Will Obama leaving make things better?

[Stillriledup]

I have a question for those of you who have been critical of Obama. Do you feel that when Obama leaves office, the new president will be better, or do you think it will be the same business as usual?

If you think it will be business as usual, maybe its not Obama's fault and its the "system" because if he leaves and nothing changes, it might not be him?

When he does leave, what changes are you expecting from the new leader, whoever it happens to be.

Thanks.

[davew]

It depends on your perspective and who the next president is. Some people feel Obama has been the best president ever.

[burnsy]

Yup, the roads will be paved with gold, there will be world peace and strangers will stop strangers....just to shake their hands. Did things get better when Bush left, how about Clinton? Or Pappa Bush? You must be reading (believing) the crap the jug heads post on political forums. In fact, I'm quite convinced the Republicans don't want to win the presidency its easier to dish dirt and blame the president. People don't even know how the government works in this country so the president is some kind of "King" that controls everything according to these folks. Anything and every thing that happens is the presidents fault. Not winning is actually a pretty good strategy. Lets put some old guy and a jack ass (fool) from Alaska in there, they'll win......lol. Mitt Romney has winner written all over him......how about Ted Cruz or some other idiot? Its a sure thing.......not. Or Scott Walker....its genius on there part not to win. Except for the people that actually think these people have a shot....the smart ones saw what happened to Bush.

What do you think? Of course its the system....its corrupt as the day is long. The past few presidents were most likely the most honest people in there. But if the media can convince the partisan knuckle heads out there that its all the presidents fault.......you can get away with anything. The media, the Congress, the Judicial branch, they are all innocent in all that has happened. Better buy a gas mask and hide in your basement ISIS is coming............want to buy some stock? Don't worry its soaring now and if the bottom drops out like it does every 20 to 30 years...its the presidents fault.....we get a bailout. No jobs? or they pay crap? Its that God awful president again....I can go on and on but you get the jest.....Its all Bushes and Obamas fault......... :D Just read the crap here and how people think. How can it possibly get any better?

[JustRalph]

Yup, the roads will be paved with gold, there will be world peace and strangers will stop strangers....just to shake their hands. Did things get better when Bush left, how about Clinton? Or Pappa Bush? You must be reading (believing) the crap the jug heads post on political forums. In fact, I'm quite convinced the Republicans don't want to win the presidency its easier to dish dirt and blame the president. People don't even know how the government works in this country so the president is some kind of "King" that controls everything according to these folks. Anything and every thing that happens is the presidents fault. Not winning is actually a pretty good strategy. Lets put some old guy and a jack ass (fool) from Alaska in there, they'll win......lol. Mitt Romney has winner written all over him......how about Ted Cruz or some other idiot? Its a sure thing.......not. Or Scott Walker....its genius on there part not to win. Except for the people that actually think these people have a shot....the smart ones saw what happened to Bush.

What do you think? Of course its the system....its corrupt as the day is long. The past few presidents were most likely the most honest people in there. But if the media can convince the partisan knuckle heads out there that its all the presidents fault.......you can get away with anything. The media, the Congress, the Judicial branch, they are all innocent in all that has happened. Better buy a gas mask and hide in your basement ISIS is coming............want to buy some stock? Don't worry its soaring now and if the bottom drops out like it does every 20 to 30 years...its the presidents fault.....we get a bailout. No jobs? or they pay crap? Its that God awful president again....I can go on and on but you get the jest.....Its all Bushes and Obamas fault......... :D Just read the crap here and how people think. How can it possibly get any better?

Standing outside the fire commenting must make you feel like your not involved?

If you have kids, grandkids etc, you should be concerned. They are going to suffer from this lost decade. The only way things will get better is if the Dem's are banished from both houses and a Repub Prez gets at least one term with a Repub Congress. Making that happen, unlikely. Turning off the teat won't work in this country.

[Stillriledup]

Standing outside the fire commenting must make you feel like your not involved?

If you have kids, grandkids etc, you should be concerned. They are going to suffer from this lost decade. The only way things will get better is if the Dem's are banished from both houses and a Repub Prez gets at least one term with a Repub Congress. Making that happen, unlikely. Turning off the teat won't work in this country.

So what will the Republicans do that is currently not being done? Maybe the list is long in your mind, give me the top 1 or 2 things that will change should they win.

[JustRalph]

So what will the Republicans do that is currently not being done? Maybe the list is long in your mind, give me the top 1 or 2 things that will change should they win.

Tax reform including corporate tax reform which would be huge for the economy

Close down some divisions of government Such as

EPA-Education Dept

Kill huge portions of the IRS by simplifying the tax code

Reform or repeal Ocare and come up with a better plan

Return regulation to the states when it comes to business etc

I could go on......

