Posted by Tina
Zerohedge has a great article with 9 charts showing the Obama recovery. The attraction to Donald Trump as opposed to the two other candidates can be seen in these charts. The alternatives would result in more of the same. Behold, the Obama recovery:
Nearly eight years gone and Obama and the Democrats are in full spin mode working hard to convince all of us voters that on the economic front everything is humming along nicely. They drag out an employment rate that’s finally hit the normal range but we know it’s a ruse. All of the people that have given up looking for work KNOW it is meaningless.
Today the new jobs number came out…the number of jobs created in May was a meager 38,000…158,000 were expected. To make matters worse the reports for the previous two months were revised downward resulting in 59,000 fewer jobs in those two months than had been reported.
The charts tell the story. Costs are up, dependency is up, debt is up, healthcare is up, wages are down, and black economic inequality is way up. In America today more new businesses fail than succeed and people are living on credit and food stamps. This is not entrepreneurial America, folks. This isn’t a picture of the American people building and thriving. This is big government America, an America where people are being stifled and blunted…and it feels awful.
You bet America wants a new path…Trump is the only new path choice…the sooner we get to January, the better.
Tina, if you are against printing more money, why do you support Donald Trump, who says we should print more money?
The site you linked to referenced the Washington Post’s fact check of the graphs, which showed that many were skewed. The author (“Tyler Durden”–oh, to be an angry know-it-all college student again) responded to the fact check with lots of sneering contempt and repeated the word “facts” a lot, but didn’t actually rebut any of the Post’s claims. For instance, the food stamp graph is cut off right before the recent decrease in food stamp participation; others ignore the trends that began before Obama. No one denies this has been a slow recovery, but several of those graphs are misleading according to the Post.
It remains baffling to me why people would choose the devil they don’t know over the devil they do know. Disagree with Clinton or Bernie’s agenda all you want, they at least have an agenda. Trump just says stuff, and he doesn’t even know what he is going to say before he says it, which is why he keeps contradicting himself. I’d rather vote for an adult I disagree with than an overgrown baby who believes in nothing.
Evidently for Chris, a small decrease in food stamp participation at the end of long trend indicates a reversal.
The boy is pure genius.
A further example of Chris’ genius —
According to Chris, “[other graphs] ignore the trends that began before Obama.”
THE VERY FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE STATES —
“To be sure, the charts do not in any way imply that Obama started any of these disastrous trends (with a few exceptions); they do however make it very clear that more than 7 years under president Obama, these same trends have not changed.”
What part of that do you not understand, Wile E?
Oh, yeah, and the progressive Washington Post is truly a reliable source for fairly analyzing the trends of progressive economic policies. But at least it is not printed on tabloid size paper, which lends to its credibility, no Chris?
“…if you are against printing more money, why do you support Donald Trump, who says we should print more money?”
Smug questions won’t get you any closer to understanding, even on he most basic level. The reason is you aren’t interested in the answer; you shoot off your mouth to wound.
But I will do our readers a favor and respond. Trumps remarks on printing money have to do with doing nothing while the country goes into default. He would print money before he would let that happen, “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”
It’s not an attractive option as he indicates when he says; “I hate to tell you.” But it is a tool in the box.
The Obama administration has relied on QE to “stimulate the economy.” GDP growth in the U.S. has not been over 2% on average over seven years. The printed money propped up the stock market. So what we have is a symbolically positive situation on Wall Street. Real growth, real strength doesn’t exist. It can all go to he77 over night. What this means to the average American is stagnant wages and fewer and fewer opportunities. The middle class shrinks and the numbers living in poverty increases.
Donald Trump would not use money printing to stimulate the economy as a matter of economic policy.
The Washington Posts pathetic attempt to spin the truth in these charts is handled by Durden in his post: To be sure, the charts do not in any way imply that Obama started any of these disastrous trends (with a few exceptions)…
He then nails the reason they are and remain relevant: “…they do however make it very clear that more than 7 years under president Obama, these same trends have not changed.
SEVEN YEARS!!!
These charts are a lot less misleading than the constant drum beat of the administration and its apologists that “we’re making progress” or the economy is “improving.” Less than 1% growth is not an improvement and a meager 2% is not strong enough to sustain much less offer robust opportunity.
If the Presidents policies worked there would be something to celebrate. There isn’t!
Well, that sums up Obama’s progressive policies quite nicely.
Anyone who believes the Obama economy is a success is an idiot. The “Bush Recession” was declared over in June 2009, making the Obama non-recovery recession EIGHT YEARS long. The average recovery from a recession is 18 months.
Again, I’m not a Trump supporter, but putting another Democrat or a Socialist in the WH will guarantee we’ll end up like the failing country of Venezuela where a dozen eggs cost $150.00.
LA Times:
It costs $150 to buy a dozen eggs in Venezuela right now:
“The International Monetary Fund has predicted that inflation in Venezuela will hit 720% this year. That might be an optimistic assessment, according to some local economic analysts, who expect the rate to reach as high as 1,200%.
A sharp drop in global prices for oil — on which Venezuela depends for most of its foreign currency — is a big part of the problem. Critics also accuse the government of irresponsible spending on social welfare programs and oil subsidies to Cuba and other countries.
To understand what that kind of inflation means, we spoke to Maria Linares, a 42-year-old single mother who works as an accounting assistant at a government ministry and lives in an impoverished neighborhood of the capital, Caracas.
Her monthly pay, including a food allowance, is 27,000 bolivars.
That’s $2,700 a month at the official exchange rate of 10 bolivars to the dollar. But Venezuelans have so little faith in their currency — or the government’s ability to fix the country’s deepening economic crisis — that a dollar can fetch upward of 1,000 bolivars on the black market. At that rate, Linares earns just $27 a month.”
http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-venezuela-inflation-0531-snap-htmlstory.html
Venezuela descends further into chaos amid riots for food:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926639744001/venezuela-descends-further-into-chaos-amid-riots-for-food/?#sp=show-clips
John Law and the Mississippi Bubble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diEVmQZ1QfM
Funny how the worst jobs report (4+% unemployed is a work of fiction) came out just after Obumble made several speeches about how he “fixed” the economy almost single-handedly!
It that is “fixed” I’d hate to think what his definition of “broke” is . . . . .
Certainly hope da prez didn’t sprain his arm while he was so generously patting himself on the back . . . . .