Is the economy in good shape?
It's probably going to get a lot worse
I believe it's more good than bad.
But it's a election year and those running will try to create the perception of doom and gloom that they are going to fix.
It's improved drastically in the past 8 years, but there's still work to be gone.
Much better shape than what Obama inherited from the George W Bush administration.
No one gets anything until someone produces something.
Production has been growing
That's a good thing. Is it an increase in what is being produced, or an increase in the numbers of productive laborers, or both?
Both, but production per capita has increased
That is wonderful. Both will have to increase at a rapid clip if we're to afford the number of govt. employees there are.
Ask the rioters in Milwaukee, hell no it's not.
A house of cards built on a foundation of shifting sands.
As shown by what dat?
Low labor participation, record people in welfare, low home ownership, very high inequality, a lot of people living in poverty and an astronomical amount of debt.
"Low labor participation"
- mainly due to resting baby boomers, more students and more disabled
"record people in welfare",
- SNAPCHAG recipients at 5 year low
"low home ownership"
- high ownership led to crash
"very high inequality"
- due to reagans "trickle down" policy and republicans opposing tax hikes on rich and services for poor
"a lot of people living in poverty"
- see above
"an astronomical amount of debt"
- see above, republicans refusing to raise taxes, and retiring baby boomers, as the increase is in mandatory spending (Medicare, SS) and a recession. Also, the debt isn't related to the economy. If anything a debt is good for the economy as public debt=private sector assets.
Demandside, your question was if the economy was in bad shape. You just made excuses and blamed Republicans. You didn't refute any of my points.
Overall, it is in good shape. Regarding the imperfections, republicans are to blame for the rising inequality which has been taking place since Reagan. But as shown by the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, the growth rate and the stock market, the economy is healthy.
You realize that the Congress is much more responsible for the economy than POTUS? All of those things mysteriously got out of control when democrats took control of Congress. And right after Republicans got the majority back the situation stated to get better (unemployment decreased, deficit shrieked, stock market increased...)
"You realize that the Congress is much more responsible for the economy than POTUS"
That's the BUDGET, which I have already stated is NOT the economy. On Obama's side, there have been the stimulus package and the auto and financial bailouts. And republicans didn't take control of congress until 2014, by which unemployment was shrinking and growth was rising (since 2010).
And the Fed (who's appointed by Obama) has far more control over the economy than congress, who, through quantitative easing, kept growth high (relative to other advanced nations) and unemployment low
Also, deficits were already shrinking by 2010, (when democrats had control of the senate) and continued to shrink. Again, republicans didn't have control until 2014, by which the economy was already improving due to the Obama administrations and the FED
Democrats won both chambers of Congress in 2006. The Republicans took control of the House back in 2010 (and the House are the ones that have more influence on the economy).
"the House are the ones that have more influence on the economy"
1. No they don't, and if they did, you fail to cite any legislation they passed which helped the economy, you're just saying "well more republicans were in one house of congress during 2010, so republicans got the economy out of a recession"
2. You're still referring to the BUDGET not the ECONOMY
3. You're choosing to ignore the actions of Obama and the FED, which actually HAVE led to economic growth
Your argument is stating "republicans were in the house for 2010 so republicans are the reason for the healthy economy" when that belief is just silly
Yes, the biggest issue is inflation which is a bit too low. Otherwise, the Obama administration and the FED have done a great job at creating full employment
Bullshit...and you know it
The unemployment numbers Obama and his flunkies circulate are bogus...they do not include people milo get looking for a job because they gave up, don't include the number of people on welfare, and, thanks to Obamacare many of the jobs people have are restaurant jobs that cut their hours to avoid giving them benefits
When you add people that gave up looking for a job, unemployment goes from 4.9% to 5.2%. Both very low numbers. Also, since 2010, more full time jobs have been created as part time jobs declines. Also, Obama raised the minimum wage and the overtime pay threshold, giving those working in restaurants a well needed raise.
If you look at U-6 you get a better look at the situation...and even then it's not a complete representation of people...there are millions of people without a job that want one...also, the economic growth is lower than its been in a long long time...<2% is pathetic and a shame...they are slapping us in the face
"there are millions of people without a job that want one"
About 5% of the workforce. And our current growth is faster than other advanced nations as we have used stimulus in economy. And no, the U-6 doesn't mean "all these people are unemployed" especially when you take into account many people with part time jobs are: students, retirees, have spouses working full time, disabled and unable to work full time
You can't just ignore all these people and say "everyone in U-6 is unemployed!"