[Tom]

Obama revealed the fatal flaw in our system of government.
In order to work, it requires and informed electorate and men of honor and integrity to run it.

We lack both.

[upthecreek]

Couldnt possibly get any worse It certainly IMO get drastically BETTER!

[johnhannibalsmith]

I have a question for those of you who have been critical of Obama. Do you feel that when Obama leaves office, the new president will be better, or do you think it will be the same business as usual?

If you think it will be business as usual, maybe its not Obama's fault and its the "system" because if he leaves and nothing changes, it might not be him?

When he does leave, what changes are you expecting from the new leader, whoever it happens to be.

Thanks.

It will almost certainly be worse.

And not because Obama did much of anything right and the next guy/gal/both/neither won't be any better really.

But, Obama has taken us a big step farther down the road of executive abuse that guarantees now and forever that it can only get worse and worse - unless the elected just happens to do everything exactly the way you would do it. Then it might be fantastic.

But what are the chances of that?

[Clocker]

But, Obama has taken us a big step farther down the road of executive abuse that guarantees now and forever that it can only get worse and worse - unless the elected just happens to do everything exactly the way you would do it. Then it might be fantastic.


I agree. The federal government is a great lumbering beast, and Obama has been successful in getting it moving in a new direction, escalating the long term trend toward ever-increasing growth in size, scope, and debt that neither party has been able to (or even wanted to) rein in for decades.

Huge changes like ObamaCare, crippling EPA regulations, a dysfunctional Justice Department, etc., are now an integral part of the system. At best, it would take one if not two terms of a willing president just to put an end to it and to return to the semi-dysfunctional pre-Obama status. And for all the talk about responsibility, few on either side of the aisle, especially in Congress, are ready to bite the bullet if it means their ox is gored and the pork stops flowing.

[acorn54]

Tax reform including corporate tax reform which would be huge for the economy

Close down some divisions of government Such as

EPA-Education Dept

Kill huge portions of the IRS by simplifying the tax code

Reform or repeal Ocare and come up with a better plan

Return regulation to the states when it comes to business etc

I could go on......


good points
i would like to expand on taxes as i have a background in accounting and working in the tax field
corporations don't pay taxes, it is, what is called a "pass thru" expense of doing business. the consumer at the end of food chain pays the "tax".
the end consequence is that the consumer has less money for spending on goods and services. since consumers represent 2/3rd's of the economy this is a significant anchor on moving the economy forward.
secondly i agree we need a simplified tax code. for individuals, steve forbes came up with a reasonable design based on the principal of marginal utility if i have my definition of it correctly. it is to NOT tax at all the first 50,000 dollars or some base amount, as it is needed for the basic expenses of living. after that a flat percentage on the rest of a person's income is taxed.

[Clocker]

corporations don't pay taxes, it is, what is called a "pass thru" expense of doing business. the consumer at the end of food chain pays the "tax".

That's basic economics that liberals don't understand. Corporations don't pay any expenses, their customers do. Taxes, utilities, wages, regulatory costs, health insurance, etc. It all comes out of the consumer's wallet at the check-out counter.

[JustRalph]

That's basic economics that liberals don't understand. Corporations don't pay any expenses, their customers do. Taxes, utilities, wages, regulatory costs, health insurance, etc. It all comes out of the consumer's wallet at the check-out counter.

I've said this a million times on this board. They just don't get it

[HUSKER55]

Obama revealed the fatal flaw in our system of government.
In order to work, it requires and informed electorate and men of honor and integrity to run it.

We lack both.

My $2 says they can't even define it.

[Stillriledup]

It will almost certainly be worse.

And not because Obama did much of anything right and the next guy/gal/both/neither won't be any better really.

But, Obama has taken us a big step farther down the road of executive abuse that guarantees now and forever that it can only get worse and worse - unless the elected just happens to do everything exactly the way you would do it. Then it might be fantastic.

But what are the chances of that?

I agree, good post.


My biggest peeve in all of this is that there are different rules for different people. If you are a high govt official or certain police officers, you can essentially break the law with no consequences. If you're a regular Joe Schmoe, you're held to a higher standard somehow. Obama would be viewed as a much better president if people who lie to congress, or hide e mails or whatever else is going on in big government were to answer for their crimes with some jail time. Under this administration, if you are a "somebody" you are above the law...that's not a good precedent to set.

[FantasticDan]

That's basic economics that liberals don't understand. Corporations don't pay any expenses, their customers do. Taxes, utilities, wages, regulatory costs, health insurance, etc. It all comes out of the consumer's wallet at the check-out counter.Hmmm...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297707/-Do-Corporate-Income-Taxes-Really-Get-Passed-On-To-Consumers-Another-Conservative-Zombie-Myth

[Tom]

Daily KOs? :lol:

Of course it is true - the costs get passed on to the consumer.
It may not be immediate, but it is inevitable.

