Trump's Economy Is Amazing - Why Would Anyone Vote Against It?

1. 85

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   The U.S. economy added 250,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate held steady at 3.7 percent, according to Labor Department figures released Friday.  Once again the numbers are stronger than estimates; Economists had predicted the economy would add 190,000 jobs and the unemployment rate would to hold steady at 3.7 percent, the lowest level of joblessness in 49-years.
   
   Wage growth is also on the rise -  average hourly earnings climbed by five cents an hour for the month, or 83 cents year-over-year. That represents a 3.1 percent gain, the first time wages have grown more than 3 percent year-over-year.
   
   The total number of employed people in the U.S. rose to a new record high of 156.6 million. The labor force participation rate increased by 0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent in October but has shown little change over the year. The employment-population ratio edged up by 0.2 percentage point to 60.6 percent in October and has increased by 0.4 percentage point over the year.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'll bite on this one. Here's one reason:
      
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … 5d7cc4bf84
      
      Ever think that given the number of lies that pour out of Trump's mouth, he might not be telling the truth about how his policies will ultimately work? After all, George W. Bush tries this idea of debt spending and tax cuts and look how that turned out.
      
      Now, that said, I agree with the premise of the forum: why would anyone vote against this economy? I do think that people vote with their wallets and I expect that we will see Republicans win in the midterms in districts that are doing well and we will see Democrats win in districts who have not gained. I also expect that, if the economy continues going the way it's going, President Trump will win a second term in office.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      I believe it is called 'voting against your own best interests' because you buy into the propaganda.  Whether we are talking about the Third Reich or CNN, the NYTimes or FOXNews, we are talking about institutions that do not report news, they create it, they push an agenda, they inflame the people who watch/read.
      
      Trump causes some of his own grief, but much of what he says is also taken out of context, the media turns his statement about some illegal immigrants being rapists, violent gang members, etc. into things like "he said all immigrants are criminals" he is racist.
      
      Similar to how some outlets took Obama's statements regarding businesses that "if you started a business, you didn't build that"  or when addressing 'white' resentment he stated  “things could explode at any point”.
      
      There is a BIG difference however in how the majority of the Media covered Obama, and how they have covered Trump, it would be fair to say Trump has been villainized by the media from the outset.
      
      As has been the normal for Presidential politics the past 20 years.  When Romney ran, they did their best connect him to Nazi beliefs, and he practically spoonfed them plenty of material to prove he was against abortion... and when Bush ran for re-election before him, they also compared him to Hitler, and swore he was going to make abortion illegal,  was racist, etc.
      
      This is the playbook, do everything possible to make Republicans look racist, sexist, anti-Semite, etc. they can't push the truth and get people to vote for it.
      
      If they hadn't lied about what the ACA was really about, would people have accepted it?
      
      It wasn't until people found they couldn't afford to have insurance AND also pay their rent, or they found they had to pay thousands of dollars in a punishment tax for NOT having insurance that people really started seeing what the ACA was all about... it wasn't there to help them, who-ever it helped, it wasn't the poor stiff working for a living.  But it sure helped the Insurance and Health Industry rake in the profits like never before, as they fed at the federal troth fattening up on tax debt dollars.
      
      For many people I think the ultimate position of what the two Party system stands for today is lost... Trump and 'Tea Party' Republicans stand for America First, American Citizens First, maintaining the Nation's Sovereignty even if this comes at the expense of other nations.   
      
      Because of Trump, today the Republicans are the 'Worker's Party'.
      
      The Democrats represent a future that is to come, sooner or later, it is knocking at our doorstep.  Eventually it will be a world without borders, a world of 'Social Credit' (see my Hub about China's Social Credit - Facial Recognition system for more on that) a world not of nations, but of corporations.
      
      Today's graduates from the most elite establishments (Princeton, Yale, Harvard) are the culmination of western civilization, the best and brightest, the leaders of the future.  But they have forgotten about their past, or their teachings have forsaken it, and as a result they have achieved near perfect indifference to the west's culture and history.
      
      These future leaders have ben taught to respect diversity (without fully understanding what that entails), they know what it takes to get an A in every class and how to avoid confrontation, but ask them who taught Plato, and whom did he teach.  Ask them what made Woodrow Wilson a good or bad President and why does the Magna Carter matter.  Ask these highly 'learned' individuals these types of questions and you will get blank stare faces in reply.
      
      It is not their 'fault' for their ignorance of American and Western history, civilization, politics, it is simply not taught to them.  This lack of teaching and enshrining the history of the west ensures the end of history for the west, and this is what is sought by the 'left', the power behind the Democrats in particular, or as otherwise known, the Globalists.
      
      The students and graduates of today are the achievement of a systemic commitment to producing individuals without a connection to a cultural past, or a country.  For them, for the future, is a world without nations as we know them today, and they will be cultureless ciphers who can live anywhere and perform any kind of work without concern over its purposes or ends, perfect tools for a world dominated by international corporatism, a world without borders.
      
