Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
- Thread starter David_1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
The labor participation rate is especially troubling for three reasons:
1. It's the lowest it's been since 1978.
2. The vast majority of those working are materially underpaid compared to what they would be making from the end of WWII and the ensuing decades.
3. A whole lot of what used to be full time jobs are now part time jobs and the labor participation rate does not distinguish between the two meaning that a whole lot of today's part time jobs would have been good paying full time jobs in past decades.
Bureau of Labor Statistics chart for 'Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey':
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LFPR FALLS TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1978 - Business Insider
Labor Force Participation Rate for 25-29 Year Olds Hits Record Low | CNS News
Obama didn't have the economic competency to realize that borrowing trillions of dollars to hand out to investors to cover their losses for them and giving the rest in the form of welfare and social services while simultaneously continuing Bush's mistakes with respect to free trade, immigration, etc... just kicked the can down the road in a way that makes the inevitable correction much worse when it does happen.
He should have let the wealthy investors take their losses instead of America's progeny for the next hundred or so years which would have opened up all kinds of new banking and financial sector startup opportunities for Americans. He should have renegotiated all of those past FTAs in a corrective manner to bring the capital investment and jobs home (which actually creates many more jobs in the form of small businesses to service well paid working Americans). He should have secured American innovation/invention/idea creation instead of helping to dump it all over the world creating foreign competition and losing America it's economic competitive advantage. He should have looked at immigration reform as an opportunity to decrease the supply of labor which drives up wages and compensation for everyone remaining. He should have, he should have, he should have... but he did the opposite.
The move to homosexualize America's children was just the cherry on the cake.
1. It's the lowest it's been since 1978.
2. The vast majority of those working are materially underpaid compared to what they would be making from the end of WWII and the ensuing decades.
3. A whole lot of what used to be full time jobs are now part time jobs and the labor participation rate does not distinguish between the two meaning that a whole lot of today's part time jobs would have been good paying full time jobs in past decades.
Bureau of Labor Statistics chart for 'Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey':
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LFPR FALLS TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1978 - Business Insider
Labor Force Participation Rate for 25-29 Year Olds Hits Record Low | CNS News
Obama didn't have the economic competency to realize that borrowing trillions of dollars to hand out to investors to cover their losses for them and giving the rest in the form of welfare and social services while simultaneously continuing Bush's mistakes with respect to free trade, immigration, etc... just kicked the can down the road in a way that makes the inevitable correction much worse when it does happen.
He should have let the wealthy investors take their losses instead of America's progeny for the next hundred or so years which would have opened up all kinds of new banking and financial sector startup opportunities for Americans. He should have renegotiated all of those past FTAs in a corrective manner to bring the capital investment and jobs home (which actually creates many more jobs in the form of small businesses to service well paid working Americans). He should have secured American innovation/invention/idea creation instead of helping to dump it all over the world creating foreign competition and losing America it's economic competitive advantage. He should have looked at immigration reform as an opportunity to decrease the supply of labor which drives up wages and compensation for everyone remaining. He should have, he should have, he should have... but he did the opposite.
The move to homosexualize America's children was just the cherry on the cake.
Do you even understand how they calculate the unemployment number? They do not count people who have jobs or are actively looking for one. If people have given up looking for work, but have no job,they don't count those people as unemployed. The job participation rate is a sickly 62.8% When obama took office the rate was 66.2%. These are the facts. They cannot be spun.
A
Trickle down works in a unidirectional system in which a provider nation innovates/invents and manufactures/creates goods and services for everyone else to a far greater degree than the reverse retaining the lion's share of investment capital, innovation/invention/idea creation, jobs and startup business opportunities, etc... jealously guarded in a protective manner.
We used to have that system in place and became the world's strongest economy off that paradigm. Now we don't. But China implemented what we used to do and, as a result, is about to surpass the U.S. economy to become the world's largest before the end of this year.
