Menu
Was thinking that if lowering unemployment from 4.7 to 3.7% is considered the Orange miracle,
wouldn’t it’s lowering from around 10% to 4.7% under Barry be akin to Fatima?
What am I missing or is Barry the greatest economic miracle worker since WWII?
This message has been edited 2 time(s).
Replies to: Was thinking that if lowering unemployment from 4.7 to 3.7% is considered the Orange miracle,
Thread Level: 2
Reality is not like your linear thinking & baby math. Growing economy is like climbing mountain. You
start from low altitude and it's easy, you may spend 4 hours and climb 2,000 feet. When you reach to high altitude, it becomes more challenge (steeper). You may spend 5 hours for 800 feet. You can't use linear algebra to compare low altitude climbing and high altitude climbing. Same applies to growth of developing countries and developed countries. Many developing countries have better number in term GDP growth than developed countres' . But you can't say economy of developing countries is better than that od developed countries based on your baby math
Thread Level: 3
Gibberish alert.
(no message)
Thread Level: 4
Ok, You wanna be a total ass. Let me say this: you're such a liar. Obama started from 7.3%
unemployment , not 10% as you claimed. It's 7.3% to 4.7% in 8 years, not from 10% to 4.7% as you claimed. Unemployment rate continued went up in Obama's 1st year from 7.3% to 9.9% at the end of his first year. It's deceiving to use 9.9% (or 10%). Your baby math should be from 7.3% to 4.7% for Obama in 8 years. I can tell you didn't check and even think about this. You just stole some media's propaganda which is intended to mislead people and then post something as me think.
This message has been edited 2 time(s).
Thread Level: 5
yeah it went from 10 to 4.7. And the 10 in the first year was a result of the Bush recession.
Now run along back to the troll farm.
Thread Level: 6
Really? Why didn't you use 4.1 of 12/2017(DJT 1st yr), instead you used 4.7 of 12/2016 in your math?
(no message)
Thread Level: 7
Which would give Obama credit for all of his first year? Fine, that means Orange has lowered it
even less than he claims.
Thread Level: 8
Facing exposed inconsistency & Incoherent data, you have no shame on your lie.
(no message)
Thread Level: 9
Gibberish alert.
(no message)
Thread Level: 2
I’m wondering why my employees healthcare insurance sucks since Obamacare
Higher premiums, can’t get in to see a doctor and higher deductibles. Answer me that homer.
Thread Level: 3
Relevance to unemployment? Orange also has let it hang with zero replacement options on the table.
(no message)
Thread Level: 4
You were touting Obama’s success I’m reminding you of his failures which are more damaging
Don’t you agree.
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 5
Actually no, what I’m trying to do is to remind you bots that around or less than 3% growth and a 1
point unemployment drop should be kept in perspective, I am well aware of Barry’s deficiencies, but reading you guys fellating Orange all the time here is a bit tiresome.
Thread Level: 6
I’m willing to acknowledge your support for Barry. But he fucked small business with Obamacare. So
whatever you believe he had to deal with the shit sandwich that Bush gave him. He screwed small business with his lies and BS about his healthcare insurance program. He paid for insurance on the backs of small business knowing the big corporations would not be effected. He did that willingly. Explain that.
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 7
Again complete non sequitor. And if he did, what has his replacement done to correct it, zero.
(no message)
Thread Level: 8
Nothing, but Obama fucked small business healthcare and the progressives will finish us off.
(no message)
Thread Level: 9
Why are you arguing this strawman? I’m not disagreeing with you.
(no message)
Thread Level: 10
I think I will save a link to this post. :-)
(no message)
Thread Level: 11
What some here don’t get is that fiscally I am more conservative than most bots. I am also for the
govt staying out of our lives, bidness, and wallets to the extent reasonably possible in this day and age.
Where I part company with that crowd is over xenophobia, nationalism, isolationism, and protectionism.
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 12
I suspect I'm more fiscally conservative than you.
I would slash spending in half if I could.
No one is xenophobic. That is a red herring word.
Nationalism used to be a good thing. Not sure why it is a problem now. Nationalism ≠ National Socialism. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Reagan were nationalists. Washington and Lincoln were nationalists.
