Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Why don't one of you dumb mother fuckers try telling us Obama fixed the economy again


Recommended Posts

US Economic Growth Downgraded; Largest One Year Drop EVER

October 5, 2016 By C.E. Dyer 2 Comments

You are here: Home / US / US Economic Growth Downgraded; Largest One Year Drop EVER

imfobama

According to the left, things are just great thanks to President Obama. Back in the real word, facts, figures, common sense and the real life experiences of millions of Americans tells a much different story. A recent report released by the International Monetary Fund debunked Obama’s claim that the economy is just fine.

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The International Monetary Fund downgraded the economic growth outlook for the United States to 1.6 percent in 2016, which is the largest one-year drop seen for an advanced economy, according to the Fund’s World Economic Outlook report.

 

According to the report, the United States grew at a rate of 2.6 percent in 2015 and is projected to slow to 1.6 percent in 2016, a decline of 38 percent. The United States’ decline in growth is the largest one-year drop seen in all of the advanced economies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

“Softer-than-expected activity in the second half of 2015 and the first half of 2016 points to some loss in momentum in the United States, despite a mildly supportive fiscal stance and a slower projected pace of monetary policy normalization,” the International Monetary Fund stated.

“A prolonged inventory correction cycle and weak business investment has prompted a downward revision of the 2016 forecast to 1.6 percent,” according to the IMF.

The IMF report continued, “The weakness in business fixed investment appears to reflect the continued (albeit moderating) decline in capital spending in the energy sector, the impact of recent dollar strength on investment in export-oriented industries, and possibly also the financial market volatility and recession fears of late 2015 and early 2016.”

In particular, the IMF knocked down Obama’s offensive claim that unemployment is down without any mention of the other factors, such as the labor participation rate, that negate his victory lap.

“In some counties (such as the United States) the decline in unemployment to pre-crisis levels somewhat overstates the recovery in employment, given the decline in labor force participation,” the report read. “This has not, however, been the case in other advanced economies, where in many cases participation rates are above pre-crisis levels.”

 

Maurice Obstfeld, chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, discussed the need for strong leadership to right the struggling global economy.

“The world economy has moved sideways,” Obstfeld said. “Without determined policy action to support economic activity over the short and longer terms, sub-par growth at recent levels risks perpetuating itself—through the negative economic and political forces it is unleashing.”

In my book, that’s a stellar endorsement of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, whether it was intended as such (doubtful) or not.

The United States needs strong leadership domestically, but the fact that this country is still the leader of the free world means the rest of the world needs us to have strong leadership as well.

ALERT: How To Be Sure To Continue Seeing Our Content On Facebook.

 

About C.E. Dyer

C.E. Dyer is a Christian, common sense conservative writer for The Federalist Papers Project and Conservative Tribune. C.E. is dedicated to writing about the issues the mainstream media would rather bury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:

- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...

more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...

70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.

...

It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kevin said:

On the economy BHO showed a lack of leadership but there was plenty of blame to go around - American voters included

BINGO!!!!   Like GWB said, "Fool us once. shame on us....fool me...uhhhhh...shame ....ummmmm....we won't be fooled again!"  :lol:

How he was re-elected showed me how bad off we are as a country.  A citizenship of fools. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

:snack:

About C.E. Dyer

C.E. Dyer is a Christian, common sense conservative writer for The Federalist Papers Project and Conservative Tribune. C.E. is dedicated to writing about the issues the mainstream media would rather bury.

:lol: 

 

The only dumb mother fuckers are the people like the OP and Friends. :bc: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sear said:

#4

That's not a refutation. That's a ridicule.

It's in the Lib-tard handbook on "how to argue".  So....I chopped my nuts off, game myself a frontal labodomy and am going step by step.  :bc:

AND DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Use the fucking "Quote" button

Screenshot (4).png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sear said:

 

 

Reagan's Economy vs. Obama's

Hillary Clinton wants Americans to believe the economy does better with a Democratic president in the White House. That is simply false.

Unless a president fails to effectively address an unfolding economic disaster — as did George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover — comparing one with another is tricky business. So much depends on the circumstances each inherits and the state of the wider global economy.

