Obamanomics

It's not his fault.  Bush did that.

dang it, I was hoping we'd at least get 3 or 4 responses before the Bush card was played.  haha

In all seriousness the money printing and federal debt got a huge head start with Bush, but obviously the current administration agreed with the philosophy and kept it going.  Maybe it should be BushObamanomics 

Let's call is Obushanomics and blame it on the Irish.....they've been getting a free pass for years.

I see your stats and up you with these.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

Why do you hate the Irish?

And of course there are these from the Fed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-yellens-labor-market-dashboard/

But of course, you can't believe anything the government says /sarc

You do realize what actually makes up the jobs report right?  It has nothing to do with the number of people employed.
Politicians love the Unemployment rate because they can spin it, much like you are.
It also doesn't take into account people who are "working" but severely underemployed.

Here's an article from last year on the topic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-not-a-problem-2014-1

The concurrent decline in labor force participation, however, has prompted many assertions that unemployment is falling "for the wrong reasons" — i.e., the unemployment rate is falling because unemployed Americans who can't find work arebecoming discouraged and dropping out of the labor force.

This was taken from the article you linked.....

"discouraged workers" only made up about a quarter of those leaving the labor force between 2007 and 2011, while "the decline in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is entirely accounted for by increases in nonparticipation due to retirement."

So, Baby Boomers are retiring-thus they are not participating in the workforce.  And this article implies that the Unemployment Rate is actually fairly accurate.

I don't see your point.........other than to start another 'president bashing' thread that doesn't seem to stand up unbiased scrutiny. 

I'm sure The Donald can save us.  He's got experience.  He's a BUSINESSMAN, after all. 

When I Wikopedia Tyler Durden.  I found it's actually not a person at all; rather a pseudonym for several writers at "Zero Hedge".  And by most account ZeroHedge is a worthless rag.  And the individual who most people assume is writing under the name Tyler Durden is a right-winger who has been disbarred from Wall Street for insider trading.

So, I'm not sure who much credence I put into some of these charts-although they are impressive looking.  Especially in full screen and COLOR.

But don't take MY work for it......Google away!!!

I'll wait..............................

turwood, it seems like most of what you post is from some seriously questionable sources. does that ever make you question your position on these things?

One thing I learned long ago is when the person you're debating attacks your source it's because they can't argue against the content.  What is factually incorrect about the graphs I posted above?  Are they good trends or bad trends?

There are plenty of partisan hack pieces on both sides of the argument.  One side claims the economy is doing awesome and the other side claims it's not.  I fall in line with the economy looks as though it's doing awesome based on the stock market and the "unemployment rate", but it's purely because the federal government is injecting trillions of dollars into the markets (via the banks) and the unemployment rate is misleading.  There's no question that unemployment is better than it was in 2008 no matter what methodology you use to measure it, but it's a long ways from where it was pre-2008.

Well Donald may or may not, but we know for certain that Hillary won't.  haha  (no sarcasm needed)

I can't verify the information in the graphs, but I do know that the poster under that pseudonym is zero hedge, and they are shady as *@%$ to put it nicely. 

super lazy google search giving general consensus about them here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

your basing your argument on suspect information.  It is important to check the information, and information source before you can go on with the argument.

I actually learned it from Obama's playbook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

Rule 5 & 13 specifically.

You guys are almost textbook.

lol, this response would be classified under Rule #5 in the Obama playbook “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."  (it won't work)

You keep bashing my "source" and bagging on zero hedge, but you appear to miss that they did nothing more than post graphs from the Federal Reserve Bank. Your only defense is that these charts are false because they came from zero hedge and I need to provide a better source.  The graphs are from the Federal Reserve, so I don't think I can find a better source.

https://research.stlouisfed.org

The printing money graph caught my eye, so I went to the US Dept of Treasury page (http://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/productionannual.html) where they show how many bills they print in a given year. Picked 2012, nothing but a random year in Obama's presidency, and added up how much it was. The chart you show says it should be around $2 trillion, but it only comes up to $355 billion. That's a pretty significant difference. Maybe I'm just not understanding what he meant when he labeled his graph "money printing"?

The health insurance costs data are attributed to the Dept of Labor Statistics. Aside from the chart cherrypicking a very small window of 2009 to 2013, it seems to contradict this report from the same Dept of Labor Statistics, which shows that the price of health insurance has increased at a slower rate during Obama's presidency than at any other point in the last three decades, save for a couple years in the 90's (figure 1 on sheet 3 of the report). http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/pdf/the-national-compensation-survey-and-the-affordable-care-act-preserving-quality-health-care-data.pdf

I don't know where you' d find numbers on the total amount of student loans in the country, but I'm calling bullchit on a chart that shows $0 worth of loans for 40 years, slowly rising to $100 million over 15 years, then jumping 600% over the next 3 years.  Nobody had a student loan in 80's? Really?

I will say the guy who assembled the graphs has a set of balls on him to blame Obama for the  decline in home ownership, with the graph showing a steady fall since 2006. Wonder why that is. Oh right, the housing bubble from 2005, followed by the sub-prime mortage crisis in 2007. Dang that Obummer for making me buy more house than I could afford with an adjustable rate mortage that I couldn't refinance while he was a junior Senator from the state of Illinois!

The "Money Printing" is the monetary base graph.  When the Fed does QE it's not literally printing money it's just making money available to banks out of thin air through devaluing the currency.  Most people refer to it as "printing money" because that's the effect of what they're doing but it's not literally printed cash.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/

Here's the student loan graph:  https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGCCSAQ027S
My understanding is that this is a graph of direct federal loans given.  I did a quick google and apparently prior to 1993 the government backed student loans and they were all direct bank loans.  In 1993 there was a compromise that allowed the Feds to give direct loans.  So that makes a little more sense on the graph.

On healthcare I think it's so confusing and there are so many different "indicators" out there it's hard to make a case either way.  I've seen the BLS stats, but I also know the reality of a business (myself) and several fellow business owners and our premiums are going through the roof.  I'm curious what the BLS bases their numbers on.  Perhaps it's larger companies primarily.  I couldn't figure out which FRED graph was in the ones grouped above.

As for the mortgage stuff, I 100% agree with you that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that.  One could argue that he didn't "fix it", but honestly it was so broken and inflated that anything other than going back to the rediculous lending practices pre-2008 wouldn't fix it.
I feel both parties are equally responsible for the mortgage crisis because they both passed the laws that allowed it to happen.  Democrats wanted low income home ownership and wanted to hook up their banker buddies. Republicans wanted more money in the economy to "trickle down" and to hook up their banker buddies.

btw, great dialog.  I don't necessarily agree with all of these graphs, but thought it would be fun to discuss.  

I didn't have time to write a paper about it, but wanted to lead those who cared in the right direction.  and before I posted something that I didn't vet well, I alerted others so they would know to look deeper.

instead would you rather me pretend I'm using a great source when its really crap?

gotta learn to be more conservative I guess

Hey, it's on the internet.  Everything on the internet is true