Will the Democrats screw up our booming Economy?

[Carnal_Flower]

Imagine that.

Crooked Crooked Crooked!

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!

Emaila Emails Emails!

Server Server Server!

Psychology is a huge factor.... hammer home one message, even if it is not true, and eventually, people will start to believe it. Such as, Russia, Russia, Russia....

 

[magicalmoments]

The nature of the Obama "recovery" is mostly due to over-regulation, increased taxation, unpredictability in policy, and his general anti-capitalist philosophy.

Let's see here:

Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.​

GDP growth under Obama was worst in decades, N.Y. Post (Mar. 30, 2017).

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/peak_level-gdp_growth-chart.jpg​

The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions. ​

R. Sinquefield, Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery, Forbes (Nov. 29, 2016).

The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/steve-moore-graph.jpg​

If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.​

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average, Investor's Business Daily (July 29, 2016).


That last article is really telling in how the Obama "recovery" would have been had it been merely "average." This graph give the same idea:

https://weststringfellow.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/imrs5-php_.png?w=840​

People complained that Reagan's recovery was "bought" with deficit spending. Yet, Obama's increase in debt was almost 5 times that of Reagan, and his supposed recovery was a mere fraction of what Reagan accomplished. If we had as president from 2009-2017 someone who understood and promoted free market economics, imagine how good things would be now!

Alternative facts and fake news!

 

[Beco]

I don't see why you would worry about the Democratic Party, Beco. Your party of choice is screwing up so badly in every conceivable way that that should be your primary concern. If you wanted to move over to the Democratic Party and help them figure their positions out, that might be a good move now. But, as either a Republican or a Trumpian (the two not being the same thing, which is a large part of the stagnation), you have a lot bigger problem to worry about than the Democrats--and you probably helped perpetuate the problems by voting for a real sleazebag--while probably for several of them.

Trump was never popular to begin with and he still won. To win in 2018, Democrats need stop looking at the polls, which are worthless, and instead, offer up something better than " A Better Deal" and stop borrowing ideas from say, The Donald himself or reaching back to tired policies such as raising the minimum wage to $15 which is a job killer, or infrastructure which is Trumps idea ....come up with something new or take a beating, again, in 2018 and beyond.

But I agree, Republicans suck as much as Chuck Schumer sucks along with hair plugs... and bring on Maxine Waters....god love that lady!

 

[Hypoxia]

Trump was never popular to begin with and he still won.

He won the game but lost the nation. We see how well that works, a prez with shithole-level popular support lackadaisically trying to implement a YUGELY unpopular agenda (which shifts weekly, daily, hourly...)

Channeling discontent is enough to grab power. It's not enough to actually USE power. Governance requires compromise e.g. lack of total dominance. Tromp and the Guppies are into dominance, not governance. What luzers!

Alas, the DNC sees the situation as: We won the vote. We lost a few counties. If we do more of what we did in 2016, but better, we can win 2018 and 2020. So lets push the usual corporate clones and globalist gland-handers with some sexy slogans and posters. Don't forget to pile on the celeb endorsers. Oh wow, another Fleetwood Mac concert!

This assumes Tromp doesn't impose martial law before then. Keep hoping.

 

[JackLuis]

Joy Reid and ex-Obama aide struggle not to laugh as Trump booster blandly lies about economy

MSNBC’s Joy Reid and economic advisor for former President Barack Obama Austan Goolsbee took down the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Tim Doescher when he tried to insist that President Donald Trump is responsible for the booming state of the U.S. economy.

“The economic headlines certainly do look good right now,” said Reid. “More than one million jobs have been added since Trump took office and the unemployment rate narrowly dropped down to 4.3 percent and the economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.6 percent in the second quarter.”

She continued, “Now, is this all evidence of Trump’s success? He certainly seems to think so. But since Trump hasn’t actually implemented any policies affecting the economy or signed any legislation related to it, does he deserve the credit?”

Turning to Goolsbee, Reid asked if he had any response to Doescher’s contention that “just the way [Trump] speaks has made the economy flower — but that Barack Obama in eight years did nothing.”

“Look, we’ve had, I believe, 84 months in a row of job growth and the last six of those have been under Donald Trump,” said Goolsbee. “It’s like a guy built a house and sold it to someone and that person walked in and turned the lights on and was, like, ‘Look at this house I built!'”