The best apples-to-apples comparison is between the rather difficult conditions Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited and how the fortunes of America's families then progressed — with Reagan relying on conservative prescriptions and Obama on activist government to stimulate growth.

Obama took office during a terrible financial crisis and endured a punishing recession. Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in his first term, but since then the economy has rebounded and added 13.2 million jobs. Employment is up about 10 percent.

The Gipper faced tough times too — double-digit unemployment and interest rates and a bruising recession. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, but subsequently the economy added more than 17.2 million jobs. Employment rose about 20 percent.

The reason Reagan was able to create so many more jobs — in a much smaller economy — is simple. It wasn't just lower taxes and less spending but rather more reliance on private decisionmaking to guide the recovery. He cleared a path for businesses, large and small, to invest as they deemed fit and raise wages as they decided they could afford, and he encouraged the unemployed to get out and look for work.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, has sought to micromanage business through an explosion of regulations, and to pacify a middle class under siege and Americans underemployed or not working at all with giveaways — from free contraception to forgiving college debt, from subsidies for solar energy projects and mandatory health insurance to incessant preaching that ordinary folks are victims of racism, sexism, and the evil machinations of the well-off.

Through the first 25 quarters of Mr. Obama's recovery, GDP growth has averaged 2.2 percent, whereas during the comparable period for Reagan, GDP advanced at a 4.6 percent annual pace. And whereas Reagan's social safety net assisted the unemployed, Mr. Obama's pays the unemployed to be idle.

The 7 million men between the ages of 25 and 54 who are neither employed nor looking for work are rewarded with food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit if their spouse is a low-income worker, and federal health-care subsidies — and even virtually free health care through Medicaid in many states.

For folks refusing to do anything productive with their lives, Mr. Obama is offering an even more attractive benefit — free money in the form of a government pension. Despite the fact that Americans are living healthier and longer lives and work is generally less physically challenging, the percentage of adults ages 16 to 64 certified as permanently incapable of working by the Social Security Disability Insurance program now stands at 5.1 percent — about double the figure in Reagan's day. A broken appeals system offers a decided advantage to those crafty applicants who hire a lawyer — a situation the Obama administration refuses to fix.

For hard-working families, the results are predictable — annual family incomes have declined about $1,650 during the Obama years, whereas they increased $3,900 during Reagan's tenure.

Hillary Clinton is offering Americans more of the same — higher taxes to pay for more government giveaways and more micromanagement in the form of regulation of private-sector decisions on wages. For the indolent, this is the Second Age of Pericles, but for those who toil for their daily bread, Clinton’s pronouncements that Americans would be better off doubling down on Obama’s economic policies doesn’t bear the test of facts.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist. Twitter: @pmorici1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

US Economic Growth Downgraded; Largest One Year Drop EVER

October 5, 2016 By C.E. Dyer 2 Comments

You are here: Home / US / US Economic Growth Downgraded; Largest One Year Drop EVER

 

 

According to the report, the United States grew at a rate of 2.6 percent in 2015 and is projected to slow to 1.6 percent in 2016, a decline of 38 percent. The United States’ decline in growth is the largest one-year drop seen in all of the advanced economies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

 

About C.E. Dyer

C.E. Dyer is a Christian, 

I gotta tell you C.E., god knows when you are lying :(

 

Quote

 

The IMF cut its economic outlook for the U.S. to 1.6 percent growth this year,down from 2.2 percent, citing weak business investment and lower demand for goods. It also cautioned the Federal Reserve to hold off raising benchmark interest rates until it sees "clear signs that wages and prices are firming durably."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/04/496563644/international-monetary-fund-lowers-its-outlook-for-u-s-economic-growth

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

I sure hope he can improve his "legacy" before he leaves

What "legacy"?  Are you serious?  The "Rooskies" are breaking one off in his arse right now to end up the biggest foreign flop in history.  We are a nickel away from fighting them in Syria.  And Nuke disarmament is now complete off the table with the Russians.  HOW THE FUCK DID THAT HAPPEN!!!!!!  Iran is laughing like he;ll and our ties with GB are in the worst shape since...hell maybe the war of 1812!  ACA is toast without a MAJOR FUND BILL in the next two years (if that), GDP is still dropping. Fuck....I could go on and on and on......but I think you were being sarcastic...right? :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
11 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

