Will Obama's economy hand Trump the WH? Media cover up Fed report to help Hillary?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 1458279, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...2_instead_of_rising_in_the_first_quarter.html



    “Real hourly compensation decreased 0.4 percent after revision, rather than the previously-published increase of 4.2 percent,”

    Obama's 2016 speech:



    I wonder if this will be covered by the main stream media?

    Looks like the "great Obama recovery" is falling apart even faster than what we thought. Meanwhile, Hillary want's to continue down the same road, and the blind sheep are so willing to follow her.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    Well, your boy Donny thinks wages are too high.



    So what the hell is the point of this thread?
     
  3. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #4
    WOW, the TrumpBashers must be drinking expresso today... how long did it take 3.. 4.. minutes?

    Do you have these all queued up in your Official TrumpBasher TurboPoster macro?

    Ok so back on point before the TurboPoster spools back up, The point of the thread is Obama's economic performance and how it's going from worse since 1949 to even worse than worse. Heck, it might break all records and become the worst economic performance in all of US history.

    BTW, Trump was talking about min wage which should be market driven. Some people don't have enough economic value to earn min wage. In addition, min wage does nothing to improve the job skills of the people, and will cause inflation while robots are getting cheaper and cheaper.

    The real issue (the ones that make the TrumpBashers shake) is that Obama's game plan has failed, and it failing faster and faster, meanwhile, Obama is bragging about it and Hillary want's to extend it.
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    From the linked report - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm - PRODUCTIVITY dropped 0.4% not wages. Wages were up by 1.5%.
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #6
  6. Eraserhead, Aug 11, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
  7. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #8
    Yuppers. Obama's at 55% approval but the nation is going to vote for this:

    [​IMG]

    Lol! Even Fox Business knows Trump's plans blow...
     
  8. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    Fair points.

    One question: Doesn't "economic value" - your own words - interfere with the very concept of being a pro-life society? Not just anti-abortion but a truly pro-life society? But it's easy to say nobody else has economic value, whatever that means. Who will you scapegoat and blame once you are deemed having no economic value?
    --- Post Merged, Aug 11, 2016 ---
    Yeah, but the Koch Bros and other hip-deep Republicans prefer Hillary as well. What makes her seem that much more appealing, in terms of policies? Or are they voting for demeanor as opposed to issue? Or mere spite, which is surely not the most mature approach when casting a vote?
     
  9. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #10
    You had me right up until I read that your link was from American Stinker.

    Buh-bye. [sound effect of toilet flushing]
     
  10. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #11
    Must do better, you really must.

    Despite all your hatred and bias there is no denying the fact that Obama has done very well with the economy- remarkably given the internal struggles.

    Hit pieces like this (especially from sites like the "American Thinker!!!) do not serve you well. Posts like this undermine any credibility you may have as they're simply false. Embarrassingly bad.
     
  11. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Aren't those the numbers that were revised in the new report? The revision was specific to wage growth. I think you're looking at the original numbers.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 11, 2016 ---
    Always enjoy seeing an open mind willing to learn something new... Love the 'logic' of attacking the source while ignoring the message.

    Oh, almost forgot, thanks for another insightful contribution to a meaningful conversation. We learned so much from your post.:rolleyes:
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    Those are the preliminary figures for the second quarter.

    The revision to the first quarter is noted further down:

     
  13. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #14
    @KarlJay you're mistaking this for a meaningful conversation and it never was starting with the original source.

    Withou an honest base there can be no meaningful discussion.
     
  14. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #15
    IMO, Pro life doesn't mean we shouldn't have reasonable population control. That's a whole different subject. Look at India, I saw a pic of people in India lined up waiting for about 10 jobs. The line was simply unreal, so many people looking for jobs.

    We have unchecked population growth and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Some are actually of the mindset that we need more population growth in order to cover the costs of the past. This ignores that it'll only make the "kick the can down the road" worse for the next gen.

    I can see a conflict here in the pro-live vs population control, not the only conflict. Consider the smaller government control unless it suits us theory. Clearly we have a less than perfect setup :D
    --- Post Merged, Aug 11, 2016 ---
    Ok, so the original post is correct that the revised numbers show a decrease in wage growth. I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with me or not.

    I actually hope it's just a single quarter thing and not a real trend. It's not looking good for the new year at this point.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    Those are two different assertions.. The question is, however, when are we going to do more about the infrastructure, anti-poverty and food security issues...



    The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.

    Past that I agree that the source cited in the first post was not a great choice. I appreciate your earnestness and dedication to particular topics but your data picks, wow... maybe go with better data that you find interesting, and see where it takes you instead of starting with a hypothesis supported by the likes of that thing. :)
     
  16. 1458279, Aug 11, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2016

    1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #17
    Obama has done very well. Obama is the 1st president in US history to NEVER hit 3% growth. The recession he claims to have ended was already OVER before his policies took effect. Obama has the worst economy since 1949. Home ownership is at a 51 year low, the debt is nearly doubled, wages are down, and 95% of the recovery went to the top 5% of the richest people. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
     
  17. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    For the person who's in charge of nuclear launch codes, yea demeanor kinda matters.

    ...also, too, ill-considered statements by presidents can roil markets and economies, so yea demeanor kinda matters.
     
  18. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #19
    I'm not sure about the two different assertions, however, to your question:

    This kind of investment needs to be timed correctly. Think of it as you living in a two income home, losing 1 income and wanting to buy a new car. The investment of buying a new car can crash your system, so you should stick with the old car for a while longer. The investment would be better served in something that will grow long term income.

    This is one of the problem with what we've done in the past, not enough focus on long term jobs that will help create the tax-base that's needed to "purchase the new car".

    Look at how effective Obama's infrastructure plan worked. He got many billions to fix things and what actually got fixed?

    The issue is doing things in a way that doesn't work against us later. Expanding the population without any plan to educate, feed, house, etc, is just a plan to keep kicking the can down the road.

    Until we learn from our mistakes, we'll be stuck running in circles. At this point, we can't even get the nation to agree on which direction we should be going.

    So, to answer the question, it can't happen until we find the correct direction and that can't happen until we start to agree on what we've already done.
     
  19. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #20
    His point is valid. If we aren't going to lower taxes on businesses and then we artificially jack up wages further vs letting the market decide what jobs are worth then we will continue to lose and not help ourselves.

    Min. wages should be set by the state and by the market. NY should be higher than AR. and if there are job openings the skill set and number of candidates available to fill those positions will factor into the wages for that role.

    If we continue to raise taxes and raise wages, jobs will continue to move elsewhere.
     
  20. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #21
    So the number were NOT revised lower?

    What are the revised number for wage growth in the 1st qtr?

    BTW, site your source for whatever number you come up with.

    You're actually partly correct, it's clearly not a meaningful conversation to you. You've twice dismissed the discussion without actually addressing the data presented.

    If you don't want to take part in a meaningful conversation, you don't actually have to tell us you don't want to take part in a meaningful conversation. What you are actually doing is trying to convert a meaningful conversation into a troll feed.

    We look forward to some kind a meaningful growth from you... we'll wait for the meds to wear off...
     
  21. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #22
    The only way - and the sure-fire way - for Trump to win is if he literally (and I use that word correctly) says nothing until the election.

    Hillary Clinton can't win on merit - hence the dark-matter void of PRSI threads championing - even naming - her politics and/or policies.

    But she can slay Trump's ass all day if he opens his mouth.
     
  22. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #23
    I'd have to agree, that this is really Trump's election to lose. I'm actually starting to get comfortable with either one. I would pay money to see Hillary handle the economic meltdown. It would be like a town bully getting his face in the mud.

    Another upside is that if Trump doesn't win, he kicked the GOP hard in the teeth and they needed a wake up call. They've had strong control of much of the government and didn't do what they said they would do. We kicked them when #1 and #2 were forced out, yet nothing much seemed to change. At this point, they should understand that we mean business and they better perform or step aside. The other thing is that he showed that you can get this far without spending huuuuge money or bowing down to the media.

    He's pointed out just how divided this nation really is and that status quo is not going to cut it.

    As far as being able to win, don't forget that Trump will bring people out like nobody has before. This is a game changer as we'll see people vote that haven't voted for a long, long time.
     
  23. pat500000 macrumors 604

    pat500000

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
  24. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #25
    Who needs threads on her politics or policies, they're on her website to review all day long.

    She can win on merit. Trump can't even get in the door on merit. This is a guy they make cartoons about having an empty desk with one tweet button and one nuke button on it. With some poor anxious sod from the Joint Chiefs hovering outside the office door...
     

Share This Page