PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on March 08, 2017, 06:45:08 AM
-
Well this will be causing more liberal head explosions today:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/private-sector-jobs-february-2017-adp.html
-
Trump knows the key to job creation, wage increases, and the improvement in standard of living, and quality of life is ECONOMIC GROWTH. That is why he wants to change tax, and regulatory policy to enhance the business, and economic climate. Government needs to get out of the way, not give subsidies, and grants to cronies like Solyndra, or the UAW (GM).
-
I needed to work on a very unpleasant project yesterday.
To make the time go by as i concentrated way too hard, I felt I needed white noise of a particular tonality and chose MSNBC in the background to fill the silence while I worked.
The bland, blabbering, idiocy was so vapid and empty that it was perfect for ignoring, but did cover up other noise that might have intruded.
Listening to ultra-stupid liberals proclaiming that Donald Trump is 'killing jobs,' and 'destroying the Obama prosperity,' is a lot like the noise that steam engine makes. It fills the void but doesn't require any of your attention.
-
Listening to ultra-stupid liberals proclaiming that Donald Trump is 'killing jobs,' and 'destroying the Obama prosperity,' is a lot like the noise that steam engine makes. It fills the void but doesn't require any of your attention.
So what are they basing that Trump is killing jobs, and destroying the Obama prosperity? Did they look at GDP growth during Obama's eight year reign of terror? It was borderline recession every quarter! Almost every revision was a downgrade. Did they look at labor participation rate? Hell no.
-
So what are they basing that Trump is killing jobs, and destroying the Obama prosperity? Did they look at GDP growth during Obama's eight year reign of terror? It was borderline recession every quarter! Almost every revision was a downgrade. Did they look at labor participation rate? Hell no.
The liberals and their propaganda arm (MSM) feel they only need to tell you what they want you to believe. Remember the recent quote from that MSNBC twit where she proclaims that it's the media's job to tell Americans what to think?
Truth has no place in the liberal agenda.
-
The big difference in the conservative/libertarian approach to the economy vs. the liberal/progressive/Democrat approach is that we know the key is PRIVATE SECTOR job creation, not public sector/government jobs. Government creates NO wealth. Non-profits create NO wealth. It is the for profit, private sector companies that drive the economy.
Obama's Trillion dollar stimulus was not an economic stimulus, but a public sector, and union payback scheme fro getting him elected. Yes, his cronies in the private sector benefited as well, aka Solyndra, and Goldman Sachs for example. Taking money from the taxpayers, and/or borrowing it to give to these entities for so called bailouts, and subsidies, is counterproductive to economic growth. It is a NET LOSS to the economy eventually. Yes, there may be some short term benefits. I am sure some people profited from "Cash for Clunkers". Remember that one? However, what that did was create a shortage of low cost cars that poor, and younger people had access to at reasonable prices. This type of artificial, economic influence throws off the equilibrium in the economy just like government set wage, and price controls. It doesn't work guys!
-
Did they look at GDP growth during Obama's eight year reign of terror? It was borderline recession every quarter! Almost every revision was a downgrade.
I'm not sure what you meant to say, but this is absolutely not true. GDP growth was strong, driven entirely by an expanding government and businesses. Household incomes were in a recession for 7 of his 8 years, but other than the problems associated with the big mortgage oops, the GDP grew.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
-
I'm not sure what you meant to say, but this is absolutely not true. GDP growth was strong, driven entirely by an expanding government and businesses. Household incomes were in a recession for 7 of his 8 years, but other than the problems associated with the big mortgage oops, the GDP grew.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
That's nominal, not real.
-
I'm not sure what you meant to say, but this is absolutely not true. GDP growth was strong, driven entirely by an expanding government and businesses. Household incomes were in a recession for 7 of his 8 years, but other than the problems associated with the big mortgage oops, the GDP grew.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that 2015 U.S. real GDP (RGDP) growth was 2.38%. No matter what revisions are subsequently made, 2015 will have been the tenth year in a row that RGDP growth came in at under 3.0%. The longest previous such run in U.S. economic history was only four years, and the last time that this happened was during the Great Depression (1930 - 1933).
Even worse, and this should be the defining issue of the 2016 elections, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now forecasting that America will never see 3.0% economic growth again. This should be drawing howls of protest, at least from Republicans, but there has been little reaction thus far.
From 1790 to 2000, U.S. RGDP growth averaged 3.79%. America needs at least 3.0% economic growth-the nation cannot defend itself and pay its bills without it. However, America's elites have largely given up on growth, and are now distracting themselves with academic musings about "secular stagnation."
The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America's strength as a nation and the wellbeing of the American people. And, Obama's record in this area has been truly dismal.
Right now, the nation is probably already in a recession. The BEA's first estimate of 4Q2015 RGDP growth was only 0.69%, and there is mounting evidence that this will later be revised downward. However, making the wildly optimistic assumption that 2016 RGDP growth will come in at the CBO's current forecast (2.67%), Obama will be the only U.S. president in history that did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.
Did we have a Quarter during Obama's presidency that was above 3% GDP growth after the revisions came out?
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html
-
Did we have a Quarter during Obama's presidency that was above 3% GDP growth after the revisions came out?
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html
I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear how a positive growth rate qualifies as a recession. I agree that it wasn't stellar and I expect it will greatly improve now. But recession has a very specific economic definition, requiring a fall in the GDP for two consecutive quarters. Outside the mortgage crisis, the GDP never fell and growth was always positive. It was around the same value as his predecessor.
I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from, this is purely a technical reaction. It was never a recession and making a comparison about it gives a completely inaccurate impression.
-
I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear how a positive growth rate qualifies as a recession. I agree that it wasn't stellar and I expect it will greatly improve now. But recession has a very specific economic definition, requiring a fall in the GDP for two consecutive quarters. Outside the mortgage crisis, the GDP never fell and growth was always positive.
I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from, this is purely a technical reaction. It was never a recession and making a comparison about it gives a completely inaccurate impression.
Did I say it was "technically" a recession? Just because these GDP numbers aren't negative, doesn't mean we don't have a troubled economy. When GDP growth is this low for this long, it means there is no real economic growth. Hence, the very low labor participation rate, and negative growth in real wages. Even if you believe the GDP numbers, and the rate of inflation under Obama (which I believe were cooked) it still points to a VERY anemic economy.
-
Did I say it was "technically" a recession? Just because these GDP numbers aren't negative, doesn't mean we don't have a troubled economy. When GDP growth is this low for this long, it means there is no real economic growth. Hence, the very low labor participation rate, and negative growth in real wages. Even if you believe the GDP numbers, and the rate of inflation under Obama (which I believe were cooked) it still points to a VERY anemic economy.
You made the comparison that it was barely above a recession. Barely is a judgment, but I don't call 2% "barely" over a recession, especially when the average GDP growth rate for the US over the past 50 years has been 1.8% (source World Bank).
I agree that it's an anemic economy, but to compare it to a recession is inaccurate. But it's basically the same rate that George Bush ran at and slightly above the 50 year average. Have we been barely above a recession for 50 years?
-
You made the comparison that it was barely above a recession. Barely is a judgment, but I don't call 2% "barely" over a recession, especially when the average GDP growth rate for the US over the past 50 years has been 1.8% (source World Bank).
I agree that it's an anemic economy, but to compare it to a recession is inaccurate. But it's basically the same rate that George Bush ran at and slightly above the 50 year average.
Agree, in general, however, when you dump TRILLIONS of $$$ of taxpayer, and borrowed money, and call it an ECONOMIC STIMULUS, you'd expect a higher return. It is the old argument of Demand, vs. Supply side economics. We'll probably be debating that forever.