You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[jc456]

LOL

Your point was that Congress voted for war irrespective of what Bush would determine. I shattered that idiocy many posts ago. Sucks to be you.

isn't approved mean voted for? what's your definition of approved?

 

[Stryder50]

Speaking of the debt clock, have you figured out yet their claim of 162 million people employed in 2000 is wrong?

Yeah, so what?
It could imply they got the wrong number from the Fed OMB.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist, your interpretation of the graph is way off base. The graph you're showing reflects annual GDP growth rates, not absolute GDP levels, and it's clear that the economy under Obama didn't "tank" as you're suggesting. In fact, the U.S. economy experienced steady growth throughout Obama’s presidency following the Great Recession. The dip from 3.5% in 2015 to 1.6% in 2016 doesn't represent some catastrophic economic failure , it's a typical fluctuation within a larger trend of post-recession recovery. GDP growth rates naturally fluctuate year to year due to various factors, including global economic conditions, domestic demand, and fiscal policies.

Now, let’s talk about the so-called "rescue" you’re crediting to Trump. The uptick in GDP growth in 2017 and 2018 that you’re pointing to isn’t the result of some miraculous turnaround, it’s a continuation of the recovery momentum that began long before Trump took office. The economy was already on a stable growth path, and the slight boost can largely be attributed to the short-term effects of Trump’s tax cuts, which pumped temporary stimulus into the economy. However, those tax cuts also ballooned the deficit and primarily benefited corporations and the wealthy, making their long-term effectiveness highly questionable.

In reality, the graph shows the natural ebb and flow of an economy in recovery, not a dramatic collapse followed by a heroic rescue. Trying to spin this as Obama tanking the economy and Trump saving it is not just misleading—it’s flat-out wrong. The growth you see post-2016 is part of the same trend that started years earlier, under Obama's policies.

You can find detailed GDP growth data, including historical fluctuations, from several reliable sources:

1. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
   
   • The FRED website, maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, provides a wealth of economic data, including GDP growth rates. You can access and download the data from their website here: FRED GDP Data
   • Once on the site, you can customize the data range and download it in various formats for further analysis.
2. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
   
   • The BEA is the primary source for U.S. GDP data. Their website offers detailed reports and datasets on GDP, including quarterly and annual growth rates. Visit their website here: BEA GDP Data
   • You can explore interactive data tables and access historical GDP figures directly from their platform.
3. World Bank
   
   • The World Bank offers global economic data, including GDP growth rates for many countries, including the United States. You can find the data here: World Bank GDP Data
   • This site provides data in a user-friendly format, and you can download it in various formats for analysis.
4. International Monetary Fund (IMF)
   
   • The IMF also provides detailed GDP growth data through its World Economic Outlook database. Visit the IMF's data portal here: IMF World Economic Outlook
   • The IMF offers data on GDP growth along with projections and historical data.

By visiting these resources, you can access historical GDP growth data, visualize trends, and better understand the patterns of economic expansion and contraction over time.

HA HA. This clod is telling me to visit the BEA for " historical GDP growth data, visualize trends, and better understand the patterns of economic expansion and contraction over time"

EARTH TO TNBS: All this morning, I have been posting GDP numbers + the V-GRAPH from the BEA, to educate you about Obama's 7 recessions, Biden's 3, and Trump's 1.
You're welcome - (whether it does you any good or not).

As for your sickening word salad, designed to coverup Obama's pathetic last 2 years, as well as Trump's marvelous first 2 years, I hate to inform you that USMB posters don't snow easily. Save your total BULLSHIT for your illegal alien pals, who dont speak such good English.
Pheeew! (high-pitched whistle ; eyes rolling around in head)

 

[Luckyone]

Tell that to your Democrats. They imposed lockdowns on most of society, deleting so many jobs. Then, When those jobs returned after Democrats lockdowns were proven wrong… the Democrats include the returning jobs in their “jobs created” stat

LOL

I don't discuss "generalities" or exceptions.

Humans are fallible, meaning no one is perfect and if you look, you will ALWAYS find something that supports your point of view (as you has stated here).

Nonetheless, what generally works in life is what is more often right than wrong. It is what makes results be better with some than with others.

