Obama beating Reagan!

[rudder]

Comparing Obamas numbers to Reagan's is demonizing him?

Interesting...

Yes, because the OP completely ignores other relevant data such and labor participation rates and the type of jobs being created.

LBD. I am doing a study on how easily the liberal mind is manipulated. This is all great stuff.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, because the OP completely ignores other relevant data such and labor participation rates and the type of jobs being created.

LBD. I am doing a study on how easily the liberal mind is manipulated. This is all great stuff.

You mean he didn't talk about how the labor participation rate is dropping because of the baby boomer generation now retiring?

You should probably study yourself first so people don't laugh at you when you release your made up LBD study

 

[kage69]

It takes an especially diseased mind to straw man the very definition of straw man.

lol

 

[Moonbeam]

Reagan was a damn good President...I don't get why so many liberals are so fixated on trying to demonize him.

I think he was a dictator who broke American law because he believed he knew better and would have been impeached if he hadn't become a vegetable. He was also, in my opinion, a low level thinker. I also see him as a pompous asshole, with the greed is good wear your furs and diamonds mentality. He was a dinosaur, a throwback to Neanderthal days. He made America proud of being stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

Reading comprehension fail on your part. I thought we were talking about government jobs. Your link has nothing to do with what I said. It does reference taxation and the governments ability to raise or lower taxes (no shit sherlock article)... so I ask you where does a government entity get the money to employ someone?

Yeah I guess you suck at reading comprehension, the article explains how, when government spending increases it affects GDP and it explains why a dollar of government spending will be multiplied.

Let me help you with that:

Second, the multiplier will boost the effect of an increase or reduction in taxes or spending. For instance, an extra dollar of government spending will flow through the economy and, by being repeatedly respent, will magnify the stimulus provided by that incremental dollar. Likewise, a dollar of reduced spending will take a dollar out of the economy, and the multiplier applies to that as well.

So no, the government doesn't cost the economy unless that's the policy it's currently trying pursue.

 

[jackstar7]

Reagan was a damn good President...I don't get why so many liberals are so fixated on trying to demonize him.

Damn good?

Your glasses, they are so rose-colored.

I didn't even know this page existed, but the google yielded it promptly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

Or was he damn good within a more narrow context that you didn't present?

 

[rudder]

You mean he didn't talk about how the labor participation rate is dropping because of the baby boomer generation now retiring?

You should probably study yourself first so people don't laugh at you when you release your made up LBD study

Made up study... yeh right. Is baby boomer retirements the new LBD talking point? Have you even looked at labor participation rates for the most active age group (25-54 year olds)?

Judging by your response above I will take that as a no. Clearly being manipulated by minor data points is a serious symptom of LBD.

 

[rudder]

Yeah I guess you suck at reading comprehension, the article explains how, when government spending increases it affects GDP and it explains why a dollar of government spending will be multiplied.

Let me help you with that:



So no, the government doesn't cost the economy unless that's the policy it's currently trying pursue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Damn good?

Your glasses, they are so rose-colored.

I didn't even know this page existed, but the google yielded it promptly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

Or was he damn good within a more narrow context that you didn't present?

Damn good in the specific context of his implementing highly successful economic and fiscal policies. Reaganomics worked and brought us out of a severe double-dip recession with double-digit inflation to boot.

 

[ivwshane]

Made up study... yeh right. Is baby boomer retirements the new LBD talking point? Have you even looked at labor participation rates for the most active age group (25-54 year olds)?

Judging by your response above I will take that as a no. Clearly being manipulated by minor data points is a serious symptom of LBD.

Hey you got one right! I hadn't looked at the data in a long time. Congrats!

So who's to blame for the drop? Higher taxes? More government spending?

 

[Attic]

You mean he didn't talk about how the labor participation rate is dropping because of the baby boomer generation now retiring?

You should probably study yourself first so people don't laugh at you when you release your made up LBD study

Baby Boomers retiring can be looked at independently of the low LFP rate. I haven't seen much indicating their retirement explains the low LFP rate.

Numbers indicate 55+ are working longer and putting off retirement compared to before the GFC, 24-54 aren't working as much compared to before the GFC.

On the other side are those such as senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth who, in a Jan. 14 piece for RealcCearMarkets.com noted that “since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55 and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.”


Which is absolutely true. Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows.


Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent.

So, does older Americans working longer, younger people failing to enter the labor force, and the middle-aged dropping out account for the decrease in labor force participation?


Yes on all counts, the ALG study shows.


Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.

Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...nt-retirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/

Numbers from FRED I believe back up these assertions, though I haven't put together a graph I have seen similar trajectories graphed out since 2000.

