|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 17, 2020 19:53:52 GMT -8
Irony? Quoting “The Hollywood Reporter” to defame another media company? Ha ha! No need for me to defame Faux News when their own lawyers say they lie. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 20:17:51 GMT -8
Irony? Quoting “The Hollywood Reporter” to defame another media company? Ha ha! No need for me to defame Faux News when their own lawyers say they lie. You better get back to your National Enquirer! Ha ha! Funny |
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 17, 2020 21:12:44 GMT -8
The "help wanted" are for part time or minimum wage jobs. Can't provide for a family that way. But the availability of cheap jobs, a chugging DOW Jones, or the growth of your 401K are the wrong metrics for evaluating the health of the economy. You should get to know the federal treasuries yields and learn what they mean an inversion of the yield curve. When the yield curve inverts [short term notes paying higher yields than long term yields] the economy is weakening and sliding into a recession. The longer the inversion, the longer the recession. The last eight recessions were signaled by inversions of the yield curve. "Curious why no mention of Quantitative Easing or Fed interest rate manipulation and their gross impact on the Obama year economic numbers?" Why should it be mentioned? That's why the Fed was established -- to use various mechanisms of monetary policy to stimulate growth and/or control inflation. The Fed has used one of these methods during every administration since the Fed was created. US per capita income is unchanged in trend post-recession fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A792RC0A052NBEAAt the end of the day Quantitative Easing and Federal rate manipulation are economic policy decisions. The question amounts to: why didn't you mention economic policy decisions when showing the impact of economic policy? I didn't do it for Trump either, why would I mention it for Obama? MOre over, I showed the outcome of the policy decisions, which are more or less the same. indicating regardless of what the economic policies decisions and actions where, for the measures I presented, the results were the same: similar average annual growth. Also further indication that Trump's administration has so far not shown an improvement (or worsening) of the trend that existed before he took over. More over, it goes down the path of now value-judging the worthiness of the economic policy. The implication of the statement was "Obama didn't do anything, QE did". It is just kind of a sad attempt to discredit one president, by saying the economic outcomes were due to something else (Despite having the support of his administration and the federal reserve chair, Janet Yellen, he appointed...) and not "him". Whereas this other president got the same results but "didn't need no stinking QE" which of course is A. not really true, and B. kind of a dumb argument because both president's inherited vastly different economic situations and if you are going to judge Obama on QE then you gotta judge Trump on inheriting a rocking economy already. But oddly, I find the people tend to not want to give or take equally allowances in their analysis. Either way, it is a silly argument because it lasted well into Trump's term, and we just started a new program... so... Not sure what else to say. Per capita income isn't helpful in evaluating the health of the economy. It consists of income divided by population and, therefore, does not reflect the unequal distribution of wealth. The per capita remained the same after the 2008-09 crash. But $14 trillion of wealth was transferred from the middle classes to the 1%. The per capita income doesn't tell you who has the income. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 17, 2020 21:16:38 GMT -8
"America was on the path to becoming great again before this whole coronavirus thing." It was? It was GREAT before. The chump in chief has LESSENED America in every conceivable way. Here and abroad. If one doesn't see that, then it is simply a matter of ideology, and not wanting too acknowledge everything that he has touched is dying or is already dead. Everything. Clearly you, or nobody you know are veterans who had to rely on the VA before Trump passed the Veteran's Choice Act. Actually, you know what the VA in some parts of the country was actually above average so I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but this was a long needed reform many had gave lip service to and only one actually got done. Just like prison reform. Are you against that too? Trump didn't pass the Veteran's Choice Act. In fact, he had nothing to do with it. It was passed by the House and Senate and signed into Law in the Summer of 2014. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 17, 2020 21:20:50 GMT -8
I don't like the casual use of the term "Fake News" that has been rampant over the past five years. Especially from elected officials. "Fake News" gives anyone carte blanche to disregard all news that they don't agree with. It is disgusting. It lowers our country to the kind of crap that you find on message boards. Name calling and casting aspersions. "Russia, Russia, Russia!"
Hate THAT, huh (fake news)? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Yo beaverclever, let go of June's pearls, take three steps back, and breathe in through your nose and out through your mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 17, 2020 21:22:02 GMT -8
The "help wanted" are for part time or minimum wage jobs. Can't provide for a family that way. But the availability of cheap jobs, a chugging DOW Jones, or the growth of your 401K are the wrong metrics for evaluating the health of the economy. You should get to know the federal treasuries yields and learn what they mean an inversion of the yield curve. When the yield curve inverts [short term notes paying higher yields than long term yields] the economy is weakening and sliding into a recession. The longer the inversion, the longer the recession. The last eight recessions were signaled by inversions of the yield curve. "Curious why no mention of Quantitative Easing or Fed interest rate manipulation and their gross impact on the Obama year economic numbers?" Why should it be mentioned? That's why the Fed was established -- to use various mechanisms of monetary policy to stimulate growth and/or control inflation. The Fed has used one of these methods during every administration since the Fed was created. Nope there were, and still are actually, businesses looking for full time workers. Some are entry level paying jobs, others, like I know of in the construction industry, are starting at $25phr with benefits. To your second paragraph, you're conflating why Quantitative easing should be mentioned in a post attempting to highlight and compare the economic health between two Presidents' economies, with the mission of the Fed. We all understand why the Fed did what they did, whether you agreed with it in full or not, nobody was arguing what their purpose was. The point is, the action they took did have a gross impact on the economy(that's was the purpose). So comparing the economic numbers from a time when billions are being artificially pumped into it, to a time when billions are not, is dishonest and misleading. lol |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 17, 2020 22:20:53 GMT -8
Clearly you, or nobody you know are veterans who had to rely on the VA before Trump passed the Veteran's Choice Act. Actually, you know what the VA in some parts of the country was actually above average so I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but this was a long needed reform many had gave lip service to and only one actually got done. Just like prison reform. Are you against that too? Trump didn't pass the Veteran's Choice Act. In fact, he had nothing to do with it. It was passed by the House and Senate and signed into Law in the Summer of 2014. I believe that hottubbeaver is referencing the Veterans Mission Act, which expands on the poorly-implemented Veterans Choice Act. Both Acts were passed with large bipartisan support. The original Veterans Choice Act of 2014 passed the House 420-5 and the Senate 91-3. The nays were solely from Republicans based on the concern that the Veterans Choice Act did not go far enough. The Veterans Mission Act passed the House 347-70 (DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden voted aye and Blumenauer and Bonamici voted no) and passed the Senate 92-5 (Wyden voted yea and Merkley voted nay). As I understand it, most of the nays were because of the Act's privatization aspects (which is a really dumb reason to oppose, if you ask me). One nay was from never-Trumper Bob Corker, who is no longer in the Senate. A second nay was from Mike Rounds, who asserted that the Mission Act did not help South Dakota veterans. The other votes tend the highlight the dirty pinko faction of the Democratic Party from the more moderate faction of the Party. |
|
