As Dow Sets Another Record High, Leftists Continue to Repeat

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/notebook/stevesheldon/2017/12/30/as-dow-sets-another-record-high-leftists-continue-to-repeat-the-same-old-tired-lies-n2428203
Tax cuts for the Rich!"
"The rich are getting richer!"
"Over 50% of Americans are not enjoying stock market gains!"
Blah, blah, blah.
The Left can never stop promoting the same old lies about economics - about which they know nothing. Their track record proves it. Remember the doom and gloom past predictions from people like Mark Cuban about the stock market crashing after Trump's presidential victory?
Moving On Up

The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained well over 25 percent for the year. It broke records unprecedented in history. …This market was not in a correction cycle. …This market, for the last several years, was being held down by poor economic policies from the previous eight years. It was being choked out by excessive over-regulation and high corporate tax rates. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States had the 4th highest corporate tax rate on the planet. This was a market shackled, waiting to be set free.
Donald Trump will go down in history as the Great Emancipator of the American Economy, and it will last until our government overlords burden it once again. Yes, there will be profit-taking. Yes, there will be ups and downs. And yes, with every one of them, Leftists will denounce capitalism, the "rich", and scream for someone to "do something!"
That "something" always involves government interference in free markets, which ultimately leads to long-term economic decline. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Take Banking, For Example

Let's look at one sector of the economy in particular: banking. Just for fun, assume that all bankers are greedy and selfish. I know it's a stretch, but hear me out. Considering that, why would any banker in his right mind make a loan to someone without an excellent ability to pay it back? [Logic is never a required element for Leftist propaganda]
Government interference in free markets has been the biggest culprit when it comes to failed loans. [Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac]The minute the government started guaranteeing loans and forcing banks to make loans to incapable borrowers, the stage was set for a major financial meltdown. Remember the housing collapse in 2008? [Please remember and never forget this. The Left does not want you to remember it, but since they can’t stop people from referencing this scandal, they hold on to their lies.]...Like "tax cuts for the rich," Leftists sold the illusion that all bankers were bad and needed to be more regulated, while at the same time forcing or incentivizing those same bankers to make bad loans. They have done the same thing to the healthcare industry. The next thing up for disaster: government-guaranteed student loans. No banker in the world would loan money to someone so that they can major in gender studies at a university that costs $50,000 per year. Correct that...not without a government guarantee, that is.
How do we fix all this? Remove the government from the mix. Period. That's the direction Trump is moving. The result? The market has responded in leaps and bounds.
The Left's Continued Lies

fffee98e-04b0-43a0-ac58-d970dfee0926 The Left's lies.jpg (62.1 KiB) Viewed 105364 times

"50 percent of Americans aren't benefitting directly from the gains in the market," is the next dressed up lie from the Left. But this is more palatable to them than, "50 percent of Americans are morons and aren't smart enough to save any of their hard-earned money."
Whose fault is it that Americans don't participate in investing where there are literally no barriers to entry? There are mutual funds where the initial minimum investment is roughly the cost of a tattoo, iPhone, or big screen TV. What's the excuse? Additionally, any American who has a 401(k) but does not invest in it can blame no one but himself.
Even government workers benefit from the market's rise. It makes their woefully underfunded pension more solvent until their government managers steal more money from it to pay for other "necessities," like free college tuition and healthcare for people who entered the country illegally.
The greatest lie of all is convincing the easily fooled into believing the stock market is a zero-sum game. Want to be a corporate fat cat? Buy some stock in your most hated "corporate evil doer's" company, and you too can benefit from capitalism. The concept of capitalism is so simple that only Leftists get it wrong.
Apple sells a product that hundreds of millions of people own, profits from the sale of those products and pays its employees and stockholders from those profits. How do they screw poor people again? (Besides by selling them a product they shouldn't be buying, because they can't afford it and should be investing their money instead.) To be a zero-sum game, for every dollar of profit Apple makes, someone would have to lose a dollar. This fantasy of the Left simply does not exist.
While the Left continues to bemoan "the rich" and sees Russia collusion in every cloud in the sky, America is winning again as evidenced by the unbridled optimism demonstrated in recent market gains. Unlike bankers making loans to incapable borrowers whose losses are covered by taxpayer guarantees, the market has no guarantees. Investors make decisions to buy based on the assumption that the future will be brighter than the present and markets go up accordingly.
America's future looks bright once again. The evidence is in the 70+ new highs for the year.
But looking at actual evidence has never been a strong suit of the Left, has it?

[leftyg]

Michaels, Steve Sheldon is a moron, what he calls others. He wrote an article with absolutely no substance written exclusively for an audience that did not need convincing and is indifferent to facts. As a matter of fact, it is an audience hostile to facts and desirous of having "their ears tickled" like my dad used to say. He builds a straw man. He does not give a single quote to show that Democrats or leftists hate bankers. And he does nothing to dispel the notion that the subprime meltdown was caused by greed and the bundling of mortgage securities and screwing up the lives of millions of people like my friend Bernie who invested their hard earned money into what they thought were triple A bonds.

Anyway, this recent tax bill is tilted badly toward the wealthy. And if that was what he (Stevie) was getting at, he did little to convince anybody. Instead he blames the little people and throws grenades into the class warfare. Tax cuts to the rich are bad ideas for a variety of reason chief among them is that they do not work for workers as claimed http://www.epi.org/publication/cutting- ... can-wages/
Some facts:

Since World War II, productivity and wage growth in the U.S. economy have been significantly greater in periods with higher corporate tax rates.

There is essentially no robust relationship between post-tax profit rates and productivity-enhancing business investment in the U.S. economy. This weak relationship is why efforts to boost post-tax profit rates with tax cuts will likely do little to grow productivity.

Even were productivity to grow, it would not necessarily lead to wage growth (i.e., productivity growth is a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for wage growth). In fact, in recent decades, the link between economy-wide productivity growth and wages of the vast majority of American workers has been almost entirely severed. In other words, pay and productivity used to rise tightly together but they no longer do.

A steep corporate tax rate cut in 1986 did nothing to reverse the widening fissure between typical workers’ pay and productivity growth—a gap that was already apparent in that year. Another corporate cut today would likely again fail to reconnect pay and productivity.

To support its claim that corporate tax cuts would boost wages, the CEA report cherry-picks findings from the research literature and also uses a highly misleading graph relating wage changes over just a few years to corporate tax rate levels. Claims that cutting corporate taxes will boost wages should examine a longer time horizon and focus on tax changes, not levels.

The real key to boosting wage growth for the vast majority of American workers is restoring economic leverage and bargaining power that workers once had but which have been redistributed from workers to capital owners and corporate managers. Yet the Trump agenda has consistently pushed policies and rule changes that further weaken workers’ leverage.

http://www.epi.org/publication/cutting- ... can-wages/

We also know that when money was repatriated about 12 years ago, none of it went to workers. Instead it went to executive bonuses, stock buy backs and increased dividends. Then after that the subprime meltdown occurred.

The problem is income inequality. And tax cuts to rich people do nothing to address the problems of income inequality; in fact they exacerbate them. In 1929 income inequality reached a high level and 20% of all income went to the top one percent In 2009 the same phenomena repeated itself which led fed chairman Ben Bernanke to write in the Wall Street Journal that the subprime meltdown was "worse than the Depression." https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08 ... anke-says/ Yet President Obama's expert interventions and the brilliant ideas of John Maynard Keynes saved us from the disaster that followed the stock market crash of 1929 when austerity was adopted and idiotic ideas were put to work.

There are several evidences of this including the GINI Index and ours is high, almost .39. Most healthy economies are between 30-35. Only countries like Turkey, Chile (45.4) and Mexico at 45.9 are higher. http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distr ... tabase.htm

And we do not have high taxes; we have very low taxes. Our taxation as a percentage of GDP is 26%. Only Turkey (25.5%), Ireland (23%), Chile, (20.4%), and Mexico (17.2%) are lower. Isn't Mexico a thriving going concern? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... nationally Cutting taxes further will only make our problems worse and shows no chance of improving our economy.

But helping people at the bottom will have a profound effect. We could eliminate taxes on those making under 30 grand a year, but that is not what we are doing. Look help to poor and lower middle class folks has a profound effect on the economy. According to Moody Analytics economist, Mark Zandi, every dollar of spent on food stamps results in a $1.73 return. On unemployment it results in a $1.61 return, infrastructure, $1.57 in return, and $1.41. Tax cuts to corporations result in only 32 cents. http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distr ... tabase.htm. So the Republicans pick the stupidest thing they can do and push it. And dumbass Stevie Sheldon criticizes people who oppose it as "morons."

We are already near the bottom in social mobility of our citizens http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags ... -mobility/ Again these cuts are given to the wrong people, and there is no evidence that they will help anybody but the rich who do not need the help. I am sorry if that offends you or Stevie, but facts do have a liberal bias.

[Michaels153]

Michaels, Steve Sheldon is a moron,No he is not. And I will act as his defense lawyer if you want or we can address your links. which is what I would like to do as I can see that they offer a better opportunity here to explain the misperceptions and misgivings of the Left. Feel free to contribute in a like manner, but let us both strive for civility here.

/
Some facts:

Since World War II, productivity and wage growth in the U.S. economy have been significantly greater in periods with higher corporate tax rates. Why? Without a reason for this factoid it is just a note of trivia. I can give a simple analogy, and I know you do not like the use of an analogy, but think of a jockey, his horse, and a whip. Just remember that it doesnt matter who the jockey is, nor how much he whips the horse. There is a bell curve, the law of diminishing returns here. Provide your experts speculation of why and we will talk more on this.

There is essentially no robust relationship between post-tax profit rates and productivity-enhancing business investment in the U.S. economy. This weak relationship is why efforts to boost post-tax profit rates with tax cuts will likely do little to grow productivity.To say that there is "essentially" no robust relationship,
is to acknowledge the positive relationship that exists and to undermine it because it does not fit into your belief system.

This weak (?) relationship...will likely do little (again?) to grow productivity. You do realize that the early positive results of some companies since the passage of the tax reform act makes this and everything else in this article and references a moot point.

Even were productivity to grow, it would not necessarily lead to wage growth This has already been disproven by the passage of the tax reform act.
But as a normal business condition, productivity growth does not automatically lead to wage growth nor could it for all business.(i.e., productivity growth is a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for wage growth). That is trrue. It is also true that wage growth without productivity growth, cannot last and is pretty much a prescription for going out of business. In fact, in recent decades, the link between economy-wide productivity growth and wages of the vast majority of American workers has been almost entirely severed. In other words, pay and productivity used to rise tightly together but they no longer do. First, "economy-wide productivity growth and wages" is a false link. It certainly does not demonstrate an understanding of business practices. This is only a propaganda tool used by Leftists who attempt social engineering. There is no established, agreed upon percentage of what the correct relationship between pay and productivity could be. It does not exist because it can not exist as a "universal" If there were agreed upon relationships for this it would need to be tailored to the business. Would you expect the percentage of pay and productivity between the workers in Silicon Valley to be the same as corn farmers in the Midwest? Unions use this type of percentage relationship in their contracts with different degrees of success. And again, in periods of decline, the social engineers are concerned about wages dropping not employer losses. The social engineers don't like to see hours cut even if wages aren't cut, because that can amount to the same thing if your not salaried.

A steep corporate tax rate cut in 1986 did nothing to reverse the widening fissure between typical workers’ pay and productivity growth—a gap that was already apparent in that year. First, there will always be a gap between workers' pay and productivity growth. The Leftist's don't mind the gap in reality, and they like it because they use it to play the pretentious social advocate championing the cause of the little guy. Another corporate cut today would likely again fail to reconnect pay and productivity. Proven wrong by the recent passage of the tax reform act. Bonuses were paid to workers in some companies. Wages were raised for workers in some companies. And, some companies announced the hiring of more workers.

To support its claim that corporate tax cuts would boost wages, the CEA report cherry-picks findings from the research literature and also uses a highly misleading graph relating wage changes over just a few years to corporate tax rate levels. Claims that cutting corporate taxes will boost wages should examine a longer time horizon and focus on tax changes, not levels.This is another backhanded acknowledgment that cutting corporate taxes will boost wages. The recent events of the passage of the tax reform act is proof that cutting corporate taxes will boost wages. Again, this is not, nor can it ever be a universal due to variance of business and market factors. But critics of capitalism wrongly conclude that when corporate tax cuts do not result in wage growth for everybody then somehow there should not be corporate tax cuts, or if there is to be a corporate tax cut, that it should be tied to wage growth.

The real key to boosting wage growth for the vast majority of American workers is restoring economic leverage and bargaining power that workers once had but which have been redistributed from workers to capital owners and corporate managers. Yet the Trump agenda has consistently pushed policies and rule changes that further weaken workers’ leverage. This is nothing more than pro-union euphemistic claptrap, where economic leverage is basically extortion practices used by unions. The fact that the majority of workers are not in unions and are earning a living without hurting others is proof that you do not need Unions, and leverage to boost wage growth. Most people are perfectly capable to speak for themselves and negotiate their own wages, and to navigate the job market according to their own needs, wants, and/or desires.

That is enough for now.

[leftyg]

Michaels, read your defense of of Steve Sheldon and the tax bill nonsense. First, I want to say that you cannot say anything is proven about this tax cut yet. A few random bonuses mean nothing, especially when they come from corporations who are trying to curry favor with Donald Trump, like AT&T who wants to buy Time Warner over Trump's objections. So those publizied bonuses are just anecdotes. Corporate America is swimming in cash and interest rates are low. They could expand if they wanted to; they just do not want to. If history tells us anything it is that these cuts will not revitalize the economy. Also, when Republicans get close to full employment, they back off heating up the economy because that will put their clients (corporate America) in a tight spot of actually having to pay more to get good workers.

But what I did was give lots of evidence for my view. It was not cherry picked as you say. These charts and graphs include all the data in a given time frame. Your assertions about the tax cuts fueling the economy are, at best, anecdotes. Your side has to do a better job of giving evidence to counter facts like these: we have very low taxes and our corporate rate is high, but our effective rate is fourth in the world. We will see how that works out. But we know that tax cuts to the well to do do not create more jobs. And one report from the ;congressional Research office was scrapped because it found no evidence of economic growth based on tax cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/busin ... rates.html In other words, politics Trumped science.

And the Zandi studies at Moody Analytics, clearly show that help for the working class in either higher wages or necessary benefits helps the economy, while cuts to taxes of the rich actually hurt economic stimulus http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... lar_o.html It is hard to find evidence to support the contentions you live by.

You also say that support for unions is "claptrap," which is of course claptrap itself. Workers need associations to protect their interest other wise things get out of whack like they have in the last 37 years. The middle class thrived when people either worked in unions or got the protection and wages unions forced on non union shops because of their existance. You never showed that more money to the top helps the economy yet you swear by it as if it were an article of faith. But again, with you, poitics Trumps facts, and it probably always will.

Another thing: the stock market has been going up at about the same rate it did during the Obama presidency.

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"]Michaels, read your defense of Steve Sheldon and the tax bill nonsense. Well you didn't pay much attention to what you read. To begin with I hadn't even started a defense of Steve Sheldon, nor his column. It does not need a defense. I commented on your first link as I said I wanted to do. First, I want to say that you cannot say anything is proven about this tax cut yet. Okay, but we can say that your reference lost any credibility you thought it might have statistically with what has already happened with President Trump.A few random bonuses mean nothing,(except of course to the people who received them) especially when they come from corporations who are trying to curry favor with Donald Trump, like AT&T who wants to buy Time Warner over Trump's objections. (Why dont you stop with this nonsense? Did any corporations try "to curry favor with Obama?" If so, then drop the bull here, if not,why not? So those publizied bonuses are just anecdotes. Do you want to say the same thing about Obama? Do you want to declare that any good news that came to the American worker during his presidency were just anecdotes? Corporate America is swimming in cash and interest rates are low. They could expand if they wanted to; they just do not want to. Or maybe under the Obama presidency they could not afford the risks involved in expansion, but now under President Trump they feel that the buisiness climate in the U.S. now have fewer risks. If history tells us anything it is that these cuts will not revitalize the economy. History tells us a lot of things, the left only tell you what they want you to believe. History tells us that past events are not 100% reliable as predictors of future events. (Have you read any disclaimer when you purchase stocks?) Also, when Republicans get close to full employment, they back off heating up the economy because that will put their clients (corporate America) in a tight spot of actually having to pay more to get good workers.
There is a limit that any business can grow to, which the left does not understand. In a highly competitive market, in a global economy, getting a share of the market or a piece of the pie is an accomplishment. It is tough for any new business to survive their first year. Novelty is a springboard for some new businesses but that does not last long. Survival depends on many marketing factors and even by opening up your business when you can is not a guarantee that it will help you. The consumer is not a reliable factor. Some products get over saturated (Pizza parlors), and some services underperform like laundromats. Expansion is an expensive risk, and some businesses do not even try it because after weighing the pro's and con's, they determine that they stand a better chance of survival by doing what they do best and relying on their base of customers.

But what I did was give lots of evidence for my view. Yes you did.It was not cherry picked as you say. I never said that you cherry picked what you were presenting. These charts and graphs include all the data in a given time frame. An time frames with context gives us a better understanding of what is really going on. At the beginning of the industrial age, there was more room for growth than there is now. Our country was once a leader in some markets, including the automobile industry. Now we are one of many competing for consumers in the same market. The left's use of statistics is in a static, and not a dynamic view. It looks at (for example) how the automobile factories produced X products, and pay was at Y levels, and there were Z amount of workers back at such Time. And then it adds, but today, and then the left notes the decline in one or more of those areas without an explanation of the marketing factors. But they always add their predictive spin like you show here. They conclude that the reason their is a decline in any or all areas is because of the "Greedy owners not wanting to expand, not wanting to add more workers, ...etc. Your assertions about the tax cuts fueling the economy are, at best, anecdotes. Your side has to do a better job of giving evidence to counter facts like these: we have very low taxes and our corporate rate is high, but our effective rate is fourth in the world. We will see how that works out. Yes we will. But we know that tax cuts to the well to do do not create more jobs. (Except for the times when tax cuts to the well to do, do create more jobs. And one report from the ;congressional Research office was scrapped because it found no evidence of economic growth based on tax cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/busin ... rates.html In other words, politics Trumped science. Leftyg, the bottom line here. You have to question articles that either fail to show obvious examples that are contrary to stated research or minimize as "anecdotal such examples. And if the Republicans don't know what they are doing in running an economy then why is it improving the way it has been? Why did the GDP under Obama, in eight years, never reach 3%, but under President Trump it has been over 3%
in 3 of the last 4 quarters? And, it has improved every quarter in this his first year as Presient. Again, why?

You also say that support for unions is "claptrap," No, what is said in reference to the last paragraph's contention about "the real key to boosting wage growth for the vast majority of American workers"...is nothing more than pro-union euphemistic claptrap.. Workers need associations to protect their interest Actually this is contrary to actual labor statistics. Take the number of employed workers who are in a union and subtract that from the total number of workers in the labor force. The vast majority of the American worker is not in a union, so how are they surviving? Now workers do congregate and belong to different associations such as church, clubs, Audubon society, etc. They share their interests with one another at work about these associations. But they dont really need these associations, and these associations do not "protect their interests', so I don't think the author had these associations in mind when formulating that paragraph. otherwise things get out of whack like they have in the last 37 years. The middle class thrived when people either worked in unions or got the protection and wages unions forced on non-union shops because of their existence. There have been people of all classes who did not belong to unions and thrived.You never showed that more money to the top helps the economy Leftyg, I really am not even interested in this topic, I am much too busy right now with work and other things in my life, and I am not going to spend a lot of time here, let alone spend time always finding articles for you. Your defense of unions is interesting to me though in that as a member of the left, I thought the Left was upset about economic inequality. But by favoring and promoting union membership, you are at the same time promoting financial inequality. Don't unions start with wages that are above minimum wage? I don't hear anybody from the unions apologizing for making more than minimum wage. But you do hear the Left always complain about people on Wall Street or just about anybody who is wealthy and is not a donor to the Democrat Party.yet you swear by it as if it were an article of faith. But again, with you, politics Trumps facts, and it probably always will. Are you ever going to grow up?

[leftyg]

You say a lot, and I would appreciate it if you limited the scope of your comments to something more manageable. First about Steve Sheldon. YOU put up his article and his insults, not me. He called those who disagree with him "morons," and he did little if anything to dispel the idea that he really hates little people. He extolled the virtues of bankers for God Sake after the subprime meltdown, when investment banking practices almost destroyed this country.

And I reiterate: you are on the side of politics; I am on the side of science. Studies never show that tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy. What they do is grow deficits and threaten the safety net for workers. That is called austerity and it has never worked. It did not work for Herbert Hoover, and it will not work now. The rich are the last people who should get an tax cut. because of the simple fact that they will either squirrel the money away or offshore it.

Here is how we should treat wealth and deficits: we should do the same thing we do when we have a war. We send those able to fight into battle. We send, historically, young men with 50 or more years of life in front of them and then ask them to risk all of that for their country. Our most able to pay citizens should do the same. While young men (mostly) are rich in life to offer their country, the wealthy are rich in money. Any money they spend they can get back. These kids lose their lives forever.

Here is what propose: the nation is worth 85 trillion dollars http://time.com/money/3919690/americans ... th-record/ The top one percent holds 38% of that wealth which gives them 32.3 trillion dollars. The debt is only about 20 trillion, so they could still have 12 trillion left after they paid it off, and the beauty is they could get it back, unlike the dead soldier on the battle field.

It has already been done in South Korea. In 1997, the citizens literally gave all their personal wealth to the government. Now South Korea taxes as low as ours https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV ,26.3% to our 26% But their income is much better distributed. But their Gini coefficient is much better, 29.5 t our 39.8 http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distr ... tabase.htm. All we would have to do is take 20 trillion from the top one percent and it would pay our naitonal debt with them still controlling almost 4 million dollars per person. But that would be patriotic, and the rich do not do parritotism.

[JuicedTruth]

AT&T announced those bonuses well before the tax bill passed and also laid off people after the bill passed. AT&T was playing to Trump's ego, which is a savvy mood by them with the unintended consequence of playing to Trump's base as well.

I'm going to benefit quite a bit from these tax cuts but they seem largely irresponsible and I doubt they'll lead to much growth beyond what we're already seeing. When the economy does slow down, these cuts could really balloon the deficit more than they already are. They are also likely to cause some inflation, especially in larger ticket items like vehicles and houses as well as push rents up.

[Michaels153]

You say a lot, and I would appreciate it if you limited the scope of your comments to something more manageable. Leftyg, I just responded to, the first first five or six contentions from your first link. While brevity is appreciated sometimes it is necessary to explain things in a manner that brevity cannot. First about Steve Sheldon. YOU put up his article and his insults, not me. He called those who disagree with him "morons,"No, what he did was to transpose a statement and included the word morons in the transposition.:""50 percent of Americans aren't benefitting directly from the gains in the market," is the next dressed up lie from the Left. But this is more palatable to them than, "50 percent of Americans are morons and aren't smart enough to save any of their hard-earned money." - Now Leftyg, that is not calling people who disagree with you a moron. and he did little if anything to dispel the idea that he really hates little people. He never said that he hated anybody. Why should he even respond as you are suggesting. He does not have to prove what he is not.You are imputing him with this characterization. This column is about exposing Liberal lies.He extolled the virtues of bankers for God Sake after the subprime meltdown, when investment banking practices almost destroyed this country. No Leftyg, he merely gave credit to the intelligence of banker for not being stupid:
->"why would any banker in his right mind make a loan to someone without an excellent ability to pay it back?". And then he put the fault of the problem where it justly deserves to fall upon. ->"Government interference in free markets has been the biggest culprit when it comes to failed loans. The minute the government started guaranteeing loans and forcing banks to make loans to incapable borrowers, the stage was set for a major financial meltdown."

And I reiterate: you are on the side of politics Just stop Leftyg. I am not on the side of politics because you say I am. I have an opinion, or a point of view that is contrary to the way you are trying to portray things here. I am not a political pundit. I am not a political apologist.; I am on the side of science. If that is how you want to characterize yourself, fine. That does not give you a higher standing here because you are not negating any of the claims of this column, nor what I have said in response to your reference link.sStudies never show that tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy. Do studies show that tax cuts for the rich "NEVER stimulate the economy?" Did you forget about tax exemptions, tax abatement programs, form 990 from the IRS? Did you look at the tax abatement programs in Cleveland alone for commercial and residential properties? Did you forget about the tax cuts given to the Cleveland clinic?
The Cleveland Clinic is Cuyahoga County's largest employer. Tax cuts to the Cleveland Clinic have allowed it to grow in size, service, and increase the number of people they employ. These tax cuts have stimulated our economy but I guess they NEVER made it into those studies. These tax cuts are like a trade off where cuts in one area are made up for by gains or increases in other areas. What they do is grow deficits and threaten the safety net for workers. Do tax cuts grow deficits and threaten the safety net for workers? Or do tax cuts only grow deficits and threaten the safety net for workers when used by Republicans and during Republican presidencies?That is called austerity and it has never worked. It did not work for Herbert Hoover, and it will not work now. The rich are the last people who should get an tax cut. because of the simple fact that they will either squirrel the money away or offshore it.

Here is how we should treat wealth and deficits: we should do the same thing we do when we have a war. We send those able to fight into battle. We send, historically, young men with 50 or more years of life in front of them and then ask them to risk all of that for their country. Our most able to pay citizens should do the same. While young men (mostly) are rich in life to offer their country, the wealthy are rich in money. Any money they spend they can get back. These kids lose their lives forever.

Here is what propose: the nation is worth 85 trillion dollars http://time.com/money/3919690/americans ... th-record/ The top one percent holds 38% of that wealth which gives them 32.3 trillion dollars. The debt is only about 20 trillion, so they could still have 12 trillion left after they paid it off, and the beauty is they could get it back, unlike the dead soldier on the battle field. This is a very interesting proposition. If it could work here, I would be concerned that without changes in Washington, there would be nothing stopping Liberals from starting the same cycle over again, and justifying it by saying we have no debt.

It has already been done in South Korea. In 1997, the citizens literally gave all their personal wealth to the government. Now South Korea taxes as low as ours https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV ,26.3% to our 26% But their income is much better distributed. But their Gini coefficient is much better, 29.5 t our 39.8 http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distr ... tabase.htm. All we would have to do is take 20 trillion from the top one percent and it would pay our naitonal debt with them still controlling almost 4 million dollars per person. But that would be patriotic, and the rich do not do patriotism. Would you please stop. Would this include Bill Gates, or John Kerry

[Michaels153]

AT&T announced those bonuses well before the tax bill passed and also laid off people after the bill passed. AT&T was playing to Trump's ego, which is a savvy mood by them with the unintended consequence of playing to Trump's base as well.

I'm going to benefit quite a bit from these tax cuts but they seem largely irresponsible and I doubt they'll lead to much growth beyond what we're already seeing. When the economy does slow down, these cuts could really balloon the deficit more than they already are. They are also likely to cause some inflation, especially in larger ticket items like vehicles and houses as well as push rents up.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/22/heres-a-list-or-companies-giving-worker-bonuses-aftee-tax-reform-n2426226
Here’s a List of Companies Giving Worker Bonuses After Tax Reform
By Katie Pavlich |Posted: Dec 22, 2017

The list of companies keeps growing, but here's what we have so far. (as of 12/22/17

Comcast, which owns NBC: )


Brian Stelter
✔
@brianstelter
Journalists at NBC/MSNBC are among the Comcast employees getting $1,000 bonuses "based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband." (http://bit.ly/2BTnOAF ) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0735372289 …


AT&T

The telecom giant said Wednesday that more than 200,000 of its employees, including union-represented and non-management workers, will be eligible for a $1,000 bonus. The checks will be in the mail in time for the holidays if Trump finalizes the tax bill with his signature before Christmas. AT&T (T) also said it will invest $1 billion more than expected in the U.S. in 2018, once the cuts are final.

Boeing

The aerospace and defense company immediately announced $300 million in investments after the bill passed, with $100 million toward corporate giving including employee gift-match programs, $100 million toward workforce development, training and education and $100 million toward enhancing Boeing’s workplaces.

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo, the San Francisco bank that has been hurt by a scandal involving the opening of 3.5 million unauthorized client accounts, also said it would boost its minimum wage to $15 per hour, an 11% increase from its current hourly rate of $13.50, once the law was passed. The pay raise will go into effect in March 2018, the company said.

Fifth Third Bancorp



Fifth Third Bank to give bonuses, raise minimum wage after tax bill passage from CNBC.

Washington Federal

Seattle-based banking company Washington Federal said it would give 5?percent merit increases to all employees earning less than $100,000 annually, as well as invest in employee training and technology upgrades, and make a $5 million contribution to its main philanthropy foundation.

Sinclair

Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Friday it would pay a $1,000 bonus to almost 9,000 of its full-time and part-time employees after the recent passage of the GOP tax bill.

The broadcast giant, which is awaiting approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its proposed $3.9 billion purchase of Tribune Media, said in a statement it was “grateful" for the passage of the bill.

“We recognize that our employees are our most valuable resource, truly appreciate their combined achievements for our Company and look forward to a very bright future,” Sinclair President and CEO Chris Ripley said in a statement.

President Trump praised a number of companies Friday morning before heading off to Mar-a-Lago for Christmas and a New Year's celebration next weekend.

"One of the big things that happened -- you have some companies. I want to thank AT&T, who actually was the first out of the box, and Boeing, and Sinclair, and Wells Fargo, and Comcast -- even though they own NBC, which is not so nice to the presidency or the President. But Comcast also," Trump said. "They all have made tremendous contributions to their employees and tremendous contributions to spending money on this country because of the tax bill. And they all said it's because of the tax bill. So they're making tremendous investments. That means jobs; it means a lot of things. And we're very happy. So that's AT&T, Boeing, Sinclair, Wells Fargo, Comcast, and now many other companies who you see. In fact, just this morning, I see three more companies came on."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/03/trump-effect-more-companies-offering-workers-bonuses-after-passage-of-gop-tax-bill-n2429277
Trump Effect: More Companies Offering Workers Bonuses After Passage Of GOP Tax Bill
Matt Vespa Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 03, 2018

Well, you can now add Southwest Airlines to the list of companies who are doling out bonuses to workers and increasing philanthropic donations thanks to the new tax bill. Gary Kelly, the chairman and CEO of Southwest, said his company would not waste another minute capitalizing on the most extensive tax reform in 30 years to give their 55,000+ employees a $1,000 bonus, which will be doled out on January 8. Here’s the statement from Mr. Kelly:


CNBC
✔
@CNBC
JUST IN: Southwest Airlines to give all full-time and part-time employees a $1,000 cash bonus on Monday & company will also make $5M in charitable donations and invest in its Boeing fleet due to tax reform passage. http://cnbc.com

5:07 PM - Jan 2, 2018
CNBC US Home
Get latest business news on stock markets, financial & earnings on CNBC. View world markets streaming charts & video; check stock tickers and quotes.

cnbc.com

Gary Kelly
✔
@gary_kelly
I’m proud to report we are rewarding our Employees with a $1,000 bonus with the anticipated savings from the tax reform legislation, we are contributing an additional $5 million in charitable donations, and we are making investments in our fleet and our business.

5:17 PM - Jan 2, 2018

"We applaud Congress and the President for taking this action to pass legislation, which will result in meaningful corporate income tax reform for the transportation sector in general, and for Southwest Airlines, in particular," said Southwest's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly.

"We are excited about the savings and additional capital, which we intend to put to work in several forms—to reward our hard-working Employees, to reinvest in our business, to reward our Shareholders, and to keep our costs and fares low for our Customers."

Kelly continued, "I am also proud to report that we have donated an incremental $5 million to charitable causes as a result of tax reform. Throughout 2018, we will work with our charitable partnerships to put this money to work in the communities we serve and where our Employees work and live."

David Shepardson
✔
@davidshepardson
New: @AmericanAir awarding employees $1,000 bonuses or $130 million in total after-tax bill passage

6:00 PM - Jan 2, 2018

Southwest aren’t the only ones who are making good use of the climate this tax bill has created. Wells Fargo, AT&T, Boeing, and Comcast are doing the same with their employees. That means NBC and MSNBC reporters will be receiving bonuses as well. American Airlines also announced yesterday that bonuses for their workers are coming (via Dallas Morning News):

American Airlines plans to give a one-time $,1000 bonus to its employees — except officers — in a bid to share some of the anticipated benefits from the recent federal tax code overhaul that slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.

American joins another big regional employer, AT&T, that is also giving its employees a one-time $1,000 bonus in response to the tax reform. And Boeing Co. pledged $300 million for employee training and improving workplace infrastructure.

The bonus for American employees will be paid in the first quarter of 2018, according to a note to employees co-signed by CEO Doug Parker and president Robert Isom. The bonus is estimated to cost the Fort Worth-based carrier about $130 million.

The economy is growing at four percent. Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. Unemployment is at a near two-decade low. Over 220,000 new jobs were created in November; the economy is booming. While President Trump, who signed the GOP’s tax bill into law on December 22, has not received credit for the economy, a new CNBC survey said that might be changing as well.

Hey Juiced. A T & T said that they would provide a bonus of $1,000 to more than 200,000 plus invest more than 1 billion more than expected in 2018 ONCE CUTS ARE FINAL. Well the tax reform bill has passed and A T & T has publicly stated what they are going to do. If they were playing President Trump as you suggest we will soon see. But if they do provide a bonus to more than $200,000 does that take away from any layoffs? (Not to the people who are getting the bonus.)
I dropped A T & T a few years ago. They had a public relations nightmare when they were exposed slowing down the internet speeds to their customers. They really can not afford another pr fiasco, so I don't think they intend to go back on their word here. But even if you were to take A T & T out of this list, there are still a lot of employees in the other companies mentioned (so far) that are going to benefit from this tax reform act.

[leftyg]

Michaels, those companies used the bonuses as an excuse for tax cuts. They knew if they sent grand their workers way that it would be publicized. And AT&T gave those bonuses partly to curry favor with the Trump administration over their attempted merger with Time Warner which the administration opposes. Let's wait until e have some data, not anecdotes. Remember what Carrier factory in Indiana

[leftyg]

No, what he did was to transpose a statement and included the word morons in the transposition.:""50 percent of Americans aren't benefitting directly from the gains in the market," is the next dressed up lie from the Left. But this is more palatable to them than, "50 percent of Americans are morons and aren't smart enough to save any of their hard-earned money." - Now Leftyg, that is not calling people who disagree with you a moron.

No isit is calling half of America morons. BUT you have to give a reason for it, and explain the dynamics by which the rich can invest and the poor have to waste their limited funds on things like food and shelter Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations that

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

He never said that he hated anybody. Why should he even respond as you are suggesting. He does not have to prove what he is not.You are imputing him with this characterization. This column is about exposing Liberal liesCalling them morons sort of does it for me. It is an ad hominem attack.

No Leftyg, he merely gave credit to the intelligence of banker for not being stupid:->"why would any banker in his right mind make a loan to someone without an excellent ability to pay it back?". And then he put the fault of the problem where it justly deserves to fall upon. ->"Government interference in free markets has been the biggest culprit when it comes to failed loans. The minute the government started guaranteeing loans and forcing banks to make loans to incapable borrowers, the stage was set for a major financial meltdown."

yet they did. They made loans to get the up front money and move the loans on to unsuspecting mortgage security accounts. What they did is merge bad debt with good debt and almost sank dthe financial system. Nobody forced bans to make these loans. They did so because Glas Speagal had been repealed and they could seduce people with low sucker rates which ch. The probelm was not governmetn interference in markets. The problem was, as it always is is, in the removal of regulations from doing banking. Glass-Steagal was a powerful tool that had virtually kept America bank failure free from the Depression until the subprime meltdown.

Let us not forget that the vast majority of loans in the subprime meltdown (84%) were made by private banks who had only the gun of their own greed at their heads. Nobody made them do it except the seduction of a quick profit. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... b05976f92f

Just stop Leftyg. I am not on the side of politics because you say I am. I have an opinion, or a point of view that is contrary to the way you are trying to portray things here. I am not a political pundit. I am not a political apologist. You are not using scientific data Michaels. As a matter of fact you seem to abjure it just like the Republicans who disallowed the Congressional Research Office was scrapped because it said that tax cuts to the rich did not stimulate economic activity because that did not conform with their theories, their ideology. They were playing politics, just like you. I try to use science.

In response to my comment that the rich pay off the debt the way South Korea did you said this:

This is a very interesting proposition. If it could work here, I would be concerned that without changes in Washington, there would be nothing stopping Liberals from starting the same cycle over again, and justifying it by saying we have no debt.

First, debt in this country has primarily been a Republican problem. If Republican presidents since Reagan had balanced their budgets and the two Democrats had spent as they did the National delbt would be 25% of GDP rather than over 100% http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US ... -graph.png

[Michaels153]

No, what he did was to transpose a statement and included the word morons in the transposition.:""50 percent of Americans aren't benefitting directly from the gains in the market," is the next dressed up lie from the Left. But this is more palatable to them than, "50 percent of Americans are morons and aren't smart enough to save any of their hard-earned money." - Now Leftyg, that is not calling people who disagree with you a moron.

No it is calling half of America morons.You keep changing your false allegation here. First you said that

He called those who disagree with him "morons

now you say "it is calling half of America morons" He did neither. He pretended to put words in the mouth's of the left by suggesting an alternative for their first statement. But you don't get it, or you don' want to get it. You just want to argue, and if the first statement does not work you will strawman your way from one argument to the next. I see where you did not address my counterpoint to your " Studies that never show that tax cuts stimulate the economy. BUT you have to give a reason for it, Actually I dont have to give a reason for it and explain the dynamics by which the rich can invest and the poor have to waste their limited funds on things like food and shelter Are you trying to win an award for melodrama? Since when is paying for food and shelter wasting money? [color=#FF0000][/color]Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations that

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

I actually remember those passages from Smith, and I will add to it. Smith said that it is not "very" unreasonable, from which it can correctly be understood in the time that it was said. The statement is accepted as being seen as unreasonable (to a degree), but not "very" unreasonable. During the time that Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations,
the primary form of charity came from the churches. Outside of church ministries, the rich of the day distanced themselves from the poor and thought that providing them jobs and an area where they could live was their reasonable duty. What I will add is what is common knowledge, and that is that most people who are rich, were not born rich, but became rich. And many rich people share similar stories of how they became rich with most common of elements in these stories being of saving and sacrificing. Without breaking it down like this, the author of this column alludes to this.

He never said that he hated anybody. Why should he even respond as you are suggesting. He does not have to prove what he is not.You are imputing him with this characterization. This column is about exposing Liberal liesCalling them morons sort of does it for me. It is an ad hominem attack. He suggested what the left think of those they say are not benefiting directly from the stock market.

No Leftyg, he merely gave credit to the intelligence of banker for not being stupid:->"why would any banker in his right mind make a loan to someone without an excellent ability to pay it back?". And then he put the fault of the problem where it justly deserves to fall upon. ->"Government interference in free markets has been the biggest culprit when it comes to failed loans. The minute the government started guaranteeing loans and forcing banks to make loans to incapable borrowers, the stage was set for a major financial meltdown."

yet they did. They made loans to get the up front money and move the loans on to unsuspecting mortgage security accounts. What they did is merge bad debt with good debt and almost sank the financial system. Nobody forced banks to make these loans. They did so because Glas Speagal had been repealed and they could seduce people with low sucker rates. The problem was not government interference in markets. The problem was, as it always is is, in the removal of regulations from doing banking. Glass-Steagal was a powerful tool that had virtually kept America bank failure free from the Depression until the subprime meltdown. Glass-Steagal was part of the problem but there were other parts.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/05/25/bill_clinton_caused_the_housing_crisis/
The picture below came from this show.


Let us not forget that the vast majority of loans in the subprime meltdown (84%) were made by private banks who had only the gun of their own greed at their heads. Nobody made them do it except the seduction of a quick profit. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... b05976f92f This is fair, it presents a view of what happened, but it does not go into much detail.


In response to my comment that the rich pay off the debt the way South Korea did you said this:

This is a very interesting proposition. If it could work here, I would be concerned that without changes in Washington, there would be nothing stopping Liberals from starting the same cycle over again and justifying it by saying we have no debt.

First, debt in this country has primarily been a Republican problem. If Republican presidents since Reagan had balanced their budgets and the two Democrats had spent as they did the National debt would be 25% of GDP rather than over 100% http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US ... -graph.png

That graph shows how Obama added to the debt but makes no comment about it. Your view of debt is extremely shallow. The Democrats have done a pretty good job of moving from one pet disaster to the next with the cost of these disasters (including Obamacare) to be a non-issue to them. The Republican's come after the mess and spend money to correct their mistakes.

[leftyg]

Rush Limbaugh may be a lot of things, but a " truth detector" he is not. The truth is the vast majority of subprime loans were by private banks like Countrywide. You can read The Big Short by Michael Lewis or see the movie, but the subprime meltdown was a product of private banks as that notoriously left wing journal, Forbes, states when it says:

Fannie and Freddie jumped in the game late to protect their profits: Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... a8d19ef92f

Forbes goes on:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market share declined. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... a8d19ef92f

Then Forbes adds:

It was primarily private lenders who relaxed standards: Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenni ... a8d19ef92f

Believe me Michaels there is a lot more. But this is a concerted attempt by the right wing media to blame the subprime on the poor seeking a mortgage rather than on the rich pursuing greed and not afraid to lie about it. The Big Short is a story of some savvy young Wall Street analysts who saw this and bet on failure. This rubish about blaming Fannie and Freddie for what Wall Street did is getting tired. It was bundled securities that banks rated as Triple A that were the culprits.

Also, Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He is a shill for powerful interests and is a know nothing like Bob Frantz.

[leftyg]

The IndyStar noted that:

AT&T is eliminating thousands of jobs across the U.S., including 30 in Central Indiana, according to Communications Workers of America, the union that represents AT&T employees. The company is cutting nearly 12 percent of its technicians who install U-verse and DirectTV in the Indianapolis area, according to union figures.

https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 992690001/

So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus. Companies do what they are going to do with the extra money. They are going to give bonuses to executives and top management, larger dividends to stockholders and buy backs of company stock. And if they want to they are going to lay off workers without apology. That is part of the reason that this drop of 14%, from 35& to 21% is so radical. It is far more radical than the "fight for 15" that conservatives decry.

More money to them who do not need it is not much of an economic stimulus; it is just greed.

[Michaels153]

The IndyStar noted that:

AT&T is eliminating thousands of jobs across the U.S., including 30 in Central Indiana, according to Communications Workers of America, the union that represents AT&T employees. The company is cutting nearly 12 percent of its technicians who install U-verse and DirectTV in the Indianapolis area, according to union figures.

https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 992690001/

So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus. Non-Sequitur. And you are still ignoring my examples of tax cuts being a stimulus. You still have not commented on The tax abatement programs for commercial and residential properties including the Cleveland Clinic. Companies do what they are going to do with the extra money. Including providing raises, bonuses, and hiring of more workers. They are going to give bonuses to executives and top management, larger dividends to stockholders and buy backs of company stock. There is nothing wrong with this. The employees who receive bonuses are now suppose to pass a liberal bigotry snobbery test first? Liberals decide who should and who shouldn't receive bonuses? And if they want to they are going to lay off workers without apology. What should they apologize for? If a company lays off workers, but stays in business, what is it that the company should apologize for? When Obama instituted his Unaffordable I dont Care Act, and people had their hours cut, you freeking liberals were saying that this is a great opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do. Why don't you remain consistent and say the same thing here? And regarding apologies, Where is the apology from the Unions? What did they do? It looks like they did not save any of these jobs from being eliminated. And for the jobs that remain, where is the apology from the unions for their employees being paid higher than minimum wage? They certainly don't mind being greedy. That is part of the reason that this drop of 14%, from 35& to 21% is so radical. What you and your liberal shlubs call radical-> (the tax reform act), is already stimulating the economy and making us more competitive globally. http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/22/australian-government-worried-us-will-take-jobs-after-massive-tax-cut/It is far more radical than the "fight for 15" that conservatives decry. Conservatives decry forced wage increases not people who can be paid $15.00 per hour.

More money to them who do not need Who are you to decide how much people should be paid? Who are you to determine what people need or what they don't need for that matter? it is not much of an economic stimulus; it is just greed.

Incredible. You begin with a non-sequitur. The number of jobs being eliminated anywhere does not mean that the number of employees promised, bonuses, raises, and training will not get what they were promised. And the number of jobs being eliminated does not mean that an equal number of workers will loose those their employee status. AT&T has had problems with its phone service. It diversified years ago hoping for a piece of internet and cable services. Then they sought that they would attract more consumers through bundled packages. Making business adjustments are necessary for survival.
I am sure that some employees will lose their jobs. I believe that many will be reassigned into other areas of work and some jobs will be added on to other workers. U-verse and DirectTV will be replaced by some other products. This reminds me a little about how U-haul grew and diversified, only to be forced to scale back years later and to go back and focus on what they were best at.

You are going to define what an economic stimulus is by what one company does? Are you ready to ignore the GDP too? You find an article about AT&T, but you ignore all the other companies so far that have promised bonuses, and/or wage increases?

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/08/silent-claire-another-missouri-company-doles-out-bonuses-to-workers-no-comment-n2431559
Silent Claire: Another Missouri Company Doles Out Bonuses To Workers, No Comment From McCaskill
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 08, 2018

Some Missouri workers got some more good news, thanks to the GOP tax bill that was signed into law on December 22. More bonuses were awarded.

...

Last week, Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., a bank based in Springfield, announced that full-time and part-time workers would be receiving $1,000 and $500 bonuses respectively. I’m sure this was welcome news to the bank’s 1,200 employees.

...

Now, Mid-AM Metal Forming is giving bonuses to its workers (via OzarkFirst):

"Mid-AM Metal Forming is excited about the positive implications the tax reform package will have both on the manufacturing industry and its employees," President Steve Johnson said in a news release. "We have very dedicated employees that assist in making us a success. We are excited to surprise all of them with this reward.”
The amount of money is unclear,

...

a tax bill that will become more popular and benefits working class families

[JuicedTruth]

You are going to define what an economic stimulus is by what one company does? Are you ready to ignore the GDP too? You find an article about AT&T, but you ignore all the other companies so far that have promised bonuses, and/or wage increases?

This is the problem... You're complaining about what Lefty is doing by defining the stimulus based on individual companies and you're doing the same thing, just on the other side of it.

For me, the real success of the tax program is whether or not it can actually grow the economy enough to offset the reduced federal revenues. So even though it's probably going to mean more money in a lot of people's pockets, it doesn't mean it's a good long-term thing. And considering we're already seeing growth, does the economy really need stimulus?