For example

and also for example

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, your claim that the middle class always does well when taxes and regulations are cut is simply not true. The reality is that wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top precisely because of these policies. Over the past few decades, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have led to stagnant wages for the working class, while the rich have seen their wealth skyrocket. The golden age of the American economy wasn't just about being the only economy not bombed into rubble after WWII, it was about strong unions, high wages, and a progressive tax system that ensured the wealthiest paid their fair share, which in turn funded public investments that benefited everyone.

Your dismissal of the role unions and high tax rates played in that era ignores the clear evidence that union workers still make more and have better benefits than their non-union counterparts. Unions have historically been a powerful force in securing fair wages, safe working conditions, and benefits like healthcare and pensions. When union membership was high, the middle class thrived because workers had the collective power to negotiate better terms with their employers. As union power has declined due to policies favoring deregulation and weakening labor laws, we've seen a corresponding decline in middle-class prosperity.

Finally, Keynesian economics is still relevant today and is used in various forms by governments around the world to stabilize economies and promote growth. For example, during economic downturns, Keynesian policies advocate for government intervention to stimulate demand through public spending, which has proven effective in preventing deeper recessions and helping economies recover. Dismissing Keynesian economics ignores its role in building a more equitable economy, where growth is driven by the purchasing power of the many, not just the wealth of the few.

Todd, your claim that the middle class always does well when taxes and regulations are cut is simply not true.

Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you.

Over the past few decades, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have led to stagnant wages for the working class, while the rich have seen their wealth skyrocket.

Show me.

For example, during economic downturns, Keynesian policies advocate for government intervention to stimulate demand through public spending, which has proven effective in preventing deeper recessions and helping economies recover.

What about the other half of Keynesian policies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While a small tax cut might seem beneficial at first glance, it doesn't amount to much when other expenses are skyrocketing. Under Trump's administration, funding cuts to vital programs disproportionately hurt the working class. For example, Trump's tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, while simultaneously leading to proposals for cuts in programs like Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, programs that millions of working-class Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Moreover, the cost of living has continued to rise, with healthcare being one of the most significant burdens. Trump's attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have left millions without medical insurance, pushing healthcare costs even higher for those who could least afford it. When wages are stagnant and the safety net is being slashed, any tax savings are quickly overshadowed by the increasing costs of essentials like healthcare, housing, and education. In the end, the working class ends up paying more overall, while the wealthiest Americans continue to see their fortunes grow.

While a small tax cut might seem beneficial at first glance, it doesn't amount to much when other expenses are skyrocketing.

I agree, a small tax cut doesn't make up for Bidenflation.

Trump's tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, while simultaneously leading to proposals for cuts in programs like Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, programs that millions of working-class Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Proposals? Not actual cuts?

 

[justoffal]

When you focus on demand rather than supply, you're ensuring the paying consumer has more money to spend, hence that economy is bottom-up rather than top-down. It doesn't matter if the government is ensuring this dynamic, provided it serves the interests of the working class (wage earners), which constitute 96% of the population.

Well I guess that was some kind of explanation not sure what though.

Ok.... Where exactly do these consumers get their money from?

Wait I know! They get it from someone upline in the system from them who pays them.

That person could be a company owner... Or it could be a customer paying a vendor of services for their service.

In either of these cases the monetary unit changes hands either in exchange for labor or services rendered.

The so-called "tax-cuts" did nothing for the average worker.

The average worker paid less tax.

It did much more for the rich and powerful

It's true, people who paid more saved more from the tax cut. And?

These guys just believe it's wrong that anyone should be wealthy. Simple math demonstrates that if you took all of the wealth away from all the wealthy and redistributed it the only result is that everyone would be poor; But they will continue to think that the rich guy has their money somewhere hiding underneath a rock causing them to lead a life of poverty.

 

[Stryder50]

In market socialism, you don't use other people's money, especially when your country has a sovereign currency and a robust GDP. You obviously don't know where the money comes from. Your so-called "debt clock" is a myth and a paper tiger. The US government doesn't have a debt, as you or I have as mere users of the currency. That "debt" can just as well be identified as the "People's surplus". The government's red ink is the people's black ink, or surplus.

