At the junction
Whatever else you might say about the next 8 years, they should be interesting. I remember hearing Dennis Prager say something years ago, he longed for CLARITY. I think we're getting more of it; and I don't think that's a bad thing. In fact, the more the better.
So, how does one gain clarity when both major parties are offering manifestly dishonest candidates?
Well, it's clear we're going to be lied to, no? And it's clear (at least to anyone familiar with protected information) that Hilliary should be a resident at 1000 University Drive SW, Waseca MN 56093, no? The sad side is that it's also clear that we're not likely to have a President who takes the $19T official/$100+ T GAAP national debt seriously. The good news is that I hear the Carpathia and the California are in the vicinity and have wireless.But ya want clarity, there ya go.
I think the clarity is in the view that we are getting of the system and of the parties. There may be some clarity for some centrists when Trump criticizes the Media without the pussyfooting. There may be some clarity in that a major party is willing to nominate a prospective felon. It won't be an easy time for optimists, that's for sure.
I think your photoshop efforts, perhaps intended as humor, point out an unfunny truth. Trump seems to believe he is entitled to your vote. That doesn't sound like he is attuned to your issues, as one might hope of a candidate.
Actually the Trump thing is a site where you can enter a name and it will take a Trump tweet and generate a personalized insult. I agree that Trump does seem to think he is entitled to votes, though. He's not.
My opinion via these 3 articles:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwthttp://fortune.com/2016/05/13/trump-recession-economy/http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-lessons-of-1912/article/2002374
The second article is ridiculous, Paul. Presidents don't cause recessions merely by taking office. You're old enough to remember the 1980s and the economy coming into Reagan's term was reeling. Things only started to get better in 1983.I can tell you this much -- one of the primary reasons Trump is doing well among certain groups of voters is that they haven't seen any economic progress in a long time. Every time I see someone posting numbers that talk about how well the economy is doing under the current administration, I laugh. And, by the way, there's a pretty good chance we're already in a recession.I oppose Trump for all sorts of reasons which I've documented here. No reason to add a bunch of specious nonsense to all the other good arguments against him.
I would agree as I should have the article more closely. However, we are not in a recession right now and the economy has done better since Obama has been in office. Actually, anyone could have probably done that with where our economy was in 2008. This probably more accurate. http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trump-recession-economists/
However, we are not in a recession right now and the economy has done better since Obama has been in office.You're missing the point of Trump if you believe that, good sir. The economy has not improved for a lot of people; in fact, it's been pretty damned bad ever since the bubble burst in '08. And I'd say this -- if retail sales are any indication, the economy is slowing to a crawl.
I do see the point of Trump and I believe he is incorrect. As a whole it has improved. Now does it mean that those affected by the meltdown are back to where they were? Some yes, others no. And according to the recent April retails sales numbers, they actually rebounded in April with economists saying that consumer interest is still out there. I also believe the Trump mania is based on other factors, which I find much more disturbing.
I'm in retail, Paul. Trust me -- we're really nervous right now. Really, really nervous.
Clearly the economy has improved since Obama's inauguration. It kind of reminds me of the Detroit Lions. Does anyone remember that 0-16 season? Obama got hired after a disastrous season. There was no direction to go but up. For their part the Lions fired their head coach and hired Jim Schwartz. And the Lions improved to 2-14.Obama's economy is super compared to the depths of the 2008-09 recession. But that's extremely faint praise.
If your analogy were accurate and you started with the previous Lions season (like starting in early '08 for the economy) the correct analogy would be that the Lions hired a new coach and after EIGHT years, improved their record to 0-15-1.
FWIW, retail is indicative, as growth last quarter was an annualized 0.5%--factor out government spending, and you're basically in a recession. Factor in population growth of about 2%/year, and yes, we are in a recession, effectively speaking.Detroit Lions as a picture of the Obama presidency works really well, BTW. That or my Cubbies.....
You guys are funny. So Obama gets no credit whatsoever for guiding the economy out of the worst recession that the U.S. went through? Or are you saying McCain and brain-dead Palin could have done better? And you call that faint praise that the economy is doing better? Could it not have been a hell of a lot worse?
Perhaps Obama would get some credit if you could point to ONE thing he has done to improve the economy and how it ties to a subsequent improvement. In other words, good intentions or high-sounding pronouncements don't count.
Paul, when you count the huge spike in people who have left the workforce altogether, the current "recovery" has only one parallel in history: 1929-1939. Could it have been worse? I guess if we'd elected Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez instead of Obama, sure, but are we to seriously argue that throwing tens of billions of dollars down ratholes like solar power and light rail saved the economy? Seriously?
Don't buy it, Bike Bubba. The amount of people leaving the work force was already going down 6 to 8 years before Obama came into office. One of the main reasons is due to the aging and retirement of baby-boomers. Here's the graph for you. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate
Look at "max" on your graph. It clearly shows a rise in workforce participation around 2001 (with the end of the 9/11 recession) that ended with the loss of Congress to the Democrats and really getting going with Obama's election.Thank you for making my point.
Dude, it was not due to Obama's election. It was due to the biggest recession that occurred in 2007-2008 and the baby boomers aging out. The key point is this: "That might draw you towards thinking that it's all about the Great Recession, but there's something else that happened that year. The very first baby boomers started turning 62, which is a prime age for retirement."http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/16/unemployment-is-low-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce
OK, let's give Obama credit for getting official unemployment down, and not blame him for workforce participation going down with it. Can we give him credit for almost 8 years of 1% anemic growth in GDP, and most of that due to government deficit spending?
I could work with that, jerrye92002.
Post a Comment