patrick.net

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

You're ignoring your own chart that has negative real wage growth during Obama's presidency.

Have another chart. Pretty weak numbers for 8+ quarters after the Recession began.

I'm ignoring nothing. Your premise is that the Obama economy sucked and Trump has somehow made it great again. I'm simply showing you that that is incorrect and the Obama economy was, in fact, better than the Trump economy has been (thus far, anyway).

LeonDurham says

I'm ignoring nothing. Your premise is that the Obama economy sucked and Trump has somehow made it great again. I'm simply showing you that that is incorrect and the Obama economy was, in fact, better than the Trump economy has been (thus far, anyway).

Again, the economy should have recovered faster and stronger than it did. A 4% quarter coming out of the worst recession since the Great is no big accomplishment.

Getting a 4% quarter 10 years after the Great Recession is a big deal.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Again, the economy should have recovered faster and stronger than it did. A 4% quarter coming out of the worst recession since the Great is no big accomplishment.

Getting a 4% quarter 10 years after the Great Recession is a big deal.

lol--should have?? What does that even mean? There is no "should" on the economy. It's not like a yo-yo where it comes right back when you drop it.

LeonDurham says

lol--should have?? What does that even mean? There is no "should" on the economy. It's not like a yo-yo where it comes right back when you drop it.

Typically, a few quarters after a recession, the economy quickly makes up ground. Bragging that it took what, 8 quarters to finally have a 4% bounceback, is kind of silly. Underwhelming!

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Typically, a few quarters after a recession, the economy quickly makes up ground. Bragging that it took what, 8 quarters to finally have a 4% bounceback, is kind of silly. Underwhelming!

There is no typically. You'll notice that there is a trend that recoveries have been getting longer and weaker since the 80s. I can tell you why this is, but the cult of Republicanism cannot accept the fact that inequality will be the death of the US economy.

btw--

Did you find the big concessions from the EU yet?

Tim Aurora says

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nope, best President ever. Not "managing a decline" like Obama or making the world safe for Globalists like Clinton-Bush.

Love how being tough on trade ended up with big concessions from Europe. Another thing the ever-wrong pundits were wrong about.

Just wait until the FISA scandal is finalized. Strzok is involved in everything from the shitty Iran Deal to entrapping Flynn to rigging the Election.

You Russian can keep om telling that. Traitor Trump is very near to impeachment

and how about also getting to Euros to pay their fair share of NATO fees? More work to be done here, but the Russians will try another "annexation" if they are not held in check. That's Europe's responsibility.

LeonDurham says

I'm simply showing you that that is incorrect and the Obama economy was, in fact, better than the Trump economy has been (thus far, anyway).

Using wage growth adjusted for inflation. Since we actually had DEflation during Part of Obama’s reign of terror, even completely stagnant or declining wages look better on such a chart. Our inflation rate was extremely modest during the rest of it, which also helps “real wage growth” numbers, as does rehiring as people went back to work from the worst recession in 80 years.

Trump is taking an already recovered economy and packing it extra full of jobs and wage gains. Meanwhile Obama era immigration policies continue to hamper wage gains, and corporately owned politicians in both parties argue for MOAR CHEAP LABOR. Siding with the enemy of the workers isn’t going to win you any friends.

LeonDurham says

lol--we're measuring health of the economy by spending at Walmart?? bwahahahahahaha.

So, I see you missed the other two lines of my post:

MrMagic says

Retail sales jumped in July, but so did the sales performance at retailers as consumers not only went shopping but spent money on travel and dining out.
Economists say consumer spending is being helped by the tax bill and also the fact that U.S. job creation remains strong, even as unemployment dipped below 4 percent.

Does Walmart control those parts of the economy too???

BBbhhhhhwwwwaahaaahaahaaahaa LOL LOL LOL

Quigley says

Using wage growth adjusted for inflation. Since we actually had DEflation during Part of Obama’s reign of terror, even completely stagnant or declining wages look better on such a chart. Our inflation rate was extremely modest during the rest of it, which also helps “real wage growth” numbers, as does rehiring as people went back to work from the worst recession in 80 years.

Yes, thanks for explaining how inflation adjusting works. What you forgot to include was that real wages and real wage growth are the best way to measure if peoples' standard of living is getting better or worse. It's the best way of measuring if people think they're better or worse off.

So when real wage growth is negative, it means the standard of living is getting worse for most folks.

Quigley says

Trump is taking an already recovered economy and packing it extra full of jobs and wage gains. Meanwhile Obama era immigration policies continue to hamper wage gains, and corporately owned politicians in both parties argue for MOAR CHEAP LABOR. Siding with the enemy of the workers isn’t going to win you any friends.