Our economic and trade system is wide open without almost any protection. It's broken. So what happens presently is the money trickles out: not down. What we're observing is actually trickle out economics in action as trillions of U.S. stimulus and investment benefits foreign nations, foreign workers, and wealthy investors instead of most American workers... like once occurred.
Read 'Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why' by Ian Fletcher and 'Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction' by Barry C. Lynn
We used to have that system in place and became the world's strongest economy off that paradigm. Now we don't. But China implemented what we used to do and, as a result, is about to surpass the U.S. economy to become the world's largest before the end of this year.
Our economic and trade system is wide open without almost any protection. It's broken. So what happens presently is the money trickles out: not down. What we're observing is actually trickle out economics in action as trillions of U.S. stimulus and investment benefits foreign nations, foreign workers, and wealthy investors instead of most American workers... like once occurred.
Read 'Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why' by Ian Fletcher and 'Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction' by Barry C. Lynn
This chart is 2 yrs old from the bureau of labor stats. Things have only gotten worse since then, but EVEN with this chart you can see the labor participation rate is GROWING for older Americans NOT lowering, AND the older pop rate is expected to INCREASE over time. It is those 54 and under that is dramatically dropping, thereby discounting your retirement explanation.
Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
A
Yes BUT the seed was sown under Bush Sr. who pushed the first free trade agreement (NAFTA) onto Clinton's desk (who, like a clown, ignorantly signed it declaring it would create more U.S. jobs rather than veto it over Perot's objections that it would cost so many jobs there would be a "giant sucking sound" of them disappearing from the U.S.); worked to replace GATT with the WTO; and about a hundred other items on his neo-con NWO list that Clinton, his son (George W.), and Obama have all cosigned and brought to fruition. Now we are in free fall passing nations on their way up headed toward a debt fueled serious economic depression that has numerous non-debt related component failures besides. Just because it takes many years to happen doesn't mean that it's not going to.
A
Here's Al Gore telling everyone in 1993 on the Larry King show how great NAFTA was going to be for all Americans and how many jobs in the U.S. it was going to create. Now Al Gore has $300 million dollars and everyone else is poor.
Perot (RIP) told him he was crazy but nobody listened.
[video=youtube_share;5XEziSYRqhU]http://youtu.be/5XEziSYRqhU[/video]
Perot (RIP) told him he was crazy but nobody listened.
[video=youtube_share;5XEziSYRqhU]http://youtu.be/5XEziSYRqhU[/video]
Maybe that was because Perot was a nutjob.
Wanna know why trickle down has so many vocal detractors?
Because it was proven to work and no democrats got rich from it...because ya know, in a trickle down economy, ya hafta work for it, not steal it or create a government job to get it.
How many people actually believe in global warm....I mean climate change ( for those liberals out there, this means their first lie did not work so change the name and use the same lie ). Its been proven not only false, but a purposeful lie in which many have gotten rich from.......duh.
Amazing.
To suggest the president with the worst economic factors in my lifetime to be the greatest economically?
Its called severe delusion. I can only suggest a mental health solution...
if you can afford insurance now...lol...I mean Obama lied about his great Obamacare which everyone knows is an abysmal failure....lied about Benghazi....is perpetrating the great lie of global warm...gee I can't get that straight...climate change....
and you still believe him.
Does your room have padded walls?
Just please, if you truly believe this president is great economically? Never vote again.
Wanna know why trickle down has so many vocal detractors?
Because it was proven to work and no democrats got rich from it...because ya know, in a trickle down economy, ya hafta work for it, not steal it or create a government job to get it.
How many people actually believe in global warm....I mean climate change ( for those liberals out there, this means their first lie did not work so change the name and use the same lie ). Its been proven not only false, but a purposeful lie in which many have gotten rich from.......duh.
Amazing.
To suggest the president with the worst economic factors in my lifetime to be the greatest economically?
Its called severe delusion. I can only suggest a mental health solution...
if you can afford insurance now...lol...I mean Obama lied about his great Obamacare which everyone knows is an abysmal failure....lied about Benghazi....is perpetrating the great lie of global warm...gee I can't get that straight...climate change....
and you still believe him.