      You can choose to fight this reality (which would be to join the Trump 'revolution') or you can be accepting of it, and work to ensure your children are on the beneficial side of it (as much as they can be).
      
      For all those 'uneducated' laborers, of which there are billions, those who are not in the top ten percentile of intellectual capacity or who come from the 'Billionaire' gene pool, this future will be a bleak one, where upward mobility will be almost non-existent and anything more than basic survival will be difficult to achieve.
      
      And for this reason, its delay, and Trump's efforts, are a good thing... let the unified one-world global system take a few more years to arrive, it will be here soon enough.  A few more years of American exceptionalism and economic prosperity will be survivable.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "cultureless ciphers"
         
         I hope you don't mind indulging my curiosity and explaining your use of the term "ciphers" in this context? I have not been able to find an alternate meaning of the word that makes sense to me in this context.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Not at all, as there are a couple of ways that could be construed.
            
            cipher - the key must be known to the recipient and sender and to no one else to encrypt a message.
            
            Cultureless cipher - was intended to mean someone who is able to be plugged into any nation, culture, society and function equally well across the board.  A 'fill in the blank' person.
            
            I hope that clarifies.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you for explaining. :-)

               replyreport
      2. 91

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Incredibly interesting analysis, Ken. I could respond, point by point, but I don't have time right now, so I have a couple of thoughts.
         
         First, tariffs were, until very recently, something supported by Democrats that Republicans opposed. Your characterization of Republicans as the new worker's party is right on, but it's a very recent reversal. Same with the globalization you seem to fear - it was a very Republican/conservative thing until very recently. Thoughts?
         
         I appreciate your support of classical teaching as a way to impart the appropriate sense of history on people, but the thing that works against the nationalism you're supporting and the retraction from "globalism" is the simple, unassailable fact that the world has shrunk. Everything is smaller. Information travels faster. Borders are crossed instantaneously in many ways. It's just not possible to maintain the same physical limitations that defined our past.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            I think it has been the goal of certain groups for a long time, the biggest step, the point at which it became a near irreversible certainty, was when Woodrow Wilson sold out the country (with plenty of help from politicians in Congress) with the creation of the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, and instituting at the federal level the most racial regulations and laws this country had seen since the abolishment of slavery and the conclusion of the Civil War.
            
            There was never a greater traitor to the nation.
            
            
            
            I agree, it will occur eventually but the timing is not right.
            
            Technology has not advanced far enough to make it feasible for a global government to work, they are working on it, but it is years away still.
            
            As bad as things may appear with America being the world leader economically, and with its military dominating the globe... things would get significantly worse for all Americans (those not worth many million$) should those burdens, responsibilities, and that power fall to another nation... such as Communist China for instance.
            
            A push to this 'New World Order' too soon, and it will fail, perhaps so badly as to bring disaster the world over.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I, nor any liberals I know, are advocating for any New World Order. It is simply by necessity that nations need to work together as the distance between them becomes incredibly short. We seem to be arguing on opposite sides of an isolationism thesis.
               
               To some degree, this modern day nationalism from Trump is racial, but it's also isolationist, which I think is ridiculous. And do keep in mind, I think one of his strongest policy initiatives is his approach to China. I'm fully supportive even though I dislike Trump.

               replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      After a while, it gets really old posting facts about the Obama administration that Trump supporters keep forgetting.
      
      From the beginning of the Obama administration in January 2009 until the end in December 2016:
      
      - The stock market jumped from 9,034 to 19,763 or an increase of 218%.
      
      - Unemployment declined from 9.9% to 4.7%.
      
      - GDP went from a negative 2.5% in the middle of Bush's Great Recession to an average of 2.2% for the remainder of Obama's time in office.
      
      In 2017, during Trump's first year, the average GDP also was 2.2%.
      
      

      replyreport
   4. 84

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree president Trump is doing a good job bringing about positive change. Hopefully, with the new House and Senate, we will see continued growth, and problem-solving. We have a good playing field to do some good work. However, will the Dems take advantage of this and work together.  They now have a voice, will it be positive or further divide the country? Hopefully, this election makes them realize Trump is here to stay and continue to do a good job with or without them.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Public radio had the nerve today to say there had been 92 months of job growth with last months numbers .   Yet years ago in the Obama era , it was said on the same station that the USA needed 125,000 jobs a month to accommodate jobs required for NEW high school , college graduates .  Wow , How democrats are grasping for these Trump credits by twisting , diverting the numbers games .

   replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

   I will not be voting against the economy; I will be voting against the man who occupies the White House and the enablers who support him.
   
   The economy is important,but it won't suddenly tank if Trump is gone.  Obama brought us from the brink of disaster.  Trump built upon that.  I have no reason to believe that another person couldn't occupy the oval office in a dignified and humane manner and also keep the economy going.
   