I bet you would agree with our idiot Govenor Cuome - he wants to raise minimum wages, and claims that this will put 3 billion dollars into the economy.

Duh......it will put 0 more dollars into the economy.
No money will created.

DON'T PLAY WITH NUMBERS - YOU WILL GET HURT! :lol:

[HUSKER55]

his leaving will be a step forward but only if a responsible conservative and a responsible congress gets into the majority.

I don't see it. Wished i did. Our government has squatted to piss far too long. The change that is needed is not on the horizon.

it will be more of the same.

[Clocker]

It may not be immediate, but it is inevitable.


This the only, and hidden, reality in the article, and I doubt the author realized it is there.

As he says, because customers buying things in the past result in corporate income taxes being paid in the future, the taxes cannot be passed on to THOSE customers. A major intellectual break through. :rolleyes:

But because he is talking only about corporate income taxes, the practical effect is minimal. That is because corporations go to great lengths to minimize, if not eliminate, corporate income taxes. All other taxes are known, accounted for, and passed through. If corporate income taxes, if any, affect return to investors, the company will make future adjustments in order to meet investor expectations.

[Stillriledup]

You got Trump, Hillary or Rubio.

Will it get better? :lol:

[davew]

You got Trump, Hillary or Rubio.

Will it get better? :lol:

It all depends on what you consider 'better' to be ? There are some people who feel 0bama is the best president ever.

[NorCalGreg]

Burnsy: Yup, the roads will be paved with gold, there will be world peace and strangers will stop strangers....just to shake their hands.



-I didn't know you had a brilliant, sarcastic wit, burnsy. This line was very funny! All this time I thought you were another NY wack-job. My apologies.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Give Robert Hunter some credit for about the last half of it. :D

[thaskalos]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term. :)

[NorCalGreg]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term. :)


I'm thinking more like the day will come when we wished President Trump had run against Obama 8 years ago.

[Tom]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term.

Yes, in Leavenworth!

[Stillriledup]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term. :)

Interesting.

I think the people who bash Obama are people who would bash anybody. It's not like a bash free Pres will ever be elected which means to me, it's not an Obama thing it's a Prez thing.

[Greyfox]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term. :)

The National Debt is 19 trillion dollars and rising.
Most of it run up during the Obama reign.
In fact, he's spent more than all of the Presidents back to George Washington.
The day will come when your son's children, your grand-children, if that good luck happens to you, will wish he (and G.W.B) never served at all.
So, tell us how the day will come that we'll wish for Obama to take another term?? :)

[Stillriledup]

The National Debt is 19 trillion dollars and rising.
Most of it run up during the Obama reign.
In fact, he's spent more than all of the Presidents back to George Washington.
The day will come when your son's children, your grand-children, if that good luck happens to you, will wish he (and G.W.B) never served at all.
So, tell us how the day will come that we'll wish for Obama to take another term?? :)

Because its politics, and the new person in charge could be worse or it could have been worse if Obama had lost.

[zico20]

The day might come when we'll wish that Obama served another term. :)

Yes, when Bernie takes the helm and his first words are "I messed up my numbers on healthcare, instead of a 2.2 percent increase from the middle class I need a 22 percent increase. And that number could rise again." :mad:

[Greyfox]

Because its politics, and the new person in charge could be worse or it could have been worse if Obama had lost.

Worse than Obama ? That is always a possibility, however unlikely.
Tell us how? Don't let fear or common sense or history deter you. :lol:

[mostpost]

The National Debt is 19 trillion dollars and rising.
Most of it run up during the Obama reign.
This is false. Barely. But the important question is how did the increase in the debt during the Obama administration compare with the increase in other administrations. During the Obama administration the debt increased 81%. During the George W. Bush administration the debt increased 78.5%, but Bush was not faced with the disaster Bush left Obama. During the Reagan administration the debt increased 186%.

During the first seven years of the Obama administration, the % increase of the national debt has dropped every year but one.
2009: 19%
2010: 13.8%
2011: 9.1%
2012: 8.6%
2013: 4.2%
2014: 6.4%
2015: 1.8%
In fact, he's spent more than all of the Presidents back to George Washington.

OK, let's add up all the money spent during the Obama administration up to 2015. When we get that total, we will go back to 2008 and, year by year start subtracting money spent each year by other Presidents. We should get to George Washington before we reach zero.

Oh for heaven's sake; we are at zero and it is only 1997. How can that be?

[mostpost]

Hmmm...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297707/-Do-Corporate-Income-Taxes-Really-Get-Passed-On-To-Consumers-Another-Conservative-Zombie-Myth
That makes total sense, which means the cons here will have none of it.

[Stillriledup]

Worse than Obama ? That is always a possibility, however unlikely.
Tell us how? Don't let fear or common sense or history deter you. :lol:

Some think he's one of Americas greatest Presidents. Just depends on what you want to believe.