[leftyg]

When I suggested that the tax cuts were not a stimulus Michaels said:

Non-Sequitur. And you are still ignoring my examples of tax cuts being a stimulus. You still have not commented on The tax abatement programs for commercial and residential properties including the Cleveland Clinic

It is not a non sequitur. It is a perfectly valid response to your anecdotes. I gave an anecdote to counter your anecdotes, and evidently you did not like it. I was mimicking your proof which were a few random examples of bonuses handed out after the I was talking about the overwhelming evidence that tax cuts simply do not help most people.

Originally I mentioned that the corporate tax dropped from 46% to 34% during Reagan's administration and wages in the subsequent five years were flat. Non sequitur? And you are still ignoring my examples of tax cuts being a stimulus. https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017 ... uts/218499 (2;00-2:20 of video).

And when corporate taxes are repatriated you do not get higher wages or more jobs which pages of articles state: https://www.google.com/search?q=cporpor ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also, if anything: it was not a non sequitur; it was a post hoc ergo propter which states that because one thing precedes another that it must cause it. YOU were the one proposing that. I just used your own logic.

You then write when I suggest that companies lay off people without apology:

What should they apologize for? If a company lays off workers, but stays in business, what is it that the company should apologize for? When Obama instituted his Unaffordable I dont Care Act, and people had their hours cut, you freeking liberals were saying that this is a great opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do. Why don't you remain consistent and say the same thing here? And regarding apologies, Where is the apology from the Unions? What did they do? It looks like they did not save any of these jobs from being eliminated. And for the jobs that remain, where is the apology from the unions for their employees being paid higher than minimum wage? They certainly don't mind being greedy.

Now there is a non sequitur because the two, tax cuts and Obamacare, have nothing to do with one another and because it is a flat out lie. You cannot prove it, and a ton of economic evidence since the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) passed shows that there has been tremendous job growth. https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment ... ar-3305506 That is evidence based, not an anecdote. And it has been the retreat of unions in the United States that has contributed to income inequality that has grown exponentially since the Reagan presidency https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0 Sp please give me facts. I think JT and the rest (not sure about Whispering Eye) would appreciate them too.

You then stte the obvious:

Conservatives decry forced wage increases not people who can be paid $15.00 per hour.

Conservatives would have everybody working for a nickle an hour if they could. The point is conservatives want low (no) taxes on income and no ceiling for income at the same time they want no minimum wage or job security. They care for the powerful and could care less for people. Not a very Christian view if you ask me as well as a shitty version of capitalism.

You close by stating:

You are going to define what an economic stimulus is by what one company does? Are you ready to ignore the GDP too? You find an article about AT&T, but you ignore all the other companies so far that have promised bonuses, and/or wage increases?

No you defined stimulus by the effect that of these few bonuses as "proof" that tax cuts work. I was simply giving you your own bad logic back to you. Evidently, that is the only way you can identify it.

[leftyg]

JT wrote:

This is the problem... You're complaining about what Lefty is doing by defining the stimulus based on individual companies and you're doing the same thing, just on the other side of it.

JT, I was simply using Michaels own logic to get through to him. It did, in the odd sense that he saw that anecdotes prove very little and can always be mere outlying examples. But MIchaels whole argument depends on anecdotal evidence (which he decries in me) because he cannot reference large examples of where tax cuts, particularly corporate tax cuts, have worked to do anything but increase corporate profits.

[Michaels153]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Define tax abatement: an amount by which a tax is reduced.
Google: A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government.

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2017/04/akron_prepares_to_launch_city-.html
Akron prepares to launch city-wide residential tax abatement this summer
Updated Apr 10, 2017; Posted Apr 10, 2017
By Jennifer Conn

AKRON, Ohio - Akron is poised to launch a city-wide residential tax abatement, a move expected to increase home values and draw new residents to the city by enhancing neighborhoods.[[ ...
With Akron City Council and state approval, the city-wide tax abatement will exempt 100-percent of the added property value on new home construction and on significant home renovations for 15 years. ...
On the success of similar initiatives by Cleveland and other Ohio cities, Akron recently commissioned several studies that looked closely at different aspects of Akron's neighborhoods to learn if such a move would be beneficial here.

The centerpiece of that research is the Planning to Grow Akron report released in February, in which the city-wide tax abatement was the top recommendation.

According to the report, among the benefits new housing and renovated homes would bring is a stronger tax base, which would support city services, boost revenues that would attract new businesses and, in turn, generate jobs.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160525/NEWS/160529896/collinwood-group-seeks-cleveland-tax-abatement-for-theater-renovation
Collinwood group seeks Cleveland tax abatement for theatre renovation
By Jay Miller
...

Code: Select all

The project is expected to create the equivalent of 25 full-time jobs.

[urlhttps://decorahnewspapers.com/Content/Home/Home/Article/Success-of-tax-abatement-program-raising-eyebrows/-2/-2/41571][/url]
Success of tax abatement program raising eyebrows
By Sarah Strandberg, News Editor

The Decorah City Council voted unanimously last week to renew the city’s residential tax abatement program.
The three-year tax abatement program, implemented in November of 2014, expires Dec. 31, 2017, but the Council reviews whether to continue it annually.
“The program was intended to increase affordable housing,” City Manager Chad Bird commented.
He said he’s aware of residents who used the abatement program to “build up,” making their former homes of lesser value available to buyers who have either been renting or living outside the community.
“Those are clear examples of what you’re trying to effect – affordable housing,” he said.
In 2016, 20 new homes totaling $7.5 million were built, up from $3.9 million in 2015, and 11 homes were improved for a total of $1.4 million, compared to $408,000 the year before. Before the tax abatement program was initiated, the city was averaging about four new homes a year.
Council member Randy Schissel commented the program has spurred development and helped rehabilitate older neighborhoods. Council member Kirk Johnson said at a recent housing meeting at Northeast Iowa Community College, the results of Decorah’s residential abatement program “raised some eyebrows.”
“It’s pretty apparent it seems to be working,” Johnson said.
The tax abatement program provides residents a five-year, 100-percent property tax abatement for new residential construction and remodeling, and commercial residential properties (apartments) anywhere within city limits.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/02/ohio_tax_chief_reverses_posit.html
Ohio tax chief reverses position, says Cleveland Clinic facilities in Beachwood and Cleveland should be exempt from property taxes.
By Jackie Borchardt.

JT said: This is the problem... You're complaining about what Lefty is doing by defining the stimulus based on individual companies and you're doing the same thing, just on the other side of it.

For me, the real success of the tax program is whether or not it can actually grow the economy enough to offset the reduced federal revenues. So even though it's probably going to mean more money in a lot of people's pockets, it doesn't mean it's a good long-term thing. And considering we're already seeing growth, does the economy really need stimulus?

Jt, I started this post to talk about Dow Jones, the stock market, as my lead story says. Both you and Leftyg felt compelled to criticize AT&T. Considering AT&% was not the only company to announce that they would be handing out bonuses, it did not seem right nor fair the way the tax reform act was being judged by whatever motives you two may feel about AT&T's actions.
It was Leftyg who said.

wrote:
The IndyStar noted that:
AT&T is eliminating thousands of jobs across the U.S., including 30 in Central Indiana, according to Communications Workers of America, the union that represents AT&T employees. The company is cutting nearly 12 percent of its technicians who install U-verse and DirectTV in the Indianapolis area, according to union figures.
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... 992690001/

So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus

Now JT, coming write after Leftyg's reference from the IndyStar, Leftyg writes: "So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus.
I did not do the same thing. I am not defining what the stimulus is doing based on individual companies. I responded to Leftyg's Non-sequitur, and I added; "Are you ready to ignore the GDP too?

Leftyg, Everytime you call me a liar, or claim that What I Post is a Lie, you wind up being proven wrong by me. Every time. Dont you think you should give up by now? Here is your latest:[color=#FF0000Now there is a non sequitur because the two, tax cuts and Obamacare, have nothing to do with one another and because it is a flat out lie.][/color] I was not insinuating that the tax reform act from President Trump, was the same your imposter who added a tax through his unaffordable I dont care act. I pointed out that as a result of the unaffordable I dont care act, people's hours were cut back. And you compassionate champions of the people told them that they now had a great opportunity to pursue what they really wanted to do. But now, with your news about AT&T you said: "So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus.
There was no Non-Sequitur here by me you idiot. And tax cuts do stimulate the economy.

[leftyg]

Leftyg, Everytime you call me a liar, or claim that What I Post is a Lie, you wind up being proven wrong by me. Every time. Dont you think you should give up by now? Here is your latest:[color=#FF0000Now there is a non sequitur because the two, tax cuts and Obamacare, have nothing to do with one another and because it is a flat out lie.][/color] I was not insinuating that the tax reform act from President Trump, was the same your imposter who added a tax through his unaffordable I dont care act. I pointed out that as a result of the unaffordable I dont care act, people's hours were cut back. And you compassionate champions of the people told them that they now had a great opportunity to pursue what they really wanted to do. But now, with your news about AT&T you said: "So much for the tax cuts being a stimulus.

I did not call you a liar. I just said that you use anecdotes to support ideas rather than sound facts ofr data. And I do not use non sequiturs. I know what they mean. You said a lot of things that were not true out of ignorance of what tax cuts do and what Obamacare has done. I use data and facts. Obviously, you did not read my posts where I cite them. Can you cite a study that gives how many people were cut back to part time because of Obamacare? Can you cite studies that show that corporations hire more people when there are tax cuts? I showed you studies where the data said that tax cutsdid nothing to help workers. Read them above. I am getting tired of putting effort into posts where you simply do not read my links. I will do this one one more time That is the stimulus effect different government actions. Tis is from a study by Mark Zandi of Moody Analytis this analyses the return for every dollar spent or tax dollar cut:
Food stamps $1.74
Unemployment $1.61
Infrastructure $1.57
Federal Aide to States $1.41
Job Tax Credit $1.30
Payroll Tax Cuts $1.24
Dividend nd Capital Gains Tax Cuts $.37
Corporate Tax Cuts $.32
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/bang-buc ... c-spending

[Michaels153]

I read your links, and you dismissed mine. The tax cuts from Commercial and Residential tax abatement programs, in the links that I provided, talk about job growth, improvement in affordable housing, and city growth. You ignore this, call this anecdotal, but it is proof that tax cuts (the definition of the programs) stimulate the economy. And just because AT&T plans to eliminate jobs for some. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THEY WILL NOT BE GIVING THOSE BONUSES AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/01/13/obamacares-impact-companies-cut-hours-for-part-time-workers/
JAN 13, 2015
Companies Are Cutting Part-Time Workers' Hours. Blame Obamacare? By Dan Diamond ,

One of critics' biggest worries about Obamacare is that the law has had negative effects on the labor market.

And a new analysis finds some evidence for that: The Affordable Care Act's employer mandate may be leading companies to cut hours for some workers.
...What Casselman does see happening is that companies appear to be cutting hours for part-time workers in order to evade the ACA's mandate that mid-sized and large employers must give health insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/
JAN. 13, 2015 AT 11:03 AM
Yes, Some Companies Are Cutting Hours In Response To ‘Obamacare’
By Ben Casselman

Filed under Obamacare

To figure this out, we can look at the Current Population Survey, the same monthly survey that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate the numbers in the chart above. The BLS numbers, though, have two big problems if we’re interested in the impact of the Affordable Care Act. First, the BLS draws the line for “full-time” at 35 hours a week instead of 30. Second, the BLS is counting workers, not jobs — so someone working two 20-hour-a-week jobs would be counted as a full-time worker.

Fortunately, the survey includes a question asking workers how many hours they spend at their “main job.”1 That means we can look at whether there’s been any shift in workers’ hours around the 30-hour threshold.

Sure enough, there has been. As the chart below shows, the share of part-timers2 working just below 30 hours a week has been rising for roughly the past two years, while the share working just over 30 hours has been falling.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/10/the_quit_work_movement_is_a_cheap_campaign_ploy_by_desperate_democrats/
The “Quit Work” Movement is a Cheap Campaign Ploy by Desperate Democrats
Feb 10, 2014

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/12/the-horror-trumps-tax-bill-forcing-fiat-chrysler-to-dole-out-2-000-bonuses-to-n2433414
The Horror: Trump’s Tax Bill Forcing Fiat Chrysler To Dole Out $2,000 Bonuses To Workers
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 12, 2018

...Since President Trump signed the tax bill into law on December 22, ...Over 100 companies and over a million workers have received a bonus of at least $1,000, some companies even gave part-timers a $500 check. U.S. investments from these companies were increased, as was their charitable donations. From airlines to the Olive Garden, companies gave their workers a much-welcomed Christmas present. Additionally, entities have decided to increase their wages as well. Walmart and Capital One announced that they would boost workers wages. Oh, and Walmart will give $5,000 to workers who adopt. ...
JUST IN: Capital One raises minimum wage to $15 per hour for U.S. employees. http://cnbc.com...
a private sector jobs report that showed 250,000 new opportunities were created for the month. The economy is booming, and now Fiat Chrysler is announcing that they will be doling out $2,000 bonuses to its workers. They will also be investing $1 billion in a Michigan plant (via CNBC):

CEO Sergio Marchionne said in a statement that these announcements reflect the company's ongoing commitment to manufacturing in the U.S. He also cited the recently signed tax bill as an opportunity to share the savings with Fiat Chrysler employees.
The automaker said it will invest more than $1 billion in a Michigan plant and relocate production of its Ram Heavy Duty truck in 2020. That model is currently being produced in Saltillo, Mexico.
Fiat Chrysler said this decision would create about 2,500 jobs in addition to the ones that have been previously announced.
The company said it will also pay 60,000 of its U.S. employees bonuses of $2,000 each. Fiat Chrysler said these bonuses would not include senior leadership.

Bonuses + wage increases + additional employee hires + company investments + charitable investments + stock growth and next month workers begin to see an increase in their take home pay. It sounds like a pretty good start for an overall stimulus to our economy.

[leftyg]

The Horror: Trump’s Tax Bill Forcing Fiat Chrysler To Dole Out $2,000 Bonuses To Workers

Michaels, you are proving JT and my point. This is an anecdote. Another anecdote: Carrier is moving 215 jobs to Mexico http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/co ... index.html And another union leader called Trump the enemy https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 0dc4c59342

The point is that anecdotes either wy are not good enough. Listen to Ali Velshi and learn something about economics.

[Michaels153]

The Horror: Trump’s Tax Bill Forcing Fiat Chrysler To Dole Out $2,000 Bonuses To Workers

Michaels, you are proving JT and my point. This is an anecdote. Another anecdote: Carrier is moving 215 jobs to Mexico http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/co ... index.html And another union leader called Trump the enemy https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 0dc4c59342

The point is that anecdotes either wy are not good enough. Listen to Ali Velshi and learn something about economics.

No, Leftyg, I am not proving your nor JT's point. I am updating you with additional examples of what this tax reform act has done. I am letting the people and corporations who are benefiting by it tell you and JT, and everyone else, what has happened to them as a result of the tax reform act. Now you and JT can ignore it, you can dismiss it, but you can not debate the fact that the passage of the tax reform act has added a positive stimulus to our economy. I don't need a brush up on economics. The markets can go up and down and they will. Not everyone is invested in the stock market. Not everyone is getting a bonus, nor would you expect them too, but to dismiss over a million workers from over 100 companies as anecdotal is absurd.
You started from your very narrow and cynical viewpoint on business, but what you are witnessing is not a standard template, you are seeing different companies respond to the tax reform act as they can. Some with bonuses of $500, $800, $1,000, or $2.000. You are also seeing differences in wage hikes and increasing the starting minimum wage. Not all of these companies increased there stating minimum wage to $15 per hour but they still increased it, so that it was not just a one time bonus. These employees can look for additional income throughout the year. Now this just does not fit your template of The greedy non-caring corporate employer. If they were as you suggest, as greedy and non-caring they would have pocketed the profits from this tax reform act. But they didn't. You see the reality here that you don't see, is that would not be good business. If I can offer my employees more at some time and I don't, then it is harder to keep my employees happy, and even harder for me to compete. But the difference between real business and your social engineering, is real business. Real business does what it can afford to do. You social engineers want to force business to do what you think is "fair". When real business increases their wages, it usually does not result in stores closing. When you try to force all business to do the same thing, you quickly find out that all businesses can not. You try to force a new equality on various unequal entities.
When President Trump gets going on addressing the infrastructure tasks we should see more examples of growth and then you can compare what he is doing, and what the previous occupant did not:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/01/the-reason-that-shovel-ready-stimulus-didnt-work-is-that-there-wasnt-any-stimulus/#4f75e043dc5e
President Obama remarked in June 2011, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." He chuckled through the mea culpa, but it's no laughing matter. Obama failed to deliver—and at great cost to taxpayers.

[leftyg]

No, Leftyg, I am not proving your nor JT's point. I am updating you with additional examples of what this tax reform act has done. I am letting the people and corporations who are benefiting by it tell you and JT, and everyone else, what has happened to them as a result of the tax reform act. Now you and JT can ignore it, you can dismiss it, but you can not debate the fact that the passage of the tax reform act has added a positive stimulus to our economy. I don't need a brush up on economics. The markets can go up and down and they will. Not everyone is invested in the stock market. Not everyone is getting a bonus, nor would you expect them too, but to dismiss over a million workers from over 100 companies as anecdotal is absurd.

It is an anecdote, so what I said was not absurd, and I gave an antidote to that anecdote. And here is another one: Yes Walmart has raised the pay of its workers to eleven dollars an hour. BUT they also closed 63 Sam's Clubs that employed 2000 people. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/0 ... ionwi.html The point is, these are anecdotes; they have antidotes. Sound empirical evidence is the only way to go.

And the notion that because these positive events have happened after the Tax Cuts is not evidence that the cuts caused them to begin with. First, the cuts have not taken place yet, so any real economic benefit cannot be measured meaningfully, and companies will say the bonuses were tied to the tax cuts just to curry favor with the public so they can keep their huge corporate tax breaks.

You wrote:

President Obama remarked in June 2011, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." He chuckled through the mea culpa, but it's no laughing matter. Obama failed to deliver—and at great cost to taxpayers.

Obama failed to deliver? He pulled us out of the worst recession in our history. According to the Wall Street Journal Ben Bernanki, then Fed Chairman told congress that the Subprime Meltdown was worse than the Great Depression https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08 ... anke-says/ Obama using Keynsian methods pulled us out; Hoover, using austerity methods, sunk us deeper. President Obama inherited 7.8% unemployment; he passed 4.7% unemployment to Trump. Presidentially, as in life, Trump was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg, if Obamacare Market exchanges announced that they added one million new accounts, you would claim that that was proof that Obamacare was a success. No anecdotal information, just a success.
You don't need to wait a year or two for a study to tell you what you are seeing daily in media accounts about this economy. But you want a study as a requirement for President Trump when you were willing to accept position papers without a study, commissioned on behalf of Obama.
Bernanki is entitled to his opininion, but in this matter I don't agree with him. President Obama cooked the books while in office. He illegally funneled money from different sources to make his payoffs for the ACA to appear to be working (already documented under "Worse than a complete Waste of Money.") He played favorites in deciding where to intervene and what companies to keep from going under without any apology for it. And while there were 94 million workers no longer in the labor force the number of people receiving food stamps skyrocketed.
Congressman Paul Ryan in an interview with Chris Wallace said: "What President Obama is doing is he’s gambling with taxpayer money and giving money to corporate contributors — campaign contributors — like Solyndra, and he’s losing taxpayer money....We don’t think the government should be in the position of picking winners and losers in the economy, which is the result of the president’s economics."
And Rush Limbaugh pointed out at that time: "What Obama’s doing is much worse! He’s taking taxpayer money and he’s funneling it back to his donors like Solyndra, and they are all going bankrupt. Every green energy business — solar, wind, or whatever — that Obama’s propped up with taxpayer dollars has gone bankrupt, or will." And regarding Keynsian methods, did you forget this ->
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/175-days-treasury-says-debt-has-been-frozen-18112975000000
175 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000
By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 9, 2015

You said" Can you cite a study that gives how many people were cut back to part time because of Obamacare?" Which is a straw man because I said When Obama instituted his un-affordable I don't care act and people had there hours cut. I did not say full time employees were cut to part time employees. I said people had their hours cut and I provided a couple of links that substantiated what I said.
The January 13, 2015 piece from Forbes and the five thirty eight piece. Not a comment by you?

[leftyg]

Obama cooked the books? Look unemployment went down, not up as the right wing likes to say with their pet lie "job killing Obamacare." The facts on that are clear; it did not kill jobs. As to the job participation rate. Yes it went down during Obama's years because baby boomers began to retire. https://www.thebalance.com/labor-force- ... es-3305805 The source says:

Half of the decline is due to the aging of America, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. These demographic changes affected the labor force even before the recession. As baby boomers reach retirement age, they leave the labor force. They don't need a job. Others stay home to care for ailing parents or spouses, or claim disability themselves. Since they represent such a large percentage of the population, that will have a major impact on the labor force participation rate. It's a big reason why it may never regain its past levels, no matter how strong the job market is.

And Labor Participation Rate (LFPR), from 1948-67 never topped 60% https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Then as older baby boomers joined the work force in the late sixties it began to go up. Don't blame the drop in workforce participation on Obama or Obamacare.

After Paul Ryan gave over a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the rich and will likely be trying to gut Social Security and Medicare to pay for those cuts, he is the last person who should talk..

And you know nothing of Keynes. With low interest rates and ample profits, tax cuts were the last thing we needed to give, especially to the rich.

[leftyg]

Bernanki is entitled to his opininion, but in this matter I don't agree with him.

Ben Bernanke is an expert par excellence on the economy. Your disagreement means nothing. His opinion is weighty and powerful. He was the Federal Reserve chairman at the time and not only is infinitely better trained economics and its history than any one you can probably cite but more privy to information none of us even know than you can imagine.

THAT IS REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. BUT I COULD NOT RESIST REVISITING SOME OF THE REST OF YOUR POST

President Obama cooked the books while in office. He illegally funneled money from different sources to make his payoffs for the ACA to appear to be working (already documented under "Worse than a complete Waste of Money.")

Have you a source to back this up that is not from a right wing hit piece but from a sound economic journal? And Obamacare has been a success according to many studies because it got insurance to many people , and there is an abundance of source material to support that contention https://www.google.com/search?q=The+pos ... e&ie=UTF-8

He played favorites in deciding where to intervene and what companies to keep from going under without any apology for it. And while there were 94 million workers no longer in the labor force the number of people receiving food stamps skyrocketed.

I already addressed this charge, but it stuns me that you still fall for it. Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a non-argument and an artifact of demography. That the right still uses it against Obama is funny to anybody trained in economic science, really. Please defend your statement about LFPR. Also, has there been a dramatric rise in LFPR under President Trump? Why has the right stopped talking about it since Trump has become president?

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/15/boom-over-two-million-workers-have-received-bonuses-and-raises-thanks-to-trumps-n2434777
Boom: Over Two Million Workers Have Received Bonuses And Raises Thanks To Trump's Tax Bill
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 15, 2018

The Republican tax reform package, the most extensive in 30 years, is so terrible that over two million workers have received bonuses and raises since it was signed into law on December 22, 2017. Paul Bedard at The Washington Examiner has been compiling the list, citing over 100 companies that have doled out bonuses of at least $1,000 or more since the bill became law, some are now approaching $3,000, with increased 401k contributions, and wages (via Washington Examiner):

Paul Ryan
✔
@SpeakerRyan
Just in 20 days, Americans have seen more than 2 million workers getting raises and bonuses.

11:05 AM - Jan 14, 2018
4,448 4,448 Replies 1,342 1,342 Retweets 5,259 5,259 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A list of 40 firms offering millions of employees bonuses and customers fee cuts has surged to 164 in just 10 days as the likely financial benefit of President Trump’s tax reform has started to settle in.

“You’ve likely seen the news about U.S. tax reform. We believe these tax changes will be positive for our company, and provide us the opportunity to do good things for our Crewmembers, customers and shareholders,” said Jet Blue, which is offering a $1,000 bonuse to 21,000 employees.

Even before the list expanded in the past week, the bonuses, wage increases and rate hikes being offered by big and small companies and public utilities was praised by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Even part-time workers are receiving bonuses, albeit smaller ones. It’s creating a better job creating and investing climate. File this under Obama couldn’t have managed it.

Companies also announced increased U.S. investment and boosting philanthropic activity as well. Fiat Chrysler not only said they would be giving workers a $2,000 bonus, but would be investing $1 billion in a plant in Michigan. Guy has also covered the damage, and by damage, we mean tremendous economic news; brought on by this bill. The Democrats rolled the dice betting against the American worker and middle class. Now, they’re choking on the crow they’re eating. And of course, everyone on the Left was wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=6mfEJ-j2pNo
Media: Wages Will Not Increase Because of Tax Reform (Wages Increase) | SUPERcuts! #557

[Michaels153]

Obama cooked the books? Yes Obama cooked the books. Already documented in Worse than a complete waste of money. Now you use those quotes and refute them. Look unemployment went down, not up Oh really? Here is something you can gnaw at:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/30/david_stockman_shock_blog_the_real_unemployment_rate_is_42_9/
Last night a friend of mine sent me a link to a blog that is hosted and written by David Stockman. http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-warren-buffett-economy-why-its-days-are-numbered-part-4/ David Stockman was the former budget director for Ronaldus Magnus until for some reason he was taken to the woodshed and fired. Oh, I know what it was. He disavowed supply-side, which was his own creation. Anyway, Stockman has run a bunch of numbers and has been able to put all of this in context and has concluded that the actual unemployment rate in the United States of America is not 5.5%, and it’s not 12.5% or 13%. It is 42.9%.


Let me share with you a little bit of how he gets there.

It’s a long blog post. I can’t… I’m not even gonna try to summarize most of it. I’m just gonna get to the meat of it as it relates to this. But it’s an all-out assault on Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve and the damage that both have done and continue to do to the US economy. But here’s the focal point on unemployment. “In fact,” he writes, “the Census Bureau survey takers and the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] numbers crunchers have not the foggiest idea as to what the real worldÂ’s potential labor force computes to, and how much of it is deployed on any given day, month or quarter.”

....Here are the numbers I wondered about: “At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68…” That is the workforce. Sixteen to 68 is the age boundaries where you find the potential American workforce. Between 16 and 68, there are 210 million Americans, and 93 million — 40% — of them, are not working. Now, that’s probably a much better way of expressing employment, unemployment, and the real strength, performance, or lack of, of the US economy. But here is where they get in the weeds by computing a bunch of things that…

It’s gonna be hard to follow because you’re not reading it, but I’ll do my best.

“At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68 — to take a plausible measure of the potential work force. That amounts to 420 billion potential labor hours…” So you have 420 billion hours that people could work in a standard 40-hour week. With all the vacations and the standard benefits thrown in, that’s the number of labor hours potential. That’s “if we accept the convention that all adults are at least theoretically capable of holding a full-time job (2,000 hours/year),” that’s the calculation, “and pulling their share of society’s need for production and work effort.


“By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates,” actual government numbers. So the workforce is defined as ages 16 to 68, a total of 420 billion potential labor hours, which equals great productivity if that happens. Last year, only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, just a little over half what’s possible. “Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours,” and that is how Stockman arrived at “the real unemployment rate was 42.9%…”



After Paul Ryan gave over a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the rich and will likely be trying to gut Social Security and Medicare to pay for those cuts, he is the last person who should talk. Paul Ryan cant gut Social Security and Medicare, you libs have already said that other Republican's have done that, so there is nothing more to gut.

And you know nothing of Keynes. Your always saying that no matter what the topic, and I am always showing you that I no more than you. What you did not pick up was the sarcasm. Are you claiming that Obama was following Keynesian Economics when he had the treasury department freeze the debt for 181 days? http://www.oom2.com/t31966-financial-system-on-life-support-181-days-treasury-says-debt-has-been-frozen-at-18112975000000Could you quote what Keynes economic policiy Obama followed in this Matter? With low interest rates and ample profits, tax cuts were the last thing we needed to give, especially to the rich. Hey Leftyg, "with low interest rates, and ample profits, why wasn't Obama able to do what President Trump has done? Why wasn't he willing to even try? Why was President Trump able to lower the unemployment rate for African Americans to the lowest rate ever, but not Obama?

[leftyg]

Boom: Over Two Million Workers Have Received Bonuses And Raises Thanks To Trump's Tax Bill

There is so much wrong with this assumption. First, it is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy that states just because something happened before something else, it must have cause it. Rigorous analysis has to take place, and that statement is not rigorous analysis.

Next, it is an anecdote, and anecdotes prove absolutely nothing. They are nice little building blocks of inductive argument, but they prove nothing.

Next, the number two million is offered in a vacuum. How many bonuses were handed out in another year, say one in which Obama was president? Well US News and World Report said that in 2015, a year in which Obama was president and would still be after January 20 that nearly 80% of respondents said they were going to give bonuses to employees, "up from 53% the previous year" https://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/ ... -this-year
We also know that there were 2,240,000 jobs created in 2016 as opposed to 2,055,000 in 2017. https://demu.gr/100210061566 So by comparison Obama had a better year because we have something to compare. What we need is a fair comparison, and the article did not give one

[Michaels153]

Boom: Over Two Million Workers Have Received Bonuses And Raises Thanks To Trump's Tax Bill

There is so much wrong with this assumption. Not an assumption. These are self-reported accounts given by representatives of the companies providing the bonuses and raises. First, it is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy that states just because something happened before something else, it must have cause it. Read the previous statements. These are self-reported accounts given by representatives of the companies providing the bonuses and raises.
Therefore, without empirical evidence to refute the statements provided you have nothing to even posit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And, once again, you fall victim to the fallacy-fallacy where you propose a fallacy without there being one.

Next, it is an anecdote, and anecdotes prove absolutely nothing. [color=#FF0000]It is a statement of fact, and a statement of fact proves the existence of something.They are nice little building blocks of inductive argument, but they prove nothing.

Next, the number two million is offered in a vacuum. Next the number two million is part of the statement of fact. It is not a requirement to compare the statement with anything else.How many bonuses were handed out in another year, say one in which Obama was president? Again, the statement of fact does not require anything else. I have been getting bonuses for years. My company did not make a public statement that they were giving people bonuses. These bonuses have been defined by different company representatives as being a result of the tax reform act just passed. Well US News and World Report said that in 2015, a year in which Obama was president and would still be after January 20 that nearly 80% of respondents said they were going to give bonuses to employees, "up from 53% the previous year" https://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/ ... -this-year
We also know that there were 2,240,000 jobs created in 2016 as opposed to 2,055,000 in 2017. https://demu.gr/100210061566 So by comparison Obama had a better year because we have something to compare. What we need is a fair comparison, and the article did not give one

[leftyg]

I tried to post to your previous comment a couple times, once a few minutes ago and about three days ago. The point is Michaels, anecdotes have little value as causation. With modern technology and the advent of social science research an anecdote is a weak proof, and just because A came before B does not mean A caused B. It is exasperating trying to explain that somebody simply claiming something does not mean that causation is involved. Empirical studies are going to have to be done. And sure, benefactors of lower taxes will claim that the action was good all the sway around. For God Sake, it benefits them. What you need is data about the past behavior of bonus giving. You need something to compare it with, not just the word of a biased party. Remember that Paul Ryan received 500 thousand dollars from the Koch brothers the day after the tax law passed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp.

Two million is a statement of fact, but it is also meaningless without a context. Do you understand that? All data which is about causation requires a context. Information given in a vacuum is meaningless.

[Michaels153]

I tried to post to your previous comment a couple times, once a few minutes ago and about three days ago. The point is Michaels, anecdotes have little value as causation. With modern technology and the advent of social science research an anecdote is a weak proof, and just because A came before B does not mean A caused B. It is exasperating trying to explain that somebody simply claiming something does not mean that causation is involved. Empirical studies are going to have to be done. And sure, benefactors of lower taxes will claim that the action was good all the sway around. For God Sake, it benefits them. What you need is data about the past behavior of bonus giving. You need something to compare it with, not just the word of a biased party. Remember that Paul Ryan received 500 thousand dollars from the Koch brothers the day after the tax law passed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp.

Two million is a statement of fact, but it is also meaningless without a context. Do you understand that? All data which is about causation requires a context. Information given in a vacuum is meaningless.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-economic-growth-3306014

Definition: Economic growth is how much more the economy produces than it did in the prior period. To be accurate, the comparison must remove the effects of inflation.
If the economy is producing more, businesses are more profitable and stock prices rise. That gives companies capital to invest and hire more employees. As more jobs are created, incomes rise. Consumers have more money to buy additional products and services.
Purchases drive higher economic growth. For this reason, all countries want positive economic growth. This makes economic growth the most watched economic indicator.
How Is Economic Growth Measured?
Gross domestic product is the best way to measure economic growth. That's because it takes into account the country's entire economic output. It includes all goods and services that businesses in the country produce for sale. It doesn't matter whether they are sold domestically or overseas.
GDP measures final production. It doesn't include the parts that are manufactured to make a product. It includes exports because they are produced in the country. Imports are subtracted from economic growth.

Leftyg, I responded to you saying that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. First, I explained how wrong-minded your reference link was. Then I offered examples that showed that they were wrong. And usually when I do that you dismiss them out of hand as anecdotes. But tax cuts do stimulate growth, in every metric that you recognize as growth. I would think that every major city in the United States has some tax abatement program for both commercial and residential properties. Those tax cuts are on the property tax for several years. Now that is ongoing, it is not a new phenomena. As, my reference defines how GDP is the best way to measure economic growth, all you see when it is reported is a number. It is not sufficient to say companies are growing because the GDP has increased. But given examples along with updated reports on the stock market and quarterly GDP rates, it is sufficient. You do not need a 65 or X amount of years of a study to tell you everything. And when you give a study that is proven wrong by today examples, then it is time to update that study or at least acknowledge that it was more useful in understanding something in the past, but obviously not very useful for the present circumstances.
If someone were to say to you that Left handed pitchers cant strike out batters with a curve ball , do you need a 65 year study on pitchers to answer that person, or do you just need one example that shows that Left handed pitchers can strike out batters with a curve ball.
The examples reported from the company representatives who said what they are doing with the tax cut reform act, are concrete evidence that contradics what you say does not happen. Don't continue to straw man this by deflections to mobility rate, mortality rates, income inequlaity, etc.

[leftyg]

There is nothing '"wrong headed" about my sources. If anything, it is wrong headed to keep making claims based on anecdotes and assumptions like tax cuts stimulate the economy. They do for poor and middle class people but not for the wealthy as Mark Zandi the chief economist at Moody's Analytics shows. Government interventions like food stamps return $1.74 to the economy for every dollar spent, unemployment insurance $1.61, $1.57 for infrastructure, 1.41 for aide to states. Meanwhile, the only tax cuts that work are job tax credits, $1.30 for every dollar in taxes cut and payroll tax cuts (social security) $1.24 for dollar cut. Cuts to corporate dividends and capital gains return 37 cents for every dollar in tax cuts and corporate tax cuts result in 32 cents saved on every dollar cut http://www.demos.org/data-byte/bang-buc ... c-spending.

Look, Michaels, it is time for you to make strong supportable statements and not weak anecdotes made by those benefitting from tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts benefit corporations, but they do not and have not stimulated the economy according to empirical evidence. Economist Limberly Clausing says says "There's no evidence that corporate tax cuts unleash a big wave of economic growth or wage increases," she says.

"The trouble is, we really don't have a good way to measure what the effects on growth are, because once we have the rate cut, other things start happening over time," says Jennifer Blouin, professor of accounting at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/13/56342007 ... -right-now

It is much dicier than you seem to imagine, and we should have gone slowly with it, because there just is not the empirical evidence to show that it will work. And remember Michaels most of the growth in our jobs outlook has been because of interventions made during the Obama administration. It is too early to tell if these tax cuts will work. Being mostly for the wealthy and corporations, I doubt it.

And statements like

Don't continue to straw man this by deflections to mobility rate, mortality rates, income inequlaity, etc.

. That statement shows how little you know about this issue. Social mobility is extremely important as is income inequality. They are not straw men, they are powerful examples of how economics works in this country. If you want beggars living on the street and aristocrats driving by in their Porsches, running over them at will, I suppose your comment would make sense. You have to be economically illiterate to say income inequality and social mobility do not matter.

[leftyg]

I am exasperated. Here is a piece that says anecdotes are worthless as evidence. The author writes:

All of this would be fine if anecdotes were actually useful pieces of evidence, but they aren’t. As I will explain in this post, they are worthless, and if your argument is built on anecdotes, then your argument should be rejected.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/1 ... worthless/

Every person who has ever taken a research methods class knows this. Asserting causation as you have done cannot be done by anecdote and must be done by more formal proofs of causation. And the self-interested comments of people who like tax cuts does little to strengthen your argument. Michaels, anecdotes are not enough

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/01/24/tax-armageddon-jp-morgan-disney-n2438688
Taxmageddon: Cruel GOP Tax Law Hammers Workers at Four Major Companies With Bonuses, New Benefits and Wage Hikes
By Guy Benson |Posted: Jan 24, 2018

Two recent polls have illustrated how Democrats' hyperbolic overreach in demagoguing the GOP tax plan has backfired in short order. Since the bill became law, voters have had the unique opportunity to directly and immediately contrast its actual results with the rhetoric employed to by its opponents. The comparison is not holding up well for Congressional Democrats, every single one of whom voted against the economy-stimulating package of tax cuts for employers and families across all income groups. An unrelenting campaign of lies and distortions pushed public views of the proposal deep underwater, a gap that has been virtually eliminated over the span of one month. A pair of surveys from the New York Times and NPR/PBS show tax reform's popularity spiking by roughly 20 percentage points, with support drawing close to even with opposition.

What made those developments even more extraordinary is that majorities of respondents in those polls still don't believe they'll receive a tax reduction, even though 80 percent of them will. More happy surprises are therefore in store for millions of taxpayers. (Just wait for the polls that will come out at the end of February) The upshot of all of this is that the dramatic turnaround in the numbers has been driven almost entirely by people hearing about instant effects of the law's sorely-needed corporate tax relief -- which Democrats once supported, before reversing positions for political reasons. Fortunately for beneficiaries and the broader economy, and unfortunately for Democratic talking points, the tax reform law keeps racking up more wins for working Americans. A real-life bulletin from the magical world of Disney:

22h

CNBC
✔
@CNBC
BREAKING: The Walt Disney Co. to give more than 125K employees a one-time $1,000 cash bonus and "make an initial investment of $50 million in a new and ongoing education program...for hourly employees" http://cnbc.com


CNBC
✔
@CNBC
BREAKING: 125,000 Walt Disney Co. employees to receive $1,000 cash bonus, company launches new $50 million education program http://cnb.cx/2Bne9hl

2:06 PM - Jan 23, 2018

125,000 Disney employees to receive $1,000 cash bonus, company launches new $50 million education...
Disney announced Tuesday it will pay over 125,000 employees a one-time cash bonus of $1,000.

cnbc.com
65 65 Replies 374 374 Retweets 497 497 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Disney announced Tuesday it will pay over 125,000 employees a one-time cash bonus of $1,000, as well as make a new $50 million investment into education program for employees. "We are directing approximately $125 million to our cast members and employees across the country and making higher education more accessible with the launch of this new program," CEO Bob Iger said in a statement. Disney says both initiatives are due to recent tax reform. The bonus applies any full-time and part-time employees who have been working for Disney since before January 1. Those eligible will receive the bonus in two parts, with one in March and the other in September. Executive level employees are exempt. Disney's education initiative will be available to nearly 88,000 hourly employees in the U.S. "Participants can pursue qualifying higher education or vocational training, including courses unrelated to their current responsibilities at Disney," the company said in a statement.

It's time to add 125,000 more full- and part-time workers to the growing list of Americans directly benefiting from tax reform (beyond their tax cuts), which currently stands well over two million. Verizon employees are also about to share in the newfound wealth of their company, with stock option bonuses totaling $400 million being paid out to non-executives. CNBC reports that there's likely more to come: "[Verizon] also hinted in its morning earnings report that "employees will further share in the company's success." There's more: And more, and more, and more good news coming.


fastFT
✔
@fastFT
JPMorgan promises $20bn investment after US tax cuts http://on.ft.com/2BlhnlI

7:59 AM - Jan 23, 2018

JPMorgan promises $20bn investment after US tax cuts
Bank will raise wages and reverse years of branch closures

ft.com
18 18 Replies 158 158 Retweets 196 196 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
JPMorgan Chase will increase wages for its lowest-paid workers and reverse its recent trend of branch closures, it announced on Tuesday, after promising to share the proceeds of the Trump administration’s recent tax cuts. The moves are part of an investment plan which the bank says will be worth $20bn over the next five years, including further commitments to increase its lending to small businesses and create thousands of new jobs. Wages for 22,000 of JPMorgan’s hourly workers will increase from between $12/hour and $16.50/hour to between $15/hour and $18/hour, depending on the local cost of living. The rises will come into force from February 25, with staff gaining an average wage rise of 10 per cent. The company said it will open up to 400 new branches over the next five years, which will directly employ around 3,000 people...In a further sign of the bank’s efforts to show that the benefits of tax reform will not only be felt by the richest, JPMorgan also pledged to increase lending for affordable housing and ramp up its community investments by 50 per cent.

Oh, how awful. Amazingly, desperate liberals on social media are frantically dredging up stories about limited layoffs or previously-announced intentions to expand from these companies. (J.T and Lefty) The goal is to advance the spin that the recent swirl of positive news isn't really flowing from the successful tax reform plan about which they made catastrophically wrong predictions. Good luck with that economic trutherism. I'll leave you with two reminders. First, as Matt wrote up earlier in the week, the IMF has lifted its outlook for the global economy thanks to the GOP tax law:


Bloomberg
✔
@business
JUST IN: The IMF raised the global growth forecast for 2018, partly spurred by U.S. tax cuts https://bloom.bg/2rvVnVh

9:07 AM - Jan 22, 2018
39 39 Replies 429 429 Retweets 519 519 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

And second, millions of Americans -- including 91 percent of middle income earners -- will start to see increases in their take-home pay starting next month:


Philip Klein
✔
@philipaklein
Paychecks reflecting tax cuts get updated in mid-late Feb. Key will be for GOP to make people connect higher take home pay to tax bill. https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/statu ... 6053061632 …

7:14 PM - Jan 21, 2018
17 17 Replies 49 49 Retweets 122 122 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

UPDATE - Starbucks, too:


Phil Kerpen
✔
@kerpen
$500 bonus for coffee shop workers, $2K for store managers, paid sick leave, paid parental leave. Another raise coming in April.#winning https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/24/sta ... ssion=true …

8:19 AM - Jan 24, 2018

Starbucks to boost worker pay and benefits after US lowers corporate taxes
Starbucks will give domestic employees pay raises, company stock, and expanded benefits worth of more than $250 million, the company said on Wednesday.

cnbc.com

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/us-stocks-dow-record-earnings.html
Stocks hit record highs on stronger-than-expected earnings
The Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq all hit record highs.
Abbott Laboratories, United Technologies, Baker Hughes and NBCUniversal-parent Comcast all reported earnings and revenue that beat analyst expectations.
Of the S&P 500 companies that had reported as of Tuesday morning, 77 percent have beaten earnings estimates, while 80 percent have topped revenue expectations, according to FactSet.
By Fred Imbert
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 27 Mins Ago
CNBC.com

[JuicedTruth]

Trump's approval rating is incredibly low for being the president during this kind of bull run. I guess we'll see how much the rising economy actually ends up helping the lower/middle classes that Trump pandered to in the midwest. If this is another 1% land grab or gains are more limited to the average person, it's little more than good news headlines.

[Michaels153]

JT, I don't think anybody who is being objective can be surprised by Trump's poll numbers so far. But what will be very interesting will be the reasonings attributed to any rise in polling numbers: Are they rising now because people are getting more money from their paycheck's? Are they rising now because people are realizing what he has been through and are more sympathetic to him now (this is happening with some congressional republicans). Whatever the reason given, it will be an accomplishment considering the efforts to smear him will certainly continue.

Why use the word pander. Is that how you see Shumer's actions? Is he pandering to illegals?

A large percentage of the population, in all economic classes stand to benefit from this tax reform act. There are some challenges that are coming in other areas of his economic policies that I am wondering how it will effect this country. But so far, the United States has hit a home run, and they are still batting.

[JuicedTruth]

Kimberly Clark laying of 5,500:

http://www.businessinsider.com/kimberly ... uts-2018-1

[the whispering eye]

Kimberly Clark laying of 5,500:

http://www.businessinsider.com/kimberly ... uts-2018-1

LOL you act like some here or there said something SUPER profound like "IF YOU LIKE YOUR JOB YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOB"

[JuicedTruth]

WalMart lays off 500 at headquarters:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

[Michaels153]

Well I am glad to see that you are keeping it real, fair, and balanced. As I post good news, you and Leftyg can focus on posting bad news. At least, your being consistent. I remember this post regarding the last occupant of the white house.
by JuicedTruth » April 9th, 2016, 2:48 pm

The Plain Dealer
04/08/2016
Business Section; page A8
INSURERS
"UnitedHealth exiting two state markets"

UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer, has decided to call it quits in two state Obamacare markets, in the latest challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The Insurer won't sell plans for next year in Georgia and Arkansas, according to state insurance regulators. Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesman, confirmed the exits and declined to say whether the company would drop out of additional states. Many insurers have found it difficult to turn a profit in the new markets created by the Affordable Care Act, where individuals turned out to be more costly to care for than the companies expected.


But Why? Why would they do this? How could they do this? Remember Obamacare,/ The Affordable Care Act, has the subsidies and the mandates!

These losses occur despite a huge back-end subsidyRemember, this is with the subsidies and the mandates that insurers receive through a program that compensates them for much of the cost of their most expensive enrollees. So far, this program delivered nearly $16 billion to insurers — an amount close to 20 percent of total premiums.

But 2016 is the program’s last year, which means that premiums going forward will reflect the actual cost of the older and sicker population who enrolled. Therefore premiums will likely increase substantially for the second year in a row — making plans look even less attractive to younger and healthier people.
So the President only planned to pretend that his legacy legislative piece was affordable through 2016? And the insurers that were compelled to sign on were only willing to do so until the subsidies ran out.

Pssssss, Michaels, that wasn't JT's post, that was your post.

Oh, that's right, My bad. I guess I just thought that Leftyg and JuicedTruth would be consistent in their sharing of bad news.

[JuicedTruth]

Siemens lays off 200:

http://www.thehawkeye.com/news/20180124 ... at-siemens

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/01/26/hey-dems-are-you-really-arguing-that-1-000-is-nothing-to-working-class-familie-n2439668
Hey, Dems, Are You Really Arguing That $1,000 Is Nothing To Working Class Families?
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Jan 26, 2018

Piggybacking off Guy’s post earlier yesterday, Home Depot decided to give their employees a $1,000 bonus, thanks to the new tax bill President Trump signed into law. So far, over three million workers have received bonuses. Over 250 companies have agreed to hand them out, citing the bill’s economic impacts. The largest has to be Apple’s repatriation of $250 billion in overseas cash, along with their $350 billion investment over the next five years that will create 20,000 jobs with it. Other companies have also signaled employee investment and an increase in donations to charitable causes. The middle and working class are benefitting from this, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) don’t seem to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfiG9cj8sJ0

“Frankly, if you look at the bonuses, which I haven’t heard of a corporate bonus more than $1,000 so far. Which by the way is taxed, so it’s not $1,000. And then you spread $1,000 over the course of the year – to think of about how much that is – of course they get it all at once. But I’m not sure that $1,000 (which is taxed, taxable) goes very for almost anyone,” said Wassermann Schultz. Yeah, this coming from a woman who was appalled that the House GOP did not extend the payroll taxcuts that would have added an additional $40 to workers.

"Tweet what #40Dollars means to you," she tweeted in 2011. Now, $1,000 is nothing. Yes, life comes at you fast.

Michael Shapiro
@mis2127
I found it.

I found possibly the greatest life comes at you fast ever.
12:51 PM - Jan 25, 2018
210 210 Replies 3,619 3,619 Retweets 5,947 5,947 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Keep in mind, some companies are giving out bonuses in that amount; it varies. And some are doling out up to $3,000 in bonuses to their workers. Pelosi also repeated the line that these bonuses were crumbs.

Okay—do Democrats know that over half of all Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. This is a big deal to a lot of people, unless you're a limousine liberal like Pelosi (via CNBC)?

If your savings account balance is hovering at or below $1,000, you're not alone.
According to a 2017 GOBankingRates survey, more than half of Americans (57 percent) have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts.
While that's an improvement from last year, when 69 percent of Americans reported having less than $1,000 in savings, a higher percentage have no savings at all: 39 percent, up from 34 percent in 2016.

This is a lot of money for these families. It’s a few grocery bills, electric bills, gas bills, etc., so maybe they know and they’re just downplaying, or they’re legitimately aloof concerning the everyday lives of the people they claim to champion. I can see how the bubble mentality can take hold here; Democrats really have no one representing Middle America, where these bonuses will do the most good. Josh Jordan tweeted last December that even an extra $18/ week goes a long way for working class families:


Josh Jordan
✔
@NumbersMuncher
I'd be careful mocking an $18/week tax cut for working families. That $18/week could be a swimming lesson, an afternoon at the movies, school supplies, or an every-other-week dinner out for the family. What might seem little to you might feel like a bonus to many others.
7:17 PM - Dec 20, 2017
1,116 1,116 Replies 4,709 4,709 Retweets 17,286 17,286 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Josh Jordan
✔
@NumbersMuncher
First off - a half a person is going to have a hard time doing swimming lessons or going out to eat.

Second - I'm glad you think $36 can't even feed one person.

Glad to see you're not at all out of touch. https://twitter.com/ejwillingham/status ... 2340247552 …
8:53 PM - Dec 20, 2017
10 10 Replies 8 8 Retweets 46 46 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Josh Jordan
✔
@NumbersMuncher
Fast food absolutely can be a "dinner out" for families - *especially* with kids. Or going out for pizza. Or going to Chuck-E-Cheese so the kids can play.

But yeah- keep mocking the idea that some families view that as going out. That's how I grew up and I thought it was great. https://twitter.com/jessespector/status ... 5819330560 …
7:59 PM - Dec 20, 2017
24 24 Replies 31 31 Retweets 103 103 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Is $1,000 being crumbs really going to be the rallying cry, as this tax bill becomes more popular? You betted against the American worker, you put the middle class in the crosshairs, and you voted against a better job-creating climate all because you wanted to see Trump fail. And now, you’re going to bitch that the bonuses companies are giving their workers because of the better economic climate, a climate you voted against, are too small. Children, you lost. And I have a feeling you’re going to continue to get kicked in the teeth for opposing this tax bill.

[the whispering eye]

Kimberly Clark laying of 5,500:

http://www.businessinsider.com/kimberly ... uts-2018-1

AMAZING considering all the crying the liberal snowflakes are doing.
YOU would think KLEENEX sales would be through the roof!!!!!

Maybe a good stock tip would be to invest in pink yarn ( to knit more VAGINA HATS )
WHY cause there is 7 more years OF"THIS TRUMP" !!!!!!!!

[the whispering eye]

EXXON Mobil to invest $50 billion in US over 5 years, citing tax reform.....



Exxon in March said it would spend $20 billion to construct chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas facilities along the coast. The company said at the time it aimed to create 12,000 permanent jobs on the back of the investment.


"These are quality investments for our shareholders that are made even better by tax reform," Woods said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/29/exxon-m ... eform.html

[leftyg]

E

XXON Mobil to invest $50 billion in US over 5 years, citing tax reform.....



Exxon in March said it would spend $20 billion to construct chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas facilities along the coast. The company said at the time it aimed to create 12,000 permanent jobs on the back of the investment.


"These are quality investments for our shareholders that are made even better by tax reform," Woods said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/29/exxon-m ... eform.html

Let's not worry about what they say, lets see what they do, and lets see what other corporations do as well. They will publicize this stuff because they want the tax cuts to buy back stock and give lavish bonuses for executives. Let's see how much trickles down to workers and to customers because the historical track record is not good. https://aneconomicsense.org/2017/10/18/ ... eal-wages/ This is what the link says

A recently released report from the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) claims that cutting the headline corporate income tax rate from the current 35% to 20% would lead to a jump in the real incomes of American households by a minimum of $4,000 a year and possibly by as much as $9,000. Others have criticized those forecasts for a variety of reasons, and Larry Summers has called the estimates “absurd”.


Indeed, they are absurd. One way to see this is by looking at the historical evidence. This is not the first time the US would cut its corporate tax rates. Did such cuts in the past then lead to a jump in real wages? As the chart above suggests, the answer is no. This blog post will discuss that evidence, as well as other issues with the CEA analysis prepared under (and it appears largely by) its new chair Kevin Hassett. But first some background on the CEA and its new chair, and what this recent incident portends for the Council and its previous reputation for professionalism.

[JuicedTruth]

Chesapeake Energy lays off 13% of it's staff:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/chesape ... oyees.html

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/01/31/heh-former-dnc-employee-gets-tax-reform-bonus-n2442041
Heh: Former DNC Aide Sheepishly Admits Receiving Tax Reform Bonus, US Wages and Benefits Rise in 2017
By Guy Benson |Posted: Jan 31, 2018

Democrats didn't have a fun evening at the State of the Union Tuesday night, glowering through the entire speech, and often declining to clap for typically-universal applause lines. Despite one reporter's efforts to draw a false equivalency between Republicans' reaction to Obama's annual speeches to what happened this week, Congressional Democrats' conduct was -- to borrow a popular phrase these days -- not normal. The disconnect between the Democrats in the chamber and average Americans was almost instantaneously revealed by CBS and CNN's snap polls, which showed supermajorities of voters who watched approving of what they heard. Those lopsided numbers included lots of Democratic voters, and large majorities of independents. And yet, the angry, embittered resistance demanded the unflinching performance of misery that their elected partisans put on. Some would call it disrespectful. I called it...weird and incongruous:

.@guypbenson on Democrats at the #SOTU: "It looks, I think, just weird to normal Americans when the president's saying unemployment's at a 17-year low... and they look like someone just shot their dog." pic.twitter.com/Iq38zfwYwX

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) January 31, 2018
LISTEN: "They're out of touch with most Americans." - @guypbenson on the Democrats' reactions to the President's first State of the Union address last evening @SandraSmithFox pic.twitter.com/epNl3zSGvg

— America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) January 31, 2018

In any case, many of the scowls were directed at the president's accurate descriptions of America's strong economic performance, especially his recitation of the facts about the results of tax reform -- which have been humiliating for doom-saying Democrats, every one of whom voted 'no' on the succeeding law. Reality is providing daily rebuttals to their over-the-top propaganda and dishonesty. As political strategists would say, each news cycle itself is "on message" for the GOP tax plan, even as other unrelated stories continue to complicate the narrative, and 'Armageddon's' wreckage continues apace. First, out of Wisconsin:

BMO Harris Bank Tuesday joined other banks, like Green Bay-based Associated Bank, in raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour because of the recent changes to the corporate tax rate. BMO Harris, based in Chicago but with a major presence in Milwaukee, said it will also raise its level of community giving by 10 percent in 2018 because of the tax reform law. BMO Harris Bank gave more than $17 million to community groups throughout its U.S. footprint in 2017, emphasizing community and economic development, health and human services, education and the arts..."We're pleased to share the benefits of the strong economic conditions, and the effects of the recent tax reform changes, with our employees and communities," said David Casper, president and CEO, BMO Harris Bank. BMO Harris, a subsidiary of Bank of Montreal (NYSE: BMO), has more than 3,000 employees in the seven-county Milwaukee area and...14,000 total employees...

Next up are these pieces of national news:

U.S. workers’ wages and benefits grew 2.6 percent last year, the fastest 12-month pace since the spring of 2015. The 12-month gain in wages and benefits came despite a slight slowdown at the end of last year with wages and benefits rising 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter, a tiny dip from a 0.7 percent gain in the third quarter, the Labor Department reported Wednesday. Still, the 12-month gain was an improvement from a 2.2 percent gain for the 12 months ending in December 2016...The gain in the employment cost index showed that wages and salaries were up 2.5 percent for the 12 months ending in December while benefits such as employer contributions to health insurance and pension plans rose 2.5 percent. Wages and salaries make up about 70 percent of compensation costs while benefits make up the other 30 percent.

Economists cited in that AP story said that wages should be growing faster, so there's still room for improvement -- but the overall signs and trajectory are positive. As for job growth projections, here's today's ADP estimate:

Private payrolls grow by 234K in January vs. 185K est.: ADP/Moody's Analytics https://t.co/tYyyz68K4B

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) January 31, 2018

The official Labor Department numbers are expected at the end of the week; as we await those, read Jim Geragthy's post agreeing that the US economy is "humming along nicely." Finally, this may be my favorite tweet of the week, via a conservative operative. It seems his friend who used to work at the DNC is reaping the benefits of the exclusively Republican-passed law. You're welcome:

My friend that worked for the DNC texted me this saying, “if I show you something, you can’t rub it in.” They did grant me permission to share this.

Her company recently paid out bonuses because of the GOP tax plan. pic.twitter.com/4Mb2K2SF0J How magnanimous of the DNC to allow her to share this, that she received a bonus because of the GOP tax plan! You see, MAGA is meant for the legal citizens of America, regardless of political affiliation.

— Garrett Ventry (@GarrettVentry) January 30, 2018

This individual is doubly fortunate -- he or she got a tax reform bonus and appears to have gotten out of the DNC just in the nick of time. Yikes. I'll leave you with the charge to make your own joke about the DNC's insolvency and Democrats' fiscal policies.

[Michaels153]

https://www.atr.org/list

Posted by John Kartch on Saturday, February 3rd, 2018, 12:40 PM PERMALINK


316 companies announce tax reform bonuses, raises, or 401(k) hikes

Norquist:“Every two weeks from February to November Americans will be reminded that one party cut their taxes and raised their pay. And the other tried to stop it.”

At least 316 companies have announced tax reform bonuses, pay raises, or 401(k) hikes, according to a running list compiled by Americans for Tax Reform, found at www.atr.org/list

Democrats and most media outlets continue to dismiss or altogether ignore the good news about tax reform. American workers do not agree with the “crumbs” comments of Democrat Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/economy-to-grow-at-5-point-4-percent-rate-in-first-quarter-atlanta-fed-tracker-shows.html
Economy to grow at 5.4% rate in first quarter, Atlanta Fed tracker shows
The Atlanta Fed updated its rolling look at the U.S. economy, projecting that GDP would grow 5.4 percent in the first quarter.
If the forecast holds, it would be the strongest quarter since the economic recovery began and would more than double the typical annualized growth during the period.

[Michaels153]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/02/08/cvs-gets-in-on-tax-cut-benefits/
CVS Gets in on Tax Cut Benefits
Feb 8, 2018

RUSH: Another company has decided to get in on the great big benefits of the tax cuts. CVS. Not CBS, CVS, the pharmacy people, where half of America spends its day, at the pharmacy. Here’s the big news. “CVS to Hike Wages, Introduce Paid Parental Leave with Windfall from New Tax Law — CVS Health will increase employee pay and sweeten benefits to some employees using a portion of the company’s windfall from the new tax law.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/cvs-hikes-wages-and-announces-q4-earnings.html
CVS to hike wages, introduce paid parental leave with windfall from new tax law
CVS will raise wages for hourly employees and plans to increase pay for many of its full-time employees.
CVS Health posted better-than-expected fourth quarter results.
A CVS Pharmacy store is seen in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., November 30, 2017.
Shannon Stapleton | Reuters
A CVS Pharmacy store is seen in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., November 30, 2017.
CVS Health will increase employee pay and sweeten benefits to some employees using a portion of the company's windfall from the new tax law.

CVS will boost starting pay for hourly employees to $11 per hour from $9 per hour, starting in April. Pay ranges and rates will be adjusted for many of its retail pharmacy technicians, front store associates and other hourly retail employees later in the year. Full-time employees will qualify for as much as four weeks of paid parental leave, and worker health-care premiums will hold steady at current rates.

The health-care company has more than 240,000 employees.

Retailers have started hiking their minimum wages to remain competitive in a tightening labor market. Numerous big names have announced raises and added benefits since President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December.

Healthy Returns
Investing In Health Care Innovation
March 28, 2018 | New York City, NY
LEARN MORE
Walmart, the world's largest private employer, last month said it would increase its starting pay to $11, give one-time bonuses to some employees and expand its parental and maternity leave policy.

CVS' stores are key to its proposed $69 billion acquisition of health insurer Aetna. The pair want to create an integrated health system that combines pharmacy and health benefits while delivering preventive care services through the drugstore chain's retail clinics. Shareholders are slated to vote on the deal on March 20.

The news came as CVS reported its fourth-quarter results, which were better than analysts expected on both the top and bottom line.

Net income in the latest quarter rose to $3.29 billion, or $3.22 per share, from $1.71 billion, or $1.59 per share, in the year-earlier quarter.

Earnings in the latest period, included a $1.5 billion benefit related to the new tax law. After stripping out special items, such as the tax gain and a $56 million charge related to the proposed acquisition of Aetna, the company earned $1.92 per share, above analysts' estimates of $1.89 cents per share.

CVS' revenue grew 5 percent to $48.39 billion from $45.97 billion in the year earlier. Its pharmacy services revenue surged 9.3 percent from the year-ago quarter, reaching $34.15 billion, up from $31.26 billion.

Same-store sales for the pharmacy chain's front store, which doesn't include pharmacy, dipped 0.7 percent in the quarter, though a particularly bad cold and flu season helped boost traffic a bit.

"As much as CVS is forward thinking and innovative in health, it is an extraordinarily unimaginative and backward-looking retailer," said Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail. "This is one of the reasons why front of store sales are still in negative territory despite very weak prior year comparatives and a boost to sales from remedies for a particularly nasty flu and cold season."

Shares of CVS fell about 5 percent on Thursday.

CVS said the employee investments will total about $425 million annually. This spending includes the wage increases and improved benefits.

The company also anticipates spending at least $275 million of the tax windfall on investments in the business, including data analytics, care management solutions and pilot programs.

"The only thing we can think of for why the stock is down today is because a lot of these investments are going to be long-term phenomenons," said Edward Jones analyst John Boylan. "We think over the long-term they will help the company, but we think that's already reflected in the stock price."

As a result of these investments, the company expects operating profit for the year to be in the range of down 1.5 percent to up 1.5 percent. Previously, CVS expected growth between 1 percent and 4 percent.

For the first quarter, CVS now anticipates operating profit growth between 0.5 percent and 4.5 percent.

CVS expects the tax law changes to add $1.2 billion to its cash flow.

By Angelica LaVito

[Michaels153]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-on-pace-for-5th-win-in-a-row-helped-by-ciscos-earnings-driven-jump-2018-02-15
Stocks close higher for fifth straight session as Dow reclaims 25,000-level
Published: Feb 15, 2018

[quoteThe Dow rose to close above the 25,000 mark Thursday for the first time in nearly two weeks as U.S. stocks finished higher for a fifth straight session in volatile trade.

Wall Street opened solidly higher but subsequently lost ground before recouping losses, supported by the latest data on inflation and the labor market, which pointed to an economy that was growing but in no imminent danger of overheating. Strong results at Cisco also highlighted how American corporations continue to fare well in the current environment.

How did the main benchmarks perform?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +1.23% rose 306.88 points, or 1.2%, to 25,200.37. The S&P 500 SPX, +1.21% added 32.57 points, or 1.2%, to 2,731.20. The Nasdaq Composite COMP, +1.58% gained 112.81 points, or 1.6%, to 7,256.43.

So far this week, the Dow and the S&P are both up more than 4% and on track for their biggest weekly percentage rise since November 2016. The Nasdaq is up over 5%, which represents its best week since October 2014.][/quote]

[Michaels153]

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/full-employment

Full Employment
By Clive Crook
Updated on February 2, 2018, 8:48 AM EST

The U.S. expansion has put millions of people back to work and economists agree that the economy is now at or close to full employment.

This is real news, and real progress. It is great news. Obama wanted people to believe that the days of United States prosperity were over, that we had to get used to his new normal's. To paraphrase an old line: The news of the United States death have been greatly exaggerated.

[leftyg]

This is real news, and real progress. It is great news. Obama wanted people to believe that the days of United States prosperity were over, that we had to get used to his new normal's. To paraphrase an old line: The news of the United States death have been greatly exaggerated.

Obama created mdore jobs in his last 12 months than Trump created in his first 12 As a matter of fact Trumps first year was below the average of Obama's last six according to that communist rag Forbes Magazine https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones ... c3228825ab.

[Michaels153]

Obama was a jerk, and if he is remembered for anything other than that it will because he paid a Madison Avenue firm millions of dollars for a PR campaign.
And if you compare, compare equally. Compare your jerk's last 12 months of job creation with President Trump's last 12 months.

[leftyg]

O

bama was a jerk, and if he is remembered for anything other than that it will because he paid a Madison Avenue firm millions of dollars for a PR campaign.
And if you compare, compare equally. Compare your jerk's last 12 months of job creation with President Trump's last 12 months.

That is a truly idiotic response. Here is what the data says:

A better measure of Trump’s track record on jobs is that 2.1 million jobs were added last year. It’s a healthy amount of hiring, especially given the United States is in the midst of one of the longest expansions in history. But it is less than in prior years. Under President Obama, 2.2 million jobs were added in 2016, 2.7 million jobs in 2015 and 3 million jobs in 2014. In fact, last year’s job growth was the slowest since 2012.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 15755f02f8

BTW Obama was rated the 8th best president ever by a recent poll; Trump was rated last (44th). Michaels you are really begin to lose this argument. You call me a liar when I give facts and yourself a Christian seer of truth when you spread speculation and rumors. It is just your good luck that I have to go to work now. When I get home I will slap you around on the other topics some more.

[Michaels153]

You will continue to compare this president with the previous occupant in the white house but as time goes on you will have less to celebrate. There is nothing for you to celebrate here yet I don't want you to have another relapse from your therapy.
Before you completely leave this reality, remember that I tried to encourage you to use an apples to apples approach in making comparisons. Comparing the last to the first of anything by the previous occupant in the white house to President Trump is not "apples to apples." Why didn't you compare the polling numbers to where President Trump is now, to the same time period of the previous occupant?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/8/trump-approval-rating-tops-obamas-same-point-presi/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwuzLl-XI2QIVx7XACh1iHw4REAAYASAAEgJiWPD_BwE
Trump’s approval rating tops Obama’s at same point in presidency
Why didn't you compare President Trump's reception at Davos to the previous occupant in the white house?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/davos-diary-rock-star-trump-steals-show-at-world-economic-forum/story-5WvXJvKoYV4yJRYDZ6yldN.html
Davos Diary: Rock star Trump steals show at World Economic Forum.
Maybe it was because Obama never went to Davos?

[leftyg]

Y

ou will continue to compare this president with the previous occupant in the white house but as time goes on you will have less to celebrate. There is nothing for you to celebrate here yet I don't want you to have another relapse from your therapy.

Therapy? Did you observe me while you were waiting for your appointment?

First, I will not rejoice if Trump screws up. Obama left him a great legacy. It is his to blow, and I hope he does not. (no lies, do some research)

Before you completely leave this reality, remember that I tried to encourage you to use an apples to apples approach in making comparisons. Comparing the last to the first of anything by the previous occupant in the white house to President Trump is not "apples to apples." Why didn't you compare the polling numbers to where President Trump is now, to the same time period of the previous occupant?

According to 538,com that is because they used the Rassmussen Tracking poll which is favorable to Republicans:

The president was perhaps referring to Rasmussen Reports latest poll results on Thursday. The poll, which often has a much higher approval rating for the Republican than other national surveys, showed Trump had a 46 percent approval rating and a 53 percent disapproval rating.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval- ... ong-764720
If you use an average of all polls Obama creams Trump. So an "apples to apples" comparison does favor Presidnet Obama, America's 8th greatest president over Trump, currently ranked 44th of 44. http://freebeacon.com/politics/presiden ... ghth-best/

Why didn't you compare President Trump's reception at Davos to the previous occupant in the white house?

Becasue the folks at Davos were primarily concerned with the needs of the top one tenth of one percent, the uber rich.

[Michaels153]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-hold-steady-as-a-nervous-wait-for-jobs-data-begins-2018-03-09
Dow closes above 25,000 while Nasdaq finishes at a record as stocks rally
By MARK DECAMBRE and Sue Chang
Published: Mar 9, 2018 4:39 p.m. ET

The U.S. created 313,000 new jobs in February, the biggest gain since mid-2016 and a reflection of the strongest labor market in two decades. Economists polled by MarketWatch had predicted a 222,000 increase in nonfarm jobs. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1%. Hourly pay rose 4 cents, or 0.1%, to $26.75 an hour, the government said Friday. Economists polled by MarketWatch had been expecting average hourly earnings to have risen 0.2%, after a 0.3% gain in January, with an overall jobs gain of 220,000. The subdued rise in wage growth for the month helped to ease worries about runaway inflation.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2018/03/08/arizona-walmart-employees-to-receive-12-5-million.html
Arizona Walmart employees to receive $12.5 million in bonuses
By Ilana Lowery – Editor in Chief, Phoenix Business Journal
Mar 8, 2018,

Recent changes in federal corporate tax law have been a boon to employees at companies across Arizona, including those who work for Walmart Inc. (NYSE: WMT). The Arkansas-based retail giant is doling out $12.5 million in bonuses to associates in the state.
The Arizona bonuses are part of more than $560 million earned nationwide in fourth-quarter performance-based bonuses and tenure-based one-time cash bonuses, according to Walmart officials.....
Walmart joins the ranks of other large companies such as Phoenix-based U-Haul, which handed out bonuses of more than $23.5 million to 28,940 employees after Congress approved a bill last year that substantially reduces the corporate tax rate.

Cox Communications Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase, Starbucks and other national companies also are giving out bonuses and pay raises to employees as a result of the tax cuts.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/03/09/the-epic-trump-economic-turnaround/
The Epic Trump Economic Turnaround
Mar 9, 2018

...Jobs Obama said would not be coming back, jobs Obama… During the campaign when Trump was talking about reviving the manufacturing sector, Obama’s out there making fun of it and mocking it by saying (impression), “What’s he gonna do, wave a magic wand?“Those jobs are gone! Theeeey’re not coming back,” and here they are. They are roaring back. Donald Trump — in less than a year and a half — has more than made up for the stagnation and the decline that was the United States economy for the entirety of the eight-year Barack Obama presidency. This is remarkable.
Make no mistake: This is not some cyclical recovery. This is not a cyclical rebound. This is a policy- and confidence-driven, substantive economic turnaround,

...The number of employed Americans has set a record, the eighth record of the Trump administration (which is not even a year and a half old) of 155,215,000 employed Americans. But you go even deeper. Manufacturing jobs. There were 31,000 new manufacturing jobs in February. The total number: 263,000 brand-new manufacturing jobs under Donald Trump. These were numbers Obama could not have realized in eight years, ladies and gentlemen — and didn’t —And President Trump has done this in less than a year and a half!

[leftyg]

I see you resorted to your old safety positions: anecdotal evidence and the mentations of Rush Limbaugh.

It is nice to know that the employees at a Walmart in Arizona received a bonus. BUT it is just an anecdote, and if it stand by itself it is by definition a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/1 ... worthless/ The fact that some peole in Arizona got a bonus is interesting and maybe a starting point for a conversation, but it hardly proves anything.

For "proof" you go to Rush Limbaugh who said:

...Jobs Obama said would not be coming back, jobs Obama… During the campaign when Trump was talking about reviving the manufacturing sector, Obama’s out there making fun of it and mocking it by saying (impression), “What’s he gonna do, wave a magic wand?“Those jobs are gone! Theeeey’re not coming back,” and here they are. They are roaring back. Donald Trump — in less than a year and a half — has more than made up for the stagnation and the decline that was the United States economy for the entirety of the eight-year Barack Obama presidency. This is remarkable.
Make no mistake: This is not some cyclical recovery. This is not a cyclical rebound. This is a policy- and confidence-driven, substantive economic turnaround,

...The number of employed Americans has set a record, the eighth record of the Trump administration (which is not even a year and a half old) of 155,215,000 employed Americans. But you go even deeper. Manufacturing jobs. There were 31,000 new manufacturing jobs in February. The total number: 263,000 brand-new manufacturing jobs under Donald Trump. These were numbers Obama could not have realized in eight years, ladies and gentlemen — and didn’t —And President Trump has done this in less than a year and a half!

First, what Limbaugh just said is a pack of lies Job growth was greater under Obama as even Fox News admits:

Trump’s low 171,000 jobs was the lowest average monthly job growth since 2010 when only 88,000 jobs were added to the economy each month. That, however, was to be expected as the country was trying to pull out of a massive recession.

https://thegrio.com/2018/01/06/fox-news ... ama-trump/

But ignorance is bliss for Trump supporters like you. President Obama had the longest sustained job growth in our countries history https://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/06 ... years.html

Forbes even said Obama outperformed Ronald Reagan on jobs growth https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartun ... a725057701 And in fact when Obama came into office the unemployment rate was 7.8%, when he left it was 4.8; when Reagan came into office unemployment was 7.5%, when he left it was 5.4% https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

So Rush is lying. Period. Btw, I heard him say that lie on Friday. All you have to do to find out what he said was a lie was do a little research. Even conservatives know Obama created more jobs. Rush Limbaugh is a liar.

[Michaels153]

I see you resorted to your old safety positions: anecdotal evidence and the mentations of Rush Limbaugh. Anecdotes have their place. I am going to keep using them, and I am going to continue to material from the Rush Limbaugh broadcasts

It is nice to know that the employees at a Walmart in Arizona received a bonus. Ye it is, so why can't you just accept the good news?BUT it is just an anecdote, and if it stand by itself it is by definition a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.Falsely stated. I am just sharing some news here. But if it was a fallacy, which this isn't, if you were to claim that this news is not true then wouldn't you be guilty of committing the fallacy fallacy. But we are just talking about hypothetical's here because we both know of these fallacies, and we would never commit them. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/1 ... worthless/ I could give several reasons why that reference was worthlessThe fact that some peole in Arizona got a bonus is interesting and maybe a starting point for a conversation, but it hardly proves anything. Who is trying to prove anything here? I am just sharing some good news.

For "proof" you go to Rush Limbaugh who said:

...Jobs Obama said would not be coming back, jobs Obama… During the campaign when Trump was talking about reviving the manufacturing sector, Obama’s out there making fun of it and mocking it by saying (impression), “What’s he gonna do, wave a magic wand?“Those jobs are gone! Theeeey’re not coming back,” and here they are. They are roaring back. Donald Trump — in less than a year and a half — has more than made up for the stagnation and the decline that was the United States economy for the entirety of the eight-year Barack Obama presidency. This is remarkable.
Make no mistake: This is not some cyclical recovery. This is not a cyclical rebound. This is a policy- and confidence-driven, substantive economic turnaround,

...The number of employed Americans has set a record, the eighth record of the Trump administration (which is not even a year and a half old) of 155,215,000 employed Americans. But you go even deeper. Manufacturing jobs. There were 31,000 new manufacturing jobs in February. The total number: 263,000 brand-new manufacturing jobs under Donald Trump. These were numbers Obama could not have realized in eight years, ladies and gentlemen — and didn’t —And President Trump has done this in less than a year and a half!

First, what Limbaugh just said is a pack of lies Job growth was greater under Obama as even Fox News admits:

Trump’s low 171,000 jobs was the lowest average monthly job growth since 2010 when only 88,000 jobs were added to the economy each month. That, however, was to be expected as the country was trying to pull out of a massive recession. Limbaugh talked about Manufacturing jobs. Go back and read the post.

https://thegrio.com/2018/01/06/fox-news ... ama-trump/ [color=#FF0000Again, Rush reports about manufacturing jobs and you post a table on the monthly average of all jobs. You also post eight years when Trump has not even gone halfway thru his first term][/color]

But ignorance is bliss for Trump supporters like you. President Obama had the longest sustained job growth in our countries history https://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/06 ... years.html You keep comparing Obama's eight years to President Trump. Ask somebody how many many years that President Trump has been president.

Forbes even said Obama outperformed Ronald Reagan on jobs growth https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartun ... a725057701 And in fact when Obama came into office the unemployment rate was 7.8%, when he left it was 4.8; when Reagan came into office unemployment was 7.5%, when he left it was 5.4% https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

So Rush is lying. Rush is not lying, I look at what he said, and then I looked at what you wrote. I know what a true liar is. You have provided many examples.Period. Btw, I heard him say that lie on Friday. All you have to do to find out what he said was a lie was do a little research. All you have to do is actually read the posts or have someone read and explain it to so you don't make posts like the ones above.Even conservatives know Obama created more jobs. Rush Limbaugh is a liar.

[leftyg]

Anecdotes have their place. I am going to keep using them, and I am going to continue to material from the Rush Limbaugh broadcasts

You are going to continue to use information from his broadcast even though I have proven he is a liar. And I have led you to the water of wisdom on the efficacy of anecdotes, but evidently you refuse to drink (think).

Limbaugh talked about Manufacturing jobs. Go back and read the post

. Manufacturing is just one sector. Since the bottom of the recession, 805 thousand manufaturing jobs were created on Obama's watch. But like it or not, employment in manufacturing is going down as more and more Americans work in service or high tech. We will see how these particular jobs hold up. You know we had a lot more farmers in 1900 than we do now, because fewer people are needed as so many systems are automated. The same is true in industry. The important thing is that there were more jobs created during the Obama years than so far during the Trump years.

You keep comparing Obama's eight years to President Trump. Ask somebody how many many years that President Trump has been president.

The comparison I made was jobs created per month. I hope Trump only gets four years (or less). But know this: only one Republican president since World War II has left office with a net decrease in unemployment. Trump is nearing full employment which employers do not like because it confers too much wage power on employees.

Rush is not lying, I look at what he said, and then I looked at what you wrote. I know what a true liar is. You have provided many examples

In Bizarro World, I am a liar and Trump and Limbaugh are the truth tellers. Again can you give one instance where I have lied and one where either Limbaugh or Trump told the truth?

You know you are a typical Trump voter: facts mean nothig to you; Stormy Daniels means nothing to you; 19 allegations of sexual misconduct mean nothing to you; firing a loyal employee by twitter instead of privately means nothing to you; telling thousands of lies means nothing to you!

All you have to do is actually read the posts or have someone read and explain it to so you don't make posts like the ones above.

All I have to do is narrow the definition of employment to just "manufacturing jobs" and focus only on that facet of employment. At least you must admit that in all other areas, Obama put up better numbers.

This is the funny point of all this: you were caught supporting a know liar, but you switch the subject from jobs to manufacturing jobs. About 12.5 million Americans are employed in manufacturing out of a workforce of 155 plus million people. That is about eight percent (8%) of all employed workers. I suppose you do not care about the other 92%. The world is changing. But to a person who believes in anecdotes and Rush Limbaugh (not to mention Trump) and disbelieves and calls people liars because they do not agree with him, the use of reason and logic is probably useless. And you Michaels are such a person.

[Michaels153]

[/b][/color][/quote] You are going to continue to use information from his broadcast even though I have proven he is a liar. You are caught making a straw man out of Mr. Limbaugh's reporting on the manufacturing jobs, and you use your straw man to call him a liar. You straw man a lot of posts and don't bother to read or respond appropriately to others. I am perfectly willing to let others who read my posts decide for themselves who is lying.

Limbaugh talked about Manufacturing jobs. Go back and read the post

. Manufacturing is just one sector. Since the bottom of the recession, 805 thousand manufaturing jobs were created on Obama's watch. ? Fact Check.Org said that Josh Ernest cherry picked the 805,000 manufacturing jobs number, and reminded everyone that Under Obama's entire presidency, there was a net loss of 303,000 manufacturing jobs.
ttps://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/obamas-record-on-manufacturing-jobs/
THE WIRE
Obama’s Record on Manufacturing Jobs
By D'Angelo Gore
Posted on December 1, 2016

...Manufacturing employment was 12,258,000 in October 2016, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s down 303,000 from the number employed in January 2009, the same month that Obama was sworn in as president.

To make his point, Earnest just ignored all of the job losses that occurred during the first 13 months of Obama’s presidency.

Share The Facts
Josh Earnest
White House Press Secretary

"There were 805,000 manufacturing jobs that weren’t just protected or saved, but actually created while President Obama was in office."
Press briefing – Wednesday, November 30, 2016

But like it or not, employment in manufacturing is going down as more and more Americans work in service or high tech. We will see how these particular jobs hold up. You know we had a lot more farmers in 1900 than we do now, because fewer people are needed as so many systems are automated. The same is true in industry. The important thing is that there were more jobs created during the Obama years than so far during the Trump years. The accurate thing to say is that more total jobs were created during the Obama years than thus far in President
Trump's administration. That is not the important thing here. It is a starting point regarding the ongoing employment needs of our country. But this is more than a numbers thing. It is also an issue of sustainability. Manufacturing is just one sector and like farming it has been going down for the reasons that you have stated. This was once a source of great pride in this country and it is must adapt to the growing and changing needs of the global economy. Our economy needs the manufacturing sector to grow and improve because we cannot survive just on the efforts of the high tech industry and our service workers.

You keep comparing Obama's eight years to President Trump. Ask somebody how many many years that President Trump has been president.

The comparison I made was jobs created per month. I hope Trump only gets four years (or less). But know this: only one Republican president since World War II has left office with a net decrease in unemployment. Trump is nearing full employment which employers do not like because it confers too much wage power on employees.

Rush is not lying, I look at what he said, and then I looked at what you wrote. I know what a true liar is. You have provided many examples

In Bizarro World, I am a liar and Trump and Limbaugh are the truth tellers. Again can you give one instance where I have lied and one where either Limbaugh or Trump told the truth? Yes.

You know you are a typical Trump voter: facts mean nothig to you; Stormy Daniels means nothing to you; 19 allegations of sexual misconduct mean nothing to you; firing a loyal employee by twitter instead of privately means nothing to you; telling thousands of lies means nothing to you! Your interpretation of life means nothing to me.

All you have to do is actually read the posts or have someone read and explain it to so you don't make posts like the ones above.

All I have to do is narrow the definition of employment to just "manufacturing jobs" and focus only on that facet of employment. At least you must admit that in all other areas, Obama put up better numbers. In "all other areas" that is absurd. In the total number of jobs provided during Obamas presidency, that is different, and I previously agreed that there were more total jobs created during the Obama years.

This is the funny point of all this: you were caught supporting a known liar, I have never " supported" you. I have agreed from time to time when you accidently fell upon the truth.but you switch the subject from jobs to manufacturing jobs. No you made a straw man switching from what Mr.
Limbaugh reported on what Obama had said about the manufacturing jobs not coming back, and about the number of manufacturing jobs reported in February.

About 12.5 million Americans are employed in manufacturing out of a workforce of 155 plus million people. That is about eight percent (8%) of all employed workers. I suppose you do not care about the other 92%.

I believe in trying to build up our whole country. How concerned are you about the number of people who are not working in this country? During the Obama years you seem to accept anything that Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats used as an excuse for those people.

The world is changing. Stop the presses, Somebody call Time magazine. They can do a separate edition on this discovery by LL.But to a person who believes in anecdotes anecdotes are real. I believe in reality. and Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh is real. I believe in reality.(not to mention Trump) No don't be shy here. I do believe in Trump. He is real. He is making a really positive impact on this country. and disbelieves It's true. I do not believe in the lies of liberalism. I do not believe in the babblings of the Left. I do not believe in the lie of Atheism. And I do call out people who lie, when they lie. That is a policy (to call out liars) that you advocated.

[leftyg]

You are caught making a straw man out of Mr. Limbaugh's reporting on the manufacturing jobs, and you use your straw man to call him a liar. You straw man a lot of posts and don't bother to read or respond appropriately to others. I am perfectly willing to let others who read my posts decide for themselves who is lying.

First, that was not a straw man argument. I took the version put up on the screen. It was Limbaugh who made the straw man* argument when he impersonated President Obama when Limbaugh said in Obama voice

“What’s he gonna do, wave a magic wand?“Those jobs are gone! Theeeey’re not coming back,”

President Obama worked hard on the economy and 805 thousand manufacturing jobs were created on his watch after the recession bottomed out.

^A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".


So lets tote up: you called me a liar without evidence and you accuse me of a straw man argument when, in fact, it was Limbaugh who has done both. It is very common of the right wing to say things about a pesky opponent, like me, that really applies to them. And honestly Michaels, I think you are caught up defending your heroes who are really lairs and purveyors of the straw man argument. So henceforth when you criticize me and lie about me, I will simply assume you are talking about Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump. Further, I think most rational readers will see both of us as old men with nothing better to do, and they will see you as a die hard Trump supporter which will make them shake their heads.

You go on to address the use of job statistics and what numbers mean:

accurate thing to say is that more total jobs were created during the Obama years than thus far in President Trump's administration. That is not the important thing here. It is a starting point regarding the ongoing employment needs of our country. But this is more than a numbers thing. It is also an issue of sustainability. Manufacturing is just one sector and like farming it has been going down for the reasons that you have stated. This was once a source of great pride in this country and it is must adapt to the growing and changing needs of the global economy. Our economy needs the manufacturing sector to grow and improve because we cannot survive just on the efforts of the high tech industry and our service workers

First, those numbers were averages. Obama created more jobs in his last twelve months than Trump did in his first twelve, 2.24 million for Obama in 2016, 2.06 million for Trump in 2017 http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/ec ... index.html

In "all other areas" that is absurd. In the total number of jobs provided during Obamas presidency, that is different, and I previously agreed that there were more total jobs created during the Obama years.

Good, at least you understand that.

Then when I accuse you of supporting a liar (Trump or Limbaugh, take your pick), Michaels quips:

I have never " supported" you. I have agreed from time to time when you accidently fell upon the truth

.

Then you add:

No you made a straw man switching from what Mr. Limbaugh reported on what Obama had said about the manufacturing jobs not coming back,

which of course is funny because that is what Limbaugh did, create a straw man for him to defeat. Notice that Limbaguh never has guests, especially ones with opposing views. He is a coward.

you write saying

I believe in trying to build up our whole country. How concerned are you about the number of people who are not working in this country? During the Obama years you seem to accept anything that Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats used as an excuse for those people.

. I think we have to build infrasturcture, but why then di d Trump use that money for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires which are clearly not necessary. As a stimuluation for the economy tax cuts for corporations and the rich are about the last thing you want to do as this chart by Mark Zandi of Moody Analytics shows

Bangforthebuck.png (134.75 KiB) Viewed 103744 times

Notice that infrastructure clicks in at $1.57 for every dollar spent, while corporate tax cuts offer only 32 cents of return for every dollar spent. But Trump made his choice, and America's workers will have to live with it.

[JuicedTruth]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toys ... SKCN1GQ36S

Toys R Us plans to liquidate, 33,000 jobs at risk.

[hmmmmm]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toys-r-us-bankruptcy/toys-r-us-plans-to-close-all-u-s-stores-33000-jobs-at-risk-source-idUSKCN1GQ36S

Toys R Us plans to liquidate, 33,000 jobs at risk.

and ???????????????????

[leftyg]

and ???????????????????

If you have been following this thread, Michaels has constantly been usin anecdotes to defend Trumps tax cuts and his economic program. JT was simly giving it back to him after his efforts and mine to get Michaels to view empirical data failed. That should answer your querry.

[JuicedTruth]

LL Bean laying off 100 and no staff bonuses this year:

https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/03/16 ... r-in-2017/

[Michaels153]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toys-r-us-bankruptcy/toys-r-us-plans-to-close-all-u-s-stores-33000-jobs-at-risk-source-idUSKCN1GQ36S

Toys R Us plans to liquidate, 33,000 jobs at risk.

Bankrupt Toys ‘R’ Us Inc is preparing to sell or close all 885 stores in its U.S. chain, risking up to 33,000 jobs, after failing to reach a deal to restructure billions of dollars in debt, ...
In Britain, the remaining 75 Toys ‘R’ Us shops will close within six weeks,...
Toys ‘R’ Us is also likely to liquidate in France, Spain, Poland and Australia, Brandon said, according to The Wall Street Journal. It quoted Brandon as adding that the retailer also planned to sell operations in Canada, Central Europe and Asia.

The company explained that the reason for their demise was that shoppers were choosing to go to places like Amazon and that children were choosing electronic gadgets over toys. As can be seen by the international closings, the store was having problems everywhere and not just in the United States.
Whatever the reason or reasons it still is sad when anyone loses their job.
This reminds me when FAO Schwarz closed its doors in Chicago and New York in 2015. I never bought anything from Toys R Us, but I did buy items from FAO Schwarz in its Chicago and New York stores.
This also reminds me of when Borders book store closed back in 2011.

[Michaels153]

LL Bean laying off 100 and no staff bonuses this year:

https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/03/16 ... r-in-2017/

[quote]In a memo to the staff, company President and CEO Steve Smith said 2017 was a difficult year for the retailer, with problems including a slight drop in sales and shipping problems related to a systems upgrade.

“As you know, 2017 was a very challenging year for L.L. Bean, as we continue to operate in a very dynamic, ever-evolving and uncertain retail environment,” Smith said in the memo.

In addition, L.L. Bean incurred added costs associated with upgrades to its order fulfillment and human resources systems, a significant change in its lifetime product guarantee policy, and early retirement packages offered to hundreds of veteran staff members, Smith said. The combination of those factors led to the decision not to give out annual bonuses for the first time since 2008. ...
Smith said the 100 employees whose jobs are being eliminated will have the opportunity to apply for other available positions. He also noted that about 500 employees accepted an early retirement package offered in February, which will cut costs and better position the company for future growth.

The layoffs and early retirements represent a roughly 10 percent reduction in L.L. Bean’s workforce. The company now employs about 6,000 people, including 2,500 in Freeport.
Regarding the roughly 100 planned layoffs, Smith said those would likely occur by early April. However, he noted that L.L. Bean also will have a need to back-fill roughly 200 essential positions that will be vacated as a result of the early retirements.

It seems that L.L. Bean is in better shape than Toy's R Us. and that the changes made by the company will help to strengthen it and as noted in the article there were improvements made for the workers in 2017,
and i am sure those improvements along with the flat sales and other changes required the type of readjustments that have been made. At least here, the L.L. Bean company will be able to offer those employees whose jobs are being eliminated a chance to remain in the company in other positions. The article notes that there are "roughly" 100 planned layoffs with roughly 200 newly opened positions, "essential positions" that will be vacated by early retirement.

Well thanks for the news JuicedTruth. I noticed that you did not have anything to say when Borders book stores closed. You also did not post anything about FAO Schwartz closing.

Let me give you a heads up for your next sour grapes edition. ADP is working to consolidate some of its present sites into mega centers. As they go about their plan, there will be layoffs for some, while others will be able to either work from home or have the option of reapplying to one of these mega centers. So if you keep an eye out, you may be the first to report it here when it happens.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/03/26/remington-files-for-bankruptcy-n2464684
Remington Files For Bankruptcy
By Leah Barkoukis |Posted: Mar 26, 2018 8:15 AM

According to The Wall Street Journal, a number of factors have contributed to the Chapter 11 filing, including falling sales, a heavy debt load, and lawsuits from the Sandy Hook school shooting.

The 2012 mass shooting severely impacted Remington as the gunman used one of the company’s Bushmaster rifles, leading to a class action wrongful death lawsuit. Nine families of the victims allege Remington is “liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use,” the Wall Street Journal reports. The parties are awaiting the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.

It will be very interesting (Laugh In) to see how the state supreme court rules.

...The Madison, N.C.-based company, which was founded in 1816, will stay in business while restructuring its debt.

[Michaels153]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/03/29/phenomenal-trump-economic-turnaround/
Phenomenal! The Trump Economic Turnaround
Mar 29, 2018

RUSH: There’s some great economic news here today, ladies and gentlemen. Trump’s first-year economic growth is now officially at 2.3%. In Obama’s first year, the economy shrank 2.8%. This is a 5.1% turnaround in economic growth, from minus 2.8% to plus 2.3%. This is simply phenomenal — and remember, Obama was telling us that this was probably the new norm and we needed to get used to it and that his job was to be managing the decline so that the pain was evenly distributed.

The way I look at this is, “Of course the economy grew! We replaced a globalist socialist with a patriotic capitalist. We replaced somebody who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism and greatness with someone who does.” This is stunning. A 5.1% turnaround! We’d have to have a grand total of 5.1% growth overall for these numbers to be accurate. “U.S. Jobless Claims Have Now Dropped to a More Than 45-Year Low.” “Payrolls Continue to Exceed Expectations. Unemployment Rate Nears the Lowest Since Late 2000.”

“Steady Employment Will Help to Sustain Consumer Spending” and so forth. “U.S. Jobless Claims Decline to Lowest in 45 Years.” Forty-five years! And CNN has a new poll out. “President Trump’s approval rating has rebounded to its highest level since the 100-day mark of his presidency,” basically a year ago. It’s a CNN poll conducted by SSRS. The interesting thing here is that Trump’s approval number in the CNN poll is up after the CBS 60 Minutes Stormy Daniels interview and the next-night replay on CNN.

The media is confounded and befuddled.

Financial Times: US Economic Growth Rate Revised Up to 2.9% in Fourth Quarter
Bloomberg: U.S. Jobless Claims Decline to Lowest Level Since January 1973
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/u-s-jobless-claims-decline-to-lowest-level-since-january-1973

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/03/29/trump-tax-bill-devastates-walgreens-by-forcing-to-increase-worker-wages-by-100-m-n2465964
Trump Tax Bill Devastates Walgreens By Forcing It To Increase Worker Wages By $100 Million
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Mar 29, 2018

It’s terrible. The Trump tax bill continues to inflict harm on American workers—and by harm, I mean $1,000+ bonuses and wage increases. For Walgreens, the North Korean-style torture from this legislation led to $100 million in wage increases. Mark that under “didn’t happen under Obama” (via Chicago Tribune):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-walgreens-pay-increase-0329-story.html

The economic benefits from this bill have been endless. Over 250 companies have issued bonuses to over three million workers. It’s created a better economic environment. The fourth quarter GDP growth nearly hit three percent. Consumer and small business confidence have reached record highs. And the middle and working classes are benefitting from the legislation, something that Democrats tried to lie about. Even CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) about the fact that 91 percent of middle class Americans would get a cut last December; Sanders admitted that this is a good thing, though the bill doesn’t go far enough. Yeah, well, maybe if every Democrat didn't stand universally opposed to it, more could have been done—like making the cuts permanent.

And it’s not just Walgreens, McDonalds announced that $150 million would be set aside for employee college tuition assistance (via MLive):

McDonald's Corp. is earmarking $150 million for college-tuition assistance for its employees, the fast food giant announced Wednesday, March 29.

The money will fund its Archways to Opportunity education program, which assists employees with college tuition assistance at community colleges, universities or trade schools and connect them with English language courses and education advising services.

McDonald's said the funding was available through changes in the U.S. tax law implemented by the Trump administration, which lowered the corporate income tax rate.

Eligible crew members can get up to $2,500 and managers up to $3,000 a year in college tuition assistance, starting May 1 and retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year.

Wallethub also noted that low-income families would benefit the most from Trump’s tax bill. So, as you can see, it’s just bringing about the next apocalypse, right?

[Michaels153]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/31/washington-post-praises-trump-economy-herman-cain-reacts
Cain: WaPo Admits Trump Economic Policies Are Working; Not Telling Full Story

Retired business executive Herman Cain said the Washington Post has been forced to admit that President Trump's economic policies are working.

However, the 2012 presidential candidate from Georgia added that the District of Columbia broadsheet isn't telling the "full story" about Trump's successes. They aren't telling the full story about Trump's successes.
Maybe they are experiencing a temporary shortage of paper? Yea that must be it. I am sure when there next order of paper comes in they will fulfill their high journalistic standards and report the full story about Trump's successes

The Post's headline reads "There's A Surprising Rebound in Trump Country, and It Could Be Short Lived."

The piece explains how American locales that voted for Trump in 2016 are excelling at a faster rate than those that didn't. So what your saying in essence is that those who chose to accept the results of the presidential election and stand behind President Trump are prospering, and the sanctuary cities who have not accepted the results of the presidential election, and are ignoring President Trump are not prospering but instead sinking in their morass of lawlessness. Well yea, we see that.

Cain said the Post appears to leave out the fact "the whole country is Trump country" Say it brother! The whole country is Trump country!! now somebody pick up Hilary off of the floor. in this regard - explaining that the economy is better nationwide.

He said that places that were or are economically depressed are improving exponentially compared to others, which makes the places that did not support Donald Trump look less improved. The places that did not support Donald Trump, as President, look less improved Because They are less improved.

Cain praised Trump for pushing American gross domestic product "north of 2.5 percent" and setting the stock market "on fire."

[Michaels153]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/02/two-areas-where-trumps-economy-is-better-than-obamas/?utm_term=.223f129f7a32
Two areas where Trump’s economy is better than Obama’s
By Heather Long February 2

ut there are two clear areas where the economy has improved since Trump won the election: Sentiment is up, and business investment is up.
Right or wrong, people feel better about the economy now. It shows in polls: 66 percent rate the economy as “excellent” or “good,” according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. It also shows in the data Wall Street follows. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index is at a 17-year high, and the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index is at the highest levels since Ronald Reagan was president.

The main reason people feel better about the economy now is that under the impostor, people, especially small businesses were waiting for the next shoe to drop. It wasn't that they were hoarding their money back then it is that they were fearful of taking risks and investing because they were not sure if more taxes were not coming in the following year. The unaffordable medical disaster treaty signed by the impostor and the insurance companies were taking more and more money from the citizens. The impostor said that we (meaning everybody except him, his family, and friends) were going to have to tighten their belts, and that this was to be expected as the new norm. This President, President Trump, does not believe that our greatness lies in the past never to be seen again. His confidence in our country is spreading out. Many people throughout the country, wanting to believe that he is right, wanting to hold their head up high and reach for the stars once again, are more open to taking chances, and making investments in themselves and in their businesses once again. And that is wonderful.

[Michaels153]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/number-of-people-getting-unemployment-benefits-falls-to-44-year-low
Number of people getting unemployment benefits falls to 44-year low
by Joseph Lawler April 05, 2018

The total number of people receiving unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in 44 years in March, the Department of Labor reported Thursday in more good news about the economy.

Altogether, 1.8 million people got unemployment insurance benefits toward the end of March, the smallest such seasonally-adjusted number since the end of December 1973, when the workforce was much smaller and there were fewer people to be laid off.

[JuicedTruth]

MAGA right in our backyard!

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/13/news/co ... index.html

[Michaels153]

GM cutting 1,500 jobs at Ohio plant amid falling demand for small cars
by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney
April 13, 2018: 5:07 PM ET

General Motors is cutting as many as 1,500 jobs Lets say that GM is cutting up to 1,500 jobs at this plant. They may cut less, but they are not planning to cut more than 1,500 at this time. at its massive Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant, taking a factory that was working around the clock as recently as 2016 down to a single shift a day.
The problem is lack of demand for the Chevrolet Cruze, the small car that GM builds at the plant. Sales of the Cruze slid more than 30% between 2014 and 2017, as the market shifted strongly away from small cars to SUVs. Cruze sales have plunged another 26% in the first three months of this year. Consumer's are making the choice to purchase the kind of cars they want. If consumers choose to purchase less of this model, that is not due to President Trump nor his administration. JuicedTruth's swipe at MAGA is a meaningless swipe at both MAGA and President Trump.

GM has also started building a hatchback version of the Cruze at a plant in Mexico, while the Lordstown plant builds only a sedan version. The hatchback accounts for less than 20% of its US sales of the Cruze.
The company announced the latest job cut, which will eliminate half of the current jobs at the plant, on Friday.

Though the latest job cut will eliminate half of the current jobs at the plant, the plant remains open. Which means that this model may still stay in production for now, but at reduced levels.

Senior workers will be offered a buyout package to try to reduce the need for involuntary layoffs, scheduled for June. Some of the affected employees are likely to be able to fill openings at other GM plants.
It is possible that there will be fewer than 1500 people who will loose their jobs
GM eliminated the third shift at the plant in January 2017. But the falling demand for the Cruze meant that the plant had to be shutdown for weeks at a time because the remaining two shifts were more than needed to fill demand.

"As we look at the market for compact cars in 2018 and beyond, we believe a more stable operating approach to match market demand is a one-shift schedule," said GM.

_______________________________________________________________________
Through November of 2017, Jobs Ohio worked on 277 projects with companies that committed to create 19,322 NEW jobs, retain 63,480, and invest a total of 5.3 billion in new capital investments.
...Growing business at Record Levels.: Through October of 2017, nearly 100,000 new entities have filed to do business in the state of Ohio. That's more than 11,0000 new entities than at the same point in 2016. Ohio has become the 5th most improved state in job growth rate. (taken from Governor John Kasich's website, his 2017 Summary Report.

Employment numbers as of February of this year is 5,566,400. Employment numbers at the end of December of 2017 was 5,534,300. The number of people employed since last year has increased by 22,100 so far this year. (This information came from the March 1, 2018 Jobs Ohio report.)

According to the most recent survey data taken for January and February of this year: January survey data stated a loss of 3,573 jobs. February survey dated stated a gain of 6,717 jobs. That is a net gain of 3,144 jobs. (This information came from the Jobs Ohio.[/color]

Without March data, and April being only halfway through, Juiced posts 1,500 jobs being cut from a single plant. That is not good news for the people affected. Subtracting 1,500 from the previous net gain of 3,144 leaves a net gain of 1,644 jobs in Ohio this year.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

[JuicedTruth]

Trump lost Mahoning county by 3 points and won Trumbull county by 6.5 points.

Obama won Mahoning county by nearly 28 points and won Trumbull county by over 22 points.

Those are the two counties most impacted by the Lordstown plant.

I grew up in that area. GM is one of the most important companies in that area. They employ (or at least used to) thousands of people and assembly line jobs paying $50k+ a year and requiring no education are not easy to come by. The loss to that area by the plant shutting down two of three shifts over the past few years is significant. Piddly $1,000 bonuses to WalMart workers or an extra $30 bucks in paychecks from the tax cuts aren't going to make up for a loss like this. GM also has suppliers in the area who also pay good wages and will likely also be impacted by this.

Without March data, and April being only halfway through, Juiced posts 1,500 jobs being cut from a single plant. That is not good news for the people affected. Subtracting 1,500 from the previous net gain of 3,144 leaves a net gain of 1,644 jobs in Ohio this year.

All jobs are not equal. Unless the new jobs added in Ohio are in the same area as the Lordstown plant and pay similar to the jobs that were cut, your point is irrelevant.

This is about an area that desperately needs jobs like the GM plant and had a massive shift from supporting Obama and Democrats to buying into Trump's message.

[Scorpion]

Perhaps GM should switch to producing a model consumers actually want to buy.

[JuicedTruth]

You could say that about any business that isn't doing well. How many sob stories did we have to hear under Obama about how oppressive the government is towards business? Most of the businesses failing then there were failing for reasons other than the government, regulation, and taxes. That all misses the point though...

It ultimately doesn't matter why the business is failing to the people its affecting. That area shifted from D to R substantially in 2016 and one of the areas best employers has cut 2,700 high-paying jobs, 64% of its workforce, since Trump took office. Some people in that area are acting like it's not a big deal because a HomeGoods distribution center wants to build there and create a couple hundred $10 / hour jobs. Trading $20-30 / hour jobs for $10 / hour jobs is not good. You don't need to be trade genius like Trump to figure that out!

[Michaels153]

JuicedTruth: They employ (or at least used to) thousands of people and assembly line jobs paying $50k+ a year and requiring no education are not easy to come by.

There is a reason that those kinds of jobs (earning $50k+ a year and requiring no education) are not easy to come by. More and more work, and thus more and more workers can be substituted with robotics. In the areas that still need workers, those areas are going to have the most competition for workers. It would be nice if good wages stayed the same, but life is not like that. Gone are the livery stables and the blacksmiths, to be replaced by the automobile and the garage mechanic. The entire country's population can not work in an assembly plant making the same model car. The need for that product and those many workers are not there, and are not there for most work. A worker who has a good job with good wages should enjoy it and make the most of it while they can because it will not last. If a person can make enough money to get their needs met then that is the most important thing, and that can be accomplished in a lot of jobs.

JuicedTruth: "All jobs are not equal. Unless the new jobs added in Ohio are in the same area as the Lordstown plant and pay similar to the jobs that were cut, your point is irrelevant.

Yes JuicedTruth, all jobs are not equal. And all opportunities are not equal either. Not everyone can have a factory and employ local workers at 55k+ with no education requirement. Not every area has professional sports teams and stadiums. People learn to deal with the present realities and adjust to them.

[JuicedTruth]

People in that area voted for Trump because all he said he'd bring good jobs back. That's not happening for the area. He can brag about how great the economy is doing, but the midwest that got him elected is not seeing the improvement. And for the Youngstown area that showed him more support than a Republican has ever gotten there, they are now losing some of their best jobs.

[Michaels153]

People in that area voted for Trump because all he said he'd bring good jobs back. That's not happening for the area. He can brag about how great the economy is doing, but the midwest that got him elected is not seeing the improvement. And for the Youngstown area that showed him more support than a Republican has ever gotten there, they are now losing some of their best jobs.

If your definition of "good jobs" is 50k+ a year with no education requirement, I don't think those jobs are coming back to Youngstown, or pretty much anywhere. Obama was telling everybody that the best days of this country were behind us and that we as a country should get used to tightening. our belts and learn to do with less. That is what he referred to as the new norm. President Trump has begun turning things around in this country. He has brought back some jobs from overseas, and there has been job growth throughout the country. The people who voted for President Trump, did not vote for him because they believed that they were going to all get $50k+ jobs per year, or better with no education requirement. But there were some people who voted for Obama believing they were getting free phones, and basically a lot for free.
President Trump will do what he can to help all of America. Some will do better than others, but that has always been the case.
The state of California voted for Hilary Clinton. I found that there are 10 cities in California that have a higher unemployment rate than Youngstown, Ohio. There are also 758 cities in California that have a higher unemployment rate than the state of Ohio.
http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/city-comparison/unemployment-rate.8.htm

And here is an article that shows how some consumers are having an adverse effect on certain jobs.:
http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list-2017-8
'Psychologically scarred' millennials are killing countless industries from napkins to Applebee's — here are the businesses they like the least
Kate Taylor
Oct. 31, 2017

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/04/12/shift-voters-now-crediting-trump-not-obama-for-economic-gains-n2470032
Big Shift: Large Majority of Voters Now Crediting Trump, Not Obama, For Economic Gains
Guy Benson Guy Benson |Posted: Apr 12, 2018

...And some of the internals that add up to produce that top line numbers are...borderline incredible:

Ryan Struyk
✔
@ryanstruyk
A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%).

Beyond that, women split (55/32) on the same question, with independents at (49/35). The overall majority is correct, in my view; Obama inherited an economic meltdown (caused in significant measure by foolish big government experiments), and his inefficient or damaging major domestic policies inhibited what could have been a much more robust and speedy recovery. Trump's program of deregulation and tax reform have unquestionably improved the economic climate in America, both for consumers and businesses (last month's fairly tepid jobs report notwithstanding). So the great news for the White House is that Americans are attributing the economic situation to the president. And they view the current economic situation positively, for both themselves and the country writ large: Sixty percent say the nation's economy is in "excellent" or "good" shape. Asked about their personal lives, 78 percent respond with "excellent" or "good." Those are really, really strong numbers. .

Large Majority of Voters Now Crediting Trump, Not Obama, For Economic Gains.
A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%)
women split (55/32) on the same question,
with independents at (49/35)
The overall majority is correct,

[leftyg]

Large Majority of Voters Now Crediting Trump, Not Obama, For Economic Gains.
A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%)
women split (55/32) on the same question,
with independents at (49/35)
The overall majority is correct,
[

No it does not. It just means most people think it is true; that is all. It is argument ad populum (the bandwagon effect), and it is preposterous to believe. Trump inherited all of this improvement from Obama, and job growth has actually slowed since he became president https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-numbers/ But what chance do facts have against Trump's big mouth?

[Michaels153]

No it does not. It just means most people think it is true; that is all.

The statement: "The overall majority is correct," comes straight from the article which I have highlighted in red. I agree with the statement. Your disagreement WITH THESE STATISTICS and the natural and reasonable conclusion from THESE STATISTICS is just sour grapes on your part. You have paraded STATISTICS on OBAMA and you concluded that OBAMA was a better president and was more popular with statistics, and if I had commented in the same manner about your use of statistics about Obama, you would have insulted conservatives as anti-science, as deniers, etc., etc.,
But I am not surprised by your reaction. I believe the statement is correct because I believe that in spite of the Left's spin on everything and their unwillingness to see President Trump receive any favorable news, the public is becoming more aware of the facts here just as they became more aware of the lies the left spewed about the tax reform act. In the beginning the majority of the public had negative sentiments about the tax reform act, now they do not. The Obama crowd cant have it both ways. They can't throw out disclaimers to excuse their ineptitude by saying this is the new normal and that Americans are going to have to tighten their belts and get used to dealing with less. (in regards to the economy) And then out of the other side of their mouth claim that Obama was great for the economy. Just as they can't claim that Obamacare was a success with all the people that couldn't afford it but had to buy or be fined if they didn't.
Yes the economy has slowed since President Trump started, and I personally don't expect much change until the third quarter of this year.
I do like your link even though it is dated for January of this year. I haven't had time to review all of it yet.

[leftyg]

I do like your link even though it is dated for January of this year. I haven't had time to review all of it yet.

The simple fact is there has not been enough time to access how these tax cuts work. Anecdotes are really meaningless either way. We know that past tax cuts have led "mostly" to more debt.
Economist Jared Bernstein noted that since Reagan has been president the debt has risen from 700 billion to about 20 trillion dollars. PUt another way it has gone from about 38% of GDP to over 100 %

Bernstein created a model of "if Republican presidents had balanced their budgets and Democratic presidents had spent as they actually did," the national debt would be 25% of GDP, not 104% which it is, and the absolute value of the debt would be five trillion, not 20 trillion which it is.

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png (20.61 KiB) Viewed 101775 times

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

We know that Democratic presidents lower unemployment and as a rule Republicans rasie it https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data- ... he-economy

And we know that tax cuts do not generally lead to more employment and greater economic growth; corporate tax cuts generally lead to coproate buybacks of stock https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ds/262438/ https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/co ... k-buybacks

So far the scorecard on the Trump tax cuts is Workers six billion; Stockholders 171 billion http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investi ... index.html And the CBO predicts the return of triillion dollar a year deficits https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/09/tril ... ack-and-he

If you think giving tax cuts to the rich are worth that, then who is stupid?

[Michaels153]

Note to Leftists, I will reply to your chairman's last two posts later. Right now, I have some good news to share about the United states economy.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/360916-unemployment-rate-hit-record-low-in-13-states-this-year
Unemployment rate hit record low in 13 states this year (in 2017)
BY REID WILSON -

In 2010,This would be yet another low light in the Obama residency of the White House. during the depths of the Great Recession, Obama, the Great Recession President.six states — California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina — notched record-high unemployment rates. Oregon, Rhode Island and Kansas set their own record highs in 2009.That would also be during the Great Recession Presidency.

And Now the Contrast

Thirteen states this year (2017) have seen their unemployment rates drop to the lowest levels ever recorded since the federal government began keeping track of state-level data more than four decades ago.

Eight years after the bottom of the worst recession in modern history, <- This would be during the Obama residency. the states seeing economic booms range from the bluest of the blue, like Hawaii and California, to the deepest shades of red, like Idaho and Texas. President Trump is trying to help all of America prosper, and not just the states who appreciate him the most like California.

In October, the unemployment rates in Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Washington all met or beat their lowest rates ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), according to the agency’s monthly report issued Friday.

California, Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota and Oregon also hit new lows earlier this year.

Who knew that the President with the BS in Econ from Wharton would TRUMP the resident with the degree from Harvard Law school?

[Michaels153]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/booming-economy-leads-to-record-high-spring-break-air-travel
Booming economy leads to record-high spring break air travel
by Anna Giaritelli
April 24, 2018 12:00 AM

A booming economy and high consumer confidence levels led to record-high air travel in the United States this spring, according to government and industry experts.
The Transportation Security Administration on Monday reported processing 72.1 million passengers during spring break, which runs from March 15 to April 15. That's nearly 5 percent higher than the same period last year....
TSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein explained the increase in two simple words: "good economy."

..."AAA travel agents report a strong interest in travel last year and into the beginning part of this year, thanks to a strong economy and growing consumer confidence," John B. Townsend II, public and government affairs manager for AAA's Mid-Atlantic division, wrote in an email.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® increased in April, following a decline in March. The Index now stands at 128.7 (1985=100), up from 127.0 in March. The Present Situation Index increased from 158.1 to 159.6, while the Expectations Index improved from 106.2 last month to 108.1 this month.- https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

I think that the last time there was this much air travel activity came from Hollywood after the election of President Trump. Unfortunately the majority of those flights were round trip.

[leftyg]

In 2010,This would be yet another low light in the Obama residency of the White House. during the depths of the Great Recession, Obama, the Great Recession President.six states — California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina — notched record-high unemployment rates. Oregon, Rhode Island and Kansas set their own record highs in 2009.That would also be during the Great Recession Presidency.

This is the problem. Those numbers are the responsibility of the Bush administration. Let me remind you that in 1981-83 Reagan lost three million jobs until the economy turned around: unemployment rose from 7.5% to 10.4 %. So your point is worthless. Obama brought us out of the Great Recession by dropping unemployment to 4.7%. Don't judge Obama's presidency by the stupid policies of George W Bush. http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table All you did was bolster my point. Thank you very much.

Now , Michaels, you dig an even deeper hole for yourself:

And Now the Contrast

Thirteen states this year (2017) have seen their unemployment rates drop to the lowest levels ever recorded since the federal government began keeping track of state-level data more than four decades ago.

Eight years after the bottom of the worst recession in modern history, <- This would be during the Obama residency. the states seeing economic booms range from the bluest of the blue, like Hawaii and California, to the deepest shades of red, like Idaho and Texas. President Trump is trying to help all of America prosper, and not just the states who appreciate him the most like California.

In October, the unemployment rates in Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Washington all met or beat their lowest rates ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), according to the agency’s monthly report issued Friday.

California, Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota and Oregon also hit new lows earlier this year.

This is maybe the stupidest observation I have seen in more than ten years of posting on this site. Trump inherited those numbers from Obama Good Lord! Trump is like a guy who is sent in as a pinch runner and claims he hit a triple. You have constructed a world view where Democrats are blamed for the failures of Republicans and Republicans credited for the success of Democrats. Poor critical thinking skills

Who knew that the President with the BS in Econ from Wharton would TRUMP the resident with the degree from Harvard Law school?


Well the guy from Wharton certainly has a lot of BS. Former Wharton Professor: 'Trump Was the Dumbest G*ddamn Student I Ever Had' https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... i-ever-had

[Michaels153]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-nationtracker-poll-americans-give-trump-credit-for-good-economy-mixed-reviews-on-n-k/
CBS News Nation Tracker poll: Americans give Trump credit for good economy

I wonder what President Trump's former Wharton professor thinks of President Trump now? If the former professor thought that the student Trump was the dumbest student that he ever had; how well did this professor's smartest student's fare? Have any of these smart students accomplished anything near to what President Trump has?
Has this professor accomplished anything near to what President Trump has accomplished?
- Nuff said.

[JuicedTruth]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ty-factory

A good example of why stock prices aren't everything. Harley Davidson is cutting jobs, while investing money from tax savings in stock buybacks, which only help shareholders, not employees.

[Michaels153]

[quote=JuicedTruth:] A good example of why stock prices aren't everything. Harley Davidson is cutting jobs, while investing money from tax savings in stock buybacks, which only help shareholders, not employees.[/quote]

Stock prices aren't everything. According to the Vox report Harley Davidson will cut

t 800 jobs at the Kansas City plant when it closes by the fall of 2019 and says it expects to add 450 full-time, casual, and contractor positions in its York facility — a net loss of 350 jobs.

Lets accept those numbers for this discussion. The vox article says: "Harley-Davidson took its tax cut, closed a factory, and rewarded shareholders." Now all of this is true.
But Vox goes on to say: "The tax cuts aren’t saving jobs at Harley-Davidson." - And that is not true.

Did Harley Davidson just file for bankruptcy, If it did not, and if it is still operating, then why say that the tax cuts aren't saving jobs at Harley Davidson? Who said that the tax cuts are only supposed to go to employees? If a company as large as Harley Davidson starts losing investors, it could be interpreted as a sign that the brand was losing it's appeal and that might spur a sell-off which would only hurt the company and all the employees that are still working there.

...The Kansas City plant closing will cost Harley up to $200 million through 2019, according to Bloomberg’s estimates, and should result in annual savings of $65 million to $75 million after 2020.

Tate, from the steelworkers union, suggested the tax savings Harley reaped from the GOP bill might have actually freed up the cash for it to go ahead with the US restructuring plan now. .

The restructuring plan for Harley Davidson is necessary. The vox article goes on to quote Wolf:

Woolf, the analyst, said ...“I think what this reflects is that they’re finally coming to grips with the fact that the US market is contracting,” he said. Harley-Davidson has been struggling in recent years — sales have declined as its core demographic, baby boomers, ages and as millennials shy away from big bikes. The decline has been particularly acute in the US: Harley-Davidson’s motorcycle sales declined 8.5 percent in the United States in 2017 and 3.9 percent abroad.

Baby boomers or not, Harley bikes are pricey. My Honda is almost ten years old and I joke with my friends saying that when it grows up it is going to be a Harley. I would love to have a Harley, but I can not afford it. Maybe Harley Davidson realizes this and that is one of the reasons that it ended it's 22-year partnership agreement with United Steelworkers District 11, which represents about 30 percent of the Harley-Davidson plant’s workers. But Harley is trying to reach out to acquire more consumers here and abroad. Harley plans to open a plant in Thailand, and close a plant in Australia.
So while Vox reports that Harley Davidson is about to have a net loss of 350 jobs, there is other news.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/05/24/more-tax-reform-crumbs-for-major-company-n2484019
Pelosi Questioned About Crumbs Remark Again as Major Company Announces New Hires
By Cortney O'Brien | Posted: May 24, 2018

United Technologies joined the league of major companies rewarding their employees with bonuses and announcing new hires in response to Republican tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts, signed into law last December, cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, giving employers the opportunity to give back to their workforce.

United is hiring 35,000 employees and more than $15 billion in research and development and capital expenditures in the United States over the next five years, the company announced Wednesday.

How long do you think it will be before Vox reports on this news?

[Michaels153]

While economists and business leaders analyze the country's GDP, bank activity and stock market. most of the attention is placed upon the Dow. That is understandable. But there are other markets and more good news for the country.:
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/wall-street-nasdaq-hit-a-new-all-time-high-dow-jones-closes-above-25-000-201806062120
Wall Street: Nasdaq hit a new all-time high,
By Flavio Tosti

Rising US Treasury yields boost bank stocks as rising interest rates is generally bullish for banks.
The Nasdaq climb to a new all-time high while the Dow Jones post its best daily advance in nearly 2 months.
The S&P 500 rose 0.9% to close at 2,772.35 as financial stocks gained 1.9%. The 10-year Treasury note yield benchmark rose to 2.98% following European yields after the European Central Bank talked about exiting its asset-purchasing program. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley stock were all up more than 2% while Goldman Sachs also posted solid gain at 1.7%.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-job-growth-surges-unemployment-rate-falls-to-3-8-percent-idUSKCN1IW1NX
U.S. job growth surges, unemployment rate falls to 3.8 percent
Lucia Mutikani of Reuters

...The closely watched employment report released by the Labor Department on Friday also showed wages rising solidly
...There were also big gains in retail and leisure and hospitality payrolls. The economy created 15,000 more jobs than previously reported in March and April.

Last month’s one-tenth of a percentage point drop in the unemployment rate pushed it to a level last seen in April 2000. The jobless rate is now where the Fed forecast it would be by the end of this year.

Average hourly earnings rose eight cents, or 0.3 percent last month after edging up 0.1 percent in April. That pushed the annual increase in average hourly earnings to 2.7 percent from 2.6 percent in April.
...With job growth expected to slow as employers struggle to find qualified workers, economists expect wage growth will pick up significantly. There is growing anecdotal evidence of worker scarcity.

There is a growing WHAT? -> ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. LEFTYG, DID YOU GIVE PERMISSION TO REUTERS TO SAY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE?

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/news/economy/job-openings-unemployed-workers/index.html
American Opportunity
There are now more job openings than workers to fill them
by Lydia DePillis @CNNMoney
June 5, 2018: 7:06 PM ET
[quote]Want more evidence that America's economy needs more workers? For the first time in at least 20 years, there are now more job openings than there are people looking for work.
The ratio of unemployed workers to job openings dropped below one in April for the first time since the Labor Department started collecting data in 2000, the agency reported Tuesday.

more jobs than people who want them.jpg (74.91 KiB) Viewed 100529 times

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html
There are more jobs than people out of work, something the American economy has never experienced before
Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Published 12:25 PM ET Tue, 5 June 2018

[Michaels153]

https://www.daveweinbaum.com/single-post/2018/06/11/TRUMP-APPROVAL-RATING-Better-than-Obama-and-Reagan-at-Same-Point-in-their-Presidencies
TRUMP APPROVAL RATING Better than Obama and Reagan at Same Point in their Presidencies
June 11, 2018
Jim Hoft - Gateway Pundit

"According to the latest FOX News poll President Donald Trump has a better rating than Presidents Obama and Reagan at the same point in their presidencies.

President Trump’s approval is now at 45%.
And that is with 90% negative coverage from the far left mainstream media.

President Trump – 45%
President Obama – 44%
President Reagan – 44%

On June 9, 2010 Barack Obama’s approval number was 46% on the Rasmussen poll.
President Trump’s approval number is at 47% according to Rasmussen today."

[Mrtazeman]

For disclosure purposes this group should know that Michaels153 defended GWB for 8 years which caused the US to have conditions worse than the Great Depression before Obama took over, so an economist Michaels is not. If Michaels is going to be intellectually honest, just by using his metrics, Obama was a good president because he had a 140% jump in the stock market.. But of course I doubt he will admit that..

[Michaels153]

For disclosure purposes this group should know that Michaels153 defended GWB for 8 years which caused the US to have conditions worse than the Great Depression before Obama took over, so an economist Michaels is not. If Michaels is going to be intellectually honest, just by using his metrics, Obama was a good president because he had a 140% jump in the stock market.. But of course I doubt he will admit that..

For disclosure purposes...

Are you kidding me. When have you ever began a post like that for anyone else, just tell me so I can look it up and read it?
Is that the way you want people to introduce you?
For disclosure purposes, this group should know that I did defend GWB against the baseless allegations made by some on this board. What this board should know ("for disclosure purposes of course") is that those initiated these baseless claims were wrong, and they have never proven me wrong.
Mrtazeman / Real, you and I have different definitions for the word "good." But if your definition of a good president is what Obama did in the stock market, then you should think (if you are going to be intellectually honest) that President Trump is a better president than Obama, because President Trump has surpassed whatever accomplishments you attributed to Obama. But of course, I doubt you will do that.
I am not an "economist", I have been reporting facts here. Paul Krugman is supposed to be an economist and this is what he said: "1) The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover."
Now I only revealed what Mr Krugman said "for disclosure purposes" that this group should know.

[leftyg]

Are you kidding me. When have you ever began a post like that for anyone else, just tell me so I can look it up and read it?
Is that the way you want people to introduce you?
For disclosure purposes, this group should know that I did defend GWB against the baseless allegations made by some on this board. What this board should know ("for disclosure purposes of course") is that those initiated these baseless claims were wrong, and they have never proven me wrong.

What baseless charge did I ever make? You know as well as anyone I do not make statements I cannot defend. I have never lied about Dubya, and yes I thought he screwed the pooch pretty good. His ill advised tax cuts in an up economy were stupid, and the evidence lay in tattered shambles. The Iraq War was profoundly ill-advised. Saddam had no WMD, and his regime served as a buffer to Islamic terrorists.

And NO, nobody has ever proven anything on here, least of all you.

[Mrtazeman]

I didn't say anything bad about trump or this economy but you have in the past blasted Obama for his economy. May I remind u GWB took a surplus and a great economy and by the time he left, the economy was worse then the great depression which Obama had to deal with.

[Michaels153]

What baseless charge did I ever make? You know as well as anyone I do not make statements I cannot defend. No Leftyg, you are saying that, and may actually believe that but you have made statements that you could not defend, and to go back an list some of them is pointless and it will only take this thread in another direction. I want to stay on topic here.I have never lied about Dubya, and yes I thought he screwed the pooch pretty good. His ill advised tax cuts in an up economy were stupid, and the evidence lay in tattered shambles. The Iraq War was profoundly ill-advised. Saddam had no WMD, That is not true, and I have shown that to you but, again, like I said, it is pointless to go over it again. I do not want to stray from this topic. So please respect that and stay on topic. I responded to Real's "disclosure comment". That was not an invitation to just start talking about anything you want to here. You have a habit of doing that, I don't. I have not come over to your Frantz thread to discuss abortion, but you came over to my comments on the death of Billy Graham that was totally off topic. So lets not do that again here.and his regime served as a buffer to Islamic terrorists.

And NO, nobody has ever proven anything on here, least of all you.[/quote]

[Michaels153]

I didn't say anything bad about trump or this economy No you didn't. But you did seem to take umbrage with my posting of the poll numbers that showed that President Trump had higher approval numbers at this point in his presidency than other presidents at the same time.but you have in the past blasted Obama for his economy. And up until that point you basically did not contribute to the thread at all. That is true May I remind u GWB took a surplus and a great economy and by the time he left, the economy was worse then the great depression which Obama had to deal with.

There is more background than that. I disagree with your characterization that GWB took a "great economy" and that he made it worse that the "great depression" (as you put it) for Obama to deal with. But I am not going to go back into that here in this thread. The purpose of this thread is to point out what people like Krugman, Leftists, and Liberals said could not or would not happen under President Trump. And like I told Leftyg, I want this thread to stay on topic, and not to rehash other stuff previously discussed in other threads.

[leftyg]

When I made the factual statement that there were no WMD, Michales, responded thusly:

hat is not true, and I have shown that to you but, again, like I said, it is pointless to go over it again. I do not want to stray from this topic. So please respect that and stay on topic. I responded to Real's "disclosure comment". That was not an invitation to just start talking about anything you want to here. You have a habit of doing that, I don't. I have not come over to your Frantz thread to discuss abortion, but you came over to my comments on the death of Billy Graham that was totally off topic. So lets not do that

What, this is an open forum. I do not care if you post on the Frantz forum. It is OK. Since when do you make the rules? Isn't that JT's job? AM I missing something here? You know what I am missing? I am missing even a scintilla of evidence to support your claim. MI6 and the CIA were told before the invasion that there were no WMD in Iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... wmd-claims And if there were, then why was it never mentioned in the media. Wouldn't it have ut an end to a partisan debate? Why did they choose to say nothing?

[Mrtazeman]

I didn't say that it Obama took over an economy that was worse than the great depression, Ben Bernanke said it.

[Michaels153]

I didn't say that it Obama took over an economy that was worse than the great depression, Ben Bernanke said it.

Okay, thanks for the correction. My apologies sir. Then it is with Mr. Bernanke that I disagree with.

[Michaels153]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/small-business-optimism-soars-resulting-in-increased-hiring-and-wages
Small business optimism soars, resulting in increased hiring and wages
By Leia KlingelPublished June 12, 2018

The Small Business Optimism Index continued its impressive run in May, climbing to the second-highest level in history with small businesses reporting great numbers in several key areas.

The index rose by three points to 107.8 in May, while tax cuts and regulatory changes contributed to increased compensation, positive earnings and sales trends.

“Main Street optimism is on a stratospheric trajectory thanks to recent tax cuts and regulatory changes. For years, owners have continuously signaled that when taxes and regulations ease, earnings and employee compensation increase,” said National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) President and CEO Juanita Duggan.

The May report included several record-setting data points. Employee compensation increases hit a 45-year high at a record net 35%, positive earnings trends reached a survey high at a net 3%, positive sales trends are at the highest level since 1995 and expansion plans are the most robust in survey history.

A net 19% of small business owners noted that they are planning price increases, the highest level since 2008 while a net 3% reported positive profit trends, the best reading in the survey’s history.

“Small business owners are continuing an 18-month streak of unprecedented optimism which is leading to more hiring and raising wages,” said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg. “While they continue to face challenges in hiring qualified workers, they now have more resources to commit to attracting candidates.”

Businesses are planning on growth, with 29% of business owners looking to hire skilled workers, while 12% are looking to hire unskilled workers. To help attract workers, 35% of owners said they are increasing labor compensation.

Access to credit continues as a non-issue with 37% of owners reporting all credit needs were satisfied with 43% saying they were not interested in a loan, the lowest reading since 2007.

There is a lot of good news here. Tax cuts and regulatory changes have shown to help small business. It is not just the big businesses that have benefited from President Trump's policies.

[Michaels153]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/food-stamp-enrollment-falls-to-8-year-low-as-trump-clamps-down-on-fraud-economy-improves.html
Food stamp enrollment falls to 8-year low as Trump clamps down on fraud, economy improves
By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
When is a Booming Economy a Booming Economy? If it is Booming now, it is a booming economy. Don't wait for the liberals to tell you when it is the right time to judge whether on not it is a booming economy. It is not a booming economy because it did not last X amount of time. That is their bull. The people enjoying this economy right now will do so for as long as they can and will not listen to the liberals telling them it isn't so great.

Overall enrollment in the country’s food stamp program has dropped to its lowest level in more than eight years as the economy continues to improve and the Trump administration attempts to tackle fraud in the program.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/06/18/boom-satisfaction-with-direction-of-us-hits-12year-highdemocrats-not-happy-n2491880
BOOM! Satisfaction With Direction Of U.S. Hits 12-Year High--ONLY Democrats Not Happy
Matt Vespa Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 |Posted: Jun 18, 2018 12:45 PM

It may not be the best number, but the progress is notable. When asked if people are satisfied with the direction of the country, it only registered a mere 38 percent. The silver lining is that this is the highest mark in over a decade. Gallup noted the 12-year high is due to the deluge of good economic news and reaching historic lows in unemployment. The second quarter growth is projected to be between 3.6 and 4.8 percent. A supermajority of Republicans and a healthy slice of Independents are satisfied with how the country is going. Only Democrats remain insufferable and nauseatingly petulant over the economic boom their guy Obama could never have managed to pull off (via Gallup):
Josh Jordan
✔
@NumbersMuncher
Gallup: Satisfaction with the way things are going in the US reaches a 13 year high, hitting 38%.
Only 13% of Democrats are satisfied with the way things are going, while 36% of independents and 68% of Republicans are satisfied.
10:50 AM - Jun 18, 2018

...The rise in satisfaction over the past two months comes amid a spate of positive economic news -- including the shrinking of the unemployment rate to levels last seen in 2000 and the continuation of an economic expansion that is now the second longest on record.
.President Trump has enacted an economic agenda that is producing, it’s created three million jobs, and now there are more jobs than there are job seekers. Consumer and small business confidence are at record highs. Oh, and wages increased 2.7 percent. ..

[Mrtazeman]

That is good news. I hope the trend continues. I am glad Trump is continuing the trend that Obama started..

[Michaels153]

https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/24/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
52 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
by Sharyl Attkisson on June 24, 2018 in

We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. ...
But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong.

So check out the list you closed minded ant- Trumpers.

[leftyg]

What lies have Trump's economic critics made about him? I watch MSNBC, and I see lots of charts graphs and factual data. I do not hear the word lie, unsubstantiated in a commentary like I do from the likes of Bab Frantz and most other far right commentators. They say liar and then never expose the lie. When has anybody lied about the presidents economic policies?

[Michaels153]

What lies have Trump's economic critics made about him? (Think Tax Reform Plan)[color=#FF0000][/color] I watch MSNBC, Good for you. I watch Star Trek.[color=#FF0000][/color]and I see lots of charts graphs and factual data. That doesn't mean anything either. I do not hear the word lie, unsubstantiated in a commentary Show me the statistics of how many people actually introduce a lie by saying "oh by the way, the following that I am about to tell you is a lie? like I do from the likes of Bab Frantz and most other far right commentators. Your probably misinterpreting that as well but at least you said "most" and not all, They say liar and then never expose the lie. When has anybody lied about the presidents economic policies? I presented some of this, here in this thread in my 1/16/18 post with the you tube video.

Now I just posted the column from Sharyl Attkisson who charitably entitled her column "52 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List". Now in my other thread: "Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in Election" you posted an opinion column from the New York Times of Obama Lies, and President Trump's purported lies. Regarding President Trump, there were no mistakes according to you. Whatever the New York Times said in that column was a lie. I asked you to explain the very first purported lie and you didn't, you just accepted the writer of the Opinion column's conclusion as a lie.
So based on your definition, the media does not make mistakes when they print or say something that is not true. No when that happens, it is a lie. It does not matter if they change, "amend", retract, or apologize after the fact, if what they printed or said initially was not factual, then it was a lie.
From Sharyl Attkisson's column I will direct you to examples #40, and #50. Because you wanted to focus on Economics:

What lies have Trump's economic critics made about him?

#40)

40. March 8, 2018:
The New York Times’ Jan Rosen reported on a hypothetical family whose tax bill would rise nearly $4,000 under Trump’s tax plan. It turns out the calculations were off: the couple’s taxes would go actually go down $43; not up $4,000.

#50)

50. June 1, 2018
In a story about Trump tariffs, AP reported the dollar value of Virginia’s farm and forestry exports to Canada and Mexico was $800. It’s $800 million.

And here is a copy to the link of the youtube video I posted back on January 16, 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=151&v=6mfEJ-j2pNo

[Mrtazeman]

the stock market had nearly tripled under the Obama administration. And people like you were saying he is a communist that will destroy the economy..

[Michaels153]

the stock market had nearly tripled under the Obama administration. And people like you were saying he is a communist that will destroy the economy..

Mrtazeman, There were successes in the stock market when Obama was in office. But the damage being done to this country were ongoing in a number of areas and extensive. I believe that history will not look very kindly on his year's in office.

[leftyg]

Lies like tax reforem? The tax reform has gone pretty much as expected: most of the cuts went to the top; corporations did small buy backs; and not an unusual amount of wage increases were given to workers. It is just like other times when they cut taxes on corporations

When I mentioned that I was very careful about being specific in telling readers exactly what Bob lied about and what the truth is, which anybody who pays any attention to this site knows, he, Michaels responds: you probably misinterpreted that as well, but at least you said "most" and not all. This from a guy who probably does not even know what hermeneutics means or believes that an anecdote is a strong argument. This guy is going to lecture me on critical theory or the science of interpretation!? I do not mean to sound like a horse ass, but give me a break. Micheals even sites the date 1/16/18 when he alleges he did this. If I remember the date, I think he brought an anecdote. I am not going to look for it now, though I will tonight. You see Michaels has never stunned me with a strong set of facts followed by an incisive logical analysis. I know he would say the same about me, but he would be wrong!

And about Frantz, I will not even criticize him unless I have the facts where he lied or said something so bad that it stands on its own, like justifying the killing of a pregnant black woman because she pulled a knife on two healthy young male cops.
Something like that is just stunning on its own. Never mind lies about Fox News's trustworthiness (They were voted most trustworthy of about nine news networks, but Frantz failed to mention that they were also the least trustworthy by a large margin) or the magnitude of Trump's victory (Frantz alleged Trump won 3084 of 3041 counties in the USA) or that Ronald Reagan created 19.2 million jobs in his first two years when he in fact lost three million. Believe me that list could go for a long time.

Now I just posted the column from Sharyl Attkisson who charitably entitled her column "52 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List". Now in my other thread: "Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in Election" you posted an opinion column from the New York Times of Obama Lies, and President Trump's purported lies. Regarding President Trump, there were no mistakes according to you. Whatever the New York Times said in that column was a lie. I asked you to explain the very first purported lie and you didn't, you just accepted the writer of the Opinion column's conclusion as a lie.
So based on your definition, the media does not make mistakes when they print or say something that is not true. No when that happens, it is a lie. It does not matter if they change, "amend", retract, or apologize after the fact, if what they printed or said initially was not factual, then it was a lie.

From Sharyl Attkisson's column I will direct you to examples #40, and #50. Because you wanted to focus on Economics:

dThe two claims you presented were not supported by evidence, just an assumption. Obviously $800 was a typo or misprint, especially when we know that our trade with Canada is 582 billion dollars a year. What can be gained from that by anybody? No that was just a typo the tax differnce probably depends on what the two hypothetical families can deduct and cannot deduct. If a person pays a lot of property tax or state and local tax they could get hurt a ot if the can no longer declare their children as dependence. I imagine a skilled accountant could find a family in the right area of Virginia to meet either criteria. But I pulled up Attkisson's article and could find no "typical couple." A couple paying lots of state income tax could pay more, and Attkisson does not give an answer.

But when Trump says he won 3084 counties, when he states the superlatives of his administration, he usually lies. He certainly lies about President Obama when he makes it sound like the last president left him an economy in shambles; we know that is not true. The truth is he lies so much it just does not even matter anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJkc_C5-Cd8

[Michaels153]

This is what you said, and what i responded to.

What lies have Trump's economic critics made about him? I watch MSNBC, and I see lots of charts graphs and factual data. I do not hear the word lie, unsubstantiated in a commentary like I do from the likes of Bab Frantz and most other far right commentators. They say liar and then never expose the lie. When has anybody lied about the presidents economic policies?

I presented lies made by the media of President Trump's tax reform plan in the video, and two examples that were in Sharyl Attkisson's column
[quote="leftyg"]Lies like tax reforem? Yes Leftyg, lies like the tax reform. (would you please use spell check before you post something). And here comes Lying Leftyg once again folks. The tax reform has gone pretty much as expected:The tax reform plan did as President Trump said it would. Many critics of Trump said that the tax reform plan would ONLY benefit the rich - A LIE, and they also said it would not result in increases in wages. - A LIE. But you have to try to change this by saying that the tax reform plan has gone pretty much as expected. NOT THE POINT LIAR. I do not mean to sound like a horse ass,You can't help it. You are an ass. but give me a break. Give us a break, stop being such an ass.

The two claims you presented were not supported by evidence,No, the two examples from the article, are evidence of critics lying about President Trump's economics Obviously $800 was a typo or misprint, Ko, obviously a lie with the intent to undermine the trade deficit that exists with Canada. What can be gained from that by anybody? What can be gained from that is it is another opportunity to smear President Trump by the media. If the error is caught, then they can come back later and say it was just an error. No that was just a typo No it was just another example of the media lying.

[Michaels153]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/07/06/trump-economics-works-democrats-in-denial/
Trump Economics Works, Democrats Proven Wrong
Jul 6, 2018

Since Election Day, the American economy has added 3.7 million jobs. That’s a year and a half, folks. Since Election Day 2016 — well, it’s coming up on two years since the election. Maybe 1.75 years, the American economy has added 3.7 million jobs, 601,000 more Americans have entered the labor force, a total of 155,576,000 Americans are working. It is a record high. The jobs report for June has beaten forecasts, added 213,000 jobs. There is no doubt, it is crystal clear that Trump economics works and is sustaining.

Remember this?

This is during the campaign when Trump promised to do exactly what he has delivered. Trump promised to deliver, and he has. On June 1, 2016, PBS ran a special, “Questions for President Obama.” It was a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, and a Carrier employee said, “Look, I’m representing a steelworkers union.

“I’m trying to find out what do we have left. All our jobs are leaving Indianapolis. I see here you’re doing a lot of things, but in Indianapolis there’s nothing there for us. I mean, what’s next? What can we look forward to in the future as far as jobs, employment, whatever, because all of our jobs have he left or are in the process of leaving. So what can we do, Mr. Obama?”

Obama answers this Carrier employee this way:

OBAMA: [S]ome of those jobs of the past are just not gonna come back. And when somebody says — like the person you just mentioned, (Trump) who I’m not gonna advertise fo’ — that he’s gonna bring all these jobs back? Well, how exactly are y’gonna do that? What’re you gonna do? There’s no answer to it. He just says, “I’m gonna negotiate a better deal.” (stammering) Well, how…? What…? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he duh’n’t have’n answer.

RUSH: Right. Who is it that looks like the blithering idiot? Who looks like the abject pessimist that he was? I mean, here people gathered in Elkhart, Indiana, and Obama can’t even give them any kind of hope. He can’t even say, “You live in the greatest country on earth. We’re gonna come back! We’re gonna make it. We’re gonna be great.” He can’t even say that, because Obama is not planning on that, or was not planning on that. That’s why there was pessimism galore during the Obama years because there was no optimism being promised or assured by people in Washington, certainly not from him or from his administration.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/155576000-employed-americans-june-10th-record-trumpcnsnewscom-our-economic
Record 155,576,000 Employed in June; 10th Record for Trump
By Susan Jones | July 6, 2018 | 8:40 AM EDT

[Mrtazeman]

I give Trump credit, he did things that help boost the economy, but let's not forget, when Obama took over after 8 years of Republican rule, 800k jobs per month was being lost... Trump had way better starting point than Obama. Easier to tweak the economy than to try to fix it from one of the worst economic conditions since the great depression. Some economist would say it was worse than the great depression..

[Michaels153]

https://www.ft.com/content/bbf85c42-6594-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56
US unemployment rate hits 18-year low of 3.8%
US economy beats forecasts by adding 223,000 jobs in May as wages rise
By Peter Wells in New York JUNE 1, 2018

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/craig-bannister/hispanic-latino-unemployment-rate-hits-lowest-level-record-june
Hispanic-Latino Unemployment Rate Hits Lowest Level on Record in June
By Craig Bannister | July 6, 2018 | 9:03 AM EDT

The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force fell to the lowest level on record in June of 2018, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday show.

In June, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos, aged 16 and up, was 4.6%, down from its May level of 4.9%. Before June’s record, the lowest monthly Hispanic-Latino unemployment rate since BLS began tracking the statistic in 1973 was 4.8%.

While the Hispanic-Latino unemployment rate had been as low as 4.8% in five months, four of those months were during the administration of President Donald Trump; the lone exception being October of 2006:

June 2018: 4.6%
October 2006: 4.8%
June 2017: 4.8%
October 2017: 4.8%
November 2017: 4.8%
April 2018: 4.8%
During the 17 full months of the Trump administration, beginning in February 2017, Hispanic-Latino unemployment has averaged 5.0%.

In contrast, the national Hispanic-Latino unemployment rate averaged 9.4% during President Barack Obama’s eight years (96 months) in office, impacted by the 2008 recession, which officially ended in June of 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Mrtazeman / Real ->

but let's not forget, when Obama took over I am not forgetting when Obama came into the office as President. According to the Bureau of Economic Research; the 2008 recession officially ended in June of 2009. The statistics showed a decline of the unemployment rate from where he started to when he left the office as President. The article is contrasting the statistics of the unemployment numbers for these two. I am not dismissing the difficulty facing then President Obama. But I would hope that the Left does not dismiss the present unemployment statistics either.

One of the areas to contrast is the combination of the numbers employed and the numbers of people unemployed. President Obama tried to have the public focus on the dropping unemployment numbers while there was a concurring loss of jobs. But President Trump has managed to increase jobs to the point that there are more jobs than their are workers to fill those jobs, and he has brought down the number of the unemployed at the same time. And President Trump did not resort to data manipulation and spin to achieve the low unemployment rates.
While acknowledging the circumstances that then President Obama faced, lets also remember as it was reported in the New York Times by Michael D. Shear "Obama Lesson, "Shovel Ready, Not so Ready"
published on October 15, 2010. The article was written 16 months after the Recession officially ended.
In an interview, then President Obama "acknowledged what had become painfully obvious in the last 20 months: "shovel ready" did not mean what he and most people thought it did."
Then President Obama had pitched a $787 billion stimulus legislation bill. He had met with many governors and told the public that He thought that a lot of work could get done fast. He said that the governors have a lot of projects that are shovel ready.
And there was this:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/
Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole

BUSINESS_FINANCE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
BARACK OBAMA
SOLYNDRA INC.
Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit. (Associated Press)

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, April 27, 2015 this was written four and a half years after the shovel ready stimulus failure.
Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.

[color=#FF0000] President Obama did not have the business man's "Midas touch." Maybe the response President Obama gave to the Carrier employee came as a result of frustration that he had for trying but not succeeding to get jobs. Maybe because he knew what he tried to do that did not work, he was upset with what President Trump had said. But in any case, President Trump is getting positive results for the American people, and not results just for the rich, as continues to be the Democratic mantra.

[Michaels153]

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/397447-trump-is-winning-the-trade-war-because-china-has-more-to-lose
Trump is winning the trade war because China has more to lose
BY LIZ PEEK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/17/18 02:30 PM EDT

Don’t look now, but there are numerous signs that President Trump is winning the trade war with China. While the battle over tariffs and protecting intellectual property may eventually damage the United States’ economy, there are signs that China is already paying a price for its refusal to bend to Trump’s demands.

One indicator of that price is the sharp plunge in China’s stock exchanges. Since the White House announced the first tariffs — on washing machines and solar cells on Jan. 22 — the Shanghai Index of Chinese stocks is down nearly 20 percent, while the S&P 500 is off less than 1 percent.

...President Trump is rightly pushing back against decades of Chinese misbehavior, punishing Beijing for ongoing unfair trade practices and theft of intellectual property. His imposition of tariffs are meant to force a change by damaging China’s economy.

[Michaels153]

Economy Hits a High Note, and Trump Takes a Bow
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/business/economy/economy-gdp.html
By Ben Casselman
July 27, 2018

Tax cuts and federal spending are adding fuel to the already strong economy, putting the United States on a pace for its best year of growth in well over a decade.
The Commerce Department reported Friday that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the economy, grew at a 4.1 percent rate in the second quarter of the year.

...

Measures of underlying growth were robust, and economists say it is increasingly likely that full-year growth in gross domestic product could hit 3 percent in 2018 for the first time in the nearly decade-long recovery.
“The bottom line is that the economy is doing better,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist for the accounting firm Grant Thornton.
At Grote Company, a manufacturer of food-processing equipment in Columbus, Ohio, business is “record fantastic,” according to Bob Grote, the company’s chief executive.
“Everybody I talk to is literally having banner years the past few years,” he said. “I don’t see any end in sight right now.”

I was not in favor of the recent hike in the interest rate by the Feds. And I hear that they are pretty determined to hike up the interest rate at least two more times this year. While I understand the thinking behind raising interest rates, everybody pretty much agrees that raising interest rates is like pumping on the brakes to the economy. Plus, there are other difficulties that lie ahead. Several Communist countries have recently come together in forming a new trade partnership with China and Russia. This new trade partnership has openly expressed their goal of competing with the United States.
Still, for now, President Trump has the American economy moving in the right direction.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/08/03/choke-on-it-liberals-us-regains-rank-as-the-worlds-most-competitive-economy-n2506388
Choke On It, Liberals: U.S. Regains Rank As The World's Most Competitive Economy Under Trump
By Matt Vespa on August 3, 2018

Fresh off the good news about the unemployment rate now at 3.9% (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/us-job-growth-slows-in-july-unemployment-rate-drops-idUSKBN1KO0HD )
is this news about the United States economy.

Oh, it’s a good day for sure. Ever since the Trump tax cuts became law, the U.S. economy has been booming. Second quarter growth reached four percent; wages for U.S. workers reached their highest levels in a decade. Unemployment is at an 18-year low, with confidence levels from the small business community and consumers reaching their highest marks in years. Over three million jobs have been created. There are now more jobs than there are job seekers,...Well, the jacked up economy has yielded another positive. It’s allowed the U.S. to regain its spot as the number one competitive economy in the world (via Bloomberg):

The U.S. dethroned Hong Kong to retake first place among the world’s most competitive economies, thanks to faster economic growth and a supportive atmosphere for scientific and technological innovation, according to annual rankings by the Switzerland-based IMD World Competitiveness Center.

[…]

The U.S., which reclaimed the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2015, scored especially well in international investment, domestic economy and scientific infrastructure sub-categories while earning below-average marks in public finance and prices....Trump’s policies are solid. They’re working. And voters are noticing.

And this good news:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/pay-hikes-coming-from-majority-of-us-employers-survey
Pay hikes coming from majority of US employers: survey
By Matthew RoccoPublished August 03, 2018

A majority of U.S. employers expect to give out pay raises by the end of the year, according to a CareerBuilder survey published Friday.

Fifty-eight percent of employers plan to increase compensation for current employees, the survey found. CareerBuilder said 24% of all employers will increase wages by 5% on average.

Job seekers are also poised to benefit, as 45% of employees plan to offer higher starting salaries to attract new hires.

[Michaels153]

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/great-again-us-retail-sales-soar-in-july-up-6-4-from-last-year/
GREAT AGAIN: US Retail Sales SOAR in July, UP 6.4% from Last Year
By Hannity Staff
8/15/2018

The United States’ economy continued to roar to life under President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress in July; smashing estimates and posting stunning retail sales figures in the normally quiet summer month.

“U.S. retail sales rose more than expected in July as households boosted purchases of motor vehicles and clothing, suggesting the economy remained strong early in the third quarter,” writes CNBC.

“Economists polled by Reuters had forecast retail sales nudging up 0.1 percent in July. Retail sales in July increased 6.4 percent from a year ago,” adds the report.

Liberal response: But,but, but, we have statistics that show that retail sales figures are normally quiet in the summer that is why retail sales should only go up 0.1 percent. Since our stats, and we can't be wrong, this is just proof of the interference of Russia with the sales figures. You'll see. You just wait and see. We have Mueller and the intelligence community and they'll show you, you'll see.

[JuicedTruth]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

Manufacture moves to Mexico, lays off 150 because of Trump's tariffs.

[leftyg]

Michaels, Trump inherited a robust economy. Unemployment was at 4.8% when he took over; now it is 3.9%. That is merely a continuation of the Obama comeback. It is kind of like the scrubs coming into a basketball game half way thru the fourth quarter and adding to the 105-75 lead and ending the game with a 118-86 lead (because the other team threw in the towel and put in their scrubs too, and then LaVar Ball saying that his son and his teammates won by 32. So you are full of it with this braggadocio for your faux hero. The one remarkable thing he has not done is completely screw up which may not be true because of the tariffs; we will see how that turns out. JT has already given you a preview, so hold the smugness.

One of the dumbest arguments ever made was that Trump created 1.1 million jobs in his first six months and that Obama lost 3.4 million which proves absolutely nothing because Obama inherited the worst recession in American history, a likely depression, and Trump inherited six years of sustained job growth .

[JuicedTruth]

When your supporters don't care about honesty or the truth, you can cherry pick whatever information you want and they'll gobble it down. To Trump supporters, "good economy = all Trump's doing". They couldn't care less about any context beyond that.

Remember when Republican's rushed to get behind the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement and the debt was going to destroy America? Well, the Republicans have completely abandoned caring about debt and will support any economic policy Trump presents. They are not rooted in any principle whatsoever and just follow whatever wind is blowing the hardest. That's gotta be difficult considering how many of them are so full of hot air

[leftyg]

When your supporters don't care about honesty or the truth, you can cherry pick whatever information you want and they'll gobble it down. To Trump supporters, "good economy = all Trump's doing". They couldn't care less about any context beyond that.

Remember when Republican's rushed to get behind the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement and the debt was going to destroy America? Well, the Republicans have completely abandoned caring about debt and will support any economic policy Trump presents. They are not rooted in any principle whatsoever and just follow whatever wind is blowing the hardest. That's gotta be difficult considering how many of them are so full of hot air

They are a party completely devoid of principles. They have one goal: tax cuts for the rich and penury for everybody else. And they get guys like Michaels to carry water for them even though they dare not drink a drop.

[Michaels153]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/youth-unemployment-hits-52-year-low-1534455755
Youth Unemployment Hits 52-Year Low
Data suggest more opportunities are available to some groups that historically struggled to find jobs

By Andrew Duehren
Aug. 16, 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/economics/2018/08/16/walmart-execs-this-is-the-best-economy-for-our-customers-in-decades/
484
Walmart executives believe that the economy is the best for their customers in decades, according to an analyst who spoke with Bloomberg News’ Joe Weisenthal.

Joe Weisenthal
@TheStalwart
Scott Mushkin, retail analyst at Wolfe Research, just said on #WDYM that based on his conversations, Walmart executives believe that right now is the best economy for their customers that they've seen in two decades.

3:39 PM - Aug 16, 2018

[Michaels153]

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/great-again-stock-market-hits-all-time-high-over-new-nafta/
GREAT AGAIN: Stock Market Hits ALL TIME HIGH Over ‘NEW NAFTA’

[quoteThe Nasdaq composite hit an all-time high Monday morning amid news of a restructured NAFTA deal; breaking 8,000 points and inching up 0.6% after negotiators confirmed a revamped agreement was just hours away.

“The Nasdaq Composite climbed 0.6 percent to an all-time high, breaking above 8,000 for the first time, as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Alphabet. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 214 points as Caterpillar outperformed. The S&P 500 gained 0.6 percent to hit a record high with materials and financials as the best-performing sectors,” writes CNBC.

“The market has been buffeted with a lot of headwinds lately, and the biggest one is traded,” said one industry insider. “If you were to take trade out of the picture, you would have a smoother ride higher in this market.”

The ‘NEW NAFTA’ would center on easing tariffs and limitations on the American automobile and agricultural sectors; two key barriers blasted by President Trump throughout the 2016 campaign.

Read the full story at CNBC.][/quote]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/us-markets-china-us-talks-jackson-hole-summit-on-the-agenda.html
S&P 500 touches all-time high, ties record for longest bull market
The broad index rose 0.2 percent and reached an intraday record of 2,873.23, surpassing a high reached on Jan. 26
The bull market turns 3,453 days old on Wednesday, which would make it the longest on record by most definitions. On Tuesday, it tied the one that ran from October 1990 to March 2000.
Fred Imbert | Michael Sheetz | Alexandra Gibbs
Published 5:19 AM ET Tue, 21 Aug 2018 Updated 4:13 PM ET Tue, 21 Aug 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/27/us-stocks-to-open-higher-after-powell-signals-further-rate-hikes.html
S&P 500, Nasdaq jump to record highs as US and Mexico strike trade deal

[Michaels153]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-economy-growth
US GDP revised up to 4.2%, 2Q economic growth improves
By Leia Klingel Published August 29, 2018 Economic Indicators FOXBusiness

The U.S. economy expanded more than expected in the second quarter, according to the Commerce Department’s first revision.

Second-quarter GDP increased at a 4.2 percent annual rate, according to the Commerce Department, above the originally reported 4.1 percent annual rate.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expected an unchanged reading of 4.1 percent on Wednesday.

Commenting on the latest figures, Mike Loewengart, vice president of investment strategy at E*Trade said, “Anything near 4.0 percent should be viewed favorably by the street, as it shows the continued power of our economic engine,” adding that, “some say we’re late in the business cycle, but clearly there’s more gas in the tank, at least for now.”

Is America's economy crushing it?
Key adjustments in the revision include consumer spending, which was strong, although a little less than previously estimated, with personal consumption expenditures rising 3.8 percent versus the previously reported 4 percent. Business investment was solid, with fixed nonresidential investment rising at an 8.5 percent annual clip versus the prior estimate of 7.3 percent.

Government spending increased 2.3 percent instead of 2.1 percent. This was mostly due to a rise in military spending.

Inflation inched higher, to a 1.9 percent annual pace versus the previous 1.8 percent.

[Michaels153]

https://apnews.com/a9444498173d4f42a52c83adb947fa74/US-consumer-confidence-rises-to-18-year-high
U.S. consumer confidence rises to 18-year high
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
8/28/18

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans’ consumer confidence rose in August to the highest level in nearly 18 years as their assessment of current conditions improved further and their expectations about the future rebounded.

The Conference Board reported Tuesday that its consumer confidence index rose to 133.4 in August, up from a reading 127.9 in July. It was the highest reading since confidence stood at 135.8 in October 2000.

Consumers’ confidence in their ability to get a job and the overall economy are seen as important indicators of how freely they will spend, especially on big-ticket items such as cars, in coming months. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity.

“Expectations, which had declined in June and July, bounced back in August and continue to suggest solid economic growth for the remainder of 2018,” said Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at the Conference Board. “These historically high confidence levels should continue to support health consumer spending in the near term.”...
“Confidence is soaring to new heights which makes us bullish on growth and forecasts that this expansion may indeed shatter records for longevity next summer,” said Chris Rupkey, the chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York.

[Michaels153]

Even among speculation of escalated trade wars, questions about the state of Canada in the New NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico, and an almost certain interest rate hike expected this month; the economy is still growing, with unemployment at 3.9%. Here are a couple of recent headlines.

U.S. Worker Productivity Rose in Spring at Best Pace Since 2015 - The Wall Street Journal
Layoff's Reach a Half-Century low - Wall Street Journal
American Factories are Humming - Wall Street Journal I recently read of a manufacturer saying he has trouble finding qualified workers to fill a job that pays $72k

In spite of the good news, there are certain forces at work that could bring our economy to an undetermined stall. Some of these factors including inflation, have been affecting the European and Asian markets.
I am always concerned about inflation, which is rising. But now our economy suffers from idiotic reporters like the one who reported off the record comments that derailed Canada's entering into the recently revised agreement with Mexico. Some of these reporters work for irresponsible rags more interested in waging war on President Trump than concern for the general welfare of the citizens of this country, while some are waging their own little resistance to this administration and to the GOP. Some of these reporters writing on the economy don't have a good grasp on identifying and reporting on real financial issues, or are looking at making a name for themselves by hyping the trending.

[Michaels153]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/06/trumps-tight-labor-market-wins-u-s-construction-workers-higher-wages/
President Trump's tight labor market wins U.S. construction workers higher wages.
American construction workers are seeing their wages rise in the blue collar industry as President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” tightened labor market forces business to find and employ disenfranchised U.S. workers, rather than importing foreign workers.
A recent report by the Miami Herald chronicled the rise in wages and business having to adapt to an economy with a tight labor market as immigration enforcement has been increased and unemployment has hit record lows.

As admitted in the Miami Herald by industry insiders, the tight labor market has secured jobs for Americans willing to do the blue collar work and won them higher wages in the process.

With 243,000 open jobs construction jobs nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics — and more than 500 listed by local ABC members — South Florida has become a worker’s market, said Peggy Marker, president of Fort Lauderdale-based Marker Construction, “the employees are in a position where they are interviewing us as much as we are interviewing them.”

As a result, 95 percent of those who come to ABC looking to learn a trade are matched with a job — experienced or not. “The reason it’s not 100 percent is that not everybody that walks through the door is serious,” Dyga said. “That’s how acute the shortage is.” [Emphasis added]

“The primary things that people see during a labor shortage is rising wages and the need for people to train more folks,” said Wade Helms, president of Edd Helms Group, which performs HVAC — heating, ventilation and air conditioning — and electrical work. “The projects get built, they just take longer.” [Emphasis added]

Trump’s tightened labor market has shifted the burden of the economy away from American workers — who are forced to compete for U.S. jobs in many states against cheaper, illegal aliens — and towards business that now must look for and employ Americans they would have previously passed on to hire foreign workers instead.


Through tariffs, Trump has secured higher wages for workers in counties like Peoria County, Illinois, which has led the nation in wage hikes thanks to a manufacturing boom, the result of protective tariffs to keep steel and aluminum jobs in the U.S.

In the most famous case, 600 jobs were secured for black Americans and wages were increased in February when ICE raided the Cloverhill Bakery in northwest Chicago, Illinois. Black Americans’ wages rose 25 cents thanks to enforcement.

Most recently, the tight labor market helped reintegrate retirees back into the workforce. Breitbart News has also reported extensively on how the tight labor market in Trump’s “hire American” economy has brought new job opportunities for Americans with disabilities and helped lower the demographic group’s unemployment rate.

There has also been history-making wage growth for American workers in the construction industry, the garment industry, for workers employed at small businesses, black Americans, and restaurant workers.

The tight labor market has also secured higher wages for overtime workers and high-paying, coveted white-collar jobs for American teenagers. Most recently, Breitbart News reported that the construction industry has had to recruit women to take jobs at higher wages rather than hiring illegal aliens. A Chick-Fil-A in California has even raised wages to $18 an hour to retain wo

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html
Trump has set economic growth on fire. Here is how he did it
President Donald Trump presides over an administration that has seen an enormous level of controversy that could overshadow a burgeoning economy.
He has delivered on promises to cut taxes and regulations and promote activity through more aggressive government spending.
Critics believe that it won't last because the fiscal stimulus is aimed only at near-term growth.
The results, though, have been impressive: a surge in company profits and near-record levels of optimism from consumers and businesses.
Jeff Cox

President Donald Trump is more than 19 months into an administration engulfed in so much controversy that it may overshadow a tremendous achievement, namely an economic boom uniquely his.

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020.But even they acknowledge that the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office.

"I still believe the big story this year is an economic boom that most folks thought impossible," Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council and a chief advisor to Trump, said in a recent interview with CNBC.com. "I understand that he's been in for a year and a half, but when you look at those numbers, this is not going away."

Indeed, the economy does seem to be on fire, and it's fairly easy to draw a straight line from Trump's policies to the current trends.

Trump's economic achievements
Business confidence is soaring, in part thanks to a softer regulatory environment. Consumer sentiment by one measure is at its highest level in 18 years. Corporate profits, owed in good part to last year's tax cuts, are coming close to setting records.Each of those accomplishments can be tied either directly to new policies or at least indirectly through a brimming sense of hope from businesses that the White House is back on their side.

"When you look at those confidence indexes, they're telling you something," Kudlow said. "His attitude is, we're not punishing business, we're not punishing success, we want to make things easier to do business and to hire, and I think it's had a very positive effect and a very palpable effect."

GDP most recently gained 4.2 percent in the second quarter, the best performance in nearly four years.

At the same time, the unemployment rate is 3.9 percent, just one-tenth of a percentage point above the lowest level since 1969.

But there are some more telling figures about just how much progress has been made under Trump.

At a time when most economists had been using the term "full employment" to describe the economy, 3.9 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the working during the Trump term. During the same period under former President Barack Obama, employment had fallen by 2.6 million. The economy in total, while still not in breakout mode, has grown by $1.4 trillion through the second quarter under Trump; the same time period for Obama saw a gain of just $481 billion, or a third of Trump's total.

Businesses are investing, consumers are spending and innovation is on the rise as well.

Trump pledged that he would pare down regulations that were choking business activity. While the actual moves toward deregulation haven't been quite as ambitious as planned, the approach has won him converts in the business community.

The most recent reading from the National Federation of Independent Business was the second highest in history dating back 45 years. Small business owners reported aggressive hiring plans, the only obstacle to which has been a dearth of labor supply. The end of June saw 6.7 million job openings and just 6.6 million Americans classified as unemployed, an unprecedented imbalance.

"Expansion continues to be a priority for small businesses who show no signs of slowing as they anticipate more sales and better business conditions." NFIB President and CEO Juanita Duggan said in a statement.

How he did it
Trump's economic program was very simple: an attack on taxes and regulations with an extra dose of spending on infrastructure and the military that would create a supply shock to a moribund economy.

On the tax side, the White House pushed through a massive $1.5 trillion reform plan that sliced the highest-in-the-world corporate tax from 35 percent to 21 percent and lowered rates for millions of taxpayers, though the cuts for individuals will expire in 2025.

On deregulation, Trump ordered that rules be pared back or eliminated across the board. During his time in office, Congress has cut back on the Dodd-Frank banking reforms, particularly in areas affecting regional and community institutions, rolled back a multitude of environmental protections that he said were killing jobs and took a hatchet to dozens of other rules. (The left-leaning Brookings Institution think tank has a rolling deregulation tracker that can be viewed here.)

During the first year of his administration, "significant regulatory activity" had declined 74 percent from where it was in the same period of the Obama administration, according to data collected by Bridget Dooling, research professor at GW's Regulatory Studies Center.The Dodd-Frank rollbacks have been particularly helpful to community banks, whose share prices collectively are up more than 25 percent over the past year. Small-cap stocks in general have strongly outperformed the broader market, gaining 23 percent over the past 12 months at a time when the S&P 500 is up 17 percent.

The Federal Register, where business rules are stored and thus serves as a proxy for regulatory activity, was 19.2 percent smaller from Inauguration Day until Aug. 16 under Trump than during the same period for Obama.

"You can think of that as turning off the spigot of new regulations," Dooling said in an interview. She said more aggressive movement appears to be on the way.

Dooling said recent regulatory changes from the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Education and Labor will advance deregulation in an even "more meaningful way."

In addition to expected deregulation benefits, there's also anticipation that the true benefits of tax cuts have yet to kick in. Mick Mulvaney, head of the Office of Management and Budget, recently told CNBC that he attributes the bulk of new economic growth to deregulation rather than the tax cuts, whose benefits he expects to come later.

"It's still too early to tell. We haven't seen any of the multipliers yet from tax reform," said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets. "We have enough in terms of ammunition to put in 3 percent growth for the rest of this year and even all of 2019, but we haven't seen sort of this spike in activity yet."

There's been another interesting trend that is peculiar to the Trump economy: a drifting of benefits from urban centers to nonmetropolitan areas, which are seeing their first collective population growth since 2010.

Trump's tax cuts "should deliver greater tax relief to rural areas where there is a higher rate of small business owners who will benefit from the favorable pass-through tax rates," Joseph Song, U.S. economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a recent note to clients.
...Trump's economy: Here’s where he gets credit, and what could go wrong Trump's economy: Here’s where he gets credit, and what could go wrong
17 Hours Ago | 04:40
President Donald Trump is more than 19 months into an administration engulfed in so much controversy that it may overshadow a tremendous achievement, namely an economic boom uniquely his.

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020.



But even they acknowledge that the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office.

"I still believe the big story this year is an economic boom that most folks thought impossible," Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council and a chief advisor to Trump, said in a recent interview with CNBC.com. "I understand that he's been in for a year and a half, but when you look at those numbers, this is not going away."

Indeed, the economy does seem to be on fire, and it's fairly easy to draw a straight line from Trump's policies to the current trends.

Trump's economic achievements
Business confidence is soaring, in part thanks to a softer regulatory environment. Consumer sentiment by one measure is at its highest level in 18 years. Corporate profits, owed in good part to last year's tax cuts, are coming close to



Each of those accomplishments can be tied either directly to new policies or at least indirectly through a brimming sense of hope from businesses that the White House is back on their side.

"When you look at those confidence indexes, they're telling you something," Kudlow said. "His attitude is, we're not punishing business, we're not punishing success, we want to make things easier to do business and to hire, and I think it's had a very positive effect and a very palpable effect."

GDP most recently gained 4.2 percent in the second quarter, the best performance in nearly four years.


At the same time, the unemployment rate is 3.9 percent, just one-tenth of a percentage point above the lowest level since 1969.



But there are some more telling figures about just how much progress has been made under Trump.

At a time when most economists had been using the term "full employment" to describe the economy, 3.9 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the working during the Trump term. During the same period under former President Barack Obama, employment had fallen by 2.6 million. The economy in total, while still not in breakout mode, has grown by $1.4 trillion through the second quarter under Trump; the same time period for Obama saw a gain of just $481 billion, or a third of Trump's total.

Businesses are investing, consumers are spending and innovation is on the rise as well.

President Donald Trump delivers remarks before signing an executive order on strengthening retirement security in America at Harris Conference Center in Charlotte, NC, August 31, 2018.
Yuri Gripas | Reuters
President Donald Trump delivers remarks before signing an executive order on strengthening retirement security in America at Harris Conference Center in Charlotte, NC, August 31, 2018.
Trump pledged that he would pare down regulations that were choking business activity. While the actual moves toward deregulation haven't been quite as ambitious as planned, the approach has won him converts in the business community.

The most recent reading from the National Federation of Independent Business was the second highest in history dating back 45 years. Small business owners reported aggressive hiring plans, the only obstacle to which has been a dearth of labor supply. The end of June saw 6.7 million job openings and just 6.6 million Americans classified as unemployed, an unprecedented imbalance.

"Expansion continues to be a priority for small businesses who show no signs of slowing as they anticipate more sales and better business conditions." NFIB President and CEO Juanita Duggan said in a statement.



During the first year of his administration, "significant regulatory activity" had declined 74 percent from where it was in the same period of the Obama administration, according to data collected by Bridget Dooling, research professor at GW's Regulatory Studies Center.



The Dodd-Frank rollbacks have been particularly helpful to community banks, whose share prices collectively are up more than 25 percent over the past year. Small-cap stocks in general have strongly outperformed the broader market, gaining 23 percent over the past 12 months at a time when the S&P 500 is up 17 percent.

The Federal Register, where business rules are stored and thus serves as a proxy for regulatory activity, was 19.2 percent smaller from Inauguration Day until Aug. 16 under Trump than during the same period for Obama.

"You can think of that as turning off the spigot of new regulations," Dooling said in an interview. She said more aggressive movement appears to be on the way.

Dooling said recent regulatory changes from the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Education and Labor will advance deregulation in an even "more meaningful way."

In addition to expected deregulation benefits, there's also anticipation that the true benefits of tax cuts have yet to kick in. Mick Mulvaney, head of the Office of Management and Budget, recently told CNBC that he attributes the bulk of new economic growth to deregulation rather than the tax cuts, whose benefits he expects to come later.

"It's still too early to tell. We haven't seen any of the multipliers yet from tax reform," said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets. "We have enough in terms of ammunition to put in 3 percent growth for the rest of this year and even all of 2019, but we haven't seen sort of this spike in activity yet."

There's been another interesting trend that is peculiar to the Trump economy: a drifting of benefits from urban centers to nonmetropolitan areas, which are seeing their first collective population growth since 2010.

Trump's tax cuts "should deliver greater tax relief to rural areas where there is a higher rate of small business owners who will benefit from the favorable pass-through tax rates," Joseph Song, U.S. economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a recent note to clients.

There also are some pockets of the economy that remain mired in slowness, most notably wage gains. Average hourly earnings have risen just 4.1 percent since January 2017 when Trump took office, barely keeping pace with inflation. (Still, during the same period wages rose just 3 percent under Obama.)

Then there's the Federal Reserve, which cut rates and flooded the financial system with cash during the Obama years. Now it is reversing course and tightening, or raising rates.

The Federal Reserve did everything it could to support President Obama. Now, with a better economy, the Federal Reserve is pumping the breaks to slow the U.S. engines down.

[Michaels153]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/a-comparison-of-two-presidents-president-trump-versus-president-obama-their-first-600-days/
A Comparison of Two Presidents: President Trump versus President Obama – Their First 600 Days
by Jim Hoft September 8, 2018

As we approach the first 600 days into the Donald J. Trump Presidency it’s again time to assess his accomplishments. What better way to perform this analysis than to compare his results to the prior Administration’s – President Barack H. Obama’s?
On Friday former President Barack Obama gave a speech in Illinois where he was critical of the current President while never referring to President Trump as “President”. Obama then took credit for President Trump’s economy. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hes-back-obama-refers-to-himself-102-times-during-64-minute-speech/ HE’S BACK! Obama refers to himself 102 times during 64-minute speech
SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
BY VICTOR SKINNER

Sean Hannity on FOX News shared parts of Obama’s speech and compared it to events from the Obama era –As we approach President Trump’s first 600 days in office, we decided to compare his economic results to those of Obama for the exact same time period. We start with the stock market results.

The DOW
After President Obama was elected President the already low stock market crashed. When Trump was elected the stock market skyrocketed. The markets are a gauge of the economy and include expectations of the future.

The day President Obama was elected President, November 4th, 2008, the DOW stood at 9,625. Immediately however, the DOW began to tank and by March 9, 2009, the DOW could go down no further as it landed at 6,547 for a decrease of more than 30%.

After President Trump was elected the DOW exploded. On November 8th, 2016, the DOW stood at 18,332. Since that date the DOW has soared and it never looked back.

Not only has the DOW skyrocketed since Donald Trump was elected President, the market’s rise is record breaking. Since the 2016 election, the DOW has closed at new record all-time highs 99 times! (President Obama never saw a new all-time high in the DOW his entire first term and only saw 105 all-time closing highs from his first election win until Trump’s.)

President Trump’s first year in office (2017) saw the most all-time stock market closing highs (71) as well as the largest increase in DOW history (4,956 points). Prior to 2017, no year in the DOW’s more than 100-year history ever saw the DOW increase by more than 3,500 points, let alone 4,900. The most all-time highs in a year prior to 2017 was 69 in 1995.Since President Trump was elected President the DOW tied the record for the most all-time closing highs in a row. In January of 1987 President Reagan saw the DOW increase to new all-time highs a record 12 days in a row. In February of 2017, President Trump matched Reagan’s record.

The DOW reached its fastest 500 point increase between major milestones under President Trump. In January of this year the DOW surpassed 26,000 and six days later the DOW surpassed 26,500. Under President Trump the DOW has seen the fastest 1,000; 2,000; 3,000; 4,000; 5,000; 6,000 and 7,000 point increases in DOW history. No similar records occurred during the Obama years.[/b]

Also, President Trump didn’t ride an Obama wave, the DOW under Obama went down in 2015 and stayed relatively flat until the 2016 election.

Russell 2000

The Russell 2000 is a major index of US small cap stocks recognized throughout the financial industry. The 2000 companies in the Russell 2000 are the bottom 2000 companies in the Russell 3000. These companies have seen incredible results as well since President Trump was elected President. The Russell 2000 reached 31 new highs in 2017 and this year already has reached 30 new all-time highs.

The Russell 2000 never reached a new high in Obama’s first 600 days and only reached 3 new all-time highs in his entire first term! The other major indices are all the same, recording massive gains since President Trump was elected into office with dismal results in Obama’s first 600 days in office.

GDP and Debt

According Rex Sinquefield at Forbes in October of 2016 –

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.

This result is not just bad, it is catastrophic. The average American should not be wondering if his or her income is a bit above or below 2007 levels. Just by historical averages, the average American should be 20% better off than in 2007. And this slow growth is settling in as a permanent new-abnormal.

I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.

President Trump however last quarter reached a GDP of 4.2%.

In regards to debt, President Obama increased the amount of US debt astronomically. By the time Obama left office he had doubled the US debt to $20 trillion and incurred as much debt as all previous Presidents combined. President Trump is slowing that trend.

In his first 600 days President Obama increased the amount of US debt by $2.8 trillion. In his first 600 days, in spite of increasing interest rates and the massive debt that he inherited, President Trump’s debt increase is around half that of Obama’s ($1.5 trillion).

As a result, the debt to GDP ratio is going down. President Obama increased the US debt to GDP ratio by 40% from around 60% in 2009 to over 100% in 2016.

With his increasing GDP and slowing of debt increases, President Trump has managed to decrease the debt to GDP ratio in his first 600 days in office. This is a very good result that is rarely mentioned by the MSM.

Jobs

Charles Payne from FOX Business reported on some stunning manufacturing news. Via Making Money with Charles Payne:

Speaking of jobs, I looked at the ADP report yesterday, Tammy, 830,000 new manufacturing jobs in the last 19 months. The prior 19 months, 26,000.

Trump bested Obama by 804,000 manufacturing jobs since taking over White House when compared to the 19 months prior to the 2016 election! These high paying jobs are the same jobs that Obama said would never come back.

In President Obama’s first 600 days in office, the US lost over (4.4) million jobs. In President Trump’s first 600 days in office, the US has gained over 3.4 million jobs.

In summary, in every major economic category, President Trump’s economy is moving in the right direction and is mostly record breaking. In comparison, President Obama’s economy his first 600 days were some of the worst months in US economic history. President Trump has reversed the Obama economic nightmare.

[Michaels153]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5832560016001/
Judge Jeanine: You're the reason Trump is president, Barack
Sep. 08, 2018 - 8:12 - The reason we have an outsider president is because of Obama's policies, lies and wars.

[leftyg]

It would be nice to know what some of those lies and policies were. I hear a lot of smack talked but not a lot of fact to back it up. Shep Smith is the only honest one at Fox .

The reason Trump is president is because there are a lot of loony people in this country who finally came out of the closet.

Btw, Trump inherited an excellent economy where unemployment is down. He should not take credit for it; he should thank Obama for leaving him in great shape.

Also, numbers do not lie. I think that the deficit from the foolish tax cut is going to hurt the country. Anybody who knows anything about economics knows that you do not give tax cuts during an expansion.

[Michaels153]

It would be nice to know what some of those lies and policies were. I hear a lot of smack talked but not a lot of fact to back it up. Shep Smith is the only honest one at Fox . If you pulled your head out of that hole once in awhile or if you read Real News from Fox, instead of begging with paws raised for the morsels thrown to by Fake News sources, you would be able to quote from their President Obama compendium. But with you, it is not that there is not sources from which this material is available; it is that you choose to ignore these sources and deny Obama's lies.

The reason Trump is president is because there are a lot of loony people in this country who finally came out of the closet. Thank God that President Trump was elected. Your side can continue to besmirch those who voted for President Trump, but these voters are better off now with President Trump than at any time under, and I do mean under - President Obama.

Btw, Trump inherited an excellent economy where unemployment is down. He should not take credit for it; he should thank Obama for leaving him in great shape.
Not true. And this has already by proven false over and over again. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/09/stephen_moore_preposterous_for_obama_to_take_credit_for_economy.html
Stephen Moore: Preposterous For Obama To Take Credit For Economy
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date September 9, 2018


Also, numbers do not lie. I think that the deficit from the foolish tax cut is going to hurt the country. Anybody who knows anything about economics knows that you do not give tax cuts during an expansion.

Everybody who knew everything about economics is giving President Trump kudos for his work on the United States economy. And those same economists would tell you dont take credit for lowering unemployment when the reason for lower unemployment is the loss of jobs caused by a faltering economy. And that is what President Obama did. People lost their jobs, and many quit looking after a couple of years, and those numbers were dropped from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Obama tried to spin that into a positive that he accomplished.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=45034#

[JuicedTruth]

The fact that the economy is doing so well, while Trump's approval rating is very low and Republicans stand to lose control of the House they gerrymandered their control of, tells you how much people credit the economy with current leadership.

[Michaels153]

The fact that the economy is doing so well, while Trump's approval rating is very low and Republicans stand to lose control of the House they gerrymandered their control of, tells you how much people credit the economy with current leadership.

Yes the fact (is that) the economy is doing so well. President Trump's approval rating is not very low. His approval rating has stayed pretty close to what President Obama's was during similar points in his presidency, and in some instances, President Trump has had higher approval ratings. The rest of your post sounds like more sour grapes. Your side is consumed by race and filled with Race baiters, and will probably never be satisfied with the way any state is divided for voting districts. The ridiculous arguments would probably continue even if a computer model tried to construct each district's borders. But don't try to paint Republicans as the only party that designs voting districts. And when people do not agree with the borders they can and have challenged them in court. And they can also make changes by voting. Since people move from party's to vote differently, present voting districts, regardless of size, do not guarantee a certain outcome in any election.

[Mrtazeman]

The economy was doing well when President Trump took it over. I thought the budget deficit will go down when the repubs took control:


U.S. budget deficit widens to fifth-highest ever, CBO reports
Source: Marketwatch.com




Published: Sept 11, 2018 10:36 a.m. ET



The numbers: The U.S. budget deficit in August was $211 billion, nearly double the gap during the year-ago month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated late Monday.

Adjusted for shifts in the timing of payments that otherwise would have occurred on a weekend of holiday, the deficit would have grown by 19%. The Treasury Department will report final official numbers on Thursday, and they are usually very similar to the CBO’s.

What happened: Excluding timing shifts, outlays grew 8%, as the net interest on public debt jumped 25%, defense spending jumped 10%, outlays for Social Security grew 5%, and outlays for Medicare benefits rose 7%. There also was an Agriculture Department downward adjustment made in the year-ago August. One boost to government finances was an increase in spectrum payments to the Federal Communications Commission.

[Michaels153]

Good report real.
[urlhttps://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-widens-to-fifth-highest-ever-cbo-reports-2018-09-11][/url]
By STEVE GOLDSTEIN
D.C. BUREAU CHIEF

The numbers: The U.S. budget deficit in August was $211 billion, nearly double the gap during the year-ago month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated late Monday.

Adjusted for shifts in the timing of payments that otherwise would have occurred on a weekend of holiday, the deficit would have grown by 19%. The Treasury Department will report final official numbers on Thursday, and they are usually very similar to the CBO’s.

What happened: Excluding timing shifts, outlays grew 8%, as the net interest on public debt jumped 25%, defense spending jumped 10%, outlays for Social Security grew 5%, and outlays for Medicare benefits rose 7%. There also was an Agriculture Department downward adjustment made in the year-ago August. One boost to government finances was an increase in spectrum payments to the Federal Communications Commission.

Receipts fell by 3%, with corporate taxes dropping by $5 billion, while revenue from income and payroll taxes rose marginally.

The big picture: The budget deficit is widening in a big way. In the first 11 months of the fiscal year, the deficit was $895 billion, which is $222 billion more than the previous year. Outlays have climbed 7% while revenue rose 1%.

Corporate taxes have plummeted by 30% this fiscal year, both because of the lower rate as well as the expanded ability to immediately deduct the full value of equipment purchases. Individual income and payroll taxes have climbed 4%, as increasing wages — mostly, due to more people having jobs — offset a lower withholding rate.

Spending on Social Security and Medicare have climbed 4% as more baby boomers retire, outlays on net interest on the debt have jumped 19% in part due to a higher rate of inflation triggering more payments to inflation-protected securities holders, and defense spending has jumped 6%.

Kevin Hassett, the White House chief economic adviser, was careful in a briefing with reporters on Monday to say the corporate tax cuts — but not the whole package — would pay for themselves with higher growth.

“I think that the notion that the corporate tax side has about paid for itself is clearly in the data,” he said. “On the individual side, there was about a trillion-dollar cost. About $700 billion of that was a refundable child credit that got expanded at the last minute to get the votes they needed to pass it.”

(The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the modification to the child tax credit to cost $573 billion over a decade, and that the individual side cost $1.13 trillion in total.)

Other administration officials have made more sweeping claims that the entire tax cut would pay for itself, including Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin and former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Market reaction: There’s little evidence the worsening fiscal picture is scaring the bond market too dramatically. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.61% has climbed about a half percentage point this year but still remains below 3%.

Now I think that much of this is not shocking and was to be expected. While everyone looks to growth as the band-aid, maintenance costs have been neglected on infrastructure. And if you want growth, you should be willing to accept some give and take in the process. That has not been the liberal way which does not want to assume any costs, they only want your money so that they can redistribute it. But growth in business requires workers. If companies do not have the needed equipment, they cant use new workers for that equipment. This is an intentionally simplistic short answer because it should not be necessary to go into much detail on this.
The reason the market is not reacting in a scared manner is because of the many positive variables that continue to effect it. Now some of the good news has been reported in this thread. Here is some more good news recently reported:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/small-business-optimism-surges-to-highest-ever.html
Small business optimism surges to highest level ever, topping previous record under Reagan
By John Melloy
Published 6:58 AM ET Tue, 11 Sept 2018 Updated 9:09 AM ET Tue, 11 Sept 2018
CNBC.com

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/airlines-say-booming-us-economy-led-to-record-summer-travel
Airlines say booming US economy led to record summer travel
by Anna Giaritelli
September 10, 2018 02:15 PM

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-job-openings-climb-to-record-69-million-2018-09-11
U.S. job openings climb to record 6.9 million
Published: Sept 11, 2018 4:43 p.m. ET
More workers quitting old jobs for better pay at new ones
By JEFFRY BARTASH
REPORTER

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-unveil-plan-to-make-individuals-tax-cuts-permanent-1536615799
House Republicans Unveil Plan to Make Individuals’ Tax Cuts Permanent
Legislation seeks to also lock in new standard deductions, as well as special deduction for owners of pass-through businesses
By Siobhan Hughes and Anne Tergesen
Updated Sept. 10, 2018 8:35 p.m. ET

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-crisis2008-lasvegas/las-vegas-is-booming-again-and-bracing-itself-for-next-slump-idUSKCN1LR0YX?il=0
Las Vegas is booming again, and bracing itself for next slump
David Randall
7 MIN READ

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wholesale-inflation-falls-for-first-time-in-18-months-ppi-shows-2018-09-12
Wholesale inflation falls for first time in 18 months, PPI shows
Published: Sept 12, 2018 9:49 a.m. ET

[Mrtazeman]

If these trend continues its going to be hard for the dems to win..

[Michaels153]

If these trend continues its going to be hard for the dems to win..

Well I would agree with you. The trend is continuing in exactly the way that the Democrats are trying to campaign against President Trump.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/371736-dems-vow-to-repeal-parts-of-gop-tax-law
Dems vow to repeal parts of GOP tax law
BY MIKE LILLIS AND NAOMI JAGODA - 02/01/18 06:00 AM EST

Remember that the Democrats unanimously opposed the tax reform act. They said that it only helped the wealthy, then they said that it only provided for crumbs to everyone else.

“We should repeal it and I think we should offer an alternative tax plan, which is we’re going to provide the tax relief to the middle class and the working class,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Well the Democrats should not be working to repeal the tax reform act.
1) https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-through-august-still-run
Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes Through August
By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 13, 2018 | 5:06 PM EDT


2) The Middle-class income keeps rising;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/12/middle-class-income-hit-an-all-time-high-last-year-us-census-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.45cd99b00e2c
Middle-class income rose above $61,000 for the first time last year, U.S. Census Bureau says
By Heather Long and Jeff Stein
September 12, 2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/us/census-median-income-poverty/index.html
Middle-class income rises again — now up to $61,400
By Tami Luhby

And, the Democrats do not have an alternate plan except to raise taxes.

Democrats are offering few details about what a replacement plan would look like, recognizing that legislation to roll back parts of the law won’t get far while Trump is in the White House. But painting in broad strokes, the lawmakers say they want to shift a bulk of the law’s benefits from the wealthy to the middle class

Once again, the Democrats return to their old playbook trying to employ class envy to paint the rich as the only ones who are benefiting because they are receiving more money on their investments, and receiving more money back in taxes. But when taxes were higher, they did not enjoy the same kind of economic benefits that they are seeing now. But that does not stop their determination to raise taxes back to at least the previous levels. There is an old saying that Democrats never saw a tax that they did not like. And you can be sure, that regardless of the economy at the time, if the Democrats get back to the White House they will raise taxes.

The present economy is in a Bull Run. Economist generally agree that an average Bull Run lasts a little over two years, with the longest recorded Bull Run lasting a little over eight years. There does not seem to be any certainty as to how long this present Bull Run has lasted, when it started, and how long it can go. There are some economists that suggest that the present Bull Run may end this year, next year, or even last until 2020. They really don't know. What is pretty certain is that if or when it ends, The Democrats will say they told everyone it couldn't last (wow, what a prediction there right?), and that they told you that President Trump did not know what he was doing in the first place and should never have been given any kind of credit for whatever good the economy did while he was in office. Next, the Democrats will say that they need more revenue for X, Y, & Z, and that the only fair way to do that is to raise taxes. (as quoted earlier). But then they will say, as they always do, that the public can afford the tax increase because how well they are doing.
Here is the important political cycle that Americans are seeing. The Democrats get in office, raise taxes, focus on things that they think are important, but not necessarily to voters who elected them think are important. And then once in office create more problems and fix few if any problems. The Democrats are voted out, and when replaced be conservatives, the conservatives get to work and make meaninful corrections and improvements as they clean up the mess left to them by the Democrats.

Now you and i would be content to keep and hold onto things that we like and things that work for us. But the Democrats aren't happy with the economy now and want to change that. And they say they want to change it for you and me because we are not benefiting from the present economy. Remember what they said:

No Democrats voted for the law, saying it’s a “scam” that helps the wealthy at the expense of working families.

You said,

If these trend continues its going to be hard for the dems to win

But I am telling you, that even if the present trends don't continue, even if the present trends stop. As long as the economy does not reverse itself, it is going to be hard for the Democrats to win because the public does not want to return to the harder more difficult times that the Democrats gave them and promise to return to.

[Michaels153]

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/america-unleashed-stock-market-hits-all-time-high-unemployment-at-49-year-low/
AMERICA UNLEASHED: Stock Market HITS ALL TIME HIGH, Unemployment at 49 YEAR LOW
posted by Hannity Staff - 9/20/18

At the present time, the devastation of Hurricane Florence has not made its impact directly on the Stock Markets, nor on the country's unemployment levels.

The US economy continued to smash records and surpass expectations in September, with new data showing the American unemployment rate at a half-century low and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching an all-time high.

According to CNBC, the Dow rose 219 points Thursday with the S&P 500 also breaking its previous record. The President hailed the news on social media, saying “S&P 500 HITS ALL-TIME HIGH Congratulations USA!”


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
S&P 500 HITS ALL-TIME HIGH Congratulations USA!
9:34 AM - Sep 20, 2018
32.3K
13.6K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit its first record high since January on Thursday as gains in Apple and a decrease in trade fears lifted the 30-stock index… The Nasdaq Composite also rose 0.5 percent,” writes CNBC.
The stunning economic data may spell disaster for Democrats hoping to retake Congress this fall, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowing to repeal the ‘GOP Tax Scam’ should her party win big during the midterm elections.

Read the full report at CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/wall-street-us-china-trade-spat-takes-a-backseat.html

The Dow rose 203 points as Boeing, Caterpillar and Apple outperformed. The S&P 500 also rose 0.6 percent to an all-time high, its first since late August, as materials and tech outperformed....The Nasdaq Composite also rose 1 percent as Amazon gained 1.1 percent ahead of an event where they are expected to unveil new Alexa-powered devices. Apple, meanwhile, jumped 1.6 percent.

Boeing and Caterpillar, two bellwethers for trade, rose 1.2 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively....the levies imposed by both countries were seen as less than previously feared, helping lift sentiment on Wall Street. The Dow is up more than 1 percent over the past two days. The S&P 500, meanwhile, has risen more than 0.6 percent in that time period.

"I'm not at all surprised investors are taking the latest tariffs and the more muted response from China as a positive," said Kate Warne, investment strategist at Edward Jones.

[Mrtazeman]

But I am telling you, that even if the present trends don't continue, even if the present trends stop. As long as the economy does not reverse itself, it is going to be hard for the Democrats to win because the public does not want to return to the harder more difficult times that the Democrats gave them and promise to return to.

I am kind of confused, when Clinton became President, he had a real bad economy to deal with. He took the bad economy and when he left office the US was never in better shape. There was even a budget surplus.

Then came George W. Bush, who took that economy and created one of the Worst economy since the Great Depression, some economist even said it was worse than the Great Depression.

Obama had to deal with major budget deficits, a manufacturing industry going bankrupt, the finance industry going bankrupt, a collapse housing industry, two unpaid for wars, double digit unemployment rate, and worse of all a do nothing congress who was determined to sabotage him. With all that he was able to give Trump a strong economy to work with.

So when was these harder more difficult times that you are talking about?

[Michaels153]

But I am telling you, that even if the present trends don't continue, even if the present trends stop. As long as the economy does not reverse itself, it is going to be hard for the Democrats to win because the public does not want to return to the harder more difficult times that the Democrats gave them and promise to return to.

I am kind of confused, when Clinton became President, he had a real bad economy to deal with. He took the bad economy and when he left office the US was never in better shape. There was even a budget surplus. That is correct. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/19/us/clinton-angers-friend-and-foe-in-tax-remark.html

...Speaking at a campaign fund raiser in Houston, Mr. Clinton said, Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too. The President, who took office promising both a tax cut for the middle class and higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans, [He addressed the public three weeks after his inauguration] Now, it was February 1993, three weeks after his inauguration Bill Clinton addressed the nation about his much promised middle-class tax cut. He said, (impression) “I’ve worked harder on this than anything I have ever done in my life, and while I said that I’d like to lower your taxes, I just can’t.” And he then introduced a tax increase on the middle class, which was described by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/14/huge_see_i_told_you_so_obama_says_economy_was_worse_than_we_knew/

Then came George W. Bush, who took that economy and created one of the Worst economy since the Great Depression, some economist even said it was worse than the Great Depression. This is a matter of perspective. Beside's 9/11, President Bush addressed financial issues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He and McCain warned the Democrats about the need for federal regulations that Barney Frank and Charles Schumer, and Maxine Waters said were not necessary. They said there was no crisis. When a bill was introduced calling for more regulations to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac every Democrat voted against it. Obama who had no clue, did not weigh in on the bill. It was Bill Clinton who lowered the standards for the banks and mortgage lenders. Then comes the financial crisis. On top of that, there was President Bush's determination to fulfill the promise made and not kept by President Clinton. (The tax cut). He also dealt with the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
Did you know that during the war, in which our military had to adapt to a different type of guerrilla warfare,with IED's, had weapons and machinery poorly suited for the sand, and much of the equipment was run down due to lack of attention to maintenance needs by President Clinton. Did you know that President Bush had to replace some military equipment and called for the deployment of other equipment as soon as it could be manufactured. So the stats used by the Democrats to condemn President Bush's "economy" are pretty empty when explained.

Obama had to deal with major budget deficits, caused for the most part by the priorities of the Democrats to build up their base at the expense of the country. But Obama campaigned on his promises to make the country right again. Obama portrayed himself as the man with the plan, the man who had all the answers.a manufacturing industry going bankrupt, Yes, a manufacturing industry going bankrupt mostly due to the high taxes and regulations placed upon them by Obama's own party, the Democrats. The Democrats, who sent companies fleeing to other countries, or going out of business.the finance industry going bankrupt, a collapse housing industry, two unpaid for wars, double digit unemployment rate, all due to the the Democrats. and worse of all a do nothing congress who was determined to sabotage him. No, all do to a Congress that was split and was a rubber stamp for the Democrats because they were not going to challenge him. The Republicans knew that Obama's ACA was not going to work and refuse to be a part of it. The mindless Democrats, acting like children, playing tit for tat, then decide not to sign on to the Trump tax reform act. And guess what, It was the Republicans who were right BOTH TIMES, and the DEMOCRATS were wrong BOTH TIMES.With all that he was able to give Trump a strong economy to work with. Obama did not give President Trump a strong economy to start with. President Trump started to immediately take into account what the Democrats had done in the past that hurt this country and overturn them. The economic turnaround began in earnest when President Trump was inaugurated.
Do you want to look up the people that were unemployed, the people that were on food stamps, the number of jobs lost due to Obama, and don't forget about the ACA. These are the harder more difficult times that i am talking about. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/09/14/2-obama-wants-credit-for-economy-he-told-us-was-impossible/ Obama Craves Credit for Economy He Told Us Was Impossible. - Sep 14, 2018

So when was these harder more difficult times that you are talking about?

[Mrtazeman]

Was the economy not better off after Obama took office than before?

[Michaels153]

Not from my perspective.

[leftyg]

Mrtazeman asked;

Was the economy not better off after Obama took office than before?

Michaels answer in pure ideology:

Not from my perspective.

Well of course you are wrong. Unemployment was lower, the stock market higher, but why let mere facts get in the way of your ideological "supposed to"--"supposed to lower taxes to create prosperity," "supposed to favor business," "supposed to suppress worker' rights" etc. There is a lot to say here, but are you so dumb you do not remember the chart I put up that showed that virtually all of the increases in the national debt occurred during Republican administrations since Reagan was president? If Democrats spent as they did and Republicans had balanced the budget that the debt would be 25% of GDP

The problem is when a conservative gets a notion in his head no matter how wrong, he cannot shake it. You really are a piece of work. Mrtazeman can tell you all about the subprime meltdown. You should listen.

[Michaels153]

Mrtazeman asked;

Was the economy not better off after Obama took office than before?

Michaels answer in pure ideology:

Not from my perspective.

Well of course you are wrong. Leftyg, my answer is perfectly correct because it is from my perspective. There were no parameters given as to how I was allowed to answer this question. You didn't even ask how I arrived at that perspective. But your an ass, that jumps straight to the partisan playbook and I am not having any part of it. The unemployment numbers were discussed in a previous thread where I showed you that Obama, his team, and his complicit sycophants in the press went along with his cooking the books that made the unemployment numbers go down to where they were and I am not going through that again for you or Mrtazemen. Mrtazeman and you can look for the metric you want to highlight and say that I am incorrect, but there is life beyond numbers that you dont talk about. Being able to pay your taxes but not being able to take a vacation, job satisfaction. Working two or more jobs as a result of Obamacare is not s sign of a better economy. So from my perspective, which I can't be wrong, the economy was not better off

[leftyg]

Leftyg, my answer is perfectly correct because it is from my perspective. There were no parameters given as to how I was allowed to answer this question. You didn't even ask how I arrived at that perspective. But your an ass, that jumps straight to the partisan playbook and I am not having any part of it. The unemployment numbers were discussed in a previous thread where I showed you that Obama, his team, and his complicit sycophants in the press went along with his cooking the books that made the unemployment numbers go down to where they were and I am not going through that again for you or Mrtazemen. Mrtazeman and you can look for the metric you want to highlight and say that I am incorrect, but there is life beyond numbers that you dont talk about. Being able to pay your taxes but not being able to take a vacation, job satisfaction. Working two or more jobs as a result of Obamacare is not s sign of a better economy. So from my perspective, which I can't be wrong, the economy was not better off

Of course your answer was right from your perspective of truthiness* You have no evidence that Obama cooked the books. Thank you for the honesty. It is nice to know that you know you are full of shit!

*Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.[3][4]

[Michaels153]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/?s=Obama%27s+Orwellian+Unemployment+numbers
Obama’s Orwellian Unemployment Numbers
May 4, 2012 *Remember that date here for the information that is stated below. And keep track of the dates for the rest of the references listed and referred to.

Barack Obama has decided that the only way to lower the unemployment rate is to kill off jobs. The unemployment rate went down one-tenth of a percent from 8.2% to 8.1%, but the number of people who left the labor force is at an all-time high.

...Here’s the comparison: In February, 259,000 jobs were added. In April, 115,000 jobs were added and 154,000 were added in March. And that number, in March, was universally hailed as bad news, because I think in that month the unemployment rate didn’t move. But now we’re supposed to believe the unemployment rate went down when hiring is slowing down, not speeding up. But even Reuters is forced to admit, quote: “The unemployment rate ticked a tenth of a point lower to a three-year low as a people left the workforce.”

Reuters: April Hiring Slows, Jobless Rate falls to 8.1 percent

People are leaving the workforce and that’s why the rate’s going down! Jobs are not being created. And that’s the Obama magic.

But CNBC reported: “Though the headline number indicated job creation, the total employment level for the month actually fell 169,000.” Total employment, meaning more people lost jobs than got them,and yet the unemployment rate went down. The only way that can happen is for people to be leaving the job force, the labor force, the job market. And as CNBC says: “The disparity likely emanates from a drop in the labor force participation rate

... There are currently 7.8 million workers working part-time for economic reasons. Only 115,000 jobs were added. The labor force participation rate is 63.6%, a 30-year low. We are at a 30-year low in the number of Americans working. With 8.1% unemployment, Obama has extended his record of 8%-plus unemployment now to 39 consecutive months. It has not been this high, this long, since the Great Depression.

If the labor force participation rate had stayed the same as in March, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%. In other words, if they hadn’t just said that a million people left the job market, the unemployment rate would be 8.4%. It woulda gone up. This is precisely why I’m saying to you that to get the rate down, Obama is killing jobs. Our buddy Jim Pethokoukis points out: “If the size of the US labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office … the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.0%,” not 8.1%.

AEI: The Awful April Jobs Report: Is the A'RealA' Unemployement Rate 11.1%? -- James Pethokoukis

...And, finally: “US worker productivity fell from January through March by the most in a year.” I AP: US Worker Output Fell in Q1 by Most in a Year. ...So not only are fewer people working; their output fell by the most in a year.

“While worker output rose, (The reported unemployment number at this time was 8.1%, and that it just dropped one-tenth of a percent from 8.2%)the number of hours worked increased by an even larger amount.” Therefore the overall output was down. You see how they’re monkeying these numbers?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/#21e0b1d9cdc3
Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way
Peter Ferrara - October 11, 2012, remember to keep these dates in mind as you read the information provided, in context.
Contributor for Forbes
He covers public policy, particularly concerning economics
[quoteThe Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported last Friday that 114,000 new jobs were created last month, Keep that number in mind, 114,000 new jobs created last month. and remember the other numbers you have heard so far - [259,000, 115,000, 154,000] according to its Establishment Survey of business payrolls that has been emphasized by the Obama Administration. ]
...Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number of full-time jobs declined by 216,000 last month, as Lott also noted. The unemployment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported surprise September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the separate Household Survey of families across the nation. So what we see here is a discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Establisment Survey of business payrolls - *["That has been emphasized by the Obama Administration.] and this Household Survey, (which will be discussed more in the next reference) That reported increase is anomalous for the reasons discussed below.

But even the actually story the BLS is telling is not good. In addition to all of the above, the supposed September increase in Household Survey jobs was mostly in what the BLS calls part time work for economic reasons. The BLS explains, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” That applied to 582,000 of the supposed new jobs reported by the September Household Survey, and a total of 8.6 million Americans last month.[/quote] So, 114,000 new jobs were created last month, + full time jobs declined by 216,000 - last month, But the Household survey (Not the Establishment Survey of business payrolls), reports a spurt of 873,000 jobs? Lets look at the next reference.

https://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report
by John Crudele for the New York Post
November 18, 2013

[quote]In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report,
...And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
...Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.
“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.[/quote] Here it is, the Household Survey, that remember from the last reference, reported that "anomalous September Spurt of 873,000 jobs.

nterviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.

“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”

On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.

With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.

During the 2010 Census report — an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year — I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.

I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs — commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.) So when Obama could not get the numbers he wanted from the Establishment Survey he instructs his people doing the Census report to make up fake survey's and to turn in the false numbers under the Household Survey. This is the only conclusion to be reached by the data and by the investigation made that uncovered the falsification and manipulation of job reports.

Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.

I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.

I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.

To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
Gallup CEO Just Discovered What We’ve Known for Years About the Obama Unemployment Number
Feb 3, 2015

... The U-6 number is the real — and that’s up at around 12% right now. And his point, that’s the big lie. The big lie is that real unemployment is closer to 12% than 5.6.

See Gallup.com: The Big Lie: 5.66% Unemployment

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/8/editorial-obamas-unemployment-rate-lies-exposed-by/
The art of the whopper
Reality exposes the lie of the official unemployment rate
The Washington Times --Sunday, February 8, 2015

...The Labor Department in its monthly unemployment rate, reported Friday, said that the jobless rate rose one-tenth of 1 percent from 5.6 percent to 5.7 percent in January, which it attributes to those who had stopped looking for work now re-entering the labor market,

Now pay attention. This article appeared in the Sunday edition of the Washington Times, February 8, 2015 edition. The article is reporting on the previous month (January's jobless rate) The jobless rate of January shows a one-tenth percent increase. But the Obama administration knows (somehow) that that one tenth of jobless workers have already returned to the workforce (now "re-entering the labor market)
[quote from the President and CEO of the Gallup polling organization]Mr. Clifton notes the inconvenient truth that if someone is “so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking [for a job] over the past four weeks,” the Labor Department “doesn’t count you as unemployed.” If you work one hour a week and are paid at least $20, “you’re not officially counted as unemployed” in the under 6 percent figure.

So as pointed out by Mr. Gallup, if your out of work and have stopped looking for a job over the past four weeks (for the previous month of January) The Labor Department does not count you as unemployed. But the Obama administration says that this one-tenth of jobless workers was counted by the Labor department. So what really counted for the one-tenth percent increase in jobless workers? - more workers left the workforce. The labor participation rate dropped

..Unlike the “official” jobless rate, the Labor Department’s so-called “U-6” unemployment rate includes those working part time but who want a full-time job and can’t find one. The U-6 rate stood at 11.2 percent in December, nearly double the official rate.

Mr. Obama’s claim of a robust jobless rate takes no account of the record 92.9 million Americans no longer in the labor force. The labor participation rate was 62.7 percent in December, a 38-year low that recalled the “economic malaise” of the Carter presidency.

The administration’s jobless-rate claims fool no one beyond the Beltway, and certainly not Jim Clifton, the president and CEO of the Gallup polling organization. .

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/obama_s_unemployment_sleight_of_hand/
Obama’s Unemployment Sleight of Hand
Feb 5, 2016

He (Obama) was heralding first-time unemployment rate as being under 5% for the first time in seven years. That’s essentially since he took office. The first time. When have you ever heard that referred to: “The first-time unemployment rate is now at 4.9%”? What’s that? Does anybody have any memory of hearing the unemployment rate referred to as “the first-time unemployment rate”?


Well, there’s a reason he said it. It’s because it’s the only way you can ignore the 94 million Americans not working, not in the labor force. The first-time unemployed. In other words, people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time, 5%. They’re added to the 15% who have been getting unemployment for four years and have run out. He’s not talking about them. So this is a sleight-of-hand thing.

See also Washington Free Beacon: 94,062,000 Not in Labor Force While Participation Rate Improves in January. And see -> ZeroHedge: President Obama Explains How Surging Bartenders Are Unequivocally Good

In the Art of the Whopper, Mr. Clifton said: "Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed," Mr. Clifton says. "Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast 'falling unemployment." ZeroHedge: President Obama Explains How Surging Bartenders Are Unequivocally Good. Could it be with so many out of work, that many of these people were trying to drink their sorrows away?
And, was that then the answer that led to the surging bartenders,

[Mrtazeman]

There is not one economist that would say we weren't better off after Obama left office than before he took office..

Every key economic metric that you give credit for Trump, Obama has accomplished it as well.

[Michaels153]

Mrtazeman,
You first asked me: "Was the economy not better off after Obama took office than before? And I said not from my perspective. Leftyg said that my answer was pure ideology, and an example of truthiness. I explained that as my answer was from my perspective, it could not be wrong. You could point out statistics and then argue - X and that would be a starting point for that statistic. But my perspective is more than one of yours or Leftyg's metrics. Unemployment is only one metric of an economy. It is a big metric, but still "one metric." I have expanded a little here to Leftyg's challenge of no evidence but I had already stated some of this in this thread alone:
First, in my January 16th post I provided a link to how David Stockman broke down Obama's unemployment numbers by job hours. This was important because John Crudele noted that the Census was "inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers. He suspected that this turnover of employees was being done to boost the number of new jobs being reported each month. Remember that Mr. Crudele informed us of the fabricating of data that went into the unemployment report by an employee in the Census Bureau. By breaking down jobs into hours, as Mr. Stockman did, you could contrast the number of employed jobs reported with the actual hours work.
In "Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election I posted the reference link to Mr. Limbaugh's "Obama's unemployment sleight of hand.

Now as to your statement: "Every key economic metric that you give credit for Trump, Obama has accomplished it as well." Well that is not true. The biggest one is that of the number of Americans working. See my July 7th post in this thread. Obama does hold a record that President Trump has not matched. - The number of people on food stamps.

[Michaels153]

Some Good signs in the past week:
First - there is a new trade agreement with Mexico, and Canada
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/us-canada-mexico-just-reached-sweeping-new-nafta-deal-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.e87e88a62455
S., Canada and Mexico just reached a sweeping new NAFTA deal. Here’s what’s in it.
Goodbye, NAFTA. Hello, ‘USMCA.’ The deal has a new name, new rules for cars and trucks, and labor and IP protections.

Six big changes NAFTA's replacement, the USMCA, makes
The United States, Mexico and Canada have agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement with a new plan that changes multiple industries. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
By Heather Long
October 1
On Sunday night, President Trump got his wish for a significantly revised North American trade deal. After more than a year of intense negotiations, the United States, Canada and Mexico reached an agreement to update the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 pact that governs more than $1.2 trillion worth of trade among the three nations.

The new deal won’t go into effect right away. Most of the key provisions don’t start until 2020 because leaders from the three countries have to sign it and then Congress and the legislatures in Canada and Mexico have to approve it, a process that is expected to take months.

Next, China has agreed to lower tariffs on a number of products. Although this is not what President Trump wants, it is a step in the right direction toward fair trade on products.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-tariffs/china-to-cut-import-tariffs-on-wide-range-of-products-idUSKCN1MA0HJ
China to cut import tariffs on wide range of products

BEIJING (Reuters) - China will cut import tariffs on textile products and metals, including steel products, to 8.4 percent from 11.5 percent, effective Nov. 1, the finance ministry said on Sunday.

[Mrtazeman]

Yea, don't know what you are using for a bench mark but when Obama took over, by the time Obama took over unemployment rate was over 10%, the U.S. Economy was losing over 800k jobs per month, about 20k homes was going into foreclosure, manufacturing industry was at a stand still, auto industry was going bankrupt, banking industry was bankruot, stock market was at a free fall, and s bunch of Retired people had no choice but to go back to work like places at Walmart. Trump didn't have to deal with the worst economy since the Great Depression.

BTW, Bob Frantz back then blamed the housing crises in a bunch of Lazy Liberals who didn't want to get up for work and pay their mortgage..

Like I said u can't find one economist who will claim that things got worse under Obama.

[Mrtazeman]

"Every key economic metric that you give credit for Trump, Obama has accomplished it as well." Well that is not true. The biggest one is that of the number of Americans working. See my July 7th post in this thread. Obama does hold a record that President Trump has not matched. - The number of people on food stamps.

As a Christian, I don't have a problem for my tax money going to hungry women, children and poor families that The maximum gross monthly income is 130 percent of the federal poverty level..

[Michaels153]

Mrtazeman, this is not my "bench mark' but it is a pretty balanced though short assessment on Obama's fiscal record.
tps://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-10-02/former-president-barack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
Debunking Obama's Fiscal Record
Some see Trump's predecessor as having returned fiscal discipline to Washington. They're wrong.
By Brian Riedl Opinion ContributorOct. 2, 2017, at 10:50 a.m.



Mrtazeman said: "Like I said u can't find one economist who will claim that things got worse under Obama"
I don't think I could find a economist who could guarantee a single economic measurement during Obama's occupation of the White House was accurate.
And while you want to give Obama credit for what you think he inherited, why don't you look closer at what he did when he was in office. You brought up The Great Depression. Did you know that Youth unemployment had been above 23% for 34 months, or that the Obama administration promised us that with the passage of the stimulus bill in 2009, the unemployment rate would never reach 8%? Yet during his presidency the unemployment rate was above 8% for so long that it can accurately and truthfully be said that the unemployment rate had not been that high for so long since the Great Depression. (Obama's Orwellian Unemployment numbers.).

[Michaels153]

Mrtazeman said: "I have a problem for going to hungry women, i am gross.

But Michaels said: I don't act in any manner that would place people in such a needy position. It was not my actions that cost people jobs and put them in a position where they were eligible for food stamps.

Obama can't say that.

[Michaels153]

Dow Jones inches closer to another record High as it nears 27,000 mark.

As of noon today, 10/3/18, The Dow Jones was over 26,900.

[Mrtazeman]

, I don't act in any manner that would place people in such a needy position. It was not my actions that cost people jobs and put them in a position where they were eligible for food stamps.

Then you really must not like GWB..

[Michaels153]

GWB was a good president and he is a good man.
What are you striving to be?

[Mrtazeman]

Michaels,

Now you are showing your bias. Even President Trump was ripping on GWB as a President. I am sure he was a good man though. Dickless Channey was his downfall.

[Michaels153]

Michaels,

Now you are showing your bias. Even President Trump was ripping on GWB as a President. I am sure he was a good man though. Dickless Channey was his downfall.

And how am I showing a bias to GWB? President Trump has ripped on a number of presidents for not following through on promises, like recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the Paris climate agreement, NAFTA, etc. And he has criticized ex-Presidents for their comments on current politics at times. But I don't think President Trump dislikes GWB, maybe Jeb is someone he does not like. The point is that I view GWB overall and not just by each individual decision he made while in office. And your punk retort aside, I don't assess one person based on another. Maybe that is a Democrat's or a liberal thing.
I don't look at Obama's actions though Biden, Clinton, or Holder. And, I don't change my opinion of someone because of someone else's comments. That is party politics at its worst. That's democrats ignoring Bill Clinton's womanizing because he was someone in their party.

[Mrtazeman]

And how am I showing a bias to GWB?

You just can't make a statement that GWB was a great President while Obama was the worse president without sound bias. Facts does not support your conclusion.

So you don't agree with Trump bashing GWB??

[Michaels153]

APP-060118-trump-ECONOMY-0099 (1).jpg (250.36 KiB) Viewed 88765 times

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/03/as-the-economy-booms-suburban-women-flock-to-trump/
As the Economy Booms, Suburban Women Flock to Trump
Oct. 3, 2018

RUSH: I got an email. “Mr. Limbaugh, question: You barely see it mentioned on TV, but there’s huge news in the last 24 hours that greatly affects the American middle class. Wage growth has hit a 17-month high. Job growth has hit a seven-month high. The stock market has hit another record high. One-hundred-and-two record highs during the Trump presidency. Service industry growth, Mr. Limbaugh, has hit another record high — and trade deals recently negotiated by Trump are helping everybody, particularly farmers.https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-has-just-revolutionized-global-trade-by-replacing-nafta-with-usmca
Trump has just revolutionized global trade by replacing NAFTA with USMCA
It’s why the media is not reporting it. CNBC has the details. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/private-payrolls-grew-by-230000-in-september-vs-185k-est-adp.html 'Rip-roaring hot' jobs market sees private payrolls surge by 230,000, highest since FebruaryIt’s “well ahead of expectations.” The experts predicted 185,000. “Moody’s economist Mark Zandi said the current pace suggests an unemployment rate of close to 3% in a year.” So all the economic news is out of this world, and it’s because of the Trump presidency! It’s because of the Trump agenda.

The Democrats have told everybody this could not happen.

[leftyg]

According to the Hill
Trump's woman problem may cost the GOP the House
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/404590-president-trumps-woman-problem-may-cost-the-gop-the-house

So you should not listen to Rush Limbaugh; he feeds ear candy to the base, and no one is more base than you. Obama was putting up these job numbers every month when he was digging the Bush economy out of the abyss. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Yes Trump continued Obama's success, but he no more created this economy than he created his own fortune. His father Fred left him on third base and Obama left him on third base with the country, and he thinks he hit two triples. https://mic.com/articles/191665/donald- ... .aqFePC6JX

[Michaels153]

You should stop telling people what they should do. Should I stop using references from CNBC or only stop when they print out the good numbers of this economy.
Obama could never approach the success that President Trump is achieving even if he had a seeing eye dog leading him. And if Obama followed President Trump, this country would probably take a nosedive into the toilet because he still would not have any answers.

[leftyg]

You should stop telling people what they should do. Should I stop using references from CNBC or only stop when they print out the good numbers of this economy.
Obama could never approach the success that President Trump is achieving even if he had a seeing eye dog leading him. And if Obama followed President Trump, this country would probably take a nosedive into the toilet because he still would not have any answers.

First, I was merely countering what chubby Limbaugh was passing off as truth. Second, you are delusional if you think what Trump has done is better than Obama. The data shows different, but you are one of those truthiness* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness fools who will not believe facts; instead you believe the legend of Trump.

I will give you the facts again for the umpteenth time: Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office; it was 4.8% when he left. When Trump took office it was 4.8%; now it is 3.9%. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 When Obama took office the Dow Jones Average was 7,949; when he left it was 19,827 https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Dow- ... eft-office President Trump has gotten it to close to 27 thousand.

Do you see a pattern here? Probably not. You see Obama had plenty of answers, but he does not bloviate them the way Trump and his minions do. Oh and btw labor force participation has been stable since 2014 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

*Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

[Michaels153]

And how am I showing a bias to GWB?

You just can't make a statement that GWB was a great President while Obama was the worse president without sound bias. Facts does not support your conclusion.

So you don't agree with Trump bashing GWB??

I can make any statement that I want. To prove bias, you would have to prove that I used different standards and/or applied the same standards unequally. I didn't.
I said, GWB was a Good President and is a good man. You and whoever can cite statistics, to try and persuade people to your point of view but If I like a certain flavor of ice cream, and you point to your statistics that say more people like a different flavor than I do, you can't say I am wrong for my choice of ice cream.

And when was President Trump "bashing" GWB? Is it even possible anymore for the Left to describe conversations without the terms of attacking or bashing? These terms used to be set aside for describing violent behavior. But the left prefers to use their own definitions for political reasons. You can not disagree with someone (civil), Now, to disagree with someone means your attacking them or bashing them. Really? (Not civil)

[Michaels153]

And I will give you the the supplementary explanation of these facts again for the umpteenth time.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-has-reversed-every-single-failed-economic-policy-of-the-obama-era-heres-what-must-happen-next
Trump has reversed every single failed economic policy of the Obama era – Here’s what must happen next
Kayleigh McEnany By Kayleigh McEnany | Fox News

Friday was a great day for America’s economy and the American people under the leadership of President Trump, as the Labor Department reported our nation’s unemployment rate fell to just 3.7 percent – the lowest level since 1969.

Millions of us have never seen an unemployment this low in our entire lives.
There is simply no denying the overwhelming success of the Trump economy.

Need more evidence?

Hispanic and black unemployment are at historic lows, while female unemployment has reached a 50-year low.
Meanwhile, wages are increasing at the fastest pace in nearly a decade.
Manufacturing jobs completely reversed course. In the final year of President Obama’s term, the manufacturing sector lost 16,000 jobs. In the first year of the Trump administration, there was a gain of 196,000 manufacturing jobs.
Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, “American manufacturers are on track for their most optimistic year in at least two decades,” according to the National Association of Manufacturers.
For nearly a decade before President Trump was elected in November 2016, Americans suffered through the worst economic recovery since World War II. Because of the disastrous Obama-era failed liberal policies, manufacturing jobs fled, wages were flat, and millennials lost access to the job market.

Everything changed when America elected a businessman and a job creator to be president of the United States. Immediately upon taking office, President Trump set out to cure the ills of the ailing U.S. economy.

Recognizing the intuitive truism that overregulation and over-taxation put a chokehold on the free market by depressing wages and destroying jobs, our new president reversed course.

President Trump has slashed burdensome regulations at a record rate, cutting 22 regulations for every one implemented.

And the Trump tax cuts not only gave $2,059 back to the average American family, but also had the added benefit of reducing the corporate tax rate – once the highest in the industrial world – resulting in job creation and higher wages and bonuses.

It’s no wonder that President Obama is desperately trying to lay claim to the Trump economy. But his efforts to do so fly in the face of logic, intuition and fact.

The Wall Street Journal surveyed economists and found that a big majority credited President Trump’s policies as a catalyst for economic growth. Moreover, in the same survey, “more than 90% of economists said the tax cuts would increase GDP growth over the next two years.”

The truth is that President Trump has reversed every single failed economic policy of the Obama era. With that welcome move came a sea change in results. Jobs grew at historic rates. Wages finally began to climb. And consumer confidence, alongside the stock market, rose to record highs.

Though the Great Recession had run its course, workers still felt unsettled in 2016. It’s why a Deutsche Bank study found that workers felt more worried about losing their job in 2016 than they did in 2009 – at the height of the recession.

Workers felt insecure for one simple reason: the Obama economy failed them, resulting in the worst economic recovery since World War II.

Voters elected President Trump in 2016 because they believed he would rectify the wrongs of the Obama economy. He did just that – resoundingly!

And if the American people vote to give Republicans continued majorities in the U.S. House and Senate in the Nov. 6 general election, the president and Congress will continue working together to build a stronger and more prosperous economy and make progress on many other fronts as well.

Kayleigh McEnany is the author of the "New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement." She is the Republican National Committee's National Spokesperson and a former CNN Commentator who received her JD from Harvard Law School.

*Truthiness; the utterances by Leftyg and his posted beliefs or assertions that he says are true without regard to the evidence, logic, intellectual examination, and facts posted by Michaels.

[Mrtazeman]

You said that the economy was better off under GWB than Obama, yet what you are providing to prove your point is supplemental explanation about trump..

[Michaels153]

You said that the economy was better off under GWB than Obama, yet what you are providing to prove your point is supplemental explanation about trump..

Do you think that compared to Obama, the United States was only better off under GWB? The United States was better off under many if not most Presidents other than Obama.

[leftyg]

Do you think that compared to Obama, the United States was only better off under GWB? The United States was better off under many if not most Presidents other than Obama.

Actually Obama was ranked eighth (8th) best president in history; your boy Trump was 44th* and GWB was ranked 30th. For the entire list you can go here https://www.businessinsider.com/greates ... sts-2018-2

Michaels you are living up to your label for truthiness. No arguments, just a gut feeling about what makes a person look presidential.

*Only Grover Cleveland's two terms saved Trump from being number 45

[Michaels153]

Actually i dont care what poll you can find. Obama was a stain in the history of mankind and in the years ahead he will be seen less and less favorably and more and more as a failure.
Leftyg you and Juiced Truth said i didn't know the basic facts about Hilary's server, tried to mock me when i asked for your source, and then i blew you both apart with the evidence.
You said i had no evidence that Obama cooked the books on his unemployment numbers. And then i show you the evidence.
And what did you do after seeing the evidence that Obama cooked the unemployment numbers? You said nothing about the evidence. Instead you scurried about to find a poll that places Obama above President Trump. That is a joke. With all the evidence presented thus far showing President Trump surpassing everything that Obama tried economically. All your left with is buts. But this poll says x. Not persuasive. And as a joke, almost funny.
Looking forward to the next time you say i have no evience.

[Mrtazeman]

You said i had no evidence that Obama cooked the books on his unemployment numbers. And then i show you the evidence.
And what did you do after seeing the evidence that Obama cooked the unemployment numbers?

So one month later those "fake"unemployment numbers when Trump became president , are all of a sudden good real numbers for Trump?

Do u not realize that if those numbers were fake there would have been a correction when Trump took office?

[Mrtazeman]

This is the way to cook the books, try to reclassify fast food jobs as manufacturing job. Yes, GWB people tried to do that...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/building-b ... 0-burgers/

[leftyg]

Looking forward to the next time you say i have no evience.

OK, you, Michaels, have no evidence. You have no "d" in your evidence above because you simply delete "data," standing for "d" from everything you say. Let's start with your evidence on Obama being a disaster, just that charge. You have a tendency, like Bob Frantz, to dump lies like confetti at a convention and expecting your opponent to catch them all before they hit the ground. Just Obama. Just facts that show he was a shitty president and NO ADJECTIVES and no opinions unsupported by facts. Remember, put the "d" for data back in your evidence. Stop deleting it and crowing about what a brilliant polemicist you are.

BTW virtually all rational people who study this subject put Trump last. In the study I cited, Trump finished 40th of 44 presidents among Republican political scientists.

[Michaels153]

I see no reason to repeat the evidence on Obama that i have already posted. If you want to just review my posts and search Obama go right ahead.

[leftyg]

I see no reason to repeat the evidence on Obama that i have already posted. If you want to just review my posts and search Obama go right ahead.

I have and they were found wanting. But I will do my stuff again: Obama dropped unemployment by three points from 7,8% to 4.8%. Remember we were on the brink of a depression when he came into office according to then fed chairman Ben Bernanke https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/bernank ... treet.html

Next the Dow Jones average on Wall Street went from 7949 to 19827 points during Obama's presidency https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Dow- ... eft-office

Obama is much more popular with our allies than Trump:

Globally, Trump is much less popular than his predecessor. Across 37 countries we surveyed in spring 2017, a median of just 22% said they have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. In contrast, 64% expressed confidence in President Barack Obama in these same 37 nations during the final years of his presidency.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ees-trump/

And the poll of political scientists I just referenced in my last post rated Obama 8th and Trump 44th https://www.businessinsider.com/greates ... sts-2018-2

Now unless you intend to do something besides bloviate, I am putting you in the same camp as Bob Frantz, a guy who cannot backup anything.

[Scorpion]

Of course ‘the world’ likes Obama.
He’s a globalist and an apologist for the USA.

[Mrtazeman]

Scorp,

Your honest opinion, if Obama said he and Jong Un ‘Fell in Love’ , What would you and right wing media would say about that?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says ... 1538336604

[leftyg]

Of course ‘the world’ likes Obama.
He’s a globalist and an apologist for the USA.

You would rather have us on edge with our friends? These nations, the democracies of Western Europe, Canada,Australia, Ne Zealand, Japan and south Korea, are our friends and closest allies. Being a xenophobic isolationist who embraces oligarchs and dictators is more your idea of a good American president? Taking off on what Real said: Trump is more admired than Obama in Russia https://www.newsweek.com/obama-more-adm ... sia-883554 So to you Scorp it is better to be popular with dictators and their subjects, than it is to be popular with Brits and Canadians who largely share our values? Putin and Kim are better than Justin Trudeau and Theresa May?

[Michaels153]

Of course ‘the world’ likes Obama.
He’s a globalist and an apologist for the USA.

You would rather have us on edge with our friends? These nations, the democracies of Western Europe, Canada,Australia, Ne Zealand, Japan and south Korea, are our friends and closest allies. Being a xenophobic isolationist who embraces oligarchs and dictators is more your idea of a good American president? Taking off on what Real said: Trump is more admired than Obama in Russia https://www.newsweek.com/obama-more-adm ... sia-883554 So to you Scorp it is better to be popular with dictators and their subjects, than it is to be popular with Brits and Canadians who largely share our values? Putin and Kim are better than Justin Trudeau and Theresa May?

Disagreeing with what your implying that Scorpion or myself "would rather have us on edge with our friends. We aren't "on edge with our friends. The very meaning of "friends" allows for the acceptance of people even if their is not agreement with each other 100% of the time. The nations, and the democracies that you mentioned are our friends but they have disagreed with each other on many issues including Brexit, and they are not on edge with one another. But sometimes, even friends disagree with each other as President Trump did when he defended our Israeli ally and decisively acted to support our ally by moving our embassy to Jerusalem. 128 countries disagreed with that decision and said so openly in the United Nations.

Neither this country nor President Trump are isolationist. Although many of our citizens both prior to the 1930's and afterward have declared a preference for less involvement in world affairs. The same is true about alleging that this country and this country's President are xenophobic. You are not going to assuage your liberal guilt by assigning to others the irrational fears you have owned and accepted. Being both partisan and a liberal ideologue, making unproven claims that your opposition is whatever you assigned them to be comes easy to you.. And being an ideologue, anything you say to substantiate whatever you claim is good enough for you, and of course is not to be questioned. Just to question a liberal brings about further condemnation and allegations that again have no proof.
And how is our country (at least conservatives and Republicans) "xenophobic" why the liberal answer would be that we do not except everyone who wants to come into this country. Would liberals openly welcome anyone to come into their own houses or apartments? of course not, but they are not on trial here, they can't be on trial, because by contemporary assertions, they have good hearts and intentions so their actions get a pass.
Your next unsound allegation about embracing "oligarchs" and dictators. When JuicedTruth made the assertion that President Trump wants to be a dictator, I corrected him in my February 5th post
http://www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665#p44008 - In Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election.
I also addressed this [/url]www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3844[/url] In Trump to Dictators, have a nice day where Thomas Friedman tried to make the case that President Trump was soft on dictators. JuicedTruth, you, and Mr. Friedman all failed, miserably I will add, in your attempts to portray President Trump in that manner.
And as to embracing "oligarchs", it is a curious flaw of liberal ideology to be against what you consider to be the flaws of humanity and yet practice the same flaw. The liberals embraced Peter Lewis, the Hollywood rich, and Peter Soros if they share the same liberal goals and that is fine.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liberal-billionaires-pour-hundreds-of-millions-into-midterms-hoping-for-blue-wave
Not a problem here with these oligarchs
But if the "others", you know, people who aren't like you, don't practice xenophobic actions and "embrace" an "oligarch", they are morally unfit and not to be trusted. But there are many throughout the world who are both rich and can exert much influence that live outside of Russia. You discriminate between the rich and powerful according to what you would claim as bias in reference to your opposition, when the only real difference is geography.
What you fail to accept is that the previous occupant of the white house was a better fit to the definition of dictator than President Trump. I pointed that out to Juiced Truth.

[Michaels153]

I see no reason to repeat the evidence on Obama that i have already posted. If you want to just review my posts and search Obama go right ahead.

I have and they were found wanting. But I will do my stuff again: Obama dropped unemployment by three points from 7,8% to 4.8%. You continue to tout these numbers when there is better then a good reason to doubt them. I refer to my October 2nd post here in this thread. http://www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p45132
Now go ahead and review those references. Then add my January 11th post in this thread
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/10/the_quit_work_movement_is_a_cheap_campaign_ploy_by_desperate_democrats/
Now, go back to my February 5th post in "Evidence FBI not Russians meddled in election
http://www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665#p44008

Obama gutted the work requirement from welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 which required that welfare recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program work or prepare for work to receive the aid. The Obama administration took out that requirement by offering waivers to states, even though the law expressly states that waivers of the work requirement are not allowed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-obama-has-gutted-welfore-reform/2012/09/06/885b0092-f835-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe08d9fc6370
Now as you review those references regarding Obama's unemployment numbers, keep in mind that Rush is showing you that the unemployment rate keeps going down even though people are losing jobs and he points out that that is the only reason that the unemployment numbers (the U3 rate) are going down. Now Obama probably had internal polls taken as his first term was ending and realized that he did not stand a good chance of being elected for a second term with his unemployment rate above 8%. So look at the way that Obama cooked the books to aid his chances to get a second term. The articles, and the references given in my posts reach that conclusion. The only question remaining is when did this manipulation of unemployment data during Obama's presidency end? And that is why, it is hard to trust any of Obama's U3 rates. So your claim that Obama brought the unemployment rate down 3 percentage points remains in question. But even at that, President Trump is at a lower unemployment rate, and he did it by getting more people jobs, so much so, that for the first time in our history there was more jobs available than people to work them. http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/news/economy/job-openings-unemployed-workers/index.html Having more jobs available than people to fill them is better than not having enough jobs but it also presents an interesting question and that is just how low can the unemployment rate go from here? If President Trump does not drop 3 percentage points in the unemployment rate, that does not mean that Obama had a better unemployment record than President Trump. Especially since we do not know exactly what the real unemployment numbers were during the Obama presidency even though the U6 rates were probably the most accurate and true rate for Obama.
The unemployment rate today is 3.7%

National Unemployment Rate Drops to 3.7 Percent In September 2018. Approximately 134,000 jobs were created in September 2018 and the national unemployment rate dropped to 3.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Next the Dow Jones average on Wall Street went from 7949 to 19827 points during Obama's presidency.
Accepted. So In 8 years of the Obama presidency, the Dow Jones Industrial climbed 11,878 points for an average climb of 1,484.75 points a year.
Today the Dow Jones closed at 26, 430 points. The Dow has climbed 6,603 points in less than 3 years during President Trumps term in office for an average climb of 2,201 points per year. But that is only part of the good news.
http://www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665#p43761 Back then you provided this link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfman/2017/10/30/trump-ranks-sixth-in-stock-
And from your own link this was revealed:

Everyone is impressed with the performance of the stock market under President Trump–especially Trump. Stocks have risen in nine of the first ten months of the Trump Administration, a record that no other U.S. president can match

And ...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/23/a-dow-jones-industrial-record-5000-points-higher-i.aspx

A Dow Jones Industrial Record: 5,000 Points Higher in Just 1 Year
That’s never happened before. But what does it mean? And what comes next?
Motley Fool Staff (the_motley_fool) Dec 23, 2017 at 12:05AM
Mac Greer: For the first time in its 121-year history, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gone up more than 5,000 points in a year. That's the biggest annual points gain ever. Guys, the Dow has also closed at a record high 70 times this year.

There you are Leftyg. Read them and weep.

[JuicedTruth]

Hillarious, Michaels. By your own timeline, Obama outperformed Trump

Point gains / losses don't matter with stocks. The part that matters is percentage gained or lossed.

Trump is about 30.5% at this point in his presidency, which is impressive. Obama was at almost 35% at this point in 2010.

Over Obama's 8 years, the market increased nearly 150%.

There's still a long ways to go and I don't think it's ever smart to pin your success as a president on something as uncontrollable as the stock market.

[Michaels153]

Hillarious, Michaels. By your own timeline, Obama outperformed Trump

Point gains / losses don't matter with stocks. The part that matters is percentage gained or lossed.

Trump is about 30.5% at this point in his presidency, which is impressive. Obama was at almost 35% at this point in 2010.

Over Obama's 8 years, the market increased nearly 150%.

There's still a long ways to go and I don't think it's ever smart to pin your success as a president on something as uncontrollable as the stock market.

If it means President Trump outperformed Obama, then it doesn't matter. Got it.
But you weren't in the conversation. Leftyg chose the metrics to compare. I did not want to return to this topic as i stated since this thread was not about the previous occupant in the white house. And once again, Leftyg wanted to compare Obama's 8 years to less than three years of a real president.
You really had to stretch to extend the metric Lefty chose. At least you presented it noting the time it occurred during each's presidency. Still President Trump has eclipsed Obama in the positive economic areas like number of people working. But i do agree that the stock market is not a smart way to pin a president's success on. A lot of people do however.

[leftyg]

If it means President Trump outperformed Obama, then it doesn't matter. Got it.
But you weren't in the conversation. Leftyg chose the metrics to compare. I did not want to return to this topic as i stated since this thread was not about the previous occupant in the white house. And once again, Leftyg wanted to compare Obama's 8 years to less than three years of a real president.
You really had to stretch to extend the metric Lefty chose. At least you presented it noting the time it occurred during each's presidency. Still President Trump has eclipsed Obama in the positive economic areas like number of people working. But i do agree that the stock market is not a smart way to pin a president's success on. A lot of people do however.

no Micheals you have to be a numerate human being to extend that metric. JT sees it because he is not enumerate and because he understands You have to compare presidential performance if you make the kind of rash and uninformed statements you frequently make. Even when backed into a corner you do not defend your ideas. I do not think your arguments have made many converts.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg, by my "own timeline" Obama did not out perfom President Trump. JT found another way of looking at the stock market. Did. The stock market increase by more than 5000 points under Obama in any year of his presidency, - no it didn't.
Did the stock market increase in nine of the first ten months of Obama's presidency, - no it didn't.
But if Obama had a faster stock market increase over x amount of days than President Trump then so be it. It is like you found it a penny on the street and thinking you hit the jackpot.

[Mrtazeman]

But Trump didn't have to deal with one of the worst economies since the great depression when he came into office

[leftyg]

Did the stock market increase in nine of the first ten months of Obama's presidency, - no it didn't.
But if Obama had a faster stock market increase over x amount of days than President Trump then so be it. It is like you found it a penny on the street and thinking you hit the jackpot.

Lousy analogy and poor analysis. What is important is how a president leaves the economy not what he inherits (apt word with Trump). Ben Bernanke, the then fed chairman, said we were on the brink of a depression when Obama took office. https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/e ... index.html Trump inherited the longest sustained economic recovery in history from Obama. https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cas ... assessment

By your own definition Ronald Reagan was not a very good president. In his first two years, unemployment went from 7.5% to 10.4% https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet. But he stuck around and unemployment dropped to 5.4% when he left office.

For that he ranked the ninth (9th) best president according to the poll of social scientists I previously cited and Obama ranked eighth (8th). https://www.businessinsider.com/greates ... sts-2018-2 Trump is 44th because people do not like the way in carries himself and can see disaster on the horizon. His presidency is too much about himself, and he is the biggest liar ever to hold elected office. He has no character as a man as shown in the case of the apparent murder of a Washington Post reporter by the Saudi government. When it is he, Trump, who holds the power in the relationship he kowtows to the Saudi desire to use violence against opponents when he could stand up and truly make a difference.

[Mrtazeman]

When Romney was running for president, he set economic goals on what will happen if he becomes president. Obama exceeded all of Romney's goals when he left office

By your own definition Ronald Reagan was not a very good president. In his first two years, unemployment went from 7.5% to 10.4% https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet. But he stuck around and unemployment dropped to 5.4% when he left office.

Its funny, that republicans seem to forget that Saint Ronnie had some of the biggest tax increases for a non-war time president at the time.

[Michaels153]

Did the stock market increase in nine of the first ten months of Obama's presidency, - no it didn't.
But if Obama had a faster stock market increase over x amount of days than President Trump then so be it. It is like you found it a penny on the street and thinking you hit the jackpot.

Lousy analogy I didn't like the analogy eitherand poor analysis I had to work with what you gave me, again. What is important is how a president leaves the economy not what he inherits Okay, I agree with that, But Trump hasn't left yet, and you still want to compare him to Obama. It wasn't my choice to do this and we did this before, which is another reason I did not want to do this.(apt word with Trump). Ben Bernanke, the then fed chairman, said we were on the brink of a depression when Obama took office. Yea, thanks to the Democrats who put us there. https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/e ... index.html Trump inherited the longest sustained economic recovery in history from Obama. No, President Trump inherited the worst economic recovery since the great depression. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/01/12/the-worst-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/#56c34cd71423
By Peter Ferrara

The record of President Obama’s first three years in office is in, and nothing that happens now can go back and change that. What that record shows is that President Obama, with his throwback, old-fashioned, 1970s Keynesian economics, has put America through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

The recession started in December, 2007. Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org) to see the complete history of America’s recessions. What that history reveals is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.

When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month. His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. Based on the historical record, that recovery was imminent, within a couple of months or so. Despite widespread fear, nothing fundamental had changed to deprive America of the long term, world-leading prosperity it had enjoyed going back 300 years.

Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930s as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.

That was the beginning of President Obama’s Rip Van Winkle act, pretending not to know anything that happened over the previous 30 years proving the dramatic, historic success of the new, more modern, supply side economics, which holds that incentives for increased production are what promote economic growth and recovery. Indeed, that Rip Van Winklism pretended not to remember the 1970s either, when double digit inflation and double digit unemployment proved Keynesian economics grievously wrong.

As should have been long expected, Obama’s trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it. ...
Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression, under President Obama’s public policy malpractice. ....
The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at www.shadowstats.com as about 23%, which is depression level unemployment.......5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months. Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression.
...Notably, blacks have been suffering another depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 49 months after the recession started, still at 15.8%. Black unemployment has been over 15% for 2 ½ years under Obama. Black teenage unemployment today is over 40%, where it has persisted for over 2 years as well.

Hispanics have also been suffering a depression under Obama, with unemployment today still in double digits at 11%. Hispanic unemployment has been in double digits for three years under President Obama. Over one fourth of Hispanic youths remain unemployed today, which also has persisted for years.

The Census Bureau reported in September that more Americans are in poverty today than at any time in the entire history of Census tracking poverty. Americans dependent on food stamps are at an all time high as well....
Real wages and incomes have been falling so steadily under Obama and his confused, throwback, Keynesian/neo-Marxist Obamanomics, that the Census Bureau also reported that real median family income in America has fallen all the way back to 1996 levels.

Obama apologists cannot argue that this is because the recession was so bad, because the historical record in America is the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on historical precedent, we should at worst be finishing the second year of a booming recovery by now....
Compare Obama’s lack of a recovery 2 ½ years after the recession ended with the first 2 ½ years of the Reagan recovery. In those years under Reagan, the American economy created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate fell by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long term decline.

While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The chief excuse of the Obama apologists is that what we have suffered was not just a recession, but a financial crisis, and, they argue, recovery from a financial crisis takes a lot longer than recovery from a recession. But that is not the experience of the American, free market, capitalist economy.

The experience of the American economy is reported in full at the National Bureau of Economic Research, as cited above – recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously 16 months, and the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. That is the standard by which the performance of Obamanomics is to be judged. Which of those American recessions was a “financial crisis” that breaks the pattern?...
Indeed, exactly none of President Obama’s policies have been well designed to restore economic recovery and traditional American prosperity. They have consistently been the opposite of everything that Reagan did to end the American decline of the 1970s, and restore booming growth for 25 years. That is why Rush Limbaugh is saying Obama deliberately wants to trash the economy, thinking the resulting dependency will lead a majority to continue to vote for the liberal political machine.

By your own definition I never gave you my definition of a good president. Ronald Reagan was not a very good president, he was a great president, and one of the best we ever had. Obama, by my definition, was not a good president. And ironically, for a person who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, his greatest accomplishments were killing Osama Bin Laden, some pirates, and his defense of Planned Parenthood's killing of babies.
Your poll of presidents was a crock. Ronald Reagan was a better president than Obama. Hell, William Henry Harrison was a better president than Obama. Obama was not even better as a president than the president of our student council! And President Trump already has been a better president than Obama.

[Michaels153]

When Romney was running for president, he set economic goals on what will happen if he becomes president. Obama exceeded all of Romney's goals when he left office. Now I actually find that interesting Mrtazeman. But I don't think that Mr. Romney would have traded the release of terrorists for a traitor, and I don't think Mr. Romney would have paid a ransom to a terrorist sponsoring country to try to buy a peace treaty that was supposed to only delay the development of nuclear armaments.


Its funny, that republicans seem to forget that Saint Ronnie had some of the biggest tax increases for a non-war time president at the time.

I think it's sad that people like you, and your party would say this out of context, knowing that President Reagan did what he did with the investments that he made. Part of which was previously mentioned in the Forbes article above. Reagan beat Russia and brought down the Berlin Wall. As I have previously said. Democrats get in office and tend to make more problems. When Democrats are replaced by conservatives, they need to spend money to help clean up the mess left to them by the Democrats.
As the Forbes article points out; Obama borrowed money, to create his failed stimulus plan, and increased the deficit. President Reagan spent money in his economic plan for the country and look what happened.

[leftyg]

What a huge matza ball for you Michaels. You use an article from 2012. Your "expert," Peter Ferrara wrote:

Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930's as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.

Which has to be disputed on its face because unemployment went down dramatically after Roosevelt's election and during the next four years. It dropped from 24.9% to 14.3%. But, in an effort to appease Republicans, spending was cut in 1937 and the unemployment rate shot up almost five points (to 19%) and GDP that had grown 10.8% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935 , 12.9% in 1936 and 5.1% in 1937 collapsed when we returned to Republican austerity to an appalling -3.3% in 1938. https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment ... ar-3305506

Tax Analysts writes:

There's been a lot of talk lately about 1937. That was the year of the so-called Roosevelt Recession, the second of two back-to-back slumps that we now conflate into a single Great Depression. Some members of the scrivening class seem to think we're poised to repeat "the great mistake," as Paul Krugman describes it: that fateful moment in the middle of the Depression when "spending was cut back, monetary policy was tightened -- and the economy promptly plunged back into the depths."

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings. ... enDocument

So you guys do not seem to learn. Thank God professional economists do.


Thus, Mr Ferrara is wrong when he says

that As should have been long expected, Obama’s trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it. ...

The stimulus was an unqualified success according to a panel of experts at the University of Chicago
Agreeing That Benefits of Fiscal Stimulus Exceed Costs
Question: Taking into account all of the A.R.R.A.’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.

Response of economists surveyed
Agree 36
Disagree 1
Uncertain

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/upsh ... onomy.html

And PBS wrote White House economist Jason Furman said

Half of the total fiscal support for the economy, or about $689 billion, from the recovery act and subsequent measures was in the form of tax cuts directed mostly at families. The remainder was spent on such things as rebuilding roads and bridges, preventing teacher layoffs and providing temporary help for people who lost their jobs or needed other assistance because of the poor economy.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/sti ... -old-still

These, Michaels, are the stimuli that work, not tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/e ... _analysis/ So we can predict that Trump's tax cuts to billionaires and his family will have little effect other than to increase the national debt by 1.9 trillion dollars and benefit people who do not need it. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3823 ... o-debt-cbo

The PBS article continues:

“While far more work remains to ensure that the economy provides opportunity for every American, there can be no question that President Obama’s actions to date have laid the groundwork for stronger, more sustainable economic growth in the years ahead,” Furman said.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/sti ... -old-still


And back to the present, Obama left office with 4.8% unemployment; he inherited 7.8%. The Dow Jones Average was 7949 when he took office; it was 19857. 'Nuff should be said.

[Mrtazeman]

And back to the present, Obama left office with 4.8% unemployment; he inherited 7.8%. The Dow Jones Average was 7949 when he took office; it was 19857. 'Nuff should be said.

But that doesn't real tell the how bad it was. Unemployment rate went up over 10% in the first quarter he took office before his economic plans took in to effect..

I think it's sad that people like you, and your party would say this out of context, knowing that President Reagan did what he did with the investments that he made.

I said the truth, he did had some of the largest tax increasing for a non war time president at that time.

[Michaels153]

Yes Leftyg, I used the article, from 2012 because it was closer to the events as they were happening then a person writing an article today about the same events, and more prone to revisionist history.[/color]Your "expert," Peter Ferrara wrote: Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930's as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked. Which has to be disputed on its face because unemployment went down dramatically after Roosevelt's election and during the next four years. You can state your objections to the article but the article can't be disputed because unemployment numbers went down or on the GDP growth numbers alone. Mr. Ferrara wrote an article that discussed the length of Recessions since The Great Depression during Roosevelts presidency, and the cumulative effect of the economic policies put in place (used) to address the recessions.

Mr. Ferrara wrote: The experience of the American economy is reported in full at the National Bureau of Economic Research, as cited above - recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of ten months, with the longest previously 16 months, and the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery.That is the standard by which the performance of Obamanomics is to be judged.

But you chose to defend Keynesian theory.

You wrote: Which has to be disputed on its face because unemployment went down dramatically after Roosevelt's election and during the next four years.
* Roosevelt was president from 1933 until his death in 1945.* You continue: It dropped from 24.9% to 14.3%. But, in an effort to appease Republicans, spending was cut in 1937 and the unemployment rate shot up almost five points (to 19%)
[color=#]By your perspective; Roosevelt and Keynesian theory are to be given credit for the unemployment numbers going down from 1933 to 1936. But the Republicans are to be blamed for the unemployment numbers going up in 1937 - [while Roosevelt is still President and Keynesian theory is still being applied][/color]

Tax Analysts writes: There's been a lot of talk lately about 1937. That was the year of the so-called Roosevelt Recession,Your tax analysts did not say: 1937, the year of the so-called Republican Recession the second of two back-to-back slumps that we now conflate into a single Great Depression. Remember, - Roosevelt and Keynesian theory-> "the second of two back-to-back slumps that we now conflate into a single Great Depression.
So you guys do not seem to learn. Thank God professional economists do.


You Leftyg said: Thus, Mr Ferrara is wrong when he says that As should have been long expected, Obama’s trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it. ...
According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. Recessions) The Recession ended in June 2009

The stimulus was an unqualified success according to a panel of experts at the University of Chicago The opinion of these "experts" is not shared by all economists.
Agreeing That Benefits of Fiscal Stimulus Exceed Costs
Question: Taking into account all of the A.R.R.A.’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs. Now look at this question closely and critically. First the question given to this panel of "experts" calls for an opinion given on facts not yet known! "1) taking into account all of the A.R.R.A.'s economic consequences - including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, 2)its effects on future spending, the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs"
Knowing that this question is an opinion based on facts not yet known, this survey is of no value. Mr. Ferrara does not share "his opinion" on the length and consequences of the Recession under Obama. Mr. Ferrara compares Obama's Recession to historical records, and as a bonus for you Leftyg, Mr. Ferrara compares what President Reagan did to address the recession during his presidency with what Obama did to address the recession during his occupancy of the white house.
But first, you pointed out the number of responses by economist surveyed for their opinions on facts not yet known.

Response of economists surveyed
Agree 36
Disagree 1
Uncertain
Your survey, concluded with 36 economists having a favorable opinion of the stimulus and believing that "the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs."
https://www.cato.org/blog/economists-against-stimulus
Economists against the Stimulus
By DAVID BOAZ

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” – contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package

When you go to the link provided by the Cato Institute to the full page ad in the New York Times, the top of the page has this quote by Obama.
"There is no disagreement that we
need action by our government,
a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9, 2009
With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of
government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in
the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
Obama and his administration team of advisors chose to go the Keynesian way, and I will add some of the consequences of Obama's actions after we look at the rest of what you referenced.

And PBS wrote White House economist Jason Furman said

Half of the total fiscal support for the economy, or about $689 billion, from the recovery act and subsequent measures was in the form of tax cuts directed mostly at families. The remainder was spent on such things as rebuilding roads and bridges, preventing teacher layoffs and providing temporary help for people who lost their jobs or needed other assistance because of the poor economy.

First, take note that although Democrats and other liberals lied about President Trump's tax cuts and jobs act, saying it targeted the rich and offered crumbs for everyone else, Jason Furman reminds us that Obama included tax cuts that according to the white house economist were directed MOSTLY at families.[not only to families]
As to the rest of what Mr. Furman says: The remainder was spent on rebuilding roads and bridges.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/24/flashback_obama_promised_his_stimulus_would_fix_crumbling_roads_and_bridges/

Now, we just had a bridge collapse,( and none of what Obama described as being beneficiaries of new spending actually got any of it. All of that money went to unions. All of that money went to teachers and other public employee unions during the recession to make sure they were not laid off. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat voters. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat donors. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat supporters.

None of it went to rebuild bridges and none of it went to rebuild roads and none of it went to rebuild schools.

Obama promised the stimulus would not only have a large impact but also an immediate impact. Said the president-elect, "I'm confident ... our 21st century investments will create jobs immediately," adding, "We've got shovel-ready projects all across the country."
As to "providing temporary help for people who lost their jobs or needed other assistance because of the poor economy" - see my October 9th 2018 post in this thread where it is pointed out that Obama gutted the work requirement from Clinton's welfare reform act. Obama encouraged people to stay unemployed (so his unemployent numbers would go down. In the same post is a link to commentary by Rush Limbaugh who referred to Obama's actions as a "cheap campaign ploy by desparate Democrats.

Those jobs never materialized, and it was not for lack of workers—or shovels. As President Obama remarked in June 2011, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." He chuckled through the mea culpa, but it's no laughing matter. Obama failed to deliver—and at great cost to taxpayers

The PBS article continues:

“While far more work remains to ensure that the economy provides opportunity for every American, there can be no question that President Obama’s actions to date have laid the groundwork for stronger, more sustainable economic growth in the years ahead,” Furman said.
At the time that Mr. Furman said this was accurate because Obama had not done anything except provide payback to his union donors. Obama lowered the bar to such a minute level that there was nothing left to fail at.
And now some lowlights of Obama's stimulus:

Obama's economic advisers promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. In 2012, the unemployment rate was supposed to fall below 6 percent. The prediction was not meant to be taken lightly. In a January 2009 radio address, Obama announced he was releasing a report based on "rigorous analysis" that charted unemployment through 2013 so "the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families."

Today, (2/17/2012) 12.8 million Americans are unemployed, 8.2 million cannot find enough work, and 1.1 million have given up looking for work altogether. Unemployment still remains above 8 percent, the supposed maximum rate, and certainly above 6 percent. For 36 straight months, unemployment has been higher than what the president promised. That's more than a rounding error; that is a failure of leadership.

President Obama said in February 2009 that the stimulus would lift "2 million Americans from poverty." But since Obama took office, 6.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty.

2010 U.S. Census data, the most recent available, showed that 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty. Worse still, child poverty has increased, rising to 21.6 percent. Many middle class Americans, unable to find work or decent wages, have fallen below the poverty line in recent years. It's the most tragic cost of this prolonged economic nightmare. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/the-five-biggest-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

the "green economy," Obama vowed, would create millions of jobs. The Energy Department has handed out $35.2 billion in stimulus money to jumpstart the clean energy industry, but it's created more red ink than green jobs. Nationally, green technology accounts for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and there has been no marked boom in the industry.

Those loans, however, have created quite the scandal. Nearly half a billion in taxpayer dollars was lost to the now-bankrupt solar energy company Solyndra. The company, which has since laid off over 1,000 workers, was Obama's self-described poster-child for "American ingenuity and dynamism" in 2010. Today, it's the poster-child for the hazards of reckless spending.

the fifth promise: one million electric cars. Obama promised the stimulus would put one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Last month, the Washington Post reported that "evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic" to make that pledge.

General Motors' Volt, expected to be a hybrid hit, fell far short of its sales goals in 2011 by 38 percent. Fisker Automotive, which received half a billion dollars of stimulus money, also fell short of its manufacturing goals. On top of that, instead of creating jobs in the United States, the company is building its cars in Finland. So the Recovery Act did at least manage to stimulate Scandinavia.

Compare Obama’s lack of a recovery 2 ½ years after the recession ended with the first 2 ½ years of the Reagan recovery. In those years under Reagan, the American economy created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate fell by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long term decline.

While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

[/quote]

And yet you Leftyg want to believe that Obama was a better president than Reagan because you found a poll by Social Scientists who placed Obama higher than Reagan.

[Michaels153]

"Mrtazeman
I said the truth, he did had some of the largest tax increasing for a non war time president at that time.

I did not say that what you posted was a lie. I said what you did was sad because you left out the context of his tax increase.
Do you want to measure the accomplishments of Reagan versus what Obama didn't accomplish? Then start your own thread and I will address your post.

[Mrtazeman]

I did not say that what you posted was a lie. I said what you did was sad because you left out the context of his tax increase.
Do you want to measure the accomplishments of Reagan versus what Obama didn't accomplish? Then start your own thread and I will address your post.

You were suppose to compare GWB economy to Obama.. But that didn't happen..

If you are for tax increases when necessary, then that makes you a liberal socialist (according to Fox News)..

[leftyg]

Do you want to measure the accomplishments of Reagan versus what Obama didn't accomplish? Then start your own thread and I will address your post.

Obama dropped unemployment by three points: from 7,8% to 4.8%; Reagan dropped it by 2.1%, from 7.5% to 5.4% https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Obama inherited a 7949 Dow Jones average and left a 19827 Dow Jones average (249.28% increase); Reagan inherited a 951 Dow Jones average and left a 2235 (235% increase) https://reagan.procon.org/view.resource ... eID=004090
Obama added 8.588 trillion to the national debt an (increase of 74%); Reagan added 1.86 trillion to the national debt (an increase of 186%) https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-p ... nt-3306296
Four Americans died at Benghazi and a there were ten congressional investigations and no culpability found by Republican led committees bent on condemning Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; in Beirut, during Reagan's presidency, 242 American service people were killed and only one committee did a perfunctory investigation and found no culpability by a Democratic led congress that did not want to make Beirut a political football. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ut/276189/

Obama was voted the eighth (8th) best president; Reagan was voted ninth (9th). https://www.businessinsider.com/greates ... hn-tyler-8 If the Republicans had acted towards Obama the way Democrats did toward Reagan, Obama would be in the running for greatest president.

[Mrtazeman]

Obama dropped unemployment by three points: from 7,8% to 4.8%

Lefty, soon after Obama took office, unemployment was over 10% before he implemented any economic plans..

[leftyg]

Lefty, soon after Obama took office, unemployment was over 10% before he implemented any economic plans..

Of course it did. Reagan is the only Republican president to leave office with lower unemployment than he found. Kennedy, Johnson Clinton and Obama all left office with unemployment lower than they found it.

Virtually all our debt has been created by Republicans presidents. Bruce Barlett said that if George W Bush had done nothing with the Clinton tax increases on the rich that we would have no debt right now. http://elisabethparker.com/bruce-bartle ... cuts-lies/ He said it last night on The Last Word hosted by Ali Velschi.

Here is a graph of how it works

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png (20.61 KiB) Viewed 76510 times

[Michaels153]

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2#11-woodrow-wilson-10
The Top 20 Presidents according to Historians:
President Ronald Reagan - 9th Obama - 12th

Estimated number of unemployed at the end of term of office: President Reagan = 13 million, Obama = 15 million
Obama added 8.588 trillion to the National debt. President Reagan added 1.86 trillion to the national debt.

Real GDP grew over one third during the Reagan presidency for over $2 trillion increase.
U.S. cumulative real (inflation adjusted) GDP growth by President Reagan was second only to Clinton
Job growth by U.S. President measured as a cumulative percentage change from month after inauguration to end of term. President Reagan second only to Clinton.

According to a 1996 study[93] by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, on 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. The study asserted that real median family income grew by $4,000 and during the eight Reagan years and experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was lower during period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but lower in the post-Reagan years.[93] The Cato study was dismissive of any positive effects of tightening, and subsequent loosening, of Federal Reserve monetary policy under "inflation hawk" Paul Volcker, whom President Carter had appointed in 1979 to halt the persistent inflation of the 1970s.

Economic analyst Stephen Moore stated in the Cato analysis, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He argued that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion, the greatest American sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the U.S. government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround.[93]

Milton Friedman stated, "Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress."[94]

- from Reaganomics in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/ronald-reagan-accomplishments
1) Reagan was re-elected as President with the largest electoral victory in U.S. history.
2) He changed the course of the Cold War through the Reagan Doctrine
3) He introduced the Strategic Defense Initiatve
4) He played a Key Role in ending the Cold War.
5) His economic policy resulted in considerable decrease in unemployment and inflation.
6) Reaganomics led to one of the largest peacetime economic booms in U.S. history.
7) Reagan's leadership during the PATCO Strike.
8) He introduced strict legislation for drug offenses.
9) Ronald Reagan is considered one of the most influential Presidents in U.S. history.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/barack-obama-failure-trump-opportunity/
Obama’s Failed Presidency
By CONRAD BLACK
January 3, 2017 9:00 AM
https://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency
Barack Obama's Failed Presidency
by Richard A. Epstein
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/black-president-black-attorney-general-so-what-108017
Did Obama Fail Black America?
By RANDALL KENNEDY July/August 2014

[Mrtazeman]

Michaels153, you sound crazy when you claim Bush was a great president and Obama was one of the worst. No facts back you up..

[Michaels153]

Michaels153, you sound crazy when you claim Bush was a great president and Obama was one of the worst. No facts back you up..

Hey idiot. Look at october 5th post and have someone read it to you. Ask that person if i wrote Bush is a great president.
And when did you become so naive. You and Leftyg can start a new thread where you can share your love fest for democrats.
If you arent interested in this thread then go to another one.

[leftyg]

Michaels in his insightful Christian tone said:

Hey idiot. Look at october 5th post and have someone read it to you. Ask that person if i wrote Bush is a great president.
And when did you become so naive. You and Leftyg can start a new thread where you can share your love fest for democrats.
If you arent interested in this thread then go to another one.

Yeah, when you have o argument call the other guy an idiot. Your back is up against the wall. BTW it is well known that Trump hates the Bushes and vice versa. Bush really screwed the pooch with his tax cuts. Bruce Bartlett, who was Dubya's economics adviser said as much.. He said that had Bush kept the Clinto tax rates we would have got rid of the national debt on the Last Word Tuesday to Ali Velschi. And he earlier wrote that supply side tax cuts have never stimulated the economy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 5e108df755

Yeah you showed a poll where Reagan was 9th and Obama 12th. I saw that poll, but mine was a different one by political scientists. But most polls agree on one thing: Trump is the worst

[Michaels153]

Who says I have no argument- You? Mrtazeman? And how did you two geniuses come to that conclusion? Because I don't respond to everything you "geniuses" say; it does not follow that I have no argument for something. - [That is called a non-sequitur.]
How is "my back "up against the wall"? The world has watched your party lie about President Trump since he started campaigning for the Presidency. The U.S. public has seen your party endlessly try to incite divisions and infighting. There is no reason that anyone should listen to your party or believe anything your party says.

[quote= "leftyg"]Yeah you showed a poll where Reagan was 9th and Obama 12th. I saw that poll, but mine was a different one by political scientists.[/quote]

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/credit-suisse-wealth-report-show-relentless-rise-in-household-wealth.html
US is seeing 'relentless rise in household wealth,' Credit Suisse report says
Household wealth in the U.S. is continuing to see an "unbroken spell of wealth gains"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-are-due-for-a-lift-as-buyback-blackouts-end-says-jpmorgan-2018-10-18
Stocks are due for a lift as buyback blackouts end, says JPMorgan
Published: Oct 18, 2018 3:14 p.m. ET

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-market-is-overdue-for-a-one-day-5-or-10-plunge-2018-10-18
Opinion: The stock market is overdue for a one-day 5% or 10% plunge
Published: Oct 18, 2018 5:10 p.m. ET

Friday is the anniversary of the 1987 stock-market crash, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 22.6%
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — The Dow Jones Industrial Average could drop more than 5,700 points in Friday’s trading session.
To be sure, just because the stock market could suffer a similar fate doesn’t mean it is likely.
....A single-session drop as big as 1987’s is predicted by their formula to occur once every 104 years, on average. Note carefully that this doesn’t mean a crash this big will occur every 104 years. This instead will be their average frequency over long periods.

So it’s possible that we will not experience another 1987-magnitude crash in our lifetimes — or that another will occur today.
By the way, the researchers’ formula can be used to predict the frequency of crashes of any magnitude. Less severe drops will, not surprisingly, be more frequent. A 5% daily drop is forecasted to occur 61 times over the next century, for example, while a 10% daily drop should occur eight times over the next 100 years.

The point is that crashes of one kind or another are inevitable, but they are also difficult to predict with complete accuracy. But whenever they do occur, you can count on the Democrats blaming or at least trying to blame the Republicans for it. The recent volatility of the stock market has been attributed at least in part, due to the rise/hike in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. But even with the skepticism by some of the sustainability of this economy, Some analysts believe that we could see average annual GDP of 3% and above for the next two years. For now, Household wealth continues to grow. The economy is in a buyer's market with more jobs available (approximately 7 million) versus approximately 6 million unemployed.

[leftyg]

Who says I have no argument- You? Mrtazeman? And how did you two geniuses come to that conclusion? Because I don't respond to everything you "geniuses" say; it does not follow that I have no argument for something. - [That is called a non-sequitur.]
How is "my back "up against the wall"? The world has watched your party lie about President Trump since he started campaigning for the Presidency. The U.S. public has seen your party endlessly try to incite divisions and infighting. There is no reason that anyone should listen to your party or believe anything your party says.

Compared to you we are two geniuses. And you sir are a walking non-sequitur. You align yourself with the "public?" If that is true that would be tragic because it would make the public a bunch of Nazi bastards. Thankfully it is not.

Fivethirtyeight puts Trump's approval rating (average of all polls not the cherry picked type Bob Frantz uses) at 42.5% and his disapproval an average of 52.5%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/

And Trump, not his critics, is the liar. According to fact checker he has told over 5000 thousand lies or misleading statements since becoming president https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... fe44198f8b

And the New Yorker says that the lies are on purpose:

The fact that Trump, while historically unpopular with the American public as a whole, has retained the loyalty of more than eighty per cent of Republicans—the group at which his lies seem to be aimed—means we are in for much more, as a midterm election approaches that may determine whether Trump is impeached by a newly Democratic Congress. At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan. The untruths, Kessler told me, are Trump’s political “secret sauce.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-f ... on-purpose

Now the reasoning is that Trump is getting comfortable with the presidency and is doing what he wants, the same way he did it with attractive young women, just touch them inappropriately and it is OK because he is a rich celebrity (it is on tape so do not dispute it). So he does the same as president: he lies because gullible people like you believe the lies and you guys will not change because it would create too much cognitive dissonance for you to process. He has you by the balls, and if he is not lying, which you concoct in your brains to save your sanity and your world view, then the media and people like me must be lying.

Really, there is not much you can do Michaels. You are screwed. I would rather be on crack or fentanyl; both are easier to get off of than Trump.

[Michaels153]

Compared to you we are two geniuses. And you sir are a walking non-sequitur. You align yourself with the "public?" If that is true that would be tragic because it would make the public a bunch of Nazi bastards. Thankfully it is not.

Fivethirtyeight puts Trump's approval rating (average of all polls not the cherry picked type Bob Frantz uses) at 42.5% and his disapproval an average of 52.5%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/. The only polls that matter are the actual elections.

And Trump, not his critics, is the liar. According to fact checker he has told over 5000 thousand lies or misleading statements since becoming president https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... fe44198f8b
June 25th post in this thread:

52 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
by Sharyl Attkisson on June 24, 2018 in

We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. ...
But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong.

And the New Yorker says that the lies are on purpose:

The fact that Trump, while historically unpopular with the American public as a whole, has retained the loyalty of more than eighty per cent of Republicans—the group at which his lies seem to be aimed—means we are in for much more, as a midterm election approaches that may determine whether Trump is impeached by a newly Democratic Congress. At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan. The untruths, Kessler told me, are Trump’s political “secret sauce.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-f ... on-purpose. Refer to June 25th post and what Sharyl Attkisson said above.

Now the reasoning whose reasoning?, And can this actually be considered reasoning to begin with?[color=#FF0000][/color]is that Trump is getting comfortable with the presidency and is doing what he wants, the same way he did it with attractive young women, just touch them inappropriately and it is OK because he is a rich celebrity (it is on tape so do not dispute it). You, who do not like analogies to begin with, are trying to make a tie in to past behavior. Not exactly apples to apples here. Again. Is this like once a Republican always a Republican. [color=#FF0000]- Think HIlary Clinton here.[/color] So he does the same as president: he lies because gullible people like you believe the lies and you guys will not change because it would create too much cognitive dissonance for you to process. He has you by the balls, and if he is not lying, which you concoct in your brains to save your sanity and your world view, then the media and people like me must be lying. Well it has already been shown over and over that both the media and you lie and have repeatedly lied. But beyond your lies, is what you and the media refuse to understand, - your own cognitive dissonance. In spite of all your lies, and all your efforts to smear and destroy this President, and people associated with him, you can not separate him from his growing base. You do not understand this. You have been successful with destroying people before and it maddens you that it is not working this time. And you explain this failure on your part as being the lack of understanding on our part. When Clinton was messing with Ms. Lewinski as the president, or groping other women in the White House, the Democrats defended Clinton and attacked his victims. President Trump has done nothing wrong. And his critics continue to lie about him. President Trump's base defends an innocent president. Clinton's base did not defend an innocent president.

Really, there is not much you can do Michaels. You are screwed. I would rather be on crack or fentanyl; both are easier to get off of than Trump.[/quote]

I am sticking with President Trump.

[leftyg]

Well it has already been shown over and over that both the media and you lie and have repeatedly lied. But beyond your lies, is what you and the media refuse to understand, - your own cognitive dissonance. In spite of all your lies, and all your efforts to smear and destroy this President, and people associated with him, you can not separate him from his growing base. You do not understand this. You have been successful with destroying people before and it maddens you that it is not working this time. And you explain this failure on your part as being the lack of understanding on our part. When Clinton was messing with Ms. Lewinski as the president, or groping other women in the White House, the Democrats defended Clinton and attacked his victims. President Trump has done nothing wrong. And his critics continue to lie about him. President Trump's base defends an innocent president. Clinton's base did not defend an innocent president.

Again you say I lie without a shred of evidence. But when has bearing false witness against your neighbor every bothered you or Trump? Again, I have told no lies on here, I will swear on my mother's grave, will you? I take this very seriously. I would close up shop if I had to lie. And one of those lies (by you) is that his base is growing. I understand it plenty well. I have never destroyed anyone on here or anywhere else. It does not bother me that I cannot destroy a couple thin skinned Jaspers like you and Trump. All I am trying to do is to pound some sense into your head and give you a working acquaintanceship with a fact or two.

You defend Trump in a way that stuns me. You mention Monica Lewinsky, an adult woman in an inappropriate relationship with President Clinton, yet you defend Trump in his relationship with Stormy Daniels and in his Access Hollywood tape. President Clinton was wrong to do it, but will Trump ever suffer a consequence for anything that he has done which is far worse, unless you think consensual sex with an adult is worse than peaking at 16 year old girls changing in a beauty contest which he (Trump) also admits to ?

My God are you delusional. Trump is many things, but innocent is not one of them. And, in a curious way, this is a response I would expect from you because for Trump to be telling the truth, people like me would have to be lying. It is truth in Bizarro World of which you are a full time resident

[Michaels153]

Well it has already been shown over and over that both the media and you lie and have repeatedly lied. But beyond your lies, is what you and the media refuse to understand, - your own cognitive dissonance. In spite of all your lies, and all your efforts to smear and destroy this President, and people associated with him, you can not separate him from his growing base. You do not understand this. You have been successful with destroying people before and it maddens you that it is not working this time. And you explain this failure on your part as being the lack of understanding on our part. When Clinton was messing with Ms. Lewinski as the president, or groping other women in the White House, the Democrats defended Clinton and attacked his victims. President Trump has done nothing wrong. And his critics continue to lie about him. President Trump's base defends an innocent president. Clinton's base did not defend an innocent president.

Again you say I lie without a shred of evidence.For those who are unfamiliar with Leftyg, lying and denial go hand in glove with him.
He repeats "Again you say I lie without a shred of evidence line and I continue to point out what has become my favorite lies that Leftyg has said in a post that I participated in. And he will continue to do this after this post.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3295&p=38504&hilit=Scott+Walker#p38444
This is from the thread Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Signs Right To Work Bill. You could also look up Staying Relevant with the base by Wobbly beginning with Leftyg's October 23rd post, and ending with this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2983&p=35488&hilit=Staying+relevant+with+the+base#p35488 And you could also look up JuicedTruth's Fake news thread beginning with the November 25th post.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3537&p=41937&hilit=Scott+Walker#p41826

Beginning with my March 19th post. Notice that I left if up to Leftyg to choose whether he wanted to bring up his lie and discuss it. He chose to do so and then from the March 21st post until almost the end of the thread I explain his lies ( You will see how Leftyg added on to his original lie).
But when has bearing false witness against your neighbor every bothered you or Trump? Again, I have told no lies on here, I did not say that you lied here on this thread, so your swearing on your mothers grave about this thread is meaninglessI will swear on my mother's grave, will you? I take this very seriously. Yes I believe you do take your lying seriously. You practice it and sometimes cloak it in your version of rhetoric. I would close up shop if I had to lie. You don't have to lie, you chose to.And one of those lies (by you) is that his base is growing. I understand it plenty well. I have never destroyed anyone on here or anywhere else. I did not say that you as an individual destroyed anyone.It does not bother me that I cannot destroy a couple thin skinned Jaspers like you and Trump.
You defend Trump in a way that stuns me. You mention Monica Lewinsky, an adult woman in an inappropriate relationship with President Clinton, yet you defend Trump in his relationship with Stormy Daniels and in his Access Hollywood tape. I do not defend inappropriate behavior. I have contrasted President's here.
I referred to President's Clinton behavior as President, not as governor of Arkansas or any other time. Ms. Lewinsky happened during Clinton's term as President of the United States. President Clinton was wrong to do it, but will Trump ever suffer a consequence for anything that he has done. As I have said previously, we all will face judgement for our actions someday.

My God are you delusional. Trump is many things, but innocent Seymour Hersh said trump was innocent, and by your standards for Hilary as not to have done anything wrong because she has not been convicted of anything, then President Trump, as President, has not done anything wrong, i

[leftyg]

For those who are unfamiliar with Leftyg, lying and denial go hand in glove with him.
He repeats "Again you say I lie without a shred of evidence line and I continue to point out what has become my favorite lies that Leftyg has said in a post that I participated in. And he will continue to do this after this post.

And again you do not do the simple things you have to do to show I am lying. You are the liar because you cannot point to anything I have said while I continually show your statements to be false. I mean it is not hard to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and show that Trumps "boom" is a mere continuation of the Obama recovery.

And your evidence is to spot something from years ago when you say the same things. "Lefty is a liar" Instead of spinning your wheels and making a claim, back it up. Go to thay article viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3295&p=38504&hilit=Scott+Walker#p38444 and there is nothing but more of this back and forth, Notice that then as now they is just name calling absent evidence, Michaels trademark

I did not say that you lied here on this thread, so your swearing on your mothers grave about this thread is meaningless

Oh, I did not lie on this thread hey! I have never knowingly lied on any thread including the one three and a half years ago, (March 2015). And for over three years I have been asking you to do what I do daily on here and that is give evidence to support what you say. I have two questions: "How dumb are you?" and "Are you Bob Frantz because nobody else has quite that MO?"

You continue:

[color=#FF0040]I do not defend inappropriate behavior. I have contrasted President's here.
I referred to President's Clinton behavior as President, not as governor of Arkansas or any other time. Ms. Lewinsky happened during Clinton's term as President of the United States. [/color]

So you are making a contrast here which is valid. But still, Trump has done many inappropriate things like lie and foment partisan passions which are probably as bad or worse than anything. He refuses to separate himself from his businesses. He likely has violated the emoluments clause, and of course, he lies.

Seymour Hersh said trump was innocent,

that requires a citation and by your standards for Hilary as not to have done anything wrong because she has not been convicted of anything, then President Trump, as President, has not done anything wrong, Hillary did not do anything major wrong except to have a negative personality. Uranium one is a joke. Trump is being investigated; we do not know what he has done for sure, but even being investigated seems to bother him.

[Michaels153]

]And again you do not do the simple things you have to do to show I am lying. Wrong, False, Lie. I have done all that is required to identify, and explain the lie. As everyone who goes to the links can read for themselves. Everyone that has seen these examples of yours identify them as lies.You are the liar because you cannot point to anything I have said while I continually show your statements to be false. Your going back to your elementary school days when you were out on the playground and someone called you a name and you said, no I'm not you are. I mean it is not hard to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and show that Trumps "boom" is a mere continuation of the Obama recovery. Knock yourself out Leftyg, go ahead show us how it is "not hard to go to the BLS and show that Trump's boom is a continuation of the Obama recovery. While the New York Times, and Economists have attributed this economy economic boom to Trump. There are articles that show how absurd the claim that this economy is a continuation of Obama. But you go ahead and try. I am looking forward to your attempt to do this.

And your evidence is to spot something from years ago when you say the same things. "Lefty is a liar" Instead of spinning your wheels and making a claim, back it up. Go to thay article viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3295&p=38504&hilit=Scott+Walker#p38444 and there is nothing but more of this back and forth, Not true, this was not just a back and forth. There was the proof, followed by your squirming, then your protesting, with attempts to steer the example to something else, deflections, and then outright denial until you used your own definition to define yourself as a liar. Never did i spin my wheels here. This was a very easy exercise for me. And I even told you what your responses were going to be and left you no wiggle room to weasel your way out of it. This was a slam dunk that will forever haunt you because of your arrogant ego thinking that you could talk your way out of anything.

I did not say that you lied here on this thread, so your swearing on your mothers grave about this thread is meaningless

Oh, I did not lie on this thread hey! I have never knowingly lied on any thread including the one three and a half years ago, (March 2015). You did know that you lied, because I immediately called you out on it. You just chose at that time to move on and not respond to it. You were probably too embarrassed to respond at that time. But what you probably don't believe now, is that I didn't think that much of it back then. You were the one that made it a big deal.

You continue:

[color=#FF0040]I do not defend inappropriate behavior. I have contrasted President's here.
I referred to President's Clinton behavior as President, not as governor of Arkansas or any other time. Ms. Lewinsky happened during Clinton's term as President of the United States. [/color]

So you are making a contrast here which is valid. Thank you. But still, Trump has done many inappropriate things We all have done inappropriate things. - Romans 3:23. "For all have sinned..." He refuses to separate himself from his businesses. He did set up someone from the family to run things while he was president.He likely has violated the emoluments clause, Nope, and of course, he lies. by your interpretation. - see Sharyl Attkisson.

Seymour Hersh said trump was innocent,

that requires a citation. I already provided the source:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665&p=43748&hilit=Hersh#p43748 See #3. Mr. Hersh said that Trump was not the villain but the victim.
And as I said back then, in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. When you combine that to what Mr. Hersh said, you get innocent victim.

And by your standards for Hilary as not to have done anything wrong because she has not been convicted of anything, then President Trump, as President, has not done anything wrong, Hillary did not do anything major wrong except to have a negative personality. Uranium one is a joke. Trump is being investigated; we do not know what he has done for sure, but even being investigated seems to bother him.

[leftyg]

Wrong, False, Lie. I have done all that is required to identify, and explain the lie. As everyone who goes to the links can read for themselves. Everyone that has seen these examples of yours identify them as lies.

Here is the thing Michaels: why don't you revisit these situations and tell me what they are? Really, disagreeing with you doesn't make what I say is a lie. It seems to be that way with conservatives. For example I cite evidence on labor statistics and on health care numbers to back up what I say, and I do it ad nauseam.. Then you say I lie and do not back it up. Bob Frantz did that when he was at WTAM. He would call me a despicable liar for disagreeing with his cherished ideas. When I asked for evidence he just raged. Then I showed him how easy it was to point out his lies and I gave several he used like when he said that Fox News was the most trusted news network, without mentioning that they were also the least trusted, and I cited the source. It is not hard to do Michaels. All you have to do is make a statement and get a link for it.

Your going back to your elementary school days when you were out on the playground and someone called you a name and you said, no I'm not you are

.I think you are being autobiographical

Knock yourself out Leftyg, go ahead show us how it is "not hard to go to the BLS and show that Trump's boom is a continuation of the Obama recovery. While the New York Times, and Economists have attributed this economy economic boom to Trump. There are articles that show how absurd the claim that this economy is a continuation of Obama. But you go ahead and try. I am looking forward to your attempt to do this.

I am sure there are articles that show that this economic boom is attributed to Trump and enough delusional people to write them. But I am an empiricist, and I look at actual data. Besides, my experts are smarter than your experts. I know that, under Obama, the stock market rose from 7949 to 19827. https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Dow- ... eft-office. I know it is better than what Trump has done. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfma ... c442a66644 I know that my expert Ben Bernanke said that Obama was faced with a depression https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 4579ee7684 I know trump was faced with a burgeoning economy. Remember my business is counter cyclical which means as the economy gets stronger our business slacks. It was roaring under George Bush and for about two years under Obama. Then people went back to work. I felt it, so I know what I am talking about.

Not true, this was not just a back and forth. There was the proof, followed by your squirming, then your protesting, with attempts to steer the example to something else, deflections, and then outright denial until you used your own definition to define yourself as a liar. Never did i spin my wheels here. This was a very easy exercise for me. And I even told you what your responses were going to be and left you no wiggle room to weasel your way out of it. This was a slam dunk that will forever haunt you because of your arrogant ego thinking that you could talk your way out of anything.

What are you talking about! The point is guys like you do not make me squirm; they exasperate me. You are spinning your wheels right now. God, all you have to do is come with some legitimate arguments like I am using rather than declare me a liar when all you're doing is crowing about what a profound teller of truth you are, hard to do when you worship the biggest liar who has ever been president https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 608d1d050a

It is easy exercise because you are not doing anything. Saying you have made slams dunks on me is delusional. You are passing up offers by me to make some sort of argument in defense of what you claim. Instead you insist on a victory celebration after you have been shut out. Count the number of actual sources I have used and count what you have used. You have said nothing!

Got to go watch Jeopardy

[Mrtazeman]

I know that my expert Ben Bernanke said that Obama was faced with a depression

Actually he said Obama took over conditions that were worse than the great depression. Then he went in length to back his conclusion.

I already posted this for Michael's but said it wasn't true because he disagrees with Bernanke assumption .

[Michaels153]

I know that my expert Ben Bernanke said that Obama was faced with a depression
Actually he said Obama took over conditions that were worse than the great depression. Then he went in length to back his conclusion.
I already posted this for Michael's but said it wasn't true because he disagrees with Bernanke assumption .

Okay Mrtazeman, from this [quoteby Michaels153 » June 17th, 2018, 10:51 am

Mrtazeman wrote:
I didn't say that it Obama took over an economy that was worse than the great depression, Ben Bernanke said it.
Okay, thanks for the correction. My apologies sir. Then it is with Mr. Bernanke that I disagree with.]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/27/ben-bernanke-the-2008-financial-crisis-was-worse-than-the-great-depression/#44687a447684
50,049 viewsAug 27, 2014, 11:36am
Ben Bernanke: The 2008 Financial Crisis Was Worse Than The Great Depression
By Tim Worstall

In my October 18th post here, while Leftyg and I were discussing presidential polls, I quoted Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman stated, "Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress."

Now Milton Friedman is not a fan of Keynes. Milton Friedman thought that Keynes was harmful (see Keynesian economics in Wikipedia) I am sharing this first before discussing Leftyg's reference.
In Leftyg's article this is what it says:

Ben Bernanke has just been revealed on record as insisting that the financial crash of 2008 was actually worse than the Great Depression itself. That's a statement that leads on to a very interesting indeed question: why on earth wasn't the fallout from that crash therefore worse than the Great Depression? The answer being, in short form, that Milton Friedman was right. In longer form, that the Federal Reserve itself followed the wrong policies back then and the right policies over the last few years: which is the same statement as saying that Milton Friedman was right.

Why Indeed?! If the 2008 financial crisis was worse than the Great Depression, Why on earth wasn't the fallout from that crash - therefore, worse than the Great Depression? That is a simple and reasonable question. And since we did not see the same signs of the Great Depression at the Financial crisis of 2008, then it is also reasonable to argue that the financial crisis of 2008 was not worse than the Great Depression[/color]
Milton Friedman would not have agreed with Ben Bernanke's characterization of the financial crisis of 2008.

Here's what Bernanke said:

Mr. Bernanke is quoted making the statement in a document filed on Aug. 22 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as part of a lawsuit linked to the 2008 government bailout of insurance giant American International Group AIG -1.73% Inc.

“September and October of 2008 was the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression,” Mr. Bernanke is quoted as saying in the document filed with the court. Of the 13 “most important financial institutions in the United States, 12 were at risk of failure within a period of a week or two


Asked why he thought it was essential for the government to rescue AIG, Bernanke said, “AIG’s demise would be a catastrophe” and “could have resulted in a 1930s-style global financial and economic meltdown, with catastrophic implications for production, income, and jobs.”

But the general point is still worth making. Milton Friedman's point about the Great Depression was that it wasn't an inevitable result of the Great Crash of 1929. Rather, it was an avoidable consequence of the Fed's reaction to it.

[color=#FF0000]So this time, the Fed's reaction to the financial crisis facing the United states was the correct one, and avoided the United States from going through another Great Depression. And since the United States avoided it, than the ACTUAL financial crisis of 2008 was not worse than the Great Depression. And further, Obama did not inherit an economy that was worse than the Great Depression.

Back in 1929, the fed

reaction being to let all the banks go bust, allow the money supply to shrink and if that's what you're going to allow to happen then you're going to get a precipitous fall in economic activity.

This time around of course the Fed didn't allow that to happen.

All of this is from Leftyg's reference.

This brings us back to remembering this: Mrtazeman wrote:
I didn't say that it Obama took over an economy that was worse than the great depression, Ben Bernanke said it.
Okay, thanks for the correction. My apologies sir. Then it is with Mr. Bernanke that I disagree with.]

[Michaels153]

[/quote]Here is the thing Michaels: why don't you revisit these situations and tell me what they are? I have a better idea Leftyg. Why don't you go back and revisit the posts (of your downfall), take notes, and then dedicate yourself, make a commitment not to repeat your lies.! And do it before we have to call an intervention for you

[leftyg]

Michaels I am too tired to argue with you tonight. But I will leave you with this: all Trump's gains in the stock market for this year have been wiped out https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/ma ... 754130002/

Then I read this

I have a better idea Leftyg. Why don't you go back and revisit the posts (of your downfall), take notes, and then dedicate yourself, make a commitment not to repeat your lies.! And do it before we have to call an intervention for you

Why don't you man up or shut up. You are the liar here. I work hard to give the facts. I am so sick of you bating me and not manning up with facts. You may not be bright enough to understand that different economists can have different perspectives, but I am.

Only three economists matter: Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Friedman and Hayek are merely derivative of Smith https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4597278/ ... ard-keynes

[Michaels153]

Michaels I am too tired to argue with you tonight. But I will leave you with this: all Trump's gains in the stock market for this year have been wiped out https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/ma ... 754130002/.
I read that. And I was anticipating you or some other critic to jump on news like this which is why i had inserted posts reminding people that Bull markets do not last forever. So what are you going to dump here about it? Are you going to say you knew this would happen? Are you going to say it happened because of Trump?
Are you going to say or imply that President Trump doesn't know what he is doing and that this was inevitable? Are you going to try and compare this event to one of your democratic or progressive icons, because you can't really compare this to another president because no other president has gotten as high in the stock market as President Trump? Are you going to look at the point total of Trump and try to statistically place it as the worst drop and then say that proves that President Trump is the worst president in history. You see your standard BS is predictable and meaningless. So if that is all you are going to do just respond with ditto, or better, don't respond at all.
Then I read this

I have a better idea Leftyg. Why don't you go back and revisit the posts (of your downfall), take notes, and then dedicate yourself, make a commitment not to repeat your lies.! And do it before we have to call an intervention for you

Why don't you man up or shut up. Man up? Leftyg you do not want me to man up as you mean here. If I were to treat you like you have treated Bob Frantz, by parsing every sentence, then I would list all of your lies each and every time you posted them. Tell us Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this when they didn't, or someone is Y when they aren't or weren't?
When you don't qualify your words by saying "I think X said ... or say you are paraphrasing what X said, it is not a "mistake", it is a lie. Just think about being in a courtroom, on a witness stand, and being asked by a prosecutor: Did you say that X said this? And then having the prosecutor followup with: Did X say that?. Or you could initially deny it and then the prosecutor could pull out exhibit a, your post, or exhibit b someone quoting you in a different post. Are your having trouble coming up with a recollection of these occasions? I am sure that there are still some participants here beside me, that can help you with your memory.
And then there are the times when you were called out on them and you have changed that lie to something to the effect that "well that is what X meant." But if I or someone else were to start a thread on you like you have done, it would only feed into your mental illnesses. Besides being a pathological liar, you are an egomaniacal Narcissist. In your mind you would turn that post into your crowning achievement instead of realizing that it is repudiation of your shameful and pathetic behavior.You are the liar here. Then Leftyg why don't you proceed and demonstrate that charge as I did to you? Why don't you "man up or shut up"
Or as you have said previously; put up or shut up.I work hard to give the facts. Well bully for you. That does not mean that you don't lie, or that you are not capable of lying because you post facts ad nauseam.I am so sick of you bating me and not manning up with facts.Well I can't tell you how awful that makes me feel. But as to " not manning up with the facts, you are in error again because I do. But facts are only facts to you if you agree with them. I just love your statement that only 3 economists matter, it is supporting evidence of what you will or wont accept "as facts." You may not be bright enough to understand that different economists can have different perspectives, but I am. [color=#FF0000]<-More trash. And where does one usually find trash?/color]

Only three economists matter: Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Friedman and Hayek are merely derivative of Smith https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4597278/ ... ard-keynes

[leftyg]

And I was anticipating you or some other critic to jump on news like this which is why i had inserted posts reminding people that Bull markets do not last forever. So what are you going to dump here about it? Are you going to say you knew this would happen? Are you going to say it happened because of Trump?
Are you going to say or imply that President Trump doesn't know what he is doing and that this was inevitable? Are you going to try and compare this event to one of your democratic or progressive icons, because you can't really compare this to another president because no other president has gotten as high in the stock market as President Trump? Are you going to look at the point total of Trump and try to statistically place it as the worst drop and then say that proves that President Trump is the worst president in history. You see your standard BS is predictable and meaningless. So if that is all you are going to do just respond with ditto, or better, don't respond at all.

Generally markets go up. Yes there are bear markets when the president does not know what he is doing.

Tel me Michaels, how do you pull this off? When markets go up Trump gets the credit; when markets go down he does not and it is just cyclical change. Funny, they did not go down during Obama's term other than short term daily corrections you would expect. You are minimizing the fact that all gains since the first of the year have been wiped out by this correction thus negating the title of this thread. It seems as if this thread is a brag for Trump's market brilliance when, in fact, it only shows that he was the victim of some short term good fortune. Call him "Son of Coolidge," and no Coolidge is not a female dog.

The standard BS is that when you put up this thread and crowed about Trump's market performance, you forgot the down side of your wager. This is not about me; this is about you and other Trump nut jobs. And I am not the guy calling Trump the worst president ever. Even Republican political scientists are. The guy is so sub par it is disgusting, and you learn it by just listening to him talk. He does not listen to his advisers and he cannot stay on message

Man up? Leftyg you do not want me to man up as you mean here. If I were to treat you like you have treated Bob Frantz, by parsing every sentence, then I would list all of your lies each and every time you posted them. Tell us Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this when they didn't, or someone is Y when they aren't or weren't?

I put Bob's feet to the fire for what I know to be lies or out and out hatred. The answer to "how many times I said X said when they didn't" is zero. At least I try hard to make everything I put up here factual. And I am Begging you to find any flaw at all in what I am saying, any lying I am doing. You are missing a unique opportunity. I want you to hold my feet to the fire; I just do not want to hear vacuous insults.

When you don't qualify your words by saying "I think X said ... or say you are paraphrasing what X said, it is not a "mistake", it is a lie. Just think about being in a courtroom, on a witness stand, and being asked by a prosecutor: Did you say that X said this? And then having the prosecutor followup with: Did X say that?. Or you could initially deny it and then the prosecutor could pull out exhibit a, your post, or exhibit b someone quoting you in a different post. Are your having trouble coming up with a recollection of these occasions? I am sure that there are still some participants here beside me, that can help you with your memory.

This is simple Michaels, when I say Bob said something or Trump said something, it is because they said it. If you say I am lying that is because you do not know what you are talking about. I honestly question if you have the critical thinking skills to understand what a lie is, probably because ever since you met Trump you have been living a lie as the title of this thread suggests.

And then there are the times when you were called out on them and you have changed that lie to something to the effect that "well that is what X meant." But if I or someone else were to start a thread on you like you have done, it would only feed into your mental illnesses. Besides being a pathological liar, you are an egomaniacal Narcissist.

If I am a pathological narcissist you should love me because that would make me like Trump. BUT I know I am not a liar, the narcissistic pathology scares me though. I just hope it is toward a good end.

In your mind you would turn that post into your crowning achievement instead of realizing that it is repudiation of your shameful and pathetic behavior.You are the liar here. Then Leftyg why don't you proceed and demonstrate that charge as I did to you? Why don't you "man up or shut up"
Or as you have said previously; put up or shut up.

When you love a liar like Trump it is only natural that you would hate people who tell the truth. You, like Trump, are a liar and need to believe in fiction to revoke your personal sentence in Hell for your support of this guy.

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/strong-economy-halts-medicaid-growth-as-more-americans-make-too-much.html
Look closer at the URL; Strong economy halts medicaid growth as more Americans make too much. How wonderful

Medicaid enrollment declines for the first time in more than a decade as strong US economy boosts income for poor Americans
Medicaid enrollment fell for the first time since 2007, declining by about 0.6 percent in fiscal year 2018, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
States are budgeting for a "minimal" increase in enrollment of 0.9 percent in 2019, the report says.
"States largely attribute the enrollment slowdown to a strengthening economy, resulting in fewer new low-income people qualifying for Medicaid," Kaiser says.
By Berkeley Lovelace Jr.

The booming U.S. economy appears to be reducing dependence on federal health insurance for the poor.

Medicaid enrollment fell for the first time since 2007, declining by about 0.6 percent in fiscal year 2018, and states don't expect to see much growth in enrollment next year, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report released Thursday.

States are budgeting for a "minimal" increase of 0.9 percent in 2019, Kaiser said in its annual 50-state survey of Medicaid.

"States largely attribute the enrollment slowdown to a strengthening economy, resulting in fewer new low-income people qualifying for Medicaid," said Kaiser, a nonprofit group that focuses on health care and health policy.
The Labor Department nonfarm payrolls report for September showed the unemployment rate fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 3.7 percent for the month, the lowest level in nearly 50 years. Average hourly earnings showed a 2.8 percent year-over-year increase, in line with estimates.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/25/medicaid-enrollment-drops-as-trump-economy-booms/
Medicaid Enrollment Drops as Trump Economy Booms
Oct 25, 2018

RUSH: I have something here..... A story here from CNBC, and the headline is: “Medicaid Enrollment Declines for the First Time in More than a Decade as Strong U.S. Economy Boosts Income for Poor Americans.” Again, this is CNBC. So this is not your Trump-loving media.Medicaid is for the poor. And I thought it was falling apart. I thought there’s nothing we could do. That more and more people have to be added. It’s gonna blow up states’ budgets. And then all of a sudden we have a story here: “Medicaid Enrollment Declines for the First Time in More than a Decade as Strong U.S. Economy Boosts Income for Poor Americans —“Medicaid enrollment fell for the first time since 2007, declining by about 0.6 percent in fiscal year 2018…” This from the Kaiser Family Foundation report. “‘States largely attribute the enrollment slowdown to a strengthening economy, resulting in fewer new low-income people qualifying for Medicaid,’ said Kaiser,” and the lead sentence of the story: “The booming U.S. economy appears to be reducing dependence on federal health insurance for the poor.”

Exactly as the theory has always told us would happen! Exactly as the American left and the Democrat Party have regularly, routinely opposed. You know what it is? It’s just another… There are a lot of these. By itself, it’s probably a minor thing, but you add it to… This is another significant reversal, a positive change that is part of many positive changes resulting from the policies of having a legitimately Republican conservative oriented president implementing conservative oriented policies specifically related to the economy.

It’s amazing! I mean, it’s incredible. ....I mean, there hasn’t been a… Nobody has targeted Medicaid here. Nobody has said as a policy priority that we are going to reduce Medicaid enrollment. Nobody has said that. It’s just happened. And it has happened at the same time as a booming economy is happening. It’s just more evidence… I think these are the kinds of things that in some cases the people around the country either they’re consciously aware of, maybe subconsciously aware of, but these bits of evidence of a roaring economy… There’s a reason for Republican enthusiasm.

There’s a reason why Republicans are outvoting Democrats in early voting. There’s a reason for all of this upsetting of the applecart that’s going on. There’s a reason why conventional wisdom is taking it on the chin again, at least up to this point. And the reason is results. The reason is reality. And it’s a great thing.

[Michaels153]

[quote = Leftyg] put Bob's feet to the fire for what I know to be lies or out and out hatred.

The answer to "how many times I said X said when they didn't" is zero.

At least I try hard to make everything I put up here factual. And I am Begging you to find any flaw at all in what I am saying, any lying I am doing. You are missing a unique opportunity. I want you to hold my feet to the fire;[/quote]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3794&p=44177&hilit=Biblical+Response#p44066

by leftyg » February 18th, 2018, 10:00 am

There was a lot here.But this was special:
What is a peacemaker Leftyg? Is it not one who restores peace? If there was peace, why would there be a need for peacemakers? When a parent separates their children from fighting, that is a peacemaker. And if a gun is used to stop someone from killing another person, that is a peacemaker. It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action revolver was called The Peacemaker. While God does not need us to do anything, He often chooses to use us to do His will.
Leftyg, you said the following:
I really think that is precious. You believe that even though the Bible says vengeance is mine, you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will. That is called reification. It is a weapon, and it does not make peace; it is a destroyer.

I said: It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action Revolver was called the Peacemaker.
You said:

you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will.

You also said:

The answer to "how many times I said X said when they didn't" is zero.

[leftyg]

Michaels, here is the problem: I have not lied; I just don't agree with you. And not agreeing with Michaels is not a lie. You may not understand that, but rational readers will. I looked at the comments in the thread, and my comments were not lies; they were points of disagreement.. You even said that my thread dedicated to Bob Frantz is wrong which I, of course, disagree with. He lies to his audience by giving them information that is not true and I can cite it which is a good thing. I hold Frantz's feet to the fire for these actual lies like 3084 of 30141 counties voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election; that was not true. He also said that Ronald Reagan created 19.2 million jobs in his first two years in office; he actually lost three million. He said that in August 2015. BTW he said an awful lot more. This is just a sample to make a point

And I also address his vicious personal assaults on people like Hillary Clinton which he made on August 28, 2015 (that was recently taken down) and his gas lighting of his listeners over police shootings like that of Tamir Rice.

Look what you pointed to was a difference of opinion, not a lie.

I want you to try this on for size: Jason Isbell, a famous Nashville folk-country singer says "Jesus would not have voted for Donald Trump." Is that a lie or a difference of opinion? https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/ ... yman-trump

I think you use the term lie way too loosely and inappropriately.

[Michaels153]

Michaels, here is the problem: I have not lied; I just don't agree with you. And not agreeing with Michaels is not a lie. You may not understand that, but rational readers will. I looked at the comments in the thread, and my comments were not lies; they were points of disagreement..
Look what you pointed to was a difference of opinion, not a lie.

I said:

Man up? Leftyg you do not want me to man up as you mean here. Tell us Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this when they didn't, or someone is Y when they aren't or weren't?

You Leftyg said:

The answer to "how many times I said X said when they didn't" is zero. .... And I am Begging you to find any flaw at all in what I am saying, any lying I am doing. You are missing a unique opportunity. I want you to hold my feet to the fire; I just do not want to hear vacuous insults.

This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. This is not about you agreeing or disagreeing. This is about what you typed. I provided the example:

Tell us Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this when they didn't,

Everyone who read that post knows that the example was not Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this this when they didn't and I did not agree with them. The example did not say, and had nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing. The example was only about you saying X said something when they didn't.
I said: " It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action revolver was called The Peacemaker." I typed: "It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action revolver was called The Peacemaker."
You said: "you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will."
Any "rational reader" who looks at what I typed and then compares that to what you typed, will see that they are not the same. Any "rational reader" who looks at what I typed, and then looks at what you typed, what you said I said, will conclude that I did not say what you said I said. Any "rational reader" who looks at the example I provided will say that the example that I provided fits exactly to what you typed. You typed that I said -> X, when I did not say X. Any "rational reader" will come to the conclusion that you Lied about what I said.

[leftyg]

This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. This is not about you agreeing or disagreeing. This is about what you typed. I provided the example:

No Michaels, you did not provide an example. You have never just come out and told me where I lied. I joked about it with my sister today and she agreed with me: you are allergic to specific evidence. You appear unable to string together a few cogent sentences to specifically describe any transgression I have made, any lie.

Everyone who read that post knows that the example was not Leftyg, how many times do you think you have said: X said this this when they didn't and I did not agree with them. The example did not say, and had nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing. The example was only about you saying X said something when they didn't.

How do you know what anybody knew You assume way too much. And by using X you reduced your argument to a hypothetical.

Any "rational reader" who looks at what I typed and then compares that to what you typed, will see that they are not the same. Any "rational reader" who looks at what I typed, and then looks at what you typed, what you said I said, will conclude that I did not say what you said I said. Any "rational reader" who looks at the example I provided will say that the example that I provided fits exactly to what you typed. You typed that I said -> X, when I did not say X. Any "rational reader" will come to the conclusion that you Lied about what I said.

You did not give an example. You have a huge problem with clarity and cutting and pasting. Look, I still do not know what you are talking about. Your writing lacks clarity.

My challenge for you: Write a coherent, concise, concrete comment that includes an action by me and as few adjectives and adverbs as possible with an identifiable statement that I made that is not true. No links unless they merely back up a claim you coherently make. If you call me a liar, it is up to you to show me where I lied.

[Michaels153]

by leftyg » February 18th, 2018, 10:00 am

you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will.

I did not say that.
All you have to do is show me, and everyone else where I said it. If you do show us where I said it; if you can quote those exact words in a sentence that I posted, then you would be right.

If you can't or don't show me and everyone else that I said that, then you are bearing false witness against me, and lying about me, by saying i said something that I didn't.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness” forbids: “1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both).
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shal ... _neighbour

[Mrtazeman]

i said something that I didn't.

“Thop
u shalt not bear false witness” forbids: “1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both).
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shal ... _neighbour

This is coming from someone who supports a President who bangs porn chicks while his wife is giving birth.. lol, only in America

[leftyg]

This is what you said Michaels, word for word:

What is a peacemaker Leftyg? Is it not one who restores peace? If there was peace, why would there be a need for peacemakers? When a parent separates their children from fighting, that is a peacemaker. And if a gun is used to stop someone from killing another person, that is a peacemaker. It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action revolver was called The Peacemaker. While God does not need us to do anything, He often chooses to use us to do His will.

I said:

I really think that is precious. You believe that even though the Bible says vengeance is mine, you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will. That is called reification. It is a weapon, and it does not make peace; it is a destroyer.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3794&p=44177&hilit=Biblical+Response#p44066

I was making an interpretation of your remark with your remark right there for people to judge. On balance more people are killed with guns in this country than are saved by them by a very wide margin as our status as the highest gun death country in the industrial technologically advanced world demonstrates https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

And this very morning we have another evidence of an anti-semitic shooting in Pittsburgh at a synagogue there. It was the 275th mass shooting in this country this year https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas ... index.html The gun ain't no peacemaker and your comment that it could be makes my statement true.

And yeah, how does a guy who claims to be a Christian support a guy who has sex with porn models while his wife is pregnant with a child? And how is a guy who constantly lies like Trump your hero? Tell you what Michaels, stop lying about me, and I will stop telling the truth about you and Mr. Trump

[Michaels153]

This is what you said Michaels, word for word: That's correct. And you know that it is what I said because you "QUOTE" what I said.

What is a peacemaker Leftyg? Is it not one who restores peace? If there was peace, why would there be a need for peacemakers? When a parent separates their children from fighting, that is a peacemaker. And if a gun is used to stop someone from killing another person, that is a peacemaker. It is no coincidence that the Colt Single Action revolver was called The Peacemaker. While God does not need us to do anything, He often chooses to use us to do His will.

I said:

I really think that is precious. You believe that even though the Bible says vengeance is mine, you said that this peacemaker weapon is an instrument of Gods will. That is called reification. It is a weapon, and it does not make peace; it is a destroyer.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3794&p=44177&hilit=Biblical+Response#p44066

[quote=Leftyg"]I was making an interpretation of your remark

As I said, you did not say, what I said. Which is defined as lying about what i said. I don't care what you tried to do, with or without an interpretation. I don't care if you thought you could use artistic license on my intellectual property ( which you can't without permission).
And I did what you asked me to do.
[quote = Leftyg]And I am Begging you to find any flaw at all in what I am saying, any lying I am doing. You are missing a unique opportunity. I want you to hold my feet to the fire[/quote]

[leftyg]

Michaels summoned this convoluted statement:

As I said, you did not say, what I said. Which is defined as lying about what i said. I don't care what you tried to do, with or without an interpretation. I don't care if you thought you could use artistic license on my intellectual property ( which you can't without permission).
And I did what you asked me to do.
[quote = Leftyg]And I am Begging you to find any flaw at all in what I am saying, any lying I am doing. You are missing a unique opportunity. I want you to hold my feet to the fire

Michaels, this makes no sense. We do not have intellectual property rights on here. You want to libel me and I cannot respond? You want to lie about me and not allow me to cite the simple material that exonerates me! First, you are sorry Michaels. You cannot construct a sound argument or make a clear statement. I am getting tired of your vacuous insults. I try to keep an even head and respond, but you gobbledygook things. You quote things so I don't know where your statement ends. Clean up your prose and stop projecting your lies on to me.

[Michaels153]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-reminder-that-stock-market-corrections-dont-always-become-bear-markets-2018-10-25
Here’s a reminder that stock-market corrections don’t always become bear markets
By Sue Chang, Market's reporter
Published: Oct 28, 2018 8:29 a.m. ET

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-sell-now-were-not-heading-into-a-bear-market-for-stocks-2018-10-25
Opinion: Don’t sell now — we’re not heading into a bear market for stocks
By Michael Brush, columnist
Published: Oct 28, 2018

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/end-of-easy-but-the-best-time-to-buy-stocks-since-nov-2016-says-wells-fargo-2018-10-26
This is the best time to buy stocks since Trump’s election, says Wells Fargo
By BARBARA KOLLMEYER
MARKETS REPORTER
Published: Oct 26, 2018 9:33 a.m. ET

[Michaels153]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/market-strategist-urges-aggressive-buying-says-bull-market-could-last-decades-2018-11-01

Market strategist urges aggressive buying, says bull market could last decades
Published: Nov 1, 2018 2:00 p.m. ET
By SHAWN LANGLOIS

And Tom Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors isn’t about to let that nasty October stretch get in the way of his latest take. So he went on CNBC on Thursday to talk about how he sees this bull market lasting — wait for it — decades!

‘We believe the selloff is behind us,’ and the bull market ‘could last to 2035... That’s going to coincide with millennials peaking.’
Lee says he sees this rally over the next three months reaching 13%, as the bull market is only now approaching middle age. This historic bull advance, which began almost a decade ago, is “already growing a little mustache, so it’s not a teenager anymore,” Lee said.

His comments on Thursday follow a note he posted a day earlier in which he pinned the two-day (now three-day) rally on oversold conditions. “A 10% decline in 20 days is a 2 standard deviation event,” he wrote.

Lee recommends aggressive buying at this point.

His call may benefit from seasonal headwinds, as well. The major U.S. indexes have all posted gains in each of the past five Novembers. And the month is getting off to a strong start on Thursday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +1.06% up more than 200 points in midday trades.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-fall-2000-to-214000-in-late-october-2018-11-01
Jobless claims fall 2,000 to 214,000 in late October
Published: Nov 1, 2018 10:11 a.m. ET
By JEFFRY BARTASH

Layoffs in the U.S. remain extremely low in tight labor market

...The number of people already collecting unemployment benefits, meanwhile, declined by 7,000 to 1.63 million. These so-called continuing claims are at the lowest level since July 28, 1973..

[Michaels153]

https://www.valuewalk.com/2018/05/federal-funds-target-rate/
Funny How Inflation in 2018 Requires the Fed to Act, but Not in 2012
by Roger Harrison
I just want to remind people how the Fed's treated the Obama administration and compare their actions back then to how they are acting now.

...

Given that prices are rising only marginally, and that there is no evidence yet that wages are going to push inflation up much further, one might wonder why the Federal Reserve is so committed to raising interest rates this year. After all, the economy was doing fine back in 2012, and the Federal Reserve failed to take any action back then.

What’s the rush? Is there some politics at play?

Inflation According to Obama and Trump

With the Federal Reserve being a complete cheerleader for almost the entire length of the Obama presidency makes one wonder whether the Federal Reserve only thought the Obama administration was merely a poor choice for the economy. It doesn't make me wonder, Obama was a poor choice for the economy.

Here’s a look at the growth in prices throughout the Obama administration and how prices have moved during the first year-and-a-half of the Trump administration.

Interestingly, through 15 months of the Obama administration, inflation was up about 2.6%. Over the same amount of time, inflation is up only 2.2% during the Trump administration.

Prices generally kept rising during the Obama administration, eventually ending up 14.6% over Obama’s entire eight years in office.

Total-Inflation-Change-by-President-Trump-vs.-Obama.png (148.18 KiB) Viewed 28732 times

[Mrtazeman]

Funny How Inflation in 2018 Requires the Fed to Act, but Not in 2012
by Roger Harrison
I just want to remind people how the Fed's treated the Obama administration and compare their actions back then to how they are acting now.

Here we go again, another Conspiracy theory. It's getting real old how everything is "Fake New" and Boo hoo.. Everyone is against the hard working republicans.. Stop being a snowflake..

BTW, The Federal Reserve, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress. The Congress established maximum employment and stable prices as the key macroeconomic objectives for the Federal Reserve in its conduct of monetary policy..

The Republicans Had Control of Congress during the majority of the Obama Years..

[Michaels153]

Here we go again, another Conspiracy theory. It's getting real old how everything is "Fake New" and Boo hoo.. Everyone is against the hard working republicans.. Stop being a snowflake..

BTW, The Federal Reserve, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress. The Congress established maximum employment and stable prices as the key macroeconomic objectives for the Federal Reserve in its conduct of monetary policy..

The Republicans Had Control of Congress during the majority of the Obama Years..

When you and others from the Left quote lies about Obama, I never said you were part of a conspiracy theory. And here I have a reference about the Fed's actions during Obama's occupancy, which are facts that you and the left can look up from your own sources, and you say "Conspiracy theory."...
Where is the "Fake New(s) here? And who is crying Boo hoo?
And no, not everyone is against the hard working republicans, just a lot of liberals, and I believe the majority of the democrats.
And snowflake? Who is complaining here? You are. You want to believe that Obama was such a great President only because you either did not know a lot about him, (ignorant), or because you did know, and just don't like him being exposed for the imposter that he truly was.

And "BTW the definition of something does not mean that there is no variance to it. And your definition still does not change the facts presented by Mr. Harrison. Perhaps you would care to point out why the Fed did not make as many changes during Obama's occupancy instead of parroting a definition of the Federal Reserve's purported function.
Yes, the Republicans did have Control of Congress during the majority of the Obama Years, but how does that fit with what you just said about the Federal Reserve? If the Federal Reserve functions as you claim it does, then it functions independently and outside of "Congress", so that it did not matter then who was "in control of Congress during the majority of the Obama years"

[Mrtazeman]

Michaels are you or are you not trying to make the case the federal reserve was supporting Obama economy and now they are trying to ruin Trumps Economy?

And

Were we not better off after 8 years of Obama than before he took office?

[leftyg]

Michaels are you or are you not trying to make the case the federal reserve was supporting Obama economy and now they are trying to ruin Trumps Economy?

And

Were we not better off after 8 years of Obama than before he took office?
Real USA

This is why Michaels is an amazing case study; he arrogantly believes things that can easily be disproven. But he gets it from his side. They absolutely ignore facts that say that the current economy is merely a continuation of what started under Obama. And the numbers are easy to find. The problem is he will post stuff from some far right wing journal, a big article by a guy who comes out of Gonzo land.

Yes we were better off under Obama, and even though we are becoming the laughing stock of the world, our economy is still functioning pretty well. I know there are some GM workers who would disagree.

[Michaels153]

Michaels are you or are you not trying to make the case the federal reserve was supporting Obama economy and now they are trying to ruin Trumps Economy?
Mr. Harrison has already shown you the differences in the actions taken by the Federal Reserve during the Obama occupancy and now during President Trumps first term. That the Federal reserve did act differently is not disputable. What you and Leftyg don't want to accept is that had the Federal Reserve acted in the same manner as they have during President Trump's first term, the stock market numbers that you love to credit Obama for would not have happened. I said earlier in this thread, before it happened, that what the Federal Reserve's actions amounted to now during President Trump's economy is like pumping the breaks on it. And you don't need much to spook investors or to give Wall Street a reason to look for a reason to save and run. The Federal Reserve's Actions during the Obama occupancy were in effect supportive to the economy like letting a sailboat's sail open so that it can head downwind.
And

Were we not better off after 8 years of Obama than before he took office? And I already answered you about this here in this thread. Look at the October 2nd posting.
Obama made our country worse by his policies, his overt actions, and by his lack of actions in some areas. We don't have enough time nor paper, nor gigabytes to detail Obama's failures.
although I have listed many of them.
Real USA

This is why Michaels is an amazing case study; he arrogantly believes things that can easily be disproven.And if what I believe can easily be disproven then why are you still 0 and whatever?
I admit it. It's hard to be humble when you keep defeating your challengers. And that is what irks you the most. But that is your choice. And you can continue to wail and whine, to moan and put another ice pack over the next black eye I give you, or you can come over to the RIGHT side, walk into the Light, and Know Peace and Contentment.

[Mrtazeman]

Mr. Harrison has already shown you the differences in the actions taken by the Federal Reserve during the Obama occupancy and now during President Trumps first term. That the Federal reserve did act differently is not disputable.

Mr. Harris also said this:

Is there any way to make a judgment on the political bias of the Federal Reserve? The answer is – of course not

The Fed does what it does based on economic conditions, not because they have some secret vendetta against a particular party. The market can support the higher rates so the rates went up. There is more to it than that but for simplicity sake, there you have it.

Harris isn't making a crazy conspiracy theory, so why are you? Harris isn't crazy enough to say that the Feds were working for Obama but against Trump, so why are you making those claims? Or is it that he wanted to lead you down that path hoping you would do it for him so he doesn't lose credibility?

What you and Leftyg don't want to accept is that had the Federal Reserve acted in the same manner as they have during President Trump's first term, the stock market numbers that you love to credit Obama for would not have happened. I said earlier in this thread, before it happened, that what the Federal Reserve's actions amounted to now during President Trump's economy is like pumping the breaks on it.

Trump has appointed people to the Federal Reserve Board who favor higher rates. His own people are making these choices. If Trump dislikes the Fed’s policies, he should talk less about it and make more appointments of people who agree with his critiques. If he can find any.

[Mrtazeman]

And you can continue to wail and whine, to moan and put another ice pack over the next black eye I give you, or you can come over to the RIGHT side, walk into the Light, and Know Peace and Contentment.

You talk about Peace and Contentment and yet in the same sentence you write how you will give someone their next black eye.. lmao.. And thus is the problem with you, you view the republican party as a religious organization.. You are just a confused Christian...

[Mrtazeman]

And you can continue to wail and whine, to moan and put another ice pack over the next black eye I give you, or you can come over to the RIGHT side, walk into the Light, and Know Peace and Contentment.

Yea LeftyG, the only way you can get Peace and Contentment is accepting Donald Trump as your Lord and Savior!!! lol

[Michaels153]

Mr. Harrison has already shown you the differences in the actions taken by the Federal Reserve during the Obama occupancy and now during President Trumps first term. That the Federal reserve did act differently is not disputable.

Mr. Harris also said this:

Is there any way to make a judgment on the political bias of the Federal Reserve? The answer is – of course not

The Fed does what it does based on economic conditions, not because they have some secret vendetta against a particular party. The market can support the higher rates so the rates went up. There is more to it than that but for simplicity sake, there you have it. There is more to it than that, but because the market can support the higher rate that does not mean that it has to increase the rate. I think, (that is I think) that the Federal Reserve sometimes acts more out of fear than out of sound policy. The old saying that if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. And too many cooks spoil the broth. You can tinker away at something until it no longer resembles nor works anything like the original product.

Harris isn't making a crazy conspiracy theory, so why are you? Harris isn't crazy enough to say that the Feds were working for Obama but against Trump, so why are you making those claims? Or is it that he wanted to lead you down that path hoping you would do it for him so he doesn't lose credibility? I never claimed there was a conspiracy involved here with the Federal Reserve. It really doesn't matter who is working for the Federal Reserve or what their mindset was before making any decisions that they do. The only thing that matters is the result. And what Mr. Harrison said still holds true. The Federal Reserve did act differently during Obama's occupancy than they have during President Trump's first term. And the result of the Federal Reserves action was to continue to let the inflation rate and the markets climb during the Obama occupancy and for the markets to slow under President Trump's first term.

[Michaels153]

And you can continue to wail and whine, to moan and put another ice pack over the next black eye I give you, or you can come over to the RIGHT side, walk into the Light, and Know Peace and Contentment.

You talk about Peace and Contentment and yet in the same sentence you write how you will give someone their next black eye.. lmao.. And thus is the problem with you, you view the republican party as a religious organization.. You are just a confused Christian...

And you talk like the true punk that you are. I did not write about giving a black eye. That ignorant one, is a saying that refers to taking a beating, and on this board there are no physical blows only the exchange of words so there is no possibility of an actual "black eye" here. But go ahead with your laughing your ass off. Considering that your such a large ass, you must have had some large guffaws. But even after your laughing, I am sure that you still have plenty of cushion to spare when you sit down. Just try to remember to take your head out of your ass when you do sit down.

[Mrtazeman]

And the result of the Federal Reserves action was to continue to let the inflation rate and the markets climb during the Obama occupancy and for the markets to slow under President Trump's first term.

The Fed raises rates in a strong economy to contain excesses, and cuts borrowing costs when the economy needs support. But not raising rates fast enough could allow inflation to spiral out of control, driving up prices and potentially plunging the economy back into a recession.. This is what the Trump appointed economist are dealing with. They are trying to avoid another recession.

The reason Feds are acting differently for Obama than Trump is because of the different economic conditions not because of your three year old argument that the Feds loves Obama and hates Trump.

After 8 years worth of republican budgets, Obama inherited one of the worst economies since the great depression (some say even worse). The feds didn’t increase the rates under Obama because inflation was kept in check during the recovery (CPI is only one indicator they use out of 1000’s to base their decisions). Trump didn’t take over a huge mess like Obama.
Anyone who thinks the economy was worse after Obama left than before he started really have no business talking about economics. You should focus on topics that you are good at, such as hating gay people and justify your bigotry by calling it “Religious Freedom”

[JuicedTruth]

Low inflation rates during a surging economy is a recipe for inflation. We see it in housing, we see it in the stock market, and we see it in private equity markets. It's very hard to get a good rate of return outside of stocks, real estate, and similar investments, so all kinds of money is getting funneled there, raising those prices up. That's a huge reason why the stock market is so high and has been so reactive to interest rate news.

[Michaels153]

The Fed raises rates in a strong economy to contain excesses, and cuts borrowing costs when the economy needs support. But not raising rates fast enough could allow inflation to spiral out of control, driving up prices and potentially plunging the economy back into a recession.. This is what the Trump appointed economist are dealing with. They are trying to avoid another recession.

The reason Feds are acting differently for Obama than Trump is because of the different economic conditions Now you were doing fine up until this point, and then you drop your shorts and show yourself again. not because of your three year old argument that the Feds loves Obama and hates Trump. I don't have a "three year old argument, and again, never said nor implied that Feds love Obama and hate Trump.

After 8 years worth of republican budgets, Obama inherited one of the worst economies since the great depression (some say even worse). Again with one of the worst economies since the great depression. We already discussed this, that it wasn't, but moving on. ->The feds didn’t increase the rates under Obama because inflation was kept in checkI don't personally remember being affected by inflation back then but what you explain makes sense. Economic policies are not an exact science. At best it comes across like fine art when everything is clicking. during the recovery (CPI is only one indicator they use out of 1000’s to base their decisions). Trump didn’t take over a huge mess like Obama. I believe if Obama took over the country as the stock market was approaching 27,000. The markets would tumble due to his policies.
Anyone who thinks the economy was worse after Obama left than before he started really have no business talking about economics. I won't speak for others, I believe "THE COUNTRY" was worse off after Obama. As far as level of expertise required to speak on a public forum that is not what a public forum is for. It is to speak out about topics as well as the issues of the day, to share viewpoints and perhaps gain some understanding. You should focus on topics that you are good at, such as hating gay people and justify your bigotry by calling it “Religious Freedom”

You have gone beyond a knack for getting things wrong, now you deliberately shoot your mouth off with nothing to back it up. I am not a bigot. I don't display outward hatred to anyone.

[Michaels153]

Low inflation rates during a surging economy is a recipe for inflation. We see it in housing, we see it in the stock market, and we see it in private equity markets. It's very hard to get a good rate of return outside of stocks, real estate, and similar investments, so all kinds of money is getting funneled there, raising those prices up. That's a huge reason why the stock market is so high and has been so reactive to interest rate news.

That makes sense JuicedTruth, and it is about the best info shared thus far on this topic. As I told you awhile back, I agree with you that judging President's on the stock market is not a good way to judge any presidency. But I also said that there are some people that do, and Leftyg and Real are among those that do.

I will add this. With the arguing back and forth over what President had a good/better economy. The explanations shared thus far still point to President Trump having a better economy.
If the argument is that "The Fed raises rates in a strong economy to contain excesses, then the argument could be made that not raising Fed rates would be at least an indication that that economy was not strong. Score point for President Trump. And if you do use the stock market as an indicator of the health of an economy, then the higher the stock market goes, or at least the highest it does go (as well as recognizing the lowest point) would also point to President Trump winning on the high side even with the current volatility going on.

I don't have any investments in the stock market. I never have, although that may change. There seems to always be people on both sides of the stock market with some saying invest, and others saying a lot of other things from don't get started in it, to go to one area and stay there or to find a financial adviser that you feel comfortable with and diversify your investments.
I think the market is going to continue to be volatile for a while and then move into a Bear market next year. I still see the country growing, but it is slowing down now and I don't have any idea how long this period will last.

[leftyg]

That makes sense JuicedTruth, and it is about the best info shared thus far on this topic. As I told you awhile back, I agree with you that judging President's on the stock market is not a good way to judge any presidency. But I also said that there are some people that do, and Leftyg and Real are among those that do.

Then what is the point of this thread As Dow Sets Another Record High, Leftists Continue to Repeat? You were the one that broached the topic. I notice your name is on the thread, not mine or Real's. JT's analysis was spot on: if the only place in an economy that you can get higher return on your money is the stock market (in prevailing low inflation in most sectors) you will put it in that sector because it is getting the most return. And as demand increases, so do prices. It is human nature. It is also an immutable reality of markets that they work like that.

[Michaels153]

That makes sense JuicedTruth, and it is about the best info shared thus far on this topic. As I told you awhile back, I agree with you that judging President's on the stock market is not a good way to judge any presidency. But I also said that there are some people that do, and Leftyg and Real are among those that do.

Then what is the point of this thread As Dow Sets Another Record High, Leftists Continue to Repeat? You were the one that broached the topic. I notice your name is on the thread, not mine or Real's. JT's analysis was spot on: if the only place in an economy that you can get higher return on your money is the stock market (in prevailing low inflation in most sectors) you will put it in that sector because it is getting the most return. And as demand increases, so do prices. It is human nature. It is also an immutable reality of markets that they work like that.

The point of this thread comes from the lead article of this post. This "thread" points out examples of the Left's lies about the economy including the stock market and about tax cuts, or at least any tax cut that they did not implement.
You go on: "You were the one that broached the topic. [color=#FF0000]That is true and a good observation. I notice your name is on the thread, not mine or Real's." [/color]
My turn: And I noticed the times that both you and Real brought up the stock market to compare Presidents!

There are other ways to invest your money besides the stock market. Yes, many people lean towards investments to the stock market because it does tend to yield the better return. I just want to add that "generally" as demand increases, so do prices. But that is not a universal. There are things within demand, that can lower the prices, including competition. And if there is no competition, sometimes if the demand can not be made, prices drop to try and keep customers from moving on to another product or service.

Archway cookies once made a honey and raisin bread. It was delicious, my favorite cookie. It was so popular that there other products were not selling as much anymore and they couldn't keep up with the demand for their honey raisin bread cookie. They tried a strategy of rotating different cookie specials, and did not offer the raisin bread all the time. I don't know how they fared with that strategy, but I moved on. (I think that is when I discovered Pinwheels - Chocolate covered Marshmallows and devil food cookies,

[leftyg]

The point of this thread comes from the lead article of this post. This "thread" points out examples of the Left's lies about the economy including the stock market and about tax cuts, or at least any tax cut that they did not implement.
You go on: "You were the one that broached the topic. [color=#FF0000]That is true and a good observation. I notice your name is on the thread, not mine or Real's." [/color]

What lies?

Here is the list:

Tax cuts for the Rich!"

Most of the cuts did go to the top one percent

"The rich are getting richer!"

The rich have been getting richer since Reagan. so that is also true https://www.cnbc.com/id/101025377

"Over 50% of Americans are not enjoying stock market gains!"

Again true. Granted the market may buttress their jobs, but actual gains from stocks is a different story https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/20/invest ... index.html

Blah, blah, blah.

You are being autobiographical and you are projecting. You are the one spreading economic lies so transparent that they are obvious to anyone who is literate or numerate.

The Left can never stop promoting the same old lies about economics - about which they know nothing. Their track record proves it. Remember the doom and gloom past predictions from people like Mark Cuban about the stock market crashing after Trump's presidential victory?

The economy is doing fairly well in spite of Herr Trump. It is the right who knows nothing about economics. Besides Mark Cuban is a Republican I think. And Mark Cuban like Bloomberg, Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Soros amd other real billionaires earned their fortunes themselves.

[Michaels153]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-did-the-stock-market-suffer-its-deepest-plunge-since-october-on-tuesday-heres-an-interesting-theory-2018-12-05?mod=MW_home_top_stories
Why did the stock market suffer its deepest plunge since October on Tuesday? Here’s an interesting theory
Published: Dec 6, 2018 8:01 a.m. ET

It is stuff like this that keep me away from the stock market. I could use a little help on this one as I did not see this tie-in coming.

The markets were already trading lower on Tuesday just before midday, but they soon took a decided leg lower in a session that ultimately drove the main stock indexes to their worst losses in about seven weeks.

Market participants have attributed that decisive drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.32% , the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.15% and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +0.42% to worries about the long-term prospects for a tariff resolution between China and the U.S. and the so-called inversion of a portion of the Treasury yield curve, spelling economic gloom in the U.S.

However, financial blogger Michael Kramer of Mott Capital has one intriguing — and perhaps not off-the-wall — theory pegged to developments in the U.K.’s planned exit from the European Union. Did anyone besides Mr. Kramer see that one coming?

Kramer hypothesized in a Tuesday blog that reports that Prime Minister Theresa May was being required, by virtue of parliamentary vote that held her in contempt, to publish the legal advice she’d received about Brexit, played a key role in sending shivers through markets, adding to the already downbeat tone of the trading session. A separate development that same day also indicated that the U.K. parliament would regain control of Brexit talks if May were to lose a scheduled Dec. 11 vote on her negotiated plan to exit from the EU.....

Kramer pointed out that the inversion of a portion of the Treasury curve, where short-dated debt yields more than longer-dated counterparts, in a phenomenon that has preceded most past recessions, had occurred on Monday. He also said concerns about the murkiness of a putative Sino-U.S. trade truce had been persistent throughout Tuesday morning.

For Kramer, that leaves Brexit news as the most likely catalyst for the further downshift.

The idea may sound outlandish. However, it is worth noting that a so-called hard Brexit by the U.K., wherein no trade agreement can be achieved before its deadline to exit from the EU, could disrupt global markets and deliver at least a momentary shock to the financial system.

To be sure, there are a number of factors that influence markets, as previously mentioned, and it has often been hard to say what’s really steering the market at any given point. But Kramer’s theory highlights the fact that investors are struggling to get a grip on what’s behind the gyrations of this current market, and that is in contrast with the more halcyon trading days of 2017.

You almost have to have nerves of steel to make investments with so many uncertainties to contend with on a day to day basis.
Today showed a mixture of guarded optimism about economical news and trends.

First https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-off-300-points-as-arrest-of-huawei-exec-reignites-trade-worries-2018-12-06

U.S. stocks closed mostly lower Thursday after a dramatic session that saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunge more than 700 points at one point on fears that the arrest of a Huawei executive would reignite trade worries.

However, the market clawed back most of its losses on a report that the Federal Reserve may turn more accommodative.....
The afternoon rebound put the Dow and the S&P back into the positive for 2018, while the Nasdaq built on its gains to rise 4.1% for the year.

Well that's some good news.

Next,https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgage-rates-hit-a-2-month-low-offering-house-hunters-the-only-reprieve-from-market-turmoil-2018-12-06
Mortgage rates hit a 2-month low, offering house-hunters the only reprieve from market turmoil
Published: Dec 6, 2018 5:04 p.m. ET

I saved the best for last. [url][https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-pace-of-job-creation-was-supposed-to-slow-but-a-funny-thing-happened-hiring-actually-sped-up-2018-12-05/url]
Job creation was supposed to slow, but a funny thing happened: Hiring has sped up
Published: Dec 6, 2018 1:56 p.m. ET

In a year characterized by big ups and downs in the stock market, one thing Wall Street has been able to rely on is a steady increase in the number of new jobs.

Economic tea readers predict the same in November. The U.S. likely added 190,000 new jobs last month to keep the unemployment rate at a 49-year low of 3.7%, forecasters say.

Here’s what to watch in the latest employment report due Friday morning.

Rising wages
An extremely “tight” labor market — what economists call it when firms can’t find enough people to hire — is driving up wages.

The yearly increase in hourly pay broke through the 3% barrier in October (3.1%) for the first time since 2009. And wage gains in the most recent 12-month period could climb to 3.2% in November.

[/color] - We will find out tomorrow.