 

[Beco]

Joy Reid and ex-Obama aide struggle not to laugh as Trump booster blandly lies about economy

Wow, quoting Joy Reid?? My god....that woman, I mean, you can feel her detest coming through my plasma tv screen (Yes I still have a plasma). She despises Trump like no other I've seen, well except for Chris (I spit when I talk) Matthews.

I do actually like to watch Chris, but i cannot watch Joy Reid....she's there for one purpose, paid to hate trump and ridicule everything he does, along with his family

 

[Beco]

He won the game but lost the nation. We see how well that works, a prez with shithole-level popular support lackadaisically trying to implement a YUGELY unpopular agenda (which shifts weekly, daily, hourly...)

Channeling discontent is enough to grab power. It's not enough to actually USE power. Governance requires compromise e.g. lack of total dominance. Tromp and the Guppies are into dominance, not governance. What luzers!

Alas, the DNC sees the situation as: We won the vote. We lost a few counties. If we do more of what we did in 2016, but better, we can win 2018 and 2020. So lets push the usual corporate clones and globalist gland-handers with some sexy slogans and posters. Don't forget to pile on the celeb endorsers. Oh wow, another Fleetwood Mac concert!

This assumes Tromp doesn't impose martial law before then. Keep hoping.

This is the Hatfield–McCoy feud, but worse. The strategy of Republicans when Obama was elected was to do everything so he wouldn't win another term. Its now tit for tat....a cycle I am afraid, wont end. My fear is we don't waste this momentum and waste 4 years of Special Counsels and investigations and meanwhile, China, Germany and India, etc, gain more power and prominence on the world stage.

If voters dont run towards Democrats in 2018, I'll be totally shocked....

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

The nature of the Obama "recovery" is mostly due to over-regulation, increased taxation, unpredictability in policy, and his general anti-capitalist philosophy.

Let's see here:

Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.​

GDP growth under Obama was worst in decades, N.Y. Post (Mar. 30, 2017).

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/peak_level-gdp_growth-chart.jpg​

The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions. ​

R. Sinquefield, Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery, Forbes (Nov. 29, 2016).

The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had been merely average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/steve-moore-graph.jpg​

If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.​

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average, Investor's Business Daily (July 29, 2016).


That last article is really telling in how the Obama "recovery" would have been had it been merely "average." This graph give the same idea:

https://weststringfellow.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/imrs5-php_.png?w=840​

People complained that Reagan's recovery was "bought" with deficit spending. Yet, Obama's increase in debt was almost 5 times that of Reagan, and his supposed recovery was a mere fraction of what Reagan accomplished. If we had as president from 2009-2017 someone who understood and promoted free market economics, imagine how good things would be now!

Interesting.

None of these stats about growth correlates with either "over-regulation" or "higher taxes."

They most certainly do. The FDR numbers fully, and the Truman numbers to a great extent, are outliers. FDR represents growth since the Great Depression, and both represent growth due to fighting, then winning, WWII. Besides, I think you would agree, given both his foreign policy and treatment of labor, that Truman was more like today's Republicans than Democrats,

Take those away and the greatest growth is under Reagan, who cut taxes and deregulated far more than any of the others in the graph. After that, the next greatest growth is the stretch from Ike to LBJ. Ike was certainly not a regulator nor economic interventionist and, considering the JFK and LBJ administrations together (which is appropriate given the historical circumstance of JFK's death), it was another period of decreasing taxes.

Speaking of the historically weak economic recovery under Obama, the Investor's Business Daily article puts it this way:

This malaise is the entirely the result of the Obama administration's anti-growth tax and regulatory policies, which have smothered what could have been and should have been a robust recovery from the terrible 2007-2009 recession.​

As that article points out, if the Obama "recovery" had been merely average, it still would have seen the USA's economy grow by several trillion more dollars than it did, which would have helped offset the near doubling of the federal debt. Better yet, had we had someone like Reagan at he helm, we probably would have at least doubled the rate of recovery.

Obama did plenty of good things. If you focus on hie economic stewardship, however, he does not come out looking very successful.

Obama is anti-capitalist? I thought he (and Hillary) were corporate whore-mongers?????

I've never accused them of being "corporate whore-mongers." Therefore, applied to me, your argument is fallacious. Still it bears comment.

Of course, Obama and Hillary did take care of their big donors. Think of, as examples, Solyndra for Obama, and the Uranium One deal for Hillary. Their motivation, however, wasn't to help capitalism but, rather, to garner money with which to increase their personal power.

Alternative facts and fake news!