It clearly says in the U-6 block that it's people who are part time because of economic reasons...giving everyone a shit job is not the same as giving people good jobs...the reason I blame Obama is because like it or not, he controls the government in one way or another...if you work in government and are democrat you follow the party...the government needs to stop the restrictions and stupid environmental rules because they are destroying the economy...add to that that Obamacare is set to self destruct in 6months and you see that the economy is being propped up with toothpicks and it's about to come crashing down.
"all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons"
Economic reasons also include not having to work, as you have a spouse or another source of income(disability checks and SS). And U-6 is at normal levels (below 10%). Saying u-6 is an issue when it is currently at normal rates is just silly.
Also, there's no correlation with unemployment and environmental laws. Germany and Scandinavia have MORE environmental laws and have LESS unemployment. An why 6 months?? Why hasn't Obamacare already destroyed jobs when it was implemented years ago, like republicans predicted.
Well, it's obvious you drink the koolaide... But nonetheless, here we go...environmental laws are tied to employment because the government institutes punitive laws (why can't we use benefits instead of punishments?) and these laws require businesses to spend money on processes and machines to "protect the environment" also, they want to shut down coal mines...its not even debatable that that would hurt the economy...Obamacare has already hurt the economy by requiring employers to give benefits to many more employees therefore causing them to give people less hours...Obamacare is going to crash and crash hard soon and when it does, if there is a dem in the White House, they will use it as a means to take complete control of healthcare and that will put even more of a load on the taxpayers...why does everything have to be done through the federal government? Do they really think that the people are brain dead? Although, I see where they could since they did vote for the bitch
"Obamacare has already hurt the economy by requiring employers to give benefits to many more employees therefore causing them to give people less hours."
False, since Obama care has been implemented, both u3 and u6 unemployment has been decreasing. By your logic, the other way should be true, but it's not
"environmental laws are tied to employment"
False, Germany (4.3%) denmark (4.2%) and Norway (4.7%) all have stricter environmental laws (and higher minimum wages) yet still have lower unemployment. Also, there is no correlation with US states environmental laws and unemployment
"complete control of healthcare and that will put even more of a load on the taxpayers"
False, in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan, universal healthcare is provided (meaning gov complete control) and all of them pay less per capita on healthcare than the US
"also, they want to shut down coal mines"
There are more jobs in solar than in coal. I'd rather be working in a solar plant than a coal mine. It's better for the worker and the environment
Of course they go down...that's what happens when you control the age envy that controls the numbers
Have you seen the difference in population? Have you seen the number of people in welfare? If all those people that didn't need to be in welfare were working we'd have a better shot at universal healthcare...but universal healthcare is a stupid idea anyway...just one more step towards communism...and there is not a single communism country in the world that has not imploded or is living in extreme poverty
"Have you seen the difference in population?"
So, we also have states that are smaller than those countries. And again, no correlation in unemployment for US states regarding environmental laws
"Have you seen the number of people in welfare?"
- welfare benefits are higher in the nations I've listed.
And explain why all the advanced nations with universal healthcare haven't all imploded
I'm tired of trying to convince a diehard lib the error of his ways so I'll just say this...if you look at everything the demo rates have done while in office should just show how they operate...they trash the economy and then preach about how it's the last presidents fault for their entire reign and keep bitching and bitching but never do a thing to fix the issue...when a person like Hillary Clinton who has been in public office for 30 years and is still bitching about the same problems they were bitching about when they started it should be obvious that they intend to do nothing about it...have a nice day...and enjoy watching MSNBC tonight...I'm sure they will propagate neither lie like when the NYT tried to say in a headline that the guy shot in Milwaukee was shot by a white cop and was unarmed...both proven to be untrue by body cams, you know, that thing the gems said we needed to prevent police brutality and now seem to not care about anymore, yea, that thing
-Conservative gets proven wrong
-Goes on a hate fueled rant filled with obscenities, unrelated issues and without facts. Productive
Yeah. You'd think he look at your facts and sources and counter with facts and sources of his own.