Job growth under Trump is worse than under Obama. In the 20 months since his election, the economy has created 3.9MM jobs. In the 20 months before his election, the economy created 4.3MM jobs. So Trump is responsible for overseeing a 10% reduction in jobs created.

LeonDurham says

ob growth under Trump is worse than under Obama. In the 20 months since his election, the economy has created 3.9MM jobs. In the 20 months before his election, the economy created 4.3MM jobs. So Trump is responsible for overseeing a 10% reduction in jobs created.

There you go folks.... more Liberal Logic, comparing Apples to hammers, comparing Obama's LAST 20 months to Trump's FIRST 20 months.

Hey Joey, when you do a comparison (honestly), you use the SAME time periods. This is how that's done:



BTW Joey, that chart is from WaPo, not Fox News.

Magic--we've been over this before. The correct way to look at it is clearly how I presented it.

Why is it that Trump cult members always present dishonest arguments?

LeonDurham says

So when real wage growth is negative, it means the standard of living is getting worse for most folks.

Most Folks??

LeonDurham says

The correct way to look at it is clearly how I presented it.

Why is it that Trump cult members always present dishonest arguments?

Here, maybe a few more FACTS can clear your rose colored glasses regarding both of their FIRST months:

Job creation


Wages... gee, they're neck and neck...



UNemployment rate - tons more lost jobs under Obama


Labor Force Participation - Dropped like a rock under Obama



Manufacturing Jobs??



Conclusion

Overall, in a comparison of the labor market performance during the first year of Trump compared to the labor market performance during the first year of Obama, the clear winner is Trump. By almost every measure, the current administration appears much stronger.

Any questions???

LeonDurham says

Why is it that Trump cult members always present dishonest arguments?

Projecting again?

MrMagic says

Conclusion

Overall, in a comparison of the labor market performance during the first year of Trump compared to the labor market performance during the first year of Obama, the clear winner is Trump. By almost every measure, the current administration appears much stronger.

And like I said--dishonest.

MrMagic says

Projecting again?

Nope. The difference is Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and Trump was handed an economy that was humming along nicely.

LeonDurham says

The difference is Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and Trump was handed an economy that was humming along nicely.

Before you make arguments you can't handle, you had better consider all the facts. Obama came out of the Great Recession with RECORD low interest rates, so a monkey could create jobs in that environment...and it did. Trump is creating jobs and a growing economy at the tail end of a "recovery" and rising-interest-rate environment. As Mr Magic said earlier, apples and hammers.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Conclusion

Overall, in a comparison of the labor market performance during the first year of Trump compared to the labor market performance during the first year of Obama, the clear winner is Trump. By almost every measure, the current administration appears much stronger.

And like I said--dishonest.

Yes, you "say" a lot of things, but unfortunately, most are lies, parroted back from CNN ans MSNBC,

LeonDurham says

The difference is Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and Trump was handed an economy that was humming along nicely.

So to smokescreen Obama's performance, you think the HONEST way is to use two completely DIFFERENT time periods to straw man your argument?

Feel free to disprove my graphs from the SAME time period..

I'll be waiting... and waiting..... and waiting....

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Obama came out of the Great Recession with RECORD low interest rates, so a monkey could create jobs in that environment...and it did. Trump is creating jobs and a growing economy at the tail end of a "recovery" and rising-interest-rate environment. As Mr Magic said earlier, apples and hammers.

OK before we analyze your statement, let's first establish to which exact rate you refer. T-Bill, Fed funds, 10 year Treasury? Once we do that we can look at the historical relationship between interest rate and jobs created. I suspect you won't like what history tells you.

Trump is creating FEWER jobs. The only change from one 20 month period to the next is the President. Jobs created has gone down.

And, fwiw, I'm not saying Trump has caused the economy to create fewer jobs (although his tax plan almost certainly is a cause), I'm just trying to educate the Trump cultists that the economy has actually gotten worse under Trump.

MrMagic says

So to smokescreen Obama's performance, you think the HONEST way is to use two completely DIFFERENT time periods to straw man your argument?

Nope--as I told you before, the best way to look at it is to analyze the time period immediately before Trump was elected and then compare it to the time period immediately after he was elected. The only change is then Trump and his new policies. One would expect to see an improvement if his policies were working and making the economy better.

What is actually seen is mostly a continuation of the established trendlines with maybe a slight worsening.

It doesn’t matter. NO President has failed to win re-election when the economy is going great. And the results from the primaries show that Trump’s endorsement means something to voters.