Seriously? The GDP and debt numbers come from the Federal Reserve, and the employment gap percentages come from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. This data was obtained, if you mine the origins of the graphs, during the Obama administration (thus, by labeling these "alternative facts and fake news" you are indicting the Obama Administration with lying to the public). In any case, if you want to call this data "fake news," you need to demonstrate how they are wrong and what the actual figures were. Show us some evidence.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Sorry, you lost me at "Uranium"

They most certainly do. The FDR numbers fully, and the Truman numbers to a great extent, are outliers. FDR represents growth since the Great Depression, and both represent growth due to fighting, then winning, WWII. Besides, I think you would agree, given both his foreign policy and treatment of labor, that Truman was more like today's Republicans than Democrats,

Take those away and the greatest growth is under Reagan, who cut taxes and deregulated far more than any of the others in the graph. After that, the next greatest growth is the stretch from Ike to LBJ. Ike was certainly not a regulator nor economic interventionist and, considering the JFK and LBJ administrations together (which is appropriate given the historical circumstance of JFK's death), it was another period of decreasing taxes.

Speaking of the historically weak economic recovery under Obama, the Investor's Business Daily article puts it this way:

This malaise is the entirely the result of the Obama administration's anti-growth tax and regulatory policies, which have smothered what could have been and should have been a robust recovery from the terrible 2007-2009 recession.​

As that article points out, if the Obama "recovery" had been merely average, it still would have seen the USA's economy grow by several trillion more dollars than it did, which would have helped offset the near doubling of the federal debt. Better yet, had we had someone like Reagan at he helm, we probably would have at least doubled the rate of recovery.

Obama did plenty of good things. If you focus on hie economic stewardship, however, he does not come out looking very successful.




I've never accused them of being "corporate whore-mongers." Therefore, applied to me, your argument is fallacious. Still it bears comment.

Of course, Obama and Hillary did take care of their big donors. Think of, as examples, Solyndra for Obama, and the Uranium One deal for Hillary. Their motivation, however, wasn't to help capitalism but, rather, to garner money with which to increase their personal power.




Seriously? The GDP and debt numbers come from the Federal Reserve, and the employment gap percentages come from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. This data was obtained, if you mine the origins of the graphs, during the Obama administration (thus, by labeling these "alternative facts and fake news" you are indicting the Obama Administration with lying to the public). In any case, if you want to call this data "fake news," you need to demonstrate how they are wrong and what the actual figures were. Show us some evidence.

 

[phrodeau]

Sorry, you lost me at "Uranium"

Yeah, funny how people think that profiting from such a deal is a bad thing. They're essentially selling milk to a dairy farmer.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Sorry, you lost me at "Uranium"

I understand the troubles you have. Next time I'll try to use shorter and simpler words.

Yeah, funny how people think that profiting from such a deal is a bad thing. They're essentially selling milk to a dairy farmer.

Profiting from such a deal is a federal offense in the instant case.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No, "Uranium" means you're a brain dead conspiracy theorist with Clinton Derangement Syndrome. You may as well say "You know, Hillary and all the little green men from Mars." Oh, RIGHT, yeah, that. Er, no.

I understand the troubles you have. Next time I'll try to use shorter and simpler words.




Profiting from such a deal is a federal offense in the instant case.

 

[Hypoxia]

You may as well say "You know, Hillary and all the little green men from Mars."

Don't forget that she's a raging lesbian and will do terrible things to those little green 'men'. Like paint them blue. And who knows what else? Oh, save them from Killary! And from Billary, and Chillary, and all the rest. Don't tell them about pizza.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

No, "Uranium" means you're a brain dead conspiracy theorist with Clinton Derangement Syndrome. You may as well say "You know, Hillary and all the little green men from Mars." Oh, RIGHT, yeah, that. Er, no.

Actually, what it means is that you found an excuse, as you always do when faced with hard data and logic, not to address the substance of the argument. Let's review, shall we?

The nature of the Obama "recovery" is mostly due to over-regulation, increased taxation, unpredictability in policy, and his general anti-capitalist philosophy.

Let's see here:

Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.​

GDP growth under Obama was worst in decades, N.Y. Post (Mar. 30, 2017).

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/peak_level-gdp_growth-chart.jpg​

The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions. ​

R. Sinquefield, Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery, Forbes (Nov. 29, 2016).

The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/steve-moore-graph.jpg​

If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.​

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average, Investor's Business Daily (July 29, 2016).