   I don't believe we must tolerate pathological lying, fear mongering, bullying, and other disgusting behavior to have a good economy. Do you?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How exactly did "Obama bring us out of the brink of disaster ?"
      
      And not delve us into the middle of well.............this .

      replyreport
      1. 91

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Silly question. I don't think Obama had anything to do with Trump's being appointed by our electoral college. Hillary did win the popular vote. As far as delving us into the middle of well...this, that is strictly a Trump invention, but it is refreshing to see somebody besides the Clintons and a Black President being pounded. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, do you?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Drama  , a political  debate does not satisfy.

            replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I like that first paragraph, Panther, it speaks for me as well.

      replyreport
   3. 85

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How did Obama bring us back from the "brink of a disaster"?  he had 8 years and the economy sputtered the entire time - Trump has it booming in 1/4 of the time.  Obama didn't lower taxes - TRUMP did.  Obama added regulation after regulation, forcing small business into a painted corner - Trump removed those burdensome regulations and gave the small business owner breathing room and an opportunity at success.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         All that has been hashed over a thousand times on these forums.  Let's just leave it at we have a different interpretation of the facts.  :-)
         
         Edit:  All of that is secondary to my point that we can find a leader who will keep the economy percolating without the unnecessary and divisive rhetoric, one who we can admire as a person and look up to as a role model.

         replyreport
      2. 91

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It is statements like RJ's that make my want to put a gun in my mouth. RJ, surely you know that your statement is false to its core because it's impossible.
         
         You know Obama inherited a recession? You know the Dow more than doubled during his administration? You know that an economy doesn't go from sputtering to booming with a few quick policy changes? And you know, once again, that jacking up the debt and providing a massive tax cut to the rich was exactly the formula George W. Bush used to tank the economy? Do you know all those things or are those items something Fox News continues to brainwash everyone into thinking aren't true?
         
         People love when the economy is going gangbusters (much like the stock market), but don't understand the foundation for it being able to do so. The fundamentals of the economy haven't changed much from Obama to Trump. And the question isn't how is it doing this moment, but how it will be doing a few years from now.
         
         Incidentally, lest I be characterized as a TDS sufferer, I do like that Trump is criticizing the Fed because if they keep raising interest rates when there's no evidence for inflation, in an effort to make more money for the banks, they will slow down and potentially stall economic growth.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            please don't let facts drive you to suicide - you can spout as many Obama-isms as you'd like, but it still won't change the fact that the Trump economy is outperforming his on almost every front. 
            
            My question is why do you defend the platform of your political party rather than enjoy the great things happening to America?

            replyreport
            1. 91

               crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Where did I defend the party platform? I generally despise the Democratic Party.
               
               What I despise is people who believe obvious falsehoods, don't understand how the economy works, and then base their political beliefs on those falsehoods.
               
               Obama inherited a recession brought on by Republican policies involving cutting taxes on the wealthy, massive deficit spending, and lots of deregulation. Do you actually not believe those basics? If you're watching Fox News all the time, probably not.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  We're on the same page. Country first, party second. Not the other way around.

                  replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL  Obama inherited a recession brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble, which was in turn brought on by govt. rules forcing banks to make substandard loans under the theory that everyone should be able to afford a house.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Agreed. And what I said. Deregulation. Not that necessarily means more regulation, but when you destroy consumer protections, the results generally aren't good. And since I know this is coming, I generally agree that if you're too stupid to understand what your loan documents say, you probably shouldn't be buying a house. That said, there was a lot of predatory lending going on and people were cheated and tricked too.

                     replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Now here's some real bias , I'm thinking of Obama Now Claiming Credit for the Jobs Growth Market ! The very growth that he said couldn't , wouldn't happen ...........
   
   
   

   replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   It is shallow and wrong to assume Trumps trade and tariff  changes for America are one , Any resemblance to a trade war and two  , hurtful in the long run for America !    his acts could be the awakening to the rest of the world that America is no longer a trade patsy !

   replyreport
6. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   The One President Obama that charged more than the entire 43 presidents before him in national debt ?   That Presidential platform?
   
   Oh, But Obama outspend them all ?  No falsehood there .

   replyreport
   1. 91

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How much debt did Obama inherit? Does this same slight apply to Reagan?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $7.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $18 trillion. Jan 7, 2015, by the time he left office he had increased the debt by 9 trillion...   he almost doubled it...
         https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa … ama-2017-1

         replyreport
         1. 91

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So? Obama increased in by 100% right? Reagan increased it by 186%.
            
            https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-p … nt-3306296
            
            Do you despise Ronald Reagan or are you using the same measure to criticize one man but praise another? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
            
            And I know what you're going to say - the amount was more under Obama. However, the amount of encumbered obligations was also higher, so that's a mathematical fallacy to compare the two saying one's amount is higher than the other.

            replyreport