Cliff Notes for Liberals

[nashvillegoldenflash]

I really don't understand why liberals have such a difficult time understanding economics. Perhaps they find all the numbers and graphs intimidating or challenging or maybe there is simply too much information for them to process. If that is the case, then why not offer Cliff Notes for Liberals when presenting economic information. For example, in the article, "Why voters hate the Obama economy" (see link), the average liberal will not read or totally comprehend the part of the article that states, "there are still far too many people who have given up looking for work. In fact, at just 62.7%, the share of Americans participating in the labor force is now at its lowest point since 1978." When the average liberal reads that the unemployment rate is 5.9%, he or she will not take into account that 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work and the drop in unemployment is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. If there was Cliffs Notes for Liberals, it could explain that the unemployment rate measures people without jobs who are looking for work and thus does not count workers who have lost their jobs and eventually stopped looking for work, such as those who have become discouraged or decided to retire. Once liberals understand exactly what the unemployment rate measures, then perhaps they would understand that the unemployment rate is not a true indicator of the real economy. BTW, I find it interesting that the percent of people currently participating in the labor force is at its lowest point since Jimmy Carter was in office. So that liberals might see a correlation between Obama's economic policies and Jimmy Carter's economic policies, maybe Cliff Notes for Liberals could have the following photo:

.



This post was edited on 11/9 10:12 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

Why voters hate the Obama economy

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Median household income has been going down since 1999. Oh, by the way, they went down under Bush Sr and Jr. They tend to swing up and down, if you use the "adjusted for inflation" numbers you can see this more clearly.


http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I have chosen to ignore BRF posts I'd imagine is some kind of bbbbbbush response.

Incomes are down because we are in an age of deleveraging. Now the govt (specifically under Obama) are double down. The thing is deficits don't matter unless they grow faster than the economy - which is what we have seen over the last 6 years.

Income are not coming up until the debt is dealt with. The good news is private debt has shrunk but lately is trending up. The bad news is Govt debt has skyrocketed and while may seem low is actually still very high historically and will be trending up in 2016 due to the impact of Obamacare and not long term plan to fix SSI and medicare.

Bottom line - Median income is not going to go up under current policy, it can't. Even if we change policy, there is so much debt to cycle though (in the US and worldwide) that it will take a while.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
I really don't understand why liberals have such a difficult time understanding economics. Perhaps they find all the numbers and graphs intimidating or challenging or maybe there is simply too much information for them to process. If that is the case, then why not offer Cliff Notes for Liberals when presenting economic information. For example, in the article, "Why voters hate the Obama economy" (see link), the average liberal will not read or totally comprehend the part of the article that states, "there are still far too many people who have given up looking for work. In fact, at just 62.7%, the share of Americans participating in the labor force is now at its lowest point since 1978." When the average liberal reads that the unemployment rate is 5.9%, he or she will not take into account that 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work and the drop in unemployment is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. If there was Cliffs Notes for Liberals, it could explain that the unemployment rate measures people without jobs who are looking for work and thus does not count workers who have lost their jobs and eventually stopped looking for work, such as those who have become discouraged or decided to retire. Once liberals understand exactly what the unemployment rate measures, then perhaps they would understand that the unemployment rate is not a true indicator of the real economy. BTW, I find it interesting that the percent of people currently participating in the labor force is at its lowest point since Jimmy Carter was in office. So that liberals might see a correlation between Obama's economic policies and Jimmy Carter's economic policies, maybe Cliff Notes for Liberals could have the following photo:

.




This post was edited on 11/9 10:12 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

Flash, you are correct, the labor participation rate is, indeed, the lowest it's been since the economic malaise of the Jimmy Carter years. Additionally, there are approximately 93 million able-bodied people in the country who are not working.

You're right, though. Liberals look at the 5.9% unemployment rate and their minds enter into a collective freeze. They simply cannot process any and all facts that undermine their liberal beliefs.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

93 million is laughable. That's if you count teenagers and adults with only part time jobs. If that many adults were unemployed you would see soup lines on every block.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BRF, the only reason we are not seeing soup lines on every block is because "food stamps are the new soup kitchens" (see link).

Food Stamps Are the New Soup Kitchens

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

First of all, food stamp spending has increased because more WORKING Americans are allowed on the rolls. They have changed the income maximums etc. Secondly, food stamps barely cover monthly groceries and that's if you are careful. It doesn't begin to cover housing, electrical, water etc and there isn't that much public housing to go around. Even if many of these people were living with relatives this number would stull be asinine. Now, if you want to talk like reasonable adults, I would say that there are more on food stamps, spending tax dollars, for the reason that I mentioned, but to state the numbers you guys are stating, well, it's just got Right Wing spin written all over it.