That last article is really telling in how the Obama "recovery" would have been had it been merely "average." This graph give the same idea:

https://weststringfellow.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/imrs5-php_.png?w=840​

People complained that Reagan's recovery was "bought" with deficit spending. Yet, Obama's increase in debt was almost 5 times that of Reagan, and his supposed recovery was a mere fraction of what Reagan accomplished. If we had as president from 2009-2017 someone who understood and promoted free market economics, imagine how good things would be now!

If you are right, and I am "brain dead," then you should have no trouble devising a substantive response to the data and analysis I present above.

Can you do it? Or shall we analyze next who is "brain dead"?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh, please.

You've presented a bunch of colorful graphs that look like a kindergartener's, which are open to vast range of interpretation. A dissertation in Economics they are not.

I reiterate: there is nothing in the first Crayola graph, which is the only one I looked at, that PROVES the single statistic of GDP is definitively a result of regulations and/or taxes. THat's what you'd like to argue, but it's only argument and opinion, not hard facts. And if you're going to begin off the bat by tossing out those "bars" which throw off the opinion you want to have, then we're in fantasy land.

Give me a link to a serious study of the proven correlation between "regulations" (of which there are gazillions) and GDP growth. A Crayola bar graph is not going to cut it.

not to mention that GDP is not the ONLY index of a healthy economy. It doesn't tell you who's benefitting, or where that wealth is going. It doesn't tell you that Reagan gutted Unions, for example.

As far as Uranium, it's one of those trigger words like Benghazi, tarmac, e-mails, Soros and server that if I see or hear I instantly write you off as a brain dead Fox brainwashed nutter.

Actually, what it means is that you found an excuse, as you always do when faced with hard data and logic, not to address the substance of the argument. Let's review, shall we?




If you are right, and I am "brain dead," then you should have no trouble devising a substantive response to the data and analysis I present above.

Can you do it? Or shall we analyze next who is "brain dead"?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Okay. Ignore the graphs. Just look at the numbers:

Typical post recession growth: >4%; growth 2009-2016: <2%.​

Add to that:

More Americans, both in absolute numbers and per capita, on food assistance than ever before.

Lowest workforce participation rate since women heavily entered the workforce ~1970.​

Is that a "strong recovery"?

Accumulated federal debt 1776-2009 (233 years): $10.02 trillion; Additional federal debt accumulated under Pres. Obama (8 years): $9.33 trillion.​

In short, even by almost doubling in just eight years the federal debt accumulated over the previous two centuries, he still managed to barely keep the economy going.

Is that a "strong recovery"?

Oh, please.

You've presented a bunch of colorful graphs that look like a kindergartener's, which are open to vast range of interpretation. A dissertation in Economics they are not.

I reiterate: there is nothing in the first Crayola graph, which is the only one I looked at, that PROVES the single statistic of GDP is definitively a result of regulations and/or taxes. THat's what you'd like to argue, but it's only argument and opinion, not hard facts. And if you're going to begin off the bat by tossing out those "bars" which throw off the opinion you want to have, then we're in fantasy land.

Give me a link to a serious study of the proven correlation between "regulations" (of which there are gazillions) and GDP growth. A Crayola bar graph is not going to cut it.

not to mention that GDP is not the ONLY index of a healthy economy. It doesn't tell you who's benefitting, or where that wealth is going. It doesn't tell you that Reagan gutted Unions, for example.

As far as Uranium, it's one of those trigger words like Benghazi, tarmac, e-mails, Soros and server that if I see or hear I instantly write you off as a brain dead Fox brainwashed nutter.

 

[AnAmericanDarling]

The Democrats aren't the ones to screw up a booming economy - remember that itty bitty thing called the recession that Obama got us out of? Yeah, that was him, honey. For Trump to create jobs he actually has to work, and he can't do that if he's golfing all the time. He's not doing anything while he's in office.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep. Thanks go to Obama for pulling us out of the economic tailspin the Republicans put us into.

 

[just4friends]

Yep. Thanks go to Obama for pulling us out of the economic tailspin the Republicans put us into.

