>Caring about the economy >Voting for the republikek party

File: 1480572593130.gif (547KB, 210x158px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 210x158px

So when CTR got ass blasted on /pol/ when they lost they came here? huh...

File: 1483707352930.png (13KB, 326x245px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 326x245px

>>718046065
>Hurr durr this data contradicts my preconceived notions XD

>Shill shill shill XD

>>718046144
raising GDP does not correlate to a better economy in this graph. It simply shows times when libtards poured a shit ton of money into social/job programs. How about showing a graph of the GDP years after these dem presidents put tax money into this programs.

File: Deficits2014.png (65KB, 632x445px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 632x445px

>>718046589
You republicans like to look at the debt, right?
Look at the budget deficit numbers in pic related. even you must admit the democrats are simply better for the debt.

Let me remind you that the budget deficit = spending vs earning of the government

>inb4 but but obama doubled the debt XD
Yes, but the spending vs earning ratio of the government dramatically improved under obama. it's not his fault he inherited a terrible deficit from bush

>>718045870
The unemployment statistic is deceiving, you should instead look at the labor participation rate which is the lowest it's been since the 1970's.

>>718045870

You know GDP growth without debt accounting is like meaningless. I you take a loan your value grows (you have more cash o buy some shit), but your net value is about the same.

That's even before taking account deinsdustrialization and conversion of jobs from high value secondary sector into shit tier service jobs (I thinks Americans use the derogatory term 'flippin burgers').

Not telling the GOP did better, simply the data you show isn't worth a shit with a lot more of context. Looks like some bullshit propaganda from mainstream media

File: 1482289605231.jpg (12KB, 477x483px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 477x483px

>>718046589
To continue on my own post. When pouring metric fuck ton of money into something like a national job program to create jobs, it manages to lower the unemployment rate for the time being which means more people working which means more people spending which then correlates to a higher GDP. Hence the common term "Stimulus". However, once the tax money dry's up and, or the program has been completed/cancelled. The jobs are lost, people are no longer able to spend as much, and so the GDP is lowered. This is why all these dem presidents have higher GDP when in office. Not because there doing a good job. But because there all doing the same thing. Over and over again. I will admit, in times of a great depression. Programs like this have a positive effect since literally no one is employed and everyone is out of business. Which is why FDR gets a pass. Everyone else on that graph can suck a gross domestic cock.

File: 1472408997883.png (597KB, 1403x1052px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 1403x1052px

>>718046977
The labor participation rate is in decline not just because of the economy but also because of demographic reason (the baby boomer generation).

When the ratio between old people and young people change, the labour participation rate change. that is a demographic change that is not economy related.

Pic related is how many jobs were created under obama

File: IMG_0976.jpg (112KB, 1242x778px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1242x778px

>votes for Republican
>republican is 2 weeks from Inauguration
>DOW has been breaking record
>All time high
>If does what says, expect to see 25 within a year - two

>>718047021
See this about the debt >>718046804

>>718047180
Don't worry, it will be just like what happened with bush. people will realize how terrible trump is for the economy once they will start actually feeling it and how it impacts their life negatively

>>718046804
kekorino.
>only using three presidents
>only using one republican president
>thinking its all bush's fault when it was the banks who where spending shit they didn't have
Nice graph m8. Do you have one showing how much larger my cock is compared to everyone else?

>>718045870
>Choosing a side
Pathetic

>>718047286
It's just the graph i had in my folder, if you want something more in depth go and read this research which looks at the economy under various presidents.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/10/AER_revision.pdf

It shows very clearly that democrats are better for economy in many different stats.

>>718047388
Well, but one side is clearly and unequivocally better for the economy than the other side, anon.

>>718047286
>muhpublicans dindu nuffin

File: IMG_0977.jpg (115KB, 1242x699px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1242x699px

>>718047180
>>718047280
Here's a closer 2926 analysis. I've been in this business for about 15 years, I've seen it goto shit and now I'm seeing it prosper. Donald trump is the best thing to happen to this market in decades!

>>718047392
>Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Economics
stopped reading there.

>>718047460
2016 analysis *

>>718047420
Based off what, some ass hats opinion?

File: 1483694852029.png (12KB, 736x537px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 736x537px

>>718047460
>>718047512
>Things get better when obama is still in office
>The economic policy is still obama's economic policy

>NAH ITS TRUMP IMPROVING THE ECONOMY XD XD XD XD XD

Maximum zozzle my friend

>>718045870
Republicans have been defunding public education in order to sway uneducated voters to vote against their self interests.
They try to suppress the voters who will not vote against their self interests.
Trump is the ultimate result of this strategy.

>>718047637
Based on the stats i presented in this thread

>>718047392
the performance gap is large
and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor
in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it
appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP
performance, and perhaps greater defense spending and faster growth abroad.
>the economy was less volatile while democrats were in office.
The paper literally contradicts itself in the opening preface.

>>718047745
The democrats and republicans have a drastically different economic platform.

The paper does not only how democrats are better for economy, it shows they are MUCH better for the economy. the paper tries to not be partisan and blame it on "luck", but in fact it's not luck. it's lefty economic policy simply being better.

Why do you think most economists vote democrat? because they actually know that.

>>718047718
Those constantly inconsistent graphs made by biased fucks with missing variables? Very eye opening.

>>718047932
They are not inconsistent graphs.

And many of them are from the national bureau of statistics which as far as i know was never proven to be wrong.

Want to see a proof republicans don't know what they are talking about? here is trump claiming the unemployment is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and 42% at different parts of his campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np40ayMJI1Y

File: IMG_0978.jpg (124KB, 1242x839px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1242x839px

>>718047683
Just look at this, it's not his polices as much as it is people expecting and wanting Trumps economic policy. Before the primaries, was iffy, then before the results for primary were final, went down. When trump was announced winner of primary, it shot back up. Then brexit happened and causes an economic shift. Then the market went even no major rise or fall. Until election night. People saw it was close and that he eventually won. The leftist media put everyone into disarray and caused economic panic. But people realized he's a business man and an economic genius and started having faith in his future as our president. Thus showing how great the markets been doing. This has been the best post election results the market has seen in decades and I and my colleagues refer to it as "the American people's faith" in Donald Trump and his economic plan. They know he can make them money, and if we keep jobs here, and make America a manufacturer and not an importer, then we will thrive and you will see the markets boom and we will be in a Golden Age. Mark my words and invest now. All you can afford to do. You won't regret it in 6-12 months!

>>718048120
Forgot to mention, from brexit to the no major change was the market adjusting. Everyone realized that them leaving wasn't the end of the world and the market went back to the way it was, and even shot up a bit.

File: djia-incl-dividends-inflation-adjusted-1999-mar-2013_large.png (47KB, 580x388px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 580x388px

>>718048120
I wonder why you avoid showing the DOW under the entirety of obama presidency.

As you can clearly see, the DOW was experience a sharp growth regardless of brexit and trump. in fact, the very graph you showed demonstrated that brexit and trump caused a dent in the DOW, not an improvement

>>718048289
>>718048296
This is from this page btw
http://www.chron.com/business/fool/article/3-Graphs-to-Understand-the-Dow-s-New-Record-High-4342210.php

>>718048010

But the unemployment rate is actually around those numbers.

"Unemployed" means "able-bodied person who can and should be expected to have a job".

It's cheating to say "Well, this 28-year-old able-bodied male is technically unemployed, but he "isn't looking for work/doesn't care about a job", so he doesn't affect the unemployment rate.

Tens of millions of able-bodied, appropriately-aged persons who should have jobs have been shuffled into the "isn't looking for work" job to artificially drop the unemployment rate.

Pro-tip: If you think that's bullshit, ask yourself why the total number of people under welfare/food stamps has doubled in the past decade, while the total population has only gone up by 10%.

>>718047392
>Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better
fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim. If anything, and
we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions
seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president—even though GDP grows
significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by
Republicans.

page 37

really makes me think

>>718048010
Oh wow he's a jerk off who says shit to get retards rallied behind him, who'd have thought? Not unlike any politician or government official iv'e seen. Grow a pair and stop eating shit from the same ass crack. Different policies are a different standard to a different people.

First off, this graph is completely wrong. You can even see how it dropped when he took office, also putting a nail in your ideal. Secondly the market never hit 19k for the first time until November. So your 2013 statistic is completely wrong.

>>718048296
He's doing the same retarded shit climate change deniers do where they only take a tiny chunk of the graph and say "SEE! TOLD YOU IM RIGHT!!!"

File: anime-cute-anime-girl-art-colorful-Favim.com-3241816.jpg (20KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x465px

>>718048120
>>718048289
And btw, let me add to that:

Trump is the most unpopular president in the history of the united states at the day of his election.

There is no correlation between the growth of the DOW and Trump's campaign. the DOW was growing much before his campaign even started

>>718048296
>>718048454
^ was in reply To your graph

>>718048454
>>718048500
The graph is not wrong.

The DOW was dropping during the great recession, and ever since then it was experienced a trend of growth BECAUSE of obama's economic policy.

I will say it again - trump is the single most unpopular president to ever get elected

>>718048120
>a business man and an economic genius

How many times has he been bankrupted again?

File: IMG_0979.jpg (317KB, 1242x1645px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1242x1645px

>>718048556
Proof that your "graph" is 100% wrong. A reputable source CNBC, states the market hit all time high or 19,000. Look at the date

>>718048659
He opened 3 casinos right next to each in Atlantic city, and all 3 of them got bankrupt because they cannibalized profits from each other.

what a "genius"

>>718048556
>Unpopular means unsuccessful
Only time tells for one, second, being popular gives room for being infamous, a sorry sack of shit, just like the democratic candidates this time around.

>>718048351
Chron is in no way a reputable source at all. Source a real business site and then we'll compare numbers.

File: 1114893-tommy_lee_jones.jpg (763KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1280x850px

>>718048687
Did you even look at the graph i provided?
The article does not contradict the graph.

It's just that the DOW was experiencing a sharp growth throughout obama's presidency.

Please stop being delusional.

>>718048796
http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obama-stock-market-performance-2016-6

""The reality, though, is that the stock market has done exceptionally well under President Obama," wrote Bespoke in a note out Thursday.

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average's performance [under Obama] of 120.6% ranks as the sixth best of any US President since 1900, just behind Reagan and comfortably ahead of Truman, who at 74.4% is far behind." "

>>718048659
He was a figure head in half of those businesses. And the ones he did have 100% control over he brought back and made sure they were good. As for the casinos, his children ruined those by making stupid deals. Alongside the fact that no one goes to