ADVERTISEMENT

Some folks were peddling fiction... for everyone else, there's this reality

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
8,692
2,185
113
20160301_obama.jpg
 
Classic response - who is the source.

Pretty sure the numbers were pulled from the FED, regardless, I just wish we could all talk about these things and meet where we can and begin to try to solve them. The trends in our economy are bigger than one President or party.

Ignore demographics at your peril. Ignore world economic competitors at your peril. Realize the breakup of family makes it hard for people to survive. Ignore the debt supercycle at your peril - do you guys realize our FED is planning for negative interest rates?
 
I ask for sources to verify the info. If it's like his Seattle graph in the other thread it's total BS. Only a fool would take a post like that at face value. That's how people end up voting republican...
 
I have no idea what black inquality is but I look up the other numbers and they are accurate. What makes all the charts look similar is the years used are different - this is a slight manipulation but the numbers are accurate. Again, I am not placing blame just saying that the political class has kicked the can down the road, makes promises they cannot keep and flat out lie to voters.

Where is the politician standing up and saying, PAIN is coming!
 
I hate quality information. I just want a bunch of graphs with no context. I am glad you can comply.

Yep and then you ignore everything else I posted...you did the exact same thing as the poster of the graph. Did you look at the information and try to understand it before you just decided that it had to be false because there was no source - I saw the source on a different site that posted this chart.

Granted...whoever created it had an agenda. Bottomline, the trends are disturbing.
 
No, I looked at the graphs. They are all going in an adverse direction the last 8 years. I saw no source for the numbers. Most of the time when things are posted here by the usuals, they provide no context or source. Whether something be good or bad, I always like to see the source. I don't like peddling false information. Which is what I see of a lot on here.
 
No, I looked at the graphs.
If you really looked at the charts then you would have seen that most bad trends are much longer than 8 years. Look at labor force participation - it has been falling since the 1970's. Student loans escalated rapidly starting in 2005, etc.
 
Well, the highlighted portions are all the last 8 years, which is what the makers of those graphs are wanting you to look at.
 
Asking for a source is a not a "snap judgement." This is why I can't stand most Republicans...they don't use their brains and when I do, they come out with some smart assed comment, instead of trying to be logical and reasonable.
 
Student loans and healthcare are going up because they are tied to the market and are set up for profit instead of being set up to help people. Median family income has gone down because much of our manufacturing has gone overseas and is probably the cause of the lack of labor participation...you can make minimum wage at a plant, or you can game the system...our wages are so bad that most people choose to game the system because they will make about the same amount doing that as if they worked. We lost a lot of homeowners because of the housing debacle. Another example of why a totally free market without regulation is a bad idea. Another reason why we should break up the banks, but haven't.
 
It should prove to you that over the past 50+ years the federal government has done nothing to help the white male.

I know it's hard for libs to swallow but Big Brother doesn't love you.
 
Has it ever occurred to you that Hispanics are a larger part of the labor force now and have displaced some of the white males, or been integrated into the work force as a whole more prolifically? The 16 percentage point reduction since 1955 could be due to an increased Hispanic and Latino population increase. The government clearly does not care if Americans lose jobs, generally speaking, or we wouldn't have all of these free trade agreements, but that does not mean that every single last thing the government has done has been bad for Americans. That's very simplistic thinking, Lynn. Some of our reps actually care about the American people and have done some things to help the middle class. Stop trying to make everything black and white, because it isn't.
 
If you look at the chart in the first post, it shows that overall labor force participation has been dropping since 1999. Again, the federal government isn't helping the white male or the American worker
 
If you look at the chart in the first post, it shows that overall labor force participation has been dropping since 1999. Again, the federal government isn't helping the white male or the American worker

And it will continue to drop unless we have another baby boom. Your charts do not show what age groups are considered nor does it specify what portion of that group are classified as "discouraged workers". These charts are complete crap.
 
Remember when big bush, slick willie and mr global warming were selling NAFTA to the American people?


NAFTA-job-losses-chart-e1387307604809.png



Pro-NAFTA_forecast.jpg
 
I remember Clinton and Gore having to pass it in order to get some concessions from the right. The right loves these free trade deals.
 
Mr global warming love$ NAFTA as much as he love$ global warming

 
Yeah, if you give concessions to get what you want, you don't come out and say that you hate the way you voted. Also, these free trade agreements have effected all working populations in the US, not just whites and the trend started long before these FTAs started being passed.
 
And it will continue to drop unless we have another baby boom. Your charts do not show what age groups are considered nor does it specify what portion of that group are classified as "discouraged workers". These charts are complete crap.
People are not leaving the workforce because they are retiring and there is no one to replace them. The under employment and folks just quitting the workforce is well documented. This is much more than demographics.
 
American demographics are changing and have been for decades. That fact and the fact that a lot of jobs have gone overseas have taken their toll, so to speak.
 
If you listen to the right there are 300 million unemployed Americans right now. The numbers they come up with are laughable. If as many were unemployed as they say, I would have beggars begging at my front door and people trying to mug me when I leave the grocery store. What a joke. Too much Fox News has rotted their brains.
 
Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

Jim Hoft Apr 28th, 2016 11:12 am 882 Comments

Obama’s just like Reagan… Except when he isn’t.


The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the American people.

On Thursday the Commerce Department announced that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years. GDP growth rose at an anemic 0.5% rate after a paltry 1.4% fourth quarter advance.

Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%.

Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.

This ranks Obama as the fourth worst presidency on record.

Barack Obama will be the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.

According to Louis Woodhill, if the economy continues to perform below 2.67% GDP growth rate this year, President Barack Obama will leave office with the fourth worst economic record in US history.

Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)
 
Yeah, too bad he inherited two wars and $10 Trillion in debt to go with the other $5 trillion he would need to end the wars.
 
GDP falling is comprised on 2 numbers - productivity and population growth. No POTUS in the short term can impact population growth.

The $69K question is what did Obama do in assist in better productivity? Hint - nothing. Maybe we are too far gone, short of a major crisis to right the ship. You cannot tax your way or use regulations or increase min wage to impact worker productivity. It only happens through investment. Meanwhile, the Fed has rates so low its easier to borrow to buy your competitors than it is increase investment that leads to growth.

We are in deep. The entire developed world is in deep. Its will be painful.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT