Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[Hutch Starskey]

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Your point is that Obama actually had a substantial impact on unemployment. That is bullshit. Neither has Trump.

But, even if we assume that Obama DID have some substantial impact on unemployment (he didn't), based on that chart Mac provided, Obama spent 8 fucking years getting us back to where we were before the sub-prime crash. And, that's only AFTER he let us lose another 2-4%, taking us up to 10% unemployment.

The reality is that the president has little impact on employment. Only taxing policy can directly effect employment rates.

.

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

And what would that be?

.

Just speak to the point.

 

[Crepitus]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

It's a bald faced lie.

Pretty much par for the course with the referenced poster.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

No. It provides changes in data over time.
When you live through something you have your personal experience. Not the bigger pucture.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is anyone arguing that taxation policy does NOT directly affect the employment rate?

We all agree that raising taxes tends to increase unemployment, right?

Let's just be clear on that point, can we?

.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any actual data to support this claim.

While it seems that it should be true, there is no tangible data backing it up.

That's the problem. I can't find any data either way.

In the absence of data, I can only conclude that employers who have less money are less likely to maintain or increase their payroll.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your point is that Obama actually had a substantial impact on unemployment. That is bullshit. Neither has Trump.

But, even if we assume that Obama DID have some substantial impact on unemployment (he didn't), based on that chart Mac provided, Obama spent 8 fucking years getting us back to where we were before the sub-prime crash. And, that's only AFTER he let us lose another 2-4%, taking us up to 10% unemployment.

The reality is that the president has little impact on employment. Only taxing policy can directly effect employment rates.

.

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

And what would that be?

.

Just speak to the point.

Which is?

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You are a true, loyal partisan.


.

LOL...How do you see yourself?

You could respond to my post rather than being a partisan contrarian.

What part of "presidents have little effect on the employment rate" do you not understand?

.

What part of "under normal circumstances" don't you get?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

So you agree with the post, it's fine with you?
.

Why the fuck don't you tell us about the post you dumb ignorant fucking hypocrite?

Tell us again, please....how you deny that the 2008 crash was ALL republicans fault.

I have never once seen you acknowledge what the economy did (unemployment rate) did only after the democrats took control of congress after 2007 and then lost the House in 2010.

Do you know what the unemployment rate was at the end of 2006? It was 4.6 percent where the republicans had control of congress from 1995 to 2006.

What did the unemployment rate do from 2007 to 2010 under democrat control?

Well, go ahead you demented double talking ignorant hypocritical loser.

Better whip out that race card you cling to you dumb buttfuck. You are owned in your own thread.

I will be waiting for you to tell me what the unemployment rate did from 2007 to 2010, under democrat control.

The fact that you credit obama.....

Good Lord you are a loser.

That Hillary voter continues to pretend he's an unbiased observer

 

[Third Party]

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

No. It provides changes in data over time.
When you live through something you have your personal experience. Not the bigger pucture.

Sorry, I vote according to how me and mine are affected by politicians-not big picture, but very relevant.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is anyone arguing that taxation policy does NOT directly affect the employment rate?

We all agree that raising taxes tends to increase unemployment, right?

Let's just be clear on that point, can we?

.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any actual data to support this claim.

While it seems that it should be true, there is no tangible data backing it up.

That's the problem. I can't find any data either way.

In the absence of data, I can only conclude that employers who have less money are less likely to maintain or increase their payroll.

.

I suspect the lack of data is due to the fact most tax cuts or raises are too small to move the needle enough to measure.

Or they happen at a time when they are not necessary. Corporations were seeing record profits prior to the Trump tax cuts, so having even more profit is not going to lead to new jobs.

I will link to it later as I am on my phone now but I did find one study that showed tax cuts to the lowest bracket did move the needle but to those above the poorest made little impact at all.

 

[Indeependent]

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

Not in Nassau County.
Maybe you saw trespassers.

Nassau county always had a better UE rate than the country as a whole.

Their UE rate fell 51% under Obama.

You are full of shit, nothing changed after the election

Hempstead Turnpike saw a record number of vacancies under Obama.
Now the Turnpike consists of almost completely new construction.
Please do attempt to generalize.
We always had people serving food.
Now we have malls and almost unbearable traffic.

I am sure you have the data to back up this claim? Like the difference between Jan 2017 and now.

Not that I don’t believe you...well actually I don’t

I’m sure you do as you always seem to have whatever you need to back up your claims.

My son has it on his real estate database and I’m living it professionally and have it on my professional database.

Bottom line is that you are a Libertarian who basically lies for a living.
What do I mean?
You’re an analyst who uses rolled up statistics upon which to base conclusions to maintain employment.
Basically, you lie for a living.

I have to deal with reality and reality under Trump is exhausting keeping up with all the new residential and commercial construction.

I see you dropped that unemployment thing because you know U6 was a compete lie.

You may now resume presuming whatever...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

And what would that be?

.

Just speak to the point.

Which is?

.

That you won't address it.

You make that point clearly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

No. It provides changes in data over time.
When you live through something you have your personal experience. Not the bigger pucture.

Sorry, I vote according to how me and mine are affected by politicians-not big picture, but very relevant.

Why are you in this thread about unemoyment numbers then if you dismiss them?

 

[jc456]

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

No. It provides changes in data over time.
When you live through something you have your personal experience. Not the bigger pucture.

Sorry, I vote according to how me and mine are affected by politicians-not big picture, but very relevant.

Why are you in this thread about unemoyment numbers then if you dismiss them?

it wasn't a thread about unemoyment numbers, it was a thread for an opinion of a post from another thread.

 

[Third Party]

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

No. It provides changes in data over time.
When you live through something you have your personal experience. Not the bigger pucture.

Sorry, I vote according to how me and mine are affected by politicians-not big picture, but very relevant.

Why are you in this thread about unemoyment numbers then if you dismiss them?

It is all relevant-to people besides just myself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

And what would that be?

.

Just speak to the point.

Which is?

.

That you won't address it.

You make that point clearly.

Won't address WHAT?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is anyone arguing that taxation policy does NOT directly affect the employment rate?

We all agree that raising taxes tends to increase unemployment, right?

Let's just be clear on that point, can we?

.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any actual data to support this claim.

While it seems that it should be true, there is no tangible data backing it up.

That's the problem. I can't find any data either way.

In the absence of data, I can only conclude that employers who have less money are less likely to maintain or increase their payroll.

.

I suspect the lack of data is due to the fact most tax cuts or raises are too small to move the needle enough to measure.

Or they happen at a time when they are not necessary. Corporations were seeing record profits prior to the Trump tax cuts, so having even more profit is not going to lead to new jobs.

I will link to it later as I am on my phone now but I did find one study that showed tax cuts to the lowest bracket did move the needle but to those above the poorest made little impact at all.

That is a reasonable response. Thank you.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Good Lord you are a loser.

That Hillary voter continues to pretend he's an unbiased observer

I do?

Oh goody, I get to post line 2 of my sig again. Thanks!

2. >>> For the liars who pretend I claim to be a centrist/moderate/impartial/unbiased/fence-sitter: Come on Jake, man up, just this once.


.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So far we have resounding support for that post, it seems.

Why are you putting a call out thread in politics?

Should we dig up your old posts where you dissed on Hillary and then voted for her anyway?

 

[Mac1958]

a bald faced lie. Pretty much par for the course with the referenced poster.

Difficult to say for sure.

It could also be that this is what they believe, based on the limited alternate information universe to which they expose themselves.
.

 

[Mac1958]

So far we have resounding support for that post, it seems.

Why are you putting a call out thread in politics? Should we dig up your old posts where you dissed on Hillary and then voted for her anyway?

Whatever you'd like.

So, what do you think of the quoted post?

So far, no Trump supporters have a problem with it.
.