BUT!!! Look at the chart!! "W" had better growth!!
How do you not account for the loss of TRILlIONS?
Great growth so far for "T" ...? Slightly lower percent
Hope you manage to make money off the market
I bet most will never see that cash

 

[magicalmoments]

They most certainly do. The FDR numbers fully, and the Truman numbers to a great extent, are outliers. FDR represents growth since the Great Depression, and both represent growth due to fighting, then winning, WWII. Besides, I think you would agree, given both his foreign policy and treatment of labor, that Truman was more like today's Republicans than Democrats,

Take those away and the greatest growth is under Reagan, who cut taxes and deregulated far more than any of the others in the graph. After that, the next greatest growth is the stretch from Ike to LBJ. Ike was certainly not a regulator nor economic interventionist and, considering the JFK and LBJ administrations together (which is appropriate given the historical circumstance of JFK's death), it was another period of decreasing taxes.

Speaking of the historically weak economic recovery under Obama, the Investor's Business Daily article puts it this way:

This malaise is the entirely the result of the Obama administration's anti-growth tax and regulatory policies, which have smothered what could have been and should have been a robust recovery from the terrible 2007-2009 recession.​

As that article points out, if the Obama "recovery" had been merely average, it still would have seen the USA's economy grow by several trillion more dollars than it did, which would have helped offset the near doubling of the federal debt. Better yet, had we had someone like Reagan at he helm, we probably would have at least doubled the rate of recovery.

Obama did plenty of good things. If you focus on hie economic stewardship, however, he does not come out looking very successful.




I've never accused them of being "corporate whore-mongers." Therefore, applied to me, your argument is fallacious. Still it bears comment.

Of course, Obama and Hillary did take care of their big donors. Think of, as examples, Solyndra for Obama, and the Uranium One deal for Hillary. Their motivation, however, wasn't to help capitalism but, rather, to garner money with which to increase their personal power.




Seriously? The GDP and debt numbers come from the Federal Reserve, and the employment gap percentages come from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. This data was obtained, if you mine the origins of the graphs, during the Obama administration (thus, by labeling these "alternative facts and fake news" you are indicting the Obama Administration with lying to the public). In any case, if you want to call this data "fake news," you need to demonstrate how they are wrong and what the actual figures were. Show us some evidence.

Evidence??? Trump has taught us that evidence is a neo liberal piece of rubbish. The only truth I need is Trump and his mantra that if I don't agree with it, it is fake and alternative. His example amply demonstrates that I don't have to prove damned thing especially to liberal snowflakes like you?

 

[jaF0]

She despises Trump like no other I've seen,

You ain't met me Sonny!!!


I'm convinced the markets are run by greedy bastards, imbeciles, jackasses, buffoons and chicken littles. Note the 35 point fall yesterday for the S&P based on 'fears' of NK issues.

Not sure it matters who floats the turds that get flushed in the White House.

Hey lookey, lookey a post that didn't quote a mile long post full of nonsense and Perot style charts!!!

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Evidence??? Trump has taught us that evidence is a neo liberal piece of rubbish. The only truth I need is Trump and his mantra that if I don't agree with it, it is fake and alternative. His example amply demonstrates that I don't have to prove damned thing especially to liberal snowflakes like you?

First: WOW!

No one has ever called me a "liberal snowflake" before. True, I have little regard for the Republican party, but from where does the "snowflake" part come?​

Second: As to the assertion that we should disregard the data because... Trump: Let me reiterate that the data I cite came from Obama Administration statistics.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You've only cherry picked certain "data" here and there, whatever (you think) supports your personal opinion about how to characterize Obama's recovery.

It's not scientific and it's not "proof" of anything.

If I weren't lazy and if I cared, I'd find other "data" put out by the Obama Admin to argue an alternative view. Or from the gazillions of REAL economic studies out there.

The unemployment rate in 2008-9 vs. 2017, comes to mind.

But I don't care. I'm not a serious economist, and obviously, neither are you. You're someone who thinks cherry picking stats from the internet somehow makes your arguments anything other than bombast on a chat board.

First: WOW!

No one has ever called me a "liberal snowflake" before. True, I have little regard for the Republican party, but from where does the "snowflake" part come?​

Second: As to the assertion that we should disregard the data because... Trump: Let me reiterate that the data I cite came from Obama Administration statistics.

 

[Hypoxia]

"Figgers don't lie, but liars figger."
--traditional

Cherry-picked data points are useless. "For example" is useless. Either include the entire dataset over an appropriate range, or go fuck a goat.

 

[JackLuis]

"Figgers don't lie, but liars figger."
--traditional

Cherry-picked data points are useless. "For example" is useless. Either include the entire dataset over an appropriate range, or go fuck a goat.

No Goat Fucking Allowed! Or Camel Sucking either! Pervert!