[mostpost]

Daily KOs? :lol:

Of course it is true - the costs get passed on to the consumer.
It may not be immediate, but it is inevitable.

I bet you would agree with our idiot Govenor Cuome - he wants to raise minimum wages, and claims that this will put 3 billion dollars into the economy.

Duh......it will put 0 more dollars into the economy.
No money will created.

DON'T PLAY WITH NUMBERS - YOU WILL GET HURT! :lol:
Your idiot governor is a lot smarter than you. Which does not make him the Lone Ranger. Extra money paid to workers gets spent. Money not paid remains-for the most part-in the bank accounts of the business man. Products that the workers buy with the extra money deplete the inventories of the business; which has to make more of those products. Which means they have to hire more workers etc. It's a beautiful cycle.

[mostpost]

Some think he's one of Americas greatest Presidents. Just depends on what you want to believe.
Even I don't think he is one of America's greatest Presidents. He's better than any Republican President except Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower and Nixon (in some respects) might be close, otherwise I would put him in the top 15-20.

[classhandicapper]

It's probably too late to fix America now. Bush did some real damage, but after 8 years of Obama the debt to GDP ratio will be really high at the exact point in time the government IOUs for Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, pensions etc.. are going to start coming due in a major way due to baby boom retirements (not to mention the spending obligations Obama has added).

We are also 7 or so years into an economic credit bubble that's going to pop sooner or later. When it does, the economy will go into recession again, the deficit is going to explode to 1.5 trillion or 2 trillion annually.

I see no way out of this mess longer term unless the government starts selling off assets like national parks and other real estate holdings.

They can't tax their way out of this without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

If they cut spending growth sharply, there will be social upheaval because millions of people have built their lives around the assumption that government promises that cannot be kept will be there for them.

If they keep printing money eventually the US Dollar will collapse and reduce our standard of living.

Obama inherited a patient in the emergency room, but he has virtually guaranteed there is no way to get him out of the hospital in good shape. He's among the worst presidents in US history.

[davew]

OK, let's add up all the money spent during the Obama administration up to 2015. When we get that total, we will go back to 2008 and, year by year start subtracting money spent each year by other Presidents. We should get to George Washington before we reach zero.

Oh for heaven's sake; we are at zero and it is only 1997. How can that be?


Don't forget the first $6 trillion was spent cleaning up Bush's mess.

If the government keeps paying 0% for borrowing, they will be able to roll over debt forever, like a government sponsored never ending Ponzi scheme.

[thaskalos]

The day will come when your son's children, your grand-children, if that good luck happens to you, will wish he (and G.W.B) never served at all.
So, tell us how the day will come that we'll wish for Obama to take another term?? :)
Well...I look at it this way:

George W. Bush was the biggest train-wreck of a president that I had even seen in this country. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that another president would come along, who would surpass GWB in sheer incompetence. And yet, listening to my republican brethren here...this occurred with the very next president that we elected.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that this trend might continue?

[NJ Stinks]

It's probably too late to fix America now.

I think I remember you now. You were a teammate on my baseball team. We were down 3-0 going into the bottom of the 8th inning of the championship game when you matter-of-factly told us we were not going to win.

Knute Rockne you ain't. :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

I think I remember you now. You were a teammate on my baseball team. We were down 3-0 going into the bottom of the 8th inning of the championship game when you matter-of-factly told us we were not going to win.

Knute Rockne you ain't. :rolleyes:
Was he right, though?

[Stillriledup]

It's probably too late to fix America now. Bush did some real damage, but after 8 years of Obama the debt to GDP ratio will be really high at the exact point in time the government IOUs for Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, pensions etc.. are going to start coming due in a major way due to baby boom retirements (not to mention the spending obligations Obama has added).

We are also 7 or so years into an economic credit bubble that's going to pop sooner or later. When it does, the economy will go into recession again, the deficit is going to explode to 1.5 trillion or 2 trillion annually.

I see no way out of this mess longer term unless the government starts selling off assets like national parks and other real estate holdings.

They can't tax their way out of this without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

If they cut spending growth sharply, there will be social upheaval because millions of people have built their lives around the assumption that government promises that cannot be kept will be there for them.

If they keep printing money eventually the US Dollar will collapse and reduce our standard of living.

Obama inherited a patient in the emergency room, but he has virtually guaranteed there is no way to get him out of the hospital in good shape. He's among the worst presidents in US history.

Don't you think if it was an easy fix and America could be fixed, Obama would have done it?

[Tom]

No.

[NJ Stinks]

Was he right, though?

We lost 3-2.

There is a reason why Tug McGraw's "Ya gotta believe" is still remembered today.