MrMagic says

Wages... gee, they're neck and neck...

These numbers more impressive for Trump as he didn't take office near the trough of a recession.

Aphroman says

Look you lost, get over it. Stop destroying America and the lives of Americans

Uh, my preferred party controls all 3 branches of government. Try Again.

LeonDurham says

lol--again with the "it's the House's fault when Dems control the House, and the President's fault when Dems control the Presidency"? Give it a break

Opposite of what I said. Democrats ramped up the deficit. It was the Republican take back that saw them pass a Budget Act that greatly slowed down deficit spending. I cited the exact spending bill and gave the date: citing chapter and verse.

LeonDurham says

Trump is creating FEWER jobs. The only change from one 20 month period to the next is the President. Jobs created has gone down.

Again, you're comparing a few quarters after the worse recession since WW2 to 10 years after it. Considering that, Trump's job creation numbers are about as strong, which is very, very impressive, and Obama's numbers are actually quite sluggish given the depth of the decline.

Aphroman says

why would any of that lead to support for Republicans? Heritage Foundation Care is a Republican legislation, which is why even after whinging about it 24/7 for years, and constantly campaigning to do away with it, once in power nothing changed

Republicans repealed the mandate, so that was change.

Also, in a polarized 2-party environment, Obamneycare (FKA Hillary's Plan) depressed Democrats and angered and motivated Republicans, thus putting Democrats at a disadvantage. After enacting that legislation, Democrats suffered the worst midterm loss of any party in more than 70 years, and have never recovered.

Also, from a fundraising POV, the tsunami of Obamneycare (FKA Hillary's Plan) money favors the party in power, and tends to favor Republicans. Sometimes a party shoots itself in the foot, but Obamneycare is a cannon with which the DNC shot off its own legs.

Aphroman says

Wrt muslims, the Republicans are over in Saudi Barbaria on the knee, kissing the princes ass. The country responsible for 9/11 gets left off the travel ban list?

That was Pence. Pence claimed (falsely) that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. They compromised on a territory ban, which allowed KSA to remain in Petrodollar grace despite obvious connections to Islamic terror attacks worldwide including in the USA.

LeonDurham says

But as further background, you should be aware that the Federal Government cannot restrict said travel based on one's religion.

That was Pence's view, so you agree with him there. In the context of non-resident aliens, it is false. A billion foreign Muslims do not have a right to travel here and kill disbelievers, even though their religion commands them to do that. They do not have a right to immigrate here, either. If Trump had proceeded with the ban that he suggested, we would have had an opportunity to see a definitive decision on that point, but meanwhile you and Pence can continue to claim something that has no support in the Constitution nor precedent. Bizarrely, Democrats (and ONLY Democrats) on SCOTUS did appear to agree with you and Pence in the most recent decision on this point, which is another reason why many people think Democrats have gone bonkers about Islam and are demanding to spread it.

BTW, you keep calling Islam the "underdog," which is ridiculous. I wonder if the people whose heads got cut off by Jihadi John thought, gee, it's the underdog, that makes it OK. It is more like a wolf than a dog. By your pattern of cheering the "underdog," Democrats would cheer the election of a Nazi, since the Nazis lost and are now rare and thus the underdog, and besides the founding Nazis agreed with the leading Muslims of their day that their beliefs were very similar. Your "underdog" nonsense gives rise to the "cultural Marxism" argument, i.e. if Muslims/Nazis are the "underdog" then you want to elevate them without considering why or thinking through the consequences.

LeonDurham says

complete lie

No JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham, I linked facts and names to prove Democrats were demanding to spread Islam, and you are the one who has lied, which is why you keep changing names: your lies destroy the credibility of each name, so you move on to another, until that name is also ruined. When you are proven wrong, you accuse everyone else of lying and dishonest arguments when instead you should apologize. That is trolling.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Again, you're comparing a few quarters after the worse recession since WW2 to 10 years after it. Considering that, Trump's job creation numbers are about as strong, which is very, very impressive, and Obama's numbers are actually quite sluggish given the depth of the decline.

huh? I'm comparing the 20 months before Trump's election with the 20 months after it. You are factually incorrect again.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Opposite of what I said. Democrats ramped up the deficit. It was the Republican take back that saw them pass a Budget Act that greatly slowed down deficit spending. I cited the exact spending bill and gave the date: citing chapter and verse.

No, it's exactly what you said. Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

LeonDurham says

And, fwiw, I'm not saying Trump has caused the economy to create fewer jobs (although his tax plan almost certainly is a cause), I'm just trying to educate the Trump cultists that the economy has actually gotten worse under Trump.

