The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Reply
0
0
Originally Posted by http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/13/news/economy/median-income-census/
Median household income rose to $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2% from a year earlier, according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau Tuesday. It marks the first increase in median income since 2007, the year before the Great Recession started.
Also, the poverty rate ticked down to 13.5% in 2015, from 14.8% a year earlier. And, the share of those without health insurance dropped below 10%. That's the first time all three measures have improved in nearly two decades, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Also, the poverty rate ticked down to 13.5% in 2015, from 14.8% a year earlier. And, the share of those without health insurance dropped below 10%. That's the first time all three measures have improved in nearly two decades, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Total govt spending (fed + state) was:
1909 8% of GDP
1983 36% of GDP
2010 41% of GDP
do you have any evidence against? we are talking economics here now, not science.
This is a good read:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reas...ery-1474412963
“What could have promoted a faster recovery by enhancing productivity growth? Variables that encourage economic growth include strong rule of law and property rights, free trade, rolling back inefficient regulations and other constraints on market activity, public infrastructure such as highways and airports, strong institutions for education and health, fiscal discipline, efficient taxation, and sound monetary policy as reflected in low and stable inflation. … The main U.S. policy used to counter the Great [2008-09] Recession was increased government transfer payments. .. The main increases applied to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security (including disability) and food stamps, whereas unemployment insurance first rose then fell. Unfortunately, increased transfer payments do not promote productivity growth.”
“That the Obama administration is foundering from an economic-policy point of view is not news. Barack Obama & Co. represent the very freshest and most imaginative thinking of the 1930s — stimulus, public works, monkeying with the minimum wage, political favoritism for union constituencies, the ancient superstition that simply putting money in somebody’s pocket makes the nation richer through the miraculous power of the economic multiplier, etc.”
Last edited by Braineack; Oct 2, 2016 at 05:39 PM.
Reply
0
0
Yeee we're the bomb here.
FBI Finally Ranks Rockford #1 as Most Dangerous American City ? Congrats! | RKFDNews | Be The Solution, Do Good Internet, Learn More To Know Less
Rockford, IL — The FBI’s 2016-2016 Uniform Crime Report was released this week. Rockford, Illinois is now the #1 most Dangerous American city based on crimes being committed with a population of 200,00 Geese or less.
Rockford, Illinois has displaced Little Rock, Arkansas, as the most dangerous city with a population between 100,000-200,000 people. Rockford saw a 28 percent increase in its violent crime rate last year, after a 10 percent decrease the year before. However, Rockford’s murder rate only increased slightly, from 11 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 13 per 100,000 people in 2015. The most dramatic jumps came from increases in the numbers of robbery and aggravated assault, rising by 22 percent and 30 percent respectively.
Violent Crime Rate: 1,585/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 13/100,000 people
Population: 148,178
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:529
Rank Last Year: #2
FBI Finally Ranks Rockford #1 as Most Dangerous American City ? Congrats! | RKFDNews | Be The Solution, Do Good Internet, Learn More To Know Less
Rockford, IL — The FBI’s 2016-2016 Uniform Crime Report was released this week. Rockford, Illinois is now the #1 most Dangerous American city based on crimes being committed with a population of 200,00 Geese or less.
Rockford, Illinois has displaced Little Rock, Arkansas, as the most dangerous city with a population between 100,000-200,000 people. Rockford saw a 28 percent increase in its violent crime rate last year, after a 10 percent decrease the year before. However, Rockford’s murder rate only increased slightly, from 11 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 13 per 100,000 people in 2015. The most dramatic jumps came from increases in the numbers of robbery and aggravated assault, rising by 22 percent and 30 percent respectively.
Violent Crime Rate: 1,585/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 13/100,000 people
Population: 148,178
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:529
Rank Last Year: #2
Reply
0
0
Notice 1981, 1990 and 2001. Increasingly slow recoveries due to the way our economy works today vs. 1960 and before.
I also think it's worth noting that Obama's inauguration occurred around month 12 on that graph.
And in 2016 we're back to 36%. 
Considering Obama inherited the 2009 budget that was 41% of GDP I think he did pretty well? Still plenty of work to do but turning that ship around (it has been trending upward since 2000) is a major achievement.
That's my weakness. I'm an engineer so I look for data instead of theory and witchcraft.
I find it hard to take that article seriously when he suggests public infrastructure investment as something they should have done. The ARRA had a little over 100 billion earmarked specifically for infrastructure investment. ****, they even put signs up advertising it:
I could argue a few of the other things in his wish list as well but this was just the most glaring example.
I'm not even going to bother clicking on a link from the national review. Sorry, it's like posting a link from Huffington Post... we both know what is there and I'm not going down the "right vs. left source battle" road as it's a waste of time.
The problem I have with economics is the people involved are about as reliable as weathermen and the majority that get attention are political hacks. I can just as easily quote Krugman about how everything Obama did was brilliant and his mistake was not going further in government spending.
I also think it's worth noting that Obama's inauguration occurred around month 12 on that graph.
Considering Obama inherited the 2009 budget that was 41% of GDP I think he did pretty well? Still plenty of work to do but turning that ship around (it has been trending upward since 2000) is a major achievement.
I could argue a few of the other things in his wish list as well but this was just the most glaring example.
The problem I have with economics is the people involved are about as reliable as weathermen and the majority that get attention are political hacks. I can just as easily quote Krugman about how everything Obama did was brilliant and his mistake was not going further in government spending.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
exactly. But history does show us most recessions are countered by a very quick spike back up in employment -- in more recent history we are seeing that intervention might not be the best solution.
this article links Dodd-Frank as the culprit: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-s...ery-explained/
this article links Dodd-Frank as the culprit: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-s...ery-explained/
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
well when he runs for president, and starts attacking his opponent for being a businessman who hires thousands and thousands of employees and actually grows the economy, let me know.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
I would suspect that there are between 1 and 2% whose vote could be swayed either way, R vs D.
I also suspect that there are additionally between 5 and 10% who would vote for Trump tomorrow if he simply appeared cool, calm, and collected during a single live nationally televised political event - He could get earn these voters in either one of the next two debates if he simply does that. Without that, those voters will either vote 3rd party or simply will not vote.
The Billary campaign is locked in, the total quantity of votes she will receive could be determined today, and wouldn't change by more than 1% one way or the other through the polls. Contrary to history, I suspect that if voter turnout is high, republicans will win, and if voter turnout is low, democrats will win.
I also suspect that there are additionally between 5 and 10% who would vote for Trump tomorrow if he simply appeared cool, calm, and collected during a single live nationally televised political event - He could get earn these voters in either one of the next two debates if he simply does that. Without that, those voters will either vote 3rd party or simply will not vote.
The Billary campaign is locked in, the total quantity of votes she will receive could be determined today, and wouldn't change by more than 1% one way or the other through the polls. Contrary to history, I suspect that if voter turnout is high, republicans will win, and if voter turnout is low, democrats will win.
Reply
0
0