Does your room have padded walls?
Just please, if you truly believe this president is great economically? Never vote again.
A
Wrong. Perot was an intelligent CEO, self made billionaire, right about what unbalanced free trade agreements were going to do to the U.S. long before they did it, etc...
And trickle down doesn't work in our present economic/trade paradigm. That's why we're observing trickle out as I already explained in #85. http://christianchat.com/christian-...ma-americas-best-president-5.html#post1520327
You're wrong twice in one post.
And trickle down doesn't work in our present economic/trade paradigm. That's why we're observing trickle out as I already explained in #85. http://christianchat.com/christian-...ma-americas-best-president-5.html#post1520327
You're wrong twice in one post.
A
He was correct to hate George H. W. Bush Sr.'s policies. Look what the NWO, WTO, FTAs, repeal of Glass–Steagall instead of reforming it, etc... etc... etc... have wrought!
Sure, Perot had some problems with his own economic platform and many more with his social platform. I especially didn't like his desire to implement more federal involvement in small business and authoritarian federal government tendencies. And, like you said, he had a reputation for instability in his personal life. But 80% of his economic platform was correct.
Bush Sr, on the other hand, was nothing BUT trouble all the way down the line. We'd have ended up in a better place if Perot had been president instead of Bush.
If we could have had the best of Perot's economics minus Bush and gotten Buchanan to implement them (which he would have as Buchanan agreed with Perot on those items), we'd have come out shining.
Heck, even Ron Paul may have done a better job than Bush Sr did. He ran in 1992 also, as did Buchanan, against George H. W. Bush Sr. for president.
Sure, Perot had some problems with his own economic platform and many more with his social platform. I especially didn't like his desire to implement more federal involvement in small business and authoritarian federal government tendencies. And, like you said, he had a reputation for instability in his personal life. But 80% of his economic platform was correct.
Bush Sr, on the other hand, was nothing BUT trouble all the way down the line. We'd have ended up in a better place if Perot had been president instead of Bush.
If we could have had the best of Perot's economics minus Bush and gotten Buchanan to implement them (which he would have as Buchanan agreed with Perot on those items), we'd have come out shining.
Heck, even Ron Paul may have done a better job than Bush Sr did. He ran in 1992 also, as did Buchanan, against George H. W. Bush Sr. for president.
You may be interested to know in 2010. A survey of 238 presidential scholars put Bush Snr near the bottom. You may not like where they put Obama though they conceded it was hard to rate him with the time he had been in office.
Survey Ranks Obama 15th Best President, Bush Among Worst - US News
I would expect that presidential scholars would know more facts than you and I.
Survey Ranks Obama 15th Best President, Bush Among Worst - US News
I would expect that presidential scholars would know more facts than you and I.
A
Meanwhile China is poised to supercede the U.S. as the largest economy in the world by the end of this year and their national debt is only $5 trillion USD. Not a big deal since the U.S. owes China a little over $5.308 trillion. Of course, nobody owes the U.S. anything. We're stuck with our $17.577 trillion debt.
To provide some perspective, the entire U.S. national debt the month Ronald Reagan took office (note U.S. Presidents enter office on January 20th and leave office on January 21st) on January 20, 1981 was only $934.073 billion.
Source: ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm011981.pdf
Now, using the CPI calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator
$934.073 billion in 1981 would be equal to $2,678.579 trillion in 2014 which means if we had passed the balanced budget legislation brought in 1980 and simply accrued no further debt we'd only be at $2,678.579 trillion total as of April 2014.
To provide some perspective, the entire U.S. national debt the month Ronald Reagan took office (note U.S. Presidents enter office on January 20th and leave office on January 21st) on January 20, 1981 was only $934.073 billion.
Source: ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm011981.pdf
Now, using the CPI calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator
$934.073 billion in 1981 would be equal to $2,678.579 trillion in 2014 which means if we had passed the balanced budget legislation brought in 1980 and simply accrued no further debt we'd only be at $2,678.579 trillion total as of April 2014.