[dartman51]

Your idiot governor is a lot smarter than you. Which does not make him the Lone Ranger. Extra money paid to workers gets spent. Money not paid remains-for the most part-in the bank accounts of the business man. Products that the workers buy with the extra money deplete the inventories of the business; which has to make more of those products. Which means they have to hire more workers etc. It's a beautiful cycle.

Yeah, sounds like a beautiful cycle, in theory. BUT, you left out one important part. When companies are forced to pay higher wages, the COST of MANUFACTURING those goods goes up. Do you really think that the COMPANY, or ANY company, is just going to absorb those cost? NO!!! They pass the cost on to the customer, which ANY smart businessman would do. Even a liberal one. :faint:

[Greyfox]

OK, let's add up all the money spent during the Obama administration up to 2015. When we get that total, we will go back to 2008 and, year by year start subtracting money spent each year by other Presidents. We should get to George Washington before we reach zero.

Oh for heaven's sake; we are at zero and it is only 1997. How can that be?

For starters, some Presidency's had surpluses.

If you want to look at monies spent, not percentages --> http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php


http://www.davemanuel.com/charts2/surpluses_and_deficits_1940-2011_small.jpg

[dartman51]

Well...I look at it this way:

George W. Bush was the biggest train-wreck of a president that I had even seen in this country. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that another president would come along, who would surpass GWB in sheer incompetence. And yet, listening to my republican brethren here...this occurred with the very next president that we elected.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that this trend might continue?

That's a very real possibility, unless we can get someone in the White House with the cajones to stand up and PROTECT the Constitution, rather than walk all over it and bastardize it, till it's unrecognizable. Someone who really wants to do what's best for the people, not just what might get him, or her, another vote, or put another feather in their cap. If the person that gets in the White House would work like they ONLY have 4 years, instead of spending the first 4 years campaigning for the NEXT 4. Then in the FINAL year, if they get 8, all they're concerned with, is their LEGACY. :bang:

[mostpost]

For starters, some Presidency's had surpluses.

If you want to look at monies spent, not percentages --> http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php


http://www.davemanuel.com/charts2/surpluses_and_deficits_1940-2011_small.jpg
Your original statement was that Obama spent more money than all the other Presidents combined back to George Washington. Now you are talking about deficits and surpluses. If you meant that Obama increased the national debt more than all the others combined, you should have said that.

Here is a link to annual spending.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
click on table 1-1

It's the third column from the left titled Outlays.

[classhandicapper]

Don't you think if it was an easy fix and America could be fixed, Obama would have done it?

No. I think he is clueless and getting advice from people that are short term oriented and using a flawed model of thinking about the economy.

IMO it would have been very difficult for anyone to fix this country even if he was brilliant and had the best of intentions. However, there were a few things that you absolutely HAD to do if you were hoping to not make matters worse and avoid losing another 8 years.

You had to slow the growth rate of government spending both short and long term. To the extent the republicans forced the sequester, that was a good thing short term (not enough), but what really had to happen was reforming medicare, medicaid, ss, and pensions so that the long term spending obligations would come way down too. If you did that much, then you could begin talking about some increased taxes. It could not be the other way around. You cannot raise taxes first or you will never get the spending reductions. The one thing you could not do (and Bush did it also) was to add long term government obligations for healthcare and other items as Obama did.

I could get into more moves that have to be made, but it's hard to hold monetary policy against the president even though the buck stops with him in some way. Plus, most of the republicans are no better on this. That's the primary reason I am a Ron Paul libertarian. They "do" get it.

[Greyfox]

If you meant that Obama increased the national debt more than all the others combined, you should have said that.

Here is a link to annual spending.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
click on table 1-1

It's the third column from the left titled Outlays.

Sorry if you interpreted it that way, but I meant that he increased the National Debt more than all others combined back to George Washington.

Table 1 on the link that you provided verifies that.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

[Saratoga_Mike]

No. I think he is clueless and getting advice from people that are short term oriented and using a flawed model of thinking about the economy.

.

Are you talking about Obama or Greenspan's tenure?

[classhandicapper]

Are you talking about Obama or Greenspan's tenure?

It's one long endless nightmare to me. :lol:

[mostpost]

Yeah, sounds like a beautiful cycle, in theory. BUT, you left out one important part. When companies are forced to pay higher wages, the COST of MANUFACTURING those goods goes up. Do you really think that the COMPANY, or ANY company, is just going to absorb those cost? NO!!! They pass the cost on to the customer, which ANY smart businessman would do. Even a liberal one. :faint:
If it is true that raising wages results in a corresponding rise in prices, then it follows that such a raise will result in a similar upswing in inflation. Let's see.

