's why the Reagan administration instituted the U6.  A full review must include U3, U6 and numbers in the workforce.  

Oh, now we're gonna talk about 'projected result/'. Great, How much 'projected results' did Bush give away during his Presidency? Under 'projected results', didn't Bill Clinton have the US debt free before Republicans took over the last time? Republicans sure do spend a lot of time swapping arguments. Had I done this, You'd all be screaming 'DEFLECTING!', I'm just sayin.

direstraits posted:

The U3 isn't so much cooked, as misleading.  It contains only those actively seeking work and counts part time employees, seeking full time employment,  the same as the full time employed.  That's why the Reagan administration instituted the U6.  A full review must include U3, U6 and numbers in the workforce.  

Actually, the term "cooking the numbers" might be closer to the truth than you might think. The U-3 unemployment table was created in 1994 and might have been devised to improve the Clinton era numbers:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10...mericas-nilf-island/

SirWasabi posted:

Oh, now we're gonna talk about 'projected result/'. Great, How much 'projected results' did Bush give away during his Presidency? Under 'projected results', didn't Bill Clinton have the US debt free before Republicans took over the last time? Republicans sure do spend a lot of time swapping arguments. Had I done this, You'd all be screaming 'DEFLECTING!', I'm just sayin.

Deflecting, naw. You provided a number from lefty websites and rags without context and I filled in the information you purposely left out. As to Clinton making the US debt free, do you pay your Visa card with your Mastercard? That is essentially  what the Clinton administration did. They used borrowed money from the Social Security surplus to make the other part of the budget look better.

  https://mises.org/library/surplus-hoax

I've posted this several time before.

Now exactly where did Slick Willy borrow from to show a surplus?

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed $152.3B from Social Security

$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund

$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund

$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund

$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund

$7.0B from others Total borrowed from off budget funds

$246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_m..._Clinton_left_office

Reportedly Bernie Madoff swooned at this. 

You've heard, "pay it forward?"  Old Slick Willy stole it forward.

 

Stanky posted:
direstraits posted:

The U3 isn't so much cooked, as misleading.  It contains only those actively seeking work and counts part time employees, seeking full time employment,  the same as the full time employed.  That's why the Reagan administration instituted the U6.  A full review must include U3, U6 and numbers in the workforce.  

Actually, the term "cooking the numbers" might be closer to the truth than you might think. The U-3 unemployment table was created in 1994 and might have been devised to improve the Clinton era numbers:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10...mericas-nilf-island/

SirWasabi posted:

Oh, now we're gonna talk about 'projected result/'. Great, How much 'projected results' did Bush give away during his Presidency? Under 'projected results', didn't Bill Clinton have the US debt free before Republicans took over the last time? Republicans sure do spend a lot of time swapping arguments. Had I done this, You'd all be screaming 'DEFLECTING!', I'm just sayin.

Deflecting, naw. You provided a number from lefty websites and rags without context and I filled in the information you purposely left out. As to Clinton making the US debt free, do you pay your Visa card with your Mastercard? That is essentially  what the Clinton administration did. They used borrowed money from the Social Security surplus to make the other part of the budget look better.

  https://mises.org/library/surplus-hoax

 

I can't seem to understand how the Dept. of Labor is a 'lefty rag website', but ok. Next, we count Republican "projected results', but not the 'Clinton Surplus'. I can't seem to find a rational reason to include one and not the other in a discussion. Republicans, you can lead them to facts, but you can't make them think.

If you used the Dept. of Labor for the National debt, you would be better off using the lefty rags. Bubba, it's the Dept. of the Treasury that handles that! Try here: 

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Also if you want to post assumtions about future deficits and debt, that would be the folks at the GAO:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/fil...-june2017outlook.pdf

Debt Held by the Public

As deficits accumulate in CBO’s baseline, debt held by the public rises from 77 percent of GDP ($15 trillion) at the end of 2017 to 91 percent of GDP ($26 trillion) by 2027 (see Table 5 on page 18). At that level, debt held by the public would be the largest since 1947 and more than twice the average over the past five decades in relation to GDP (see Figure 4). Beyond the 10-year period, if current laws remained in place, the pressures that are projected to contribute to rising deficits during the baseline period would accelerate and push debt up even more sharply. Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to be nearly twice as high, relative to GDP, as it is this year—a higher percentage than any previously recorded in the nation’s history.9

You should note that the CBO is not using the total National Debt but another measure. For the projected GDP growth as the CBO saw things in June, go to the chart on page 21. As to the accuracy of the CBO, I would trust more in the musings on the wall of the public bathroom stall. 

When anyone can claim completing courses in federal appropriations, I'll listen to them.  I attended the old school house at Ft. Buchanan, now closed. it relocated to Ft. Jackson.  

Here is a schedule of the annual deficits and national debt during the Clinton years.  Like I stated, the national debt rose ever year.  Yes, the annual deficits ceased for a couple of years, as the general fund was replenished from the several trust funds (not counted in the annual deficits, but counted in the national debt).  The info is now located at the archived Obama OMB records at the Office of The Capitol Archivist.  Old Slick Willy pulled a Bernie Madoff, like I stated.

Clinton defcits

Attachments

Photos (1)

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×