What "legacy"?  Are you serious?  The "Rooskies" are breaking one off in his arse right now to end up the biggest foreign flop in history.  We are a nickel away from fighting them in Syria.  And Nuke disarmament is now complete off the table with the Russians.  HOW THE FUCK DID THAT HAPPEN!!!!!!  Iran is laughing like he;ll and our ties with GB are in the worst shape since...hell maybe the war of 1812!  ACA is toast without a MAJOR FUND BILL in the next two years (if that), GDP is still dropping. Fuck....I could go on and on and on......but I think you were being sarcastic...right? :lmao:

Yes very sarcastic :bc: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Reagan's Economy vs. Obama's

Hillary Clinton wants Americans to believe the economy does better with a Democratic president in the White House. That is simply false.

Unless a president fails to effectively address an unfolding economic disaster — as did George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover — comparing one with another is tricky business. So much depends on the circumstances each inherits and the state of the wider global economy.

The best apples-to-apples comparison is between the rather difficult conditions Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited and how the fortunes of America's families then progressed — with Reagan relying on conservative prescriptions and Obama on activist government to stimulate growth.

Obama took office during a terrible financial crisis and endured a punishing recession. Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in his first term, but since then the economy has rebounded and added 13.2 million jobs. Employment is up about 10 percent.

The Gipper faced tough times too — double-digit unemployment and interest rates and a bruising recession. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, but subsequently the economy added more than 17.2 million jobs. Employment rose about 20 percent.

The reason Reagan was able to create so many more jobs — in a much smaller economy — is simple. It wasn't just lower taxes and less spending but rather more reliance on private decisionmaking to guide the recovery. He cleared a path for businesses, large and small, to invest as they deemed fit and raise wages as they decided they could afford, and he encouraged the unemployed to get out and look for work.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, has sought to micromanage business through an explosion of regulations, and to pacify a middle class under siege and Americans underemployed or not working at all with giveaways — from free contraception to forgiving college debt, from subsidies for solar energy projects and mandatory health insurance to incessant preaching that ordinary folks are victims of racism, sexism, and the evil machinations of the well-off.

Through the first 25 quarters of Mr. Obama's recovery, GDP growth has averaged 2.2 percent, whereas during the comparable period for Reagan, GDP advanced at a 4.6 percent annual pace. And whereas Reagan's social safety net assisted the unemployed, Mr. Obama's pays the unemployed to be idle.

The 7 million men between the ages of 25 and 54 who are neither employed nor looking for work are rewarded with food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit if their spouse is a low-income worker, and federal health-care subsidies — and even virtually free health care through Medicaid in many states.

For folks refusing to do anything productive with their lives, Mr. Obama is offering an even more attractive benefit — free money in the form of a government pension. Despite the fact that Americans are living healthier and longer lives and work is generally less physically challenging, the percentage of adults ages 16 to 64 certified as permanently incapable of working by the Social Security Disability Insurance program now stands at 5.1 percent — about double the figure in Reagan's day. A broken appeals system offers a decided advantage to those crafty applicants who hire a lawyer — a situation the Obama administration refuses to fix.

For hard-working families, the results are predictable — annual family incomes have declined about $1,650 during the Obama years, whereas they increased $3,900 during Reagan's tenure.

Hillary Clinton is offering Americans more of the same — higher taxes to pay for more government giveaways and more micromanagement in the form of regulation of private-sector decisions on wages. For the indolent, this is the Second Age of Pericles, but for those who toil for their daily bread, Clinton’s pronouncements that Americans would be better off doubling down on Obama’s economic policies doesn’t bear the test of facts.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist. Twitter: @pmorici1

Reagan raised taxes 11 friggin times. Imagine the growth if Obama could do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mileage Psycho said:

What's your failure?

Worst GDP growth ever not been me 1/4 above 3.0 in 8 years

lowest work force participation rate in 60 years

most Americans on food stamps ever

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...