In 1976 minimum wage went up 9.5%. Inflation rate 5.8%
In 1978 minimum wage went up 15.2%. Inflation rate 7.6%
In 1979 minimum wage went up 9.4%. Inflation rate 11.3%
In 1980 minimum wage went up 6.7%. Inflation rate 13.5%
In 1982 minimum wage went up 8.1%. Inflation rate 10.3%
Note that the three immediately above occurred during the oil crisis, which had a great deal to do with the sharp rise in the inflation rate.

Continuing;
in 1990 minimum wage went up 13.4%. Inflation rate 5.4%.
In 1991 minimum wage went up 11.9%. Inflation rate 4.2%.
In 1996 minimum wage went up 11.8%. Inflation rate 3.0%.
In 1997 minimum wage went up 8.4%. Inflation rate 2.3%.
in 2007 minimum wage went up 13.6%. Inflation rate 2.8%.
In 2008 minimum wage went up 12%. Inflation rate 3.8%.
In 2009 minimum wage went up 10.7%. inflation rate -0.4%.

Clearly, an increase in wages does not result in a one to one increase in prices. If you are a worker, a 13.6% increase in your wages will more than offset a 2.8% increase in your expenses.

[classhandicapper]

Clearly, an increase in wages does not result in a one to one increase in prices. If you are a worker, a 13.6% increase in your wages will more than offset a 2.8% increase in your expenses.

....and come straight out of the pocket of all the people that did not get wage increases or that lost their jobs because their employer could not pass the costs on. There's no free lunch.

[tucker6]

what Mostie is leaving out of the equation is the continuing technology boom from the 70's to present and associated efficiencies (plus a million other variables) caused by it. Said efficiencies means less need of unskilled humans like minimum wagers. For example, look at the automated cashiers springing up at every fast food chain to replace the minimum wage workers.

How anyone can make a post simply trying to equate minimum wage hikes with inflation rates is beyond me. Anyone with any understanding of economics would have never made that post. Correlation does NOT mean causation.

[mostpost]

Sorry if you interpreted it that way, but I meant that he increased the National Debt more than all others combined back to George Washington.

Table 1 on the link that you provided verifies that.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
Current debt is 19 trillion 53 Billion. Debt at the end of Bush's term was 10 Trillion 24 Billion. Which makes your statement not quite accurate, but close enough that I can't quibble.

But the question is, is this Obama's debt or everyone else's. Aside from money spent on recovery from the recession and Bush's not so excellent military adventures; What major new programs has Obama instituted that increased the debt? Don't say Obamacare, because that so far has been pretty much revenue neutral .

[mostpost]

....and come straight out of the pocket of all the people that did not get wage increases or that lost their jobs because their employer could not pass the costs on. There's no free lunch.
Absent a recession, there is no correlation between an increase in the minimum wage and an increase in unemployment. As far as other workers not getting raises when the minimum wage is increased, The Brookings institute did a study.

It found that while only 2.6% of workers worked for minimum wage, 30% would see an increase in their wages. In actual numbers that comes out to about 30,000,000 people.

[mostpost]

what Mostie is leaving out of the equation is the continuing technology boom from the 70's to present and associated efficiencies (plus a million other variables) caused by it. Said efficiencies means less need of unskilled humans like minimum wagers. For example, look at the automated cashiers springing up at every fast food chain to replace the minimum wage workers.

How anyone can make a post simply trying to equate minimum wage hikes with inflation rates is beyond me. Anyone with any understanding of economics would have never made that post. Correlation does NOT mean causation.
In my opinion, there is a lot that is beyond you.

"Correlation does not mean causation." OK Fine. An increase in the minimum wage does not mean a corresponding increase in the inflation rate. I think that is what I proved in #53. It's good to see we are on the same side. :jump: :jump:

[davew]

....and come straight out of the pocket of all the people that did not get wage increases or that lost their jobs because their employer could not pass the costs on. There's no free lunch.

There is if you are a faithful democrat with your hand out for the EBT cards.

[Clocker]

An increase in the minimum wage does not mean a corresponding increase in the inflation rate. I think that is what I proved in #53.

You prove nothing. Your statements on the topic illustrate economic and statistical illiteracy.

To do anything meaningful with that data, you have to use the proper statistical tools to estimate what inflation would have been without the change in the minimum wage and compare that to what it actually was.

Also, theory says that the impact on prices in the short run is minimal. It can take years to work through the system. The biggest and most important impact of an increase in the minimum wage is not on prices, but on long run creation of minimum wage jobs. That also takes years to happen and to measure as employers look for alternatives, including substitution of capital for labor or outsourcing. But they do stop hiring.

If you had any experience in the private sector, you would know that companies do not raise prices or cut jobs the day after the minimum wage goes up. Changes certainly don't happen the same year, as you claim to have proved.

[tucker6]

In my opinion, there is a lot that is beyond you.


The most comforting part of your post. I can rest easier now.

[classhandicapper]

Absent a recession, there is no correlation between an increase in the minimum wage and an increase in unemployment.