Totally ridiculous claim.
Low unemployment not seen since 2000, tied for the best since 1969.
Best Youth Unemployment numbers in half a century.
Minority Unemployment hits record lows.
Stock Market near all time highs.
4% Qtrly GDP growth NOT linked to the expected recovery from a recession.
Small Biz and Consumer Confidence approaching or surpassing all time highs.

The only thing sluggish is wages, but those have been largely disassociated from productivity gains since the 1970s. Greatly restricting immigration will help with that.

In Contrast, back when Obama was bragging about an anemic 90,000 jobs per month coming out of a recession (which lagged behind population growth), Trump is creating more than double that far from the last recession.

LeonDurham says

Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

I just want to preserve this.

Previously, when I pointed out that sequestration devastated medical research (thus protecting entrenched PhRMA revenue from disruptive innovation), Democrats blamed Congressional Republicans. (iwog and cabron even went so far as to blame the Republicans for Obamacare, which Democrats enacted on a party line vote against unanimous Republican opposition.)

Now, you call iwog and cabron dishonest and wrong.

curious2 says

That was Pence's view, so you agree with him there. In the context of non-resident aliens, it is false. A billion foreign Muslims do not have a right to travel here and kill disbelievers, even though their religion commands them to do that. They do not have a right to immigrate here, either.

I think you are arguing another strawman. Nobody is saying anyone has a right to immigrate here. Banning based on religion would violate the First Amendment and probably the 5th Amendment, however, and would be illegal. That's why the ban eventually got written as it did, banning people from certain countries. Unfortunately, Trump was already on record with the intent so it's been a mess in the courts.

curious2 says

which is another reason why many people think Democrats have gone bonkers about Islam and are demanding to spread it.

Many people? You're the only one I've ever seen state that lie.
curious2 says

, I linked facts and names to prove Democrats were demanding to spread Islam, and you are the one who has lied, which is why you keep changing names: your lies destroy the credibility of each name, so you move on to another, until that name is also ruined. When you are proven wrong, you accuse everyone else of lying and dishonest arguments when instead you should apologize. That is trolling.

lol--you did nothing of the sort. You posted some links, NONE of them said anything about Dems demanding to spread Islam. Which is why you didn't simply provide a quote from any of them making such a statement. More lies.

curious2 says

BTW, you keep calling Islam then "underdog," which is ridiculous.

And another lie. I did nothing of the sort. Can you not tell the difference between a person and a religion?

Continuing to post lies and strawman arguments like you do is trolling. It is much worse than calling someone a name.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Totally ridiculous claim.
Low unemployment not seen since 2000, tied for the best since 1969.
Best Youth Unemployment numbers in half a century.
Minority Unemployment hits record lows.
Stock Market near all time highs.
4% Qtrly GDP growth NOT linked to the expected recovery from a recession.
Small Biz and Consumer Confidence approaching or surpassing all time highs.

The only thing sluggish is wages, but those have been largely disassociated from productivity gains since the 1970s. Greatly restricting immigration will help with that.

In Contrast, back when Obama was bragging about an anemic 90,000 jobs per month coming out of a recession (which lagged behind population growth), Trump is creating more than double that far from the last recession.

Again--the economy has simply followed the same trend lines that were established under Obama, except they've gotten slightly worse under Trump. Jobs created is worse. Real wages are worse.

And Obama's consecutive quarters averaging 5% growth were years after the recession ended. They weren't linked to the recovery.

LeonDurham says

No, it's exactly what you said. Obama negotiated and signed the bill yet you somehow give the credit to the House. That's dishonest and wrong.

Right, he just happened to do that after the Dems lost the House. He HAD to sign the bill because it was popular and the Republicans cleaned up in the elections on a wave of popularity.

Again, a new Republican House initiative, not the President's.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Right, he just happened to do that after the Dems lost the House. He HAD to sign the bill because it was popular and the Republicans cleaned up in the elections on a wave of popularity.

Again, a new Republican House initiative, not the President's.

That's complete BS. Here's what the GOP says:

https://www.gop.gov/fact-its-president-obamas-sequester/





(mic drop)

WOW, that's totally incorrect.

Obama was desperate to prevent the House Initiated Plan and did everything possible to weaken it. Eventually a compromise was reached after many threats of shutting the government down.

In 2011 the Republicans grudging raised the Debt Ceiling but only if there would be deficit cuts going forward.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal

If the Obama White House was so in favor of the Sequester, why did they issue Press Releases demonizing it like this?
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/02/22/what-sequester

Fact: Obama was pressured into agreeing to the Sequester, he finally went along with a compromise plan to save face. The push for the sequester came from the House Republicans, NOT the Obama WH.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

WOW, that's totally incorrect.

Talk to the GOP. It's their website. You're not suggesting they are dishonest?? Are you??

Truth is Obama probably did suggest the sequester to force the GOP to get serious on negotiations, but the Republicans overplayed their hand so Obama was forced into accepting the sequester. Neither side really wanted it. There was no push from either side.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

In 2011 the Republicans grudging raised the Debt Ceiling but only if there would be deficit cuts going forward.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal

This is pretty hilarious though and shows plainly what a bunch of dishonest hypocrites the GOP has become. They only care about debt and deficits when there is a Dem President. How anyone can support these clowns is beyond me.

P.S. This 2015 Politico article describes the split within the Democratic party with regard to spreading Islam into NATO. The pro-Islamic faction prevailed, overruling the concerns and objections that other Democrats (including from CA and NY) had expressed. Hillary Clinton campaigned on increasing the spread of Islam in emulation of Angela Merkel, and John Conyers and other Democrats demanded even more, and Democrats lost.

In the context of Syrians, some Republicans suggested bringing in Christians but not Muslims, and President Obama got offended. (I didn't see him call it unconstitutional, merely "offensive.") In practice, the "Syrians" (or migrants from elsewhere who bought Syrian documents from ISIL) were 97% Sunni; the Christian and Shia Syrians were sheltering with Assad, partly because Muslim migrants were murdering Christians in transit. The ISIL videos showing Islamic decapitations of Christians on the north shore of Africa provided further evidence of what Muslims were doing to Christians in transit, and dissuaded many Christians from attempting the journey.

The website iSideWith presented Democrats vs Republicans regarding Syria specifically, though in practice most of the migrants were single Muslim men and not necessarily Syrian, contrary to what the iSideWith questions might lead one to believe. Even with that, any voter considering the major parties' positions on spreading Islam would likely know of Hillary Clinton's demands to increase the spread of Islam on behalf of her Saudi clients (indeed, Hillary's War was the major factor driving Muslims into NATO at that time) vs Donald Trump's suggestion to stop it. It was a clear choice, and the Democrats who expressed concern based on polls were overruled, and we saw the results.

I haven't seen Democrats acknowledge any need to change the platform in order to win. To the contrary, Democrats seem to follow the pattern of JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham: call everyone liars, claim Russia stole the election, and double down on the same things that lost last time. So, I don't foresee a blue wave, but time will tell. I did hope Democrats might get tired of losing and consider changing the agenda, but I don't see that happening yet. Maybe another midterm loss might do it, otherwise 2020.

curious2 says

Hillary Clinton campaigned on increasing the spread of Islam in emulation of Angela Merkel, and John Conyers and other Democrats demanded even more, and Democrats lost.

Nope. Taking refugees does not equal increasing the spreading of Islam. That is another lie.

Spreading Islam implies actively encouraging people to convert to Islam. That is most certainly not part of the Dem platform and nothing that Clinton campaigned on.

curious2 says

I haven't seen Democrats acknowledge any need to change the platform in order to win. To the contrary, Democrats seem to follow the pattern of JoeyJoeJoeJr/Tatupu70/LeonDurham: call everyone liars, claim Russia stole the election, and double down on the same things that lost last time. So, I don't foresee a blue wave, but time will tell. I did hope Democrats might get tired of losing and consider changing the agenda, but I don't see that happening yet. Maybe another midterm loss might do it, otherwise 2020.

I don't call everyone liars, just those that lie. Unfortunately, that does cover Trump and a lot of his cultists.

Actually Dems learned the most important lesson of 2016--don't nominate bad candidates that don't represent the party.

I do agree with Patrick's point from a different thread that Dems need to highlight their platform that they are the party of labor, however. That has been a winning strategy.

LeonDurham says

Taking refugees does not equal increasing the spreading of Islam.

Actually, it does.

Islam spreads when Muslims infect other people with these ideas:

1. Muslims have been wronged throughout history and should feel resentment. Resentment is the sole mood of the Koran.
2. Muslims then have the right, just because they are Muslims, to murder non-Muslims men, take their property, and enslave and rape the women and children.
3. Islam is a just and fair religion because it allows select non-Muslims (Christians and Jews) to bow and submit and pay an annual ransom to keep their lives and property.

I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting anything. That is Islam in a nutshell, officially documented and easily discovered with a little searching, and it has been a very successful algorithm for those who wish to justify robbery, rape, and murder just like Mohammed did.

Islam is the opposite of all Western values. It does not belong here. It is violently intolerant of all other religions.