The low LFP rate is an issue that may extend beyond the GFC and be indpedent of some of the currently widely held beliefs of it's genesis.

ie) the shit economy overall for many since 2000 possibly through off workers motivations/ability for work.

ie) workers working longer have dried up oppurtunitis for the younger generation advancing and getting promoted and the lack of oppurtunity for advancement is stiffling LFP in 25-54 demo


I think it needs to be addressed in a way that doesn't attempt to cover up it's significance and magnitude (just baby boomers retiring, nothing to see here slapstick). When it gets political, resolutions/solutions get jettisoned for party points.

The recovery since the GFC is different than we are accustomed to. If it's not properly and honestly addressed then the why of it never gets a fair shot at getting resolved.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Baby Boomers retiring can be looked at independently of the low LFP rate. I haven't seen much indicating their retirement explains the low LFP rate.

Numbers indicate 55+ are working longer and putting off retirement compared to before the GFC, 24-54 aren't working as much compared to before the GFC.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...nt-retirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/

Numbers from FRED I believe back up these assertions, though I haven't put together a graph I have seen similar trajectories graphed out since 2000.

The low LFP rate is an issue that may extend beyond the GFC and be indpedent of some of the currently widely held beliefs of it's genesis.

You're much more gracious than I would have been in light of his arrogant rhetoric. Excellent posts! I tip my hat to you.

 

[kage69]

One thing Reagan had that Obama unfortunately hasn't was a Congress that was willing to put aside politics to help the nation.

Reagan also had supporters willing to forgive criminal activity and outright treason over partisan politics.

Says a lot about the people who adore him. By contrast, Obama supporters gave him shit over ACA negotiations, wiretapping, budget talks, etc. Funny how that works.

Trickle down economics was and still is a joke. Iran-Contra, a really bad joke.

Can you guys imagine the level of explosive fury that would drown everything else out for months if Obama was caught circumventing Congress to arm our enemies, a la Reagan? Holy shit. The ranks of talk radio hosts would take an immediate hit from aneurysms and sudden cardiac deaths.

 

[theeedude]

When they take the Senate, the first order of business should be to finish what the Democrats started and eliminate the filibuster in its entirely.

Why wait?

 

[jackstar7]

Damn good in the specific context of his implementing highly successful economic and fiscal policies. Reaganomics worked and brought us out of a severe double-dip recession with double-digit inflation to boot.

The rising tide that lifts all boats, eh?

That's, indeed, a rosy view of the past. Especially for those who owned boats... or held stock in boat manufacturing companies...

 

[ElFenix]

what i take away from this thread is that government jobs = great when a republican is at the helm and bad when a democrat is at the helm.

 

[schmuckley]

Reagan also had supporters willing to forgive criminal activity and outright treason over partisan politics.

Says a lot about the people who adore him. By contrast, Obama supporters gave him shit over ACA negotiations, wiretapping, budget talks, etc. Funny how that works.

Trickle down economics was and still is a joke. Iran-Contra, a really bad joke.

Can you guys imagine the level of explosive fury that would drown everything else out for months if Obama was caught circumventing Congress to arm our enemies, a la Reagan? Holy shit. The ranks of talk radio hosts would take an immediate hit from aneurysms and sudden cardiac deaths.

What do you think Bhenghazi was? He was arming ISIS..seriously.
duhhhhhhhhh!

 

[fskimospy]

Damn good in the specific context of his implementing highly successful economic and fiscal policies. Reaganomics worked and brought us out of a severe double-dip recession with double-digit inflation to boot.

Uhmmmm, are you serious?

Research the actions of the fed during this time and then try to argue in favor of reaganomics.

The man was a fool. A dangerous and irresponsible fool.

 

[MongGrel]

Reagan was over rated.

End of rant.

 

[dank69]

What do you think Bhenghazi was? He was arming ISIS..seriously.
duhhhhhhhhh!

So you think Benghazi is somehow related to ISIL?

 

[Moonbeam]

So you think Benghazi is somehow related to ISIL?

Shit, don't ask.

 

[MongGrel]

Shit, don't ask.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Uhmmmm, are you serious?

Research the actions of the fed during this time and then try to argue in favor of reaganomics.

The man was a fool. A dangerous and irresponsible fool.

He just got lucky I guess. Obama economic policies would have been much better no doubt. Please tell exactly how you think Reagan's economic policies failed.

 

[MongGrel]

Trickle Down doesn't work for starters.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Trickle Down doesn't work for starters.

But tax breaks for everybody did.