We've discussed this already. None of these studies control for all the factors impacting employment and wages (business cycle, etc..). So they are all essentially worthless. You get the answers to these question by asking actual business owners what they are going to do and why if there is an increase in the minimum wage. If you do, some will tell you they can't afford the same number of workers, some will go out of business, some will raise prices, some will do a little of each, and some will eat some or all of the costs and have lower profits to invest and spend, but there is no free lunch. You can't magically transfer some wealth to one group and not hurt someone else no matter what politically motivated, mathematically challenged, economists say.

[mostpost]

You prove nothing. Your statements on the topic illustrate economic and statistical illiteracy.

To do anything meaningful with that data, you have to use the proper statistical tools to estimate what inflation would have been without the change in the minimum wage and compare that to what it actually was.

Also, theory says that the impact on prices in the short run is minimal. It can take years to work through the system. The biggest and most important impact of an increase in the minimum wage is not on prices, but on long run creation of minimum wage jobs. That also takes years to happen and to measure as employers look for alternatives, including substitution of capital for labor or outsourcing. But they do stop hiring.

If you had any experience in the private sector, you would know that companies do not raise prices or cut jobs the day after the minimum wage goes up. Changes certainly don't happen the same year, as you claim to have proved.
You're going to use imaginary data and compare it to real world data. I'm comparing real world data to real world data. I'll take my way, thanks.

I did not say anything about the jobless rate the day after. I was comparing rates the following year.
Minimum wage went up in 1976. In 1977 unemployment dropped 1.44%.
Minimum wage went up in 1978. In 1979 unemployment stayed the same.
Minimum wage went up in 1991. In 1992 unemployment rose 0.1%.
Minimum wage went up in 1996. In 1997 unemployment dropped 0.7%
Minimum wage went up in 1997. in 1998 unemployment dropped 0.3%
Minimum wage went up in 2009. in 2010 unemployment dropped 0.6%.

There have been years in which an increase in the minimum wage have been followed by an increase in unemployment, but those have generally coincided with a recession.

Also, there have been a number of studies-using STATISTICS-which have refuted the idea that an increase in the minimum wage causes an increase in unemployment.

[Tom]

We've discussed this already.

And you will discuss it again. And again.
Trying to have an intelligent discussion with mostie is like playing peek-a-boo with a baby. It never ends.

Fact is, increasing min wage COSTS JOBS.
That is what BUSINESS people say.
People, unlike government zombies and union boys, who have actually lived in reality, say.

[Clocker]

I did not say anything about the jobless rate the day after. I was comparing rates the following year.


Also, there have been a number of studies-using STATISTICS-which have refuted the idea that an increase in the minimum wage causes an increase in unemployment.

You still don't get it. A one year lag is not enough to get proper measurements. And not even conservative economists argue that an increase in the minimum wage by itself causes an increase in TOTAL unemployment, which is what you are looking at. They argue that an increase in the minimum wage leads to a decline in the creation of minimum wage, i.e., entry level, jobs. Even in a growing economy, that means that entry level jobs may not keep up with population growth, and that unemployment among the young and the less educated may get worse over time.

In any case, any serious attempt to measure the impact of the minimum wage has to look at the demographics, and concentrate on the young and the less educated. The number of people working minimumwage jobs is too small to have any significant impact on total unemployment in the economy.

You have built a straw man argument that conservatives are saying that if the minimum wage goes up, evil businesses cut jobs the next day. What they are saying is that an increase in the minimum wage has a long term negative impact on minimum wage workers, not a short term impact on the economy.

[ebcorde]

brings us back to glory days is puzzling.

[ebcorde]

Republicans and democrats in the senate passed the immigration bill that would allow 200,000 skilled workers a year into the country. The Hi-tech companies were begging for this bill. The House rejected it, 3-4 years later, not a peep about it, business is doing great without the 200,000 a year

It should be a lesson when the corporations want it SAY NO!

and when they vote on the H1-B's limits they better explain why people who received free educations in their country should be allowed to take a job here.

Our kids are expected to pay for 1 year what I paid for my first 2 houses.
In India, China they pay $3000 incl room and board for a year or it's free then they come here for the job hunt or they have the money for grad school do that and stay.

[delayjf]

I did not say anything about the jobless rate the day after. I was comparing rates the following year.
Minimum wage went up in 1976. In 1977 unemployment dropped 1.44%.
Minimum wage went up in 1978. In 1979 unemployment stayed the same.
Minimum wage went up in 1991. In 1992 unemployment rose 0.1%.
Minimum wage went up in 1996. In 1997 unemployment dropped 0.7%
Minimum wage went up in 1997. in 1998 unemployment dropped 0.3%
Minimum wage went up in 2009. in 2010 unemployment dropped 0.6%.

