Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sy_Noe said:
I agree. It sometimes amazes me what short memories some people can have. Because it’s hard to seriously make the argument that overall the economy is not better. Those who try I believe do so merely for political reasons. Like you said, things are not perfect. There is agreement across the aisle that more still needs to be done. But Obama certainly has led America out of the ditch. No question about that. One only needs to look at the unemployment rate between now and then as I believe it was Thorolfr who has shown that. And look at the number of jobs we were losing monthly prior to Obama. As Hillary has often said, President Obama doesn’t get enough credit for having steered the ship in a better direction. Sure there may be some who are working part time who would still prefer full time and wages are too stagnant. This though despite corporations having done quite well for much of Obama’s Presidency.

Wages though have been stagnant for yrs. Long before Obama.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

thinkprogress.org/wages-have-been-stagnant-for-40-years-but-its-not-the-fault-of-american-workers-ede9b2133989#.k15d761zr

And the housing market is better. My home’s market value has risen 62% since it’s low point.
Click to expand...
If not perfect you mean 2% growth in the economy, then youre right. I know, just think how bad it would have been had Obama not been elected! That is how all liberals think of it.
 
adowcday said:
Under Obama the economy improved dramatically, despite the efforts of the GOP to block his agenda. There is no reason to think that continuing those policies will end badly. And the number of government employees has declined under Obama, not increased.

Extra point question: name the last Republican president who reduced the size of government.
Click to expand...
No serious economist nor financial expert would say the economy has improved dramatically under Obama. It’s hard to even suggest the economy has ever exited the housing recession. Economic “growth” hasn’t been above 2% the entire two terms of Obama. Welfare and unemployment rolls are still massively bloated, and those out of the labor force are sky-high. In addition, our debt level has been doubled since Obama took office. Anyone trying to claim the economy is improving is not a serious person.
Thorolfr said:
They might all be doing better if the US economy hadn’t suffered it’s worst crisis since the Great Depression during the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
There’s ALWAYS an excuse why socialist policies never work. Always. Bush had a recession left to him from Clinton, but we rebounded out of it quickly. How many years is it going to take before socialist policies actually work?
philipl said:
But obama said he could get us out of the ditch. It’s been 8 years, how much longer will it take? 20, 30, 100? I am suprised you didnt blame Reagan.
Click to expand...
The USSR was around for about 8 decades, and they still said they were JUST around the corner from FINALLY seeing abundance and prosperity through socialism. I’m sure a few more centuries and it would work! 👍
Thorolfr said:
The Great Recession was a worldwide event and the US is doing reasonably well compared to most other countries. The US is not the only country that is still digging out after the recession, the worst since the Great Depression. Let’s compare unemployment among countries:

Japan 3.1%
Germany 4.2%
Norway 4.7%
United States 4.9%
United Kingdom 4.9%
Netherlands 6.1%
Sweden 7.6%
France 10.2%
Italy 11.6%
Spain 20%

The United Kingdom is already heading back into recession.
Click to expand...
The US numbers don’t include those who have given up looking for work, and those who have part time jobs who would want full time employment. The unemployment number is wildly deceiving. Additionally, perhaps our anemic economic result is because we followed the same insipid policies those other countries tried? Perhaps less Keynesianism and more freedom would work?
Sy_Noe said:
I agree. It sometimes amazes me what short memories some people can have. Because it’s hard to seriously make the argument that overall the economy is not better. Those who try I believe do so merely for political reasons. Like you said, things are not perfect. There is agreement across the aisle that more still needs to be done. But Obama certainly has led America out of the ditch. No question about that. One only needs to look at the unemployment rate between now and then as I believe it was Thorolfr who has shown that. And look at the number of jobs we were losing monthly prior to Obama. As Hillary has often said, President Obama doesn’t get enough credit for having steered the ship in a better direction. Sure there may be some who are working part time who would still prefer full time and wages are too stagnant. This though despite corporations having done quite well for much of Obama’s Presidency.
Click to expand...
Short memories? Like those who forget Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and we recovered from? Those short memories that can’t find enough excuses for why we have seen no recovery under Obama? Obama has not led anything out of a ditch. All he’s done is prevented a recovery and added trillions in debt.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Would you mind providing more details?
Click to expand...
I’ll give you one that is relevant to what is going on right now in the city of Milwaukee, WI. Obama’s administration gave Milwaukee millions of dollars for the construction of a street car that will go in a small circle only a couple of blocks in downtown Milwaukee.

This was supposed to stimulate the Milwaukee economy - and in the meantime ignoring the needs of the inner city. Of course Milwaukee could have rejected the money. However, couldn’t there have been some stimulus funds to actually help the people who live there?

Of course now there are riots going on there and I’m wondering if anyone is surprised by this given that the federal government is offering to fund unnecessary projects rather putting that money to good use - like help the inner city.
 
Thorolfr said:
The Great Recession was a worldwide event and the US is doing reasonably well compared to most other countries. The US is not the only country that is still digging out after the recession, the worst since the Great Depression. Let’s compare unemployment among countries:

Japan 3.1%
Germany 4.2%
Norway 4.7%
United States 4.9%
United Kingdom 4.9%
Netherlands 6.1%
Sweden 7.6%
France 10.2%
Italy 11.6%
Spain 20%

The United Kingdom is already heading back into recession.
Click to expand...
The unemployment rate in the United States is around 9.7%.

You absolutely must look at what they call U-6.

bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.

Even more realistic:

Look here:

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for July 2016 is 23.0%.

shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
 
philipl said:
Hillary is going to continue with the same economic policies as obama. Does any really think the economy is going to improve because of things she does now that she is claiming will be the “small business” President or now for some reason the middle class has somehow become important to her?

The only group has has made out well for the past 8 years has been government employees. And yes if Clinton is elected those people will still do very very well.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember some statistics that show the wealthy have also done well in the past eight years. Am I wrong about that? In fact, don’t the wealthy tend to do better under Democratic administrations?

I do agree that Hillary will most likely not make significant changes in Obama’s policies. As most politicians, she claims to be all things to all people during election time; but after the election, it’s a different story. In the case of Hillary, she is now trying to become Bernie Sanders to lock in Bernie supporters. Good luck with that!
 
meltzerboy said:
I seem to remember some statistics that show the wealthy have also done well in the past eight years. Am I wrong about that? In fact, don’t the wealthy tend to do better under Democratic administrations?

I do agree that Hillary will most likely not make significant changes in Obama’s policies. As most politicians, she claims to be all things to all people during election time; but after the election, it’s a different story. In the case of Hillary, she is now trying to become Bernie Sanders to lock in Bernie supporters. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...
I think the wealthy have done very well during the Obama years because the stock market has defied what happened to the real estate recession and the rest of the economy and soared. At least those who were able to ride out the stock market crash of 2007 or 2008.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top