Isolationism...also not a bad thing as a default, if by that we mean not running around the world sticking our noses in places we have no reasonable business being in. George Washington was an isolationist by that standard. Obviously, it is just a default position, not a rule that cannot be broken.
Protectionism...as I indicated before, I am, by default, against protectionism. But, trying the same thing and expecting different results?...I'm not for that. Might as well give protectionism a shot and see what happens. It may be like the typical liberal solution: short term benefits, long term disaster. We shall see.
Thread Level: 13
Perhaps.
Not all Orange supporters are Xenophobic, but plenty are. Disagree that no one is. This is a solvable problem that Orange wants to campaign on.
Nationalism has become a destructive doctrine post WWI and WWII. The world is too interconnected. Nations need to pursue their interests and be proud of their heritage but chest beating nationalism is an evil not a good.
Interventionism is also an evil but isolating the nation such that it’s us against everyone else all the time is as bad if not worse. There is a happy medium that doesn’t involve either extreme. Coalitions that are in, and serve our interests are good. The Orange go it alone policy isn’t good.
Tariffs have always proved destructive in the long term. They are also outdated solutions to current problems. Let the market work and things go better than when the govt is interfering and setting artificial barriers.
Thread Level: 2
I've made this point every time someone claims that Trump rescued our economy from Obama.
(no message)
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 3
I've made the point every time when you made your point: QEs & near-zero interest rate.
(no message)
Thread Level: 4
They sure helped.
Sure, but QE was gone while Obama was still president, and interest rates under Trump are not much above zero.
The point is that Trump didn't "turn the economy around", or "save the economy from Obama", and the "economy did not explode under Trump". Obama put up decent improvement numbers with some monetary policy help, and the economy was fine when Trump got it. We only point out those numbers so that you Trump lovers tap the brakes on touting Trump's economic achievements
Thread Level: 3
.
(no message)
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 4
Bean counters like you don't understand context. Google "Obama magic wand."
(no message)
Thread Level: 5
You mean the context difference in inheriting a healthy economy versus one with 10% unemployment?
(no message)
Thread Level: 6
See Eli above. Funny how Lehigh was quick to join your erroneous post.
(no message)
Thread Level: 7
You think that rise to 10 during the first year wasn’t a result of the Bush recession? Fool.
(no message)
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 8
Help me out. Which erroneous post of yours was I quick to join?
(no message)
Thread Level: 9
That the 10% unemployment figure didn’t occur until later in Barry’s first year as if that makes
any difference as it was clearly the result of the Bush recession.
Thread Level: 10
Ah. Now I understand. This would have been a better way to say it.
Unemployment trended down under Obama from a Recession peak of 10% to about 4.7% when Trump was elected. In nearly three years since Trump was elected, it's gone down about 1%.
Again, it didn't have far to go, which cuts two ways. 1) It would have been hard for it to go much lower under Trump (or any president); and 2) it's not much different than it was when Trump was elected.
The 10% recession peak was still in the first year of Obama's presidency. It was 9% in April of 2009. I'm not sure using 7.8% (from January, 2009) is any kind of fair measure, but it would still have been 3.1% reduction in unemployment, despite having a huge recession in motion.
The link shows the data in its naked glory. If anyone can detect a turnaround in 2017, well then good for them.
Link: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
This message has been edited 2 time(s).
Thread Level: 6
Much harder to improve a healthy economy. Good point.
It's like approaching the speed of light...it is more difficult to reduce unemployment from 4% to 3% as opposed to 10% to 9%.
Thread Level: 7
It didn’t go from 10 to 9. Orange also artificially juiced it with a huge corporate tax cut.
That will give you a percentage point most times.
Thread Level: 8
You said it was at 10%, not I. I just used your hypothetical.
(no message)
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 9
It was but it went to 4.7.
(no message)
Thread Level: 10
Great!
(no message)
Thread Level: 6
Why do I think the "Obama magic wand" google results might miss that?
(no message)
Thread Level: 7
You took a break from counting coal miners in OH to get unemployment facts wrong. Sad.
(no message)
Thread Level: 8
Maybe you can help me out. What unemployment facts did I get wrong?
(no message)
Thread Level: 2
Umm, what?
(no message)
Thread Level: 3
You guys are fast.
(no message)