There have been years in which an increase in the minimum wage have been followed by an increase in unemployment, but those have generally coincided with a recession.

Also, there have been a number of studies-using STATISTICS-which have refuted the idea that an increase in the minimum wage causes an increase in unemployment

Question - do any of the minimum wage hikes you site above amount to a 100% increase in the minimum wage - because a raise to 15.00 dollars would amount to just that. For a small business using minimum wage employees - you have just doubled their payroll. Common sense would tell you that this is going to affect that business.

[davew]

I do not understand why unemployment rate keeps dropping BUT the labor participation rate is also near lowest ever - is someone playing hide the truth games?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I do not understand why unemployment rate keeps dropping BUT the labor participation rate is also near lowest ever - is someone playing hide the truth games?

If someone were hiding the truth, they wouldn't admit the participation rate was down, now would they? If you're truly interested, you can go to the Dept of Labor's website and pull down the monthly employment report - it's about 30 pages and hits the first Friday of each month.

[PaceAdvantage]

I do not understand why unemployment rate keeps dropping BUT the labor participation rate is also near lowest ever - is someone playing hide the truth games?Nahhhh...when Trump points this out and talks about the "Real Unemployment Rate" he's called insane...and called Hitler again just for good measure.

When Democrats did this while Bush was President (Democrats on this very board...OFTEN), they considered themselves highly intelligent, enlightened folks who knew the real score.

Tell me again how evil Trump is... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

I do not understand why unemployment rate keeps dropping BUT the labor participation rate is also near lowest ever - is someone playing hide the truth games?
First you have to understand how the Labor Force Participation Rate is calculated and what the terms mean.
The Labor Forces is all people who are Employed plus all people who are unemployed.
That is divided by the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population.
Here is the definition of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population;
Everyone living in the United States who is sixteen or older, MINUS inmates of prisons, nursing homes, and mental hospitals; ans MINUS those on active duty in the Armed Forces.

Let me point out that the definition says everyone who is sixteen or older. That means it includes those over 65.

So one of the reasons-and in my opinion a major reason-for the drop in the LFPR is the surge in over 65 persons caused by the Baby Boomers.

A few stats. In 2010 the LFPR was 64.3% In 2015 it was 62.6% a drop of 1.7%
In 2010 over 65ers accounted for 13% of the population. In 2015-14.55%.
An increase of 1.55%.

You can see those numbers are pretty close together.

There are other reasons for the drop in the LFPR. People who are discouraged about finding work is one, but a spouse who feels he or she no longer needs to work because the other spouse has found a better job is another. Another reason is a college aged student who returns to school after the family finances have improved.

You are aware, I'm sure of the U6 unemployment rate. This is the rate which includes those people who have given up looking for a job. This rate will always be higher than the one everyone hears about (the U3 rate), but it has been falling at the same rate as the more well known one.

[classhandicapper]

First you have to understand how the Labor Force Participation Rate is calculated and what the terms mean.
The Labor Forces is all people who are Employed plus all people who are unemployed.
That is divided by the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population.
Here is the definition of Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population;
Everyone living in the United States who is sixteen or older, MINUS inmates of prisons, nursing homes, and mental hospitals; ans MINUS those on active duty in the Armed Forces.

Let me point out that the definition says everyone who is sixteen or older. That means it includes those over 65.

So one of the reasons-and in my opinion a major reason-for the drop in the LFPR is the surge in over 65 persons caused by the Baby Boomers.

A few stats. In 2010 the LFPR was 64.3% In 2015 it was 62.6% a drop of 1.7%
In 2010 over 65ers accounted for 13% of the population. In 2015-14.55%.
An increase of 1.55%.

You can see those numbers are pretty close together.

There are other reasons for the drop in the LFPR. People who are discouraged about finding work is one, but a spouse who feels he or she no longer needs to work because the other spouse has found a better job is another. Another reason is a college aged student who returns to school after the family finances have improved.

You are aware, I'm sure of the U6 unemployment rate. This is the rate which includes those people who have given up looking for a job. This rate will always be higher than the one everyone hears about (the U3 rate), but it has been falling at the same rate as the more well known one.

I don't disagree with you, but there are other indications that we are losing quality jobs and replacing them with inferior jobs and that more people are unemployed than we are counting.

Some of the safety net programs have way more people on them now than ever before. We are in the 7trh year of an economic recovery. So employment should be rising (as it is) and the use of welfare, food stamps etc.. should be falling rapidly, but it hasn't.

[classhandicapper]

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.

The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.

Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes. When she is finished the devil informs her that the cost is 6 million dollars, so she writes him a check.

Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he is finished the devil informs him that the cost is $5.00.

When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA so cheaply.

The devil smiles and replies, “Since Obama took over, the country has gone to hell, so it’s a local call.

[woodtoo]

Good one :lol: