Every once in awhile I have a lucid moment

Most of that was inherited from Bush and some the result of Obama tax cuts. Obama did a good job of reducing the deficit and as a percentage of debt increase was better than Bush 43 or Reagan.

You keep saying that but is it true? Impact of the tax cuts to average workers is pretty small and has to be offset with increases in household spending from health care, inflation etc...

Actually I think I was reading about Republicans lamenting the self inflicted wound.

You can repeal the tax cuts without impacting hard working Americans.

As for other news.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-th...arm-1528714800

"Most of that was inherited from Bush and the democrat-controlled Congress, which writes the laws and crafts the budgets"

fixed it for you.

"and some the result of Obama tax cuts"

What tax cuts were those? How about Obamacare and the stimulus package?

"Obama did a good job of reducing the deficit and as a percentage of debt increase "

He had the highest deficits ever. He gets credit for the biggest deficits being his earliest years? Is the debt any different if his biggest deficit is in his first year or his last year?

"Impact of the tax cuts to average workers is pretty small"

True, but it's larger than the $0 tax cut we got under Obama.

There you go again rewriting my post.

Republicans held the House, Senate and the Presidency for most of the years leading into the recession. By the time the Dems took the house at the end of Bush's second term the lot had been cast. It wasn't Dem spending it was a lack of revenue from the Bush recession that spiked the deficit which Obama inherited.

You weren't paying attention?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-class-famil/

By some measures they say Obama's tax cuts could be bigger than Trump's.

[QUOTE]He had the highest deficits ever. He gets credit for the biggest deficits being his earliest years? Is the debt any different if his biggest deficit is in his first year or his last year?
The reason the fiscal year is offset from the election year is to give the incoming president time to make adjustments from their predecessor. The first year of your term, heck maybe even the second are pretty much fixed as to ability to influence the deficit.

So yes, there's a huge difference between the first and last years.

See above.

[QUOTE=spence;1144374]There you go again rewriting my post.

Republicans held the House, Senate and the Presidency for most of the years leading into the recession. By the time the Dems took the house at the end of Bush's second term the lot had been cast. It wasn't Dem spending it was a lack of revenue from the Bush recession that spiked the deficit which Obama inherited.


You weren't paying attention?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-class-famil/

By some measures they say Obama's tax cuts could be bigger than Trump's.

You got me, apparently I wasn’t paying attention, I didn’t see my cut, and apparently I received it. It wasn’t anywhere near larger than the recent gop tax cut.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was far bigger. You didn't "feel" it because Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent rather than let them expire which he could have easily done.

How can I say ....because it's not happening crumbs don't equal a cake .. and your not paying attention to their message if you think that's not their message

In a perfect world.. but that hasn't been the case

I have an idea, let's call ourselves liberals and criticize something we used to praise because we don't like conservatives. It's a bad look guys. And it accomplishes nothing constructive. I understand it gives you purpose, but the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure it has, you just weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your examples are government rules. Without government regulation and force, those rules could not exist. I've tried, time and again, to point to the connection between government and its crony private sector partners as our ultimate reason for problems of price and delivery of goods and services. You never seem to recognize government's part of the problem. Nor to understand that the government/business complex is not a free market. Yet you want to point to free market as not being viable. I gave an example of free market oriented medical service being far cheaper than the government/hospital cartel which dominates our health care. All you could do is mention some notion of vertical and horizontal generation being some benefit for business, yet such practices lead to monopolization and creation of the corporatist structure that you previously thought was responsible for high prices and the destruction of the middle class. You seem to pick and choose various contradictory notions as responses when it suits your argument.

Have you heard of the wage-price spiral?

Who wasn't paying attention? Real data contradicts your statement. Wage growth has been and continues to be low.

"The modest increase in annual raises would seem to defy Economics 101. The unemployment rate has been below 5% since May 2016. Many companies are having a hard time filling positions, particularly for skilled workers. Typically, when the demand for workers grows, wages go up.

One possible explanation: Older workers are retiring and being replaced by younger workers who earn less, which drags down the aggregate increase. Another factor: Many employers are no longer offering equal raises. "

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/bu...s-in-2018.html

also https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-bigger-raises

You absolutely nailed it, that's all this is - liberals criticizing that which they praised for 8 years when Obama was POTUS.

From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when unemployment went down. From 2009 - 2016, it was awesome, and to the President's credit, when the stock market went up. And no one cared about adding to the debt. And no one cared that wages weren't increasing significantly.

Today, when unemployment is even lower, and the stock market is even higher, that's bad because now that the POTUS is a Republican, these things only help rich people and businesses. And suddenly, none of that means anything, unless wages increase meaningfully.

"the smug act makes you look foolish to all but your clique."

Bingo again. To say that there is zero, and I mean ZERO, intellectual honesty to liberalism, is an understatement. People are finally seeing this for what it is, which is why at this moment, the GOP controls everything in DC, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

We'll see what happens in the midterms, there could be a blue wave. Or maybe not. But as of right now, the democratic party is not a national party, it's a fringe group of radicals (who feel strongly that grown men should share public restrooms with 7 year-old girls), with strongholds on the two coasts, and zilch in between.

Their ideology only moves further to the left, never back towards the center. Their best hope, and it is a very realistic hope, is sufficient immigration.

I think there was a movie about the way things work that you propose and why it failed. If I remember correctly it was titled "The Gods must be crazy"

You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective because it makes you feel better about yourself.

The great irony is that the repubelicans supposedly hate deficits and complain about them until THEY are in power.

The economy, wages, the stock market, have been growing for almost a decade on a nearly even trajectory following near catastrophe, but now after 1 year of Trump policies, it is the best economy ever. How bout you have some intellectual honesty and see what the long term effects of his policies are before we puff our tail feathers.

I agree with you completely on this point, though I imagine you have a partisan slant. There is no free market. The repubelican party pretends they like free market, but the influence of big agriculture, big pharmacy, the energy sector on the republican politicians is a disaster. There are no free markets, only cronyism and the current leader may be the biggest, unapologetic crony capitalist of all time.

1st raises and new job salaries are 2 different things. Once an employer hires you raises are not going to align with what new hires are going to receive as the demand increases

2nd this is from one of the articles you posted

“The first quarter of 2018 did see substantial compensation increases — an annualized rate of almost 4 percent.”

Which aligns with what we were saying about as the demand for skilled workers increases the compensation increases

3rd your post even reiterates what we said

“Typically, when the demand for workers grows, wages go up.”

And even gives a reason why it may be slow through this cycle. Inexperienced people, who do not command as high a salary, as the experienced people who are retiring did.

It also doesn’t happen immediately, the wage decrease that occurred when the dot-com bubble burst took a few years to correct itself and now developers are reaping increased compensation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You are totally, completely misinterpreting other peoples perspective "

I see. So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha.

"it makes you feel better about yourself. "

Wrong again. It just makes me sad, not better about myself.

"The great irony is that the repubelicans supposedly hate deficits and complain about them until THEY are in power. "

I could follow your lead and say that you are misinterpreting them, but you are right, the hypocrisy exists on both sides.

"The economy, wages, the stock market, have been growing for almost a decade "

And I have always given Obama credit for that.

"now after 1 year of Trump policies, it is the best economy ever."

Not the best ever. But using the same exact criteria that made the Obama economy a good economy (low unemployment, healthy stock returns), the Trump economy is better than what he inherited. Not the best ever, but better than Obama's. Try making that wrong - you can't, you just can't.

"How bout you have some intellectual honesty and see what the long term effects of his policies are before we puff our tail feathers"

again, hypocrisy. Liberals weren't waiting for long term impacts of Obama's policies before they declared him a great POTUS. You have very different standards for judging presidents, depending on which party they are in. I use the same standards, or at least try to.

If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news. He has the greatest con ever going and he has you buying in.
Remember Trump is only a salesman and they never sell down.
Politicians know that markets turn for no apparent reason and no one can control them absolutely, they are pretty careful about claiming influence on them.
His absolute clown show with the G7 is a great example. His policy is We are America, bitch. He's even pissed off the Canadians and that takes a lot. He freewheels all the time, "I'll know in the first minute"
It would be great if you were right about Trump and everything comes up roses, but Time will tell, none of this internet BS will.

Maybe you are right and I missed that people are deriding low employment and stock gains. Please show me where that happened and I will acquiesce. Maybe you are talking about Trump and his comments on unemployment in Nov '16 vs February '17?

This is basically what you are talking about Jim, but in reverse, right?

August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%. (reference to 4.9%)

August 2017: “We’ve fulfilled so many of our promises, everything we’ve wanted to do we’re doing. Unemployment is at a record low (4.2%), jobs are flowing back into the country.” Donald J. Trump

It's all true now and no longer a hoax.
He's riding the wave and you're cheering like he invented the ocean

"If the claim is that everything you do is the greatest and has never been done before, yada yada yada and then expect everyone to just agree with your fake news"

That's Trump, he's a world class egomaniac. It's fair to hold him accountable when he lies. What's not fair, is for the same liberals who touted the benefits of low unemployment and great stock returns, to suddenly say those things don't matter. That's the glaring hypocrisy Dangles and I are commenting on, and it's everywhere. Everywhere.

"Remember Trump is only a salesman "

Whatever he is, the economy is looking great at the moment. Of course it won't last. But many economists claim we are overdue for a recession, and so far, he's fighting that off. No one can do it forever.

"His absolute clown show with the G7 is a great example. His policy is We are America, bitch. He's even pissed off the Canadians and that takes a lot. He freewheels all the time, "I'll know in the first minute"

Again, those are valid, fair criticisms. We were pointing out naked, obvious hypocrisy, especially in not giving him credit for improving the economy.

I despised Obama in away that's hard to articulate, for his social policies and his radicalism and his personal arrogance. But he did some very productive things. I can say good things about Obama when de deserves it, the world doesn't stop spinning if you give credit where it's due. Liberals cannot do that with Trump, they are blinded and deranged by hate, and he loves it, he eats it up. Liberals fail to see, that's what got him elected. I don't know why they can't see that, the election wasn't that long ago, but they are acting in the same exact way. Deniro's "F--- Trump speech"? That helps Trump. How does the left not see that? It makes me want to donate to Trump.

Every single time Trump does something positive, the left either ignores it, or spins it into a negative. People see it, and it turns them off. It would do your side well to recognize that. You aren't going to beat Trump in the ring of fighting dirty, somehow he's better at it than everyone else.

Here's the difference between me and you. I can say that hypocrisy exists on my side, I have said it again and again and again. I have said Trump is a scumbag, again, and again, and again.

When we bring up the equally obvious hypocrisy on your side, all you do, every single time, is attack republicans. Anything to avoid admitting that the other side can ever have a point. In doing so, you are proving my point for me, not refuting it.

Again the irony. It s unnecessary to point out the difference between you and me. I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains. "Please show me where that happened and I will acquiesce." I guess that is hypocrisy on my part?

"I asked you to point out where people are deriding low employment and stock gains"

Is that a joke? Read the posts on this thread. As soon as Trump took the oath, unemployment became meaningless, and all that matters is wage gains.

Proof that ignorance knows no bounds. I am actually starting to think he doesn't understand your point Jim. It is this smug, blame the other side mentality that will have Trump reelected. No wonder that party is a mess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your last post nailed the hypocrisy, it really did. The democrats have literally learned nothing from the 2016 election, not a thing.

Find one please. I went back over every post in this thread.

You are right, I don't understand Jim's point. He has made several. Some are irrefutably incorrect. The others he hasn't backed up. It is smug, blame the other side mentality to ask him to back up a point that I don't find evidence for? I think you guys have trouble with word meanings. Now that was smug.

Posts #3, 16, 31, 34, 36, 37.

Nothing but deflection away from the positive, and a stubborn (and newfound!) focus on debt and wage growth.

Before he is elected
August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%.
After he was elected they became real numbers but he says it is all ME, there is BS on one of those statements, either he lied before (it was not a hoax) or he is lying now and it is a hoax. Pick one

Pete, you are petty. Just like Trump.
If it was good enough then,why isn't it now? Trump is a low life and you are stooping to his level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

#3- you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that
Derisive about unemployment and the stock market?

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive.
Derisive? Not by the definition of derisive.

#31- absolutely nothing derisive

#34-
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.
I posted "You forgot to mention the federal debt," as something YOU would be razing the forum with hyped up posts about. Had nothing to do with my thoughts on unemployment and the stock market or the debt.

#36 whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? yes that is a bit derisive. But the platform of the 2nd place finisher in the democratic primary had it central to his platform. doesn't seem too hypocritical of wdmso to bring it up

#37 nothing derisive about low unemployment and stock gains in that post

One guy is saying wages are what matter. For all I know he is a Bernie guy and was saying that for the past 3 years. You make a big leap to "So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha' and "nothing but deflection away from the positive."

Here, Pelosi said "“Hip, hip, hooray, unemployment is down. What does that mean to me and my life?” You tell me, did she say that during the Obama years?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/...ouths-economy/

"#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

Yes, it does. It means a lot to the person who chose to take the job.

Spin it all you want. For 8 years, I heard Obama get patted on the back for low unemployment and stock market gains (I was one of those patting him on the back). Now all of a sudden those are not praise-worthy accomplishments.

:wall::usd:: I didn't say those words in #16, or agree with them, or ask your opinion of them. That was what was in the post. I was pointing out that those words,"it doesn't mean that much," aren't derisive.

Saying that something "doesn't mean that much", isn't derisive. Got it.

You didn't comment on Pelosi's statement I see. Once again, anything to avoid admitting that your side was wrong, anything to avoid admitting the other side has a point.

Sometimes it's valuable to put a remark in context of the thread. I wasn't saying that low unemployment didn't matter, but that the ratio of job openings to unemployed doesn't mean much unless it pushes employers to raise wages.

Don't know anyone here bashing unemployment Jim.