I'll be back in a few hours.

Don't bother.
1> You continue to prove you don't understand basic economics, such as with this delusional post.
2> In theory(theories) the government is the people's, and it's red ink is their red ink.

 

[Faun]

The only thing you have proven is that you are either a bald faced liar, or a total jerk who tries to contradict government statistics.

I taught microeconomics in college for 3 years, but an 8th grade kid could refute you with ease.

Obama had 7 recessions and the proof is in the very often declining GDPs. What Trump got from Obama was an economically failed administration, riddled with 7 recessions (I will itemize them if you like), 5 below zero GDP quarters, and a row of GDPs in his last 2 years that were like a sinking ship. > (the left side of the infamous V-GRAPH always omitted on CNN, MSNBC, et al leftwing media.)

I doubt that you can even ascetain where there are recessions, by looking at the GDP graphs. Here's 2 of those recessions right here in the V-GRAPH >>

View attachment 1002122

View attachment 1002123

With your abject ignorance, it's unbelievable you taught microeconomics. Here's GDP during Obama's presidency... where on Earth do you see a decline in GDP in any 2 consecutive quarters past 2009Q2...?

YYYYQQ Real GDP
2008Q4 16,485.4
2009Q1 16,298.3
2009Q2 16,269.1
2009Q3 16,326.3
2009Q4 16,502.8
2010Q1 16,582.7
2010Q2 16,743.2
2010Q3 16,872.3
2010Q4 16,960.9
2011Q1 16,920.6
2011Q2 17,035.1
2011Q3 17,031.3
2011Q4 17,222.6
2012Q1 17,367.0
2012Q2 17,444.5
2012Q3 17,469.7
2012Q4 17,489.9
2013Q1 17,662.4
2013Q2 17,709.7
2013Q3 17,860.5
2013Q4 18,016.1
2014Q1 17,954.0
2014Q2 18,185.9
2014Q3 18,406.9
2014Q4 18,500.0
2015Q1 18,666.6
2015Q2 18,782.2
2015Q3 18,857.4
2015Q4 18,892.2
2016Q1 19,001.7
2016Q2 19,062.7
2016Q3 19,197.9
2016Q4 19,304.4

 

[Stryder50]

In market socialism, you don't use other people's money, especially when your country has a sovereign currency and a robust GDP. You obviously don't know where the money comes from. Your so-called "debt clock" is a myth and a paper tiger. The US government doesn't have a debt, as you or I have as mere users of the currency. That "debt" can just as well be identified as the "People's surplus". The government's red ink is the people's black ink, or surplus.

I'll be back in a few hours.

EXCERPTS:
...
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and organizational self-management of enterprises[8][9] as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.[10] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity[11] in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them,[13] but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms (excluding Liberal socialism etc.)[1][14][15] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene, and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[13]

As a term, socialism represents a broad range of theoretical and historical socioeconomic systems and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating a variety of socialism types.[10] Socialist economic systems can be further divided into market and non-market forms.[16] The first type of socialism utilizes markets for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic units. In the second type of socialism, planning is utilized and include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind to value resources and goods wherein production is carried out directly for use.[17][18]

There have been numerous political movements such as anarchism, communism, the labour movement, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism, whose members called themselves socialists under some definition of the term—some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.[2][13] Different self-described socialists have used socialism to refer to different things such as an economic system,[3][4][5][6][7] a type of society,[8] a philosophical outlook,[1] an ethical socialism in the form of a collection of moral values and ideals,[19][20][21][22] or a certain kind of human character.[23] Some of those definitions of socialism are very vague[23] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as socialism in the past such as a mode of production,[24] state socialism,[25] or the abolition of wage labour.[26]
....
Market socialism refers to various economic systems that involve either public ownership and management or worker cooperative ownership over the means of production, or a combination of both, and the market mechanism for allocating economic output, deciding what to produce and in what quantity. In state-oriented forms of market socialism where state enterprises attempt to maximize profit, the profits can fund government programs and services eliminating or greatly diminishing the need for various forms of taxation that exist in capitalist systems.
....

Types of socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't discuss "generalities" or exceptions.

Humans are fallible, meaning no one is perfect and if you look, you will ALWAYS find something that supports your point of view (as you has stated here).

Nonetheless, what generally works in life is what is more often right than wrong. It is what makes results be better with some than with others.

For example

View attachment 1002317

and also for example

View attachment 1002319

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

No, it is not. What a strange world you live in. It was the world of the working class~middle class. Not the welfare class you are in.

www.usmessageboard.com

You said Reagan's recovery was small (compared to Obama's), but your chart shows Reagan's GDP grew by 3.6% while Obama's GDP grew by 1.9%.

Were you this bad at math while you were giving investment advice to clients?

 

[Stryder50]

With your abject ignorance, it's unbelievable you taught microeconomics. Here's GDP during Obama's presidency... where on Earth do you see a decline in GDP in any 2 consecutive quarters past 2009Q2...?

YYYYQQ Real GDP
2008Q4 16,485.4
2009Q1 16,298.3
2009Q2 16,269.1
2009Q3 16,326.3
2009Q4 16,502.8
2010Q1 16,582.7
2010Q2 16,743.2
2010Q3 16,872.3
2010Q4 16,960.9
2011Q1 16,920.6
2011Q2 17,035.1
2011Q3 17,031.3
2011Q4 17,222.6
2012Q1 17,367.0
2012Q2 17,444.5
2012Q3 17,469.7
2012Q4 17,489.9
2013Q1 17,662.4
2013Q2 17,709.7
2013Q3 17,860.5
2013Q4 18,016.1
2014Q1 17,954.0
2014Q2 18,185.9
2014Q3 18,406.9
2014Q4 18,500.0
2015Q1 18,666.6
2015Q2 18,782.2
2015Q3 18,857.4
2015Q4 18,892.2
2016Q1 19,001.7
2016Q2 19,062.7
2016Q3 19,197.9
2016Q4 19,304.4

Source?

 

[Faun]

isn't approved mean voted for? what's your definition of approved?

Of course it means that. And when I said the voted to let Bush decide if we should go to war with Iraq, which is what they did, you idiotically said that's not how that works.

 

[Faun]

Source?

In my post.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, so what?
It could imply they got the wrong number from the Fed OMB.

At least you finally acknowledge it's wrong.

 

[Stryder50]

In my post.

NOPE!

When I click on that GDP underelined and in blue, just resets your post on my screen.
Try again, with the real http....

 

[Stryder50]

At least you finally acknowledge it's wrong.

I did earlier but you didn't understand.
Also you implied it was my fault they made an error.

 

[Faun]

NOPE!

When I click on that GDP underelined and in blue, just resets your post on my screen.
Try again, with the real http....

Not for me. When I click on it, it asks me if I want to download the spreadsheet from bea.gov. maybe yours downloaded it automatically. Check your downloaded files.

 

[Faun]

I did earlier but you didn't understand.
Also you implied it was my fault they made an error.

No, I said it's your fault for not recognizing it was wrong.

 

[Luckyone]

View attachment 1002324

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

No, it is not. What a strange world you live in. It was the world of the working class~middle class. Not the welfare class you are in.

www.usmessageboard.com

You said Reagan's recovery was small (compared to Obama's), but your chart shows Reagan's GDP grew by 3.6% while Obama's GDP grew by 1.9%.

Were you this bad at math while you were giving investment advice to clients?

For your knowledge, I am getting tired of you repeating yourself adnauseum.

Let me say it in a way you may understand but even if you don't, this is the "end of the story" on this story.

From here on in, you can take your views directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and argue with them THEIR numbers.

I didn't personally poll or count the numbers. They did. When it is said that 96% of the jobs created was under Democratic presidencies, it is THEY that gave those statistics. Take it up with THEM.

I am finished with this conversation. You want to keep communicating with me, pick another topic.

The topic I am interested in is what is going to happen in November and thereafter. I believe that the Republican way of thinking is wrong. Trickle down economics does not work. Our country is not about the rich people giving the other 90% of the population crumbs.

This is about all Americans working as a team to make the U.S. win the World Series of freedom, economics, and equality.

If you want to discuss that topic, I will gladly do so.

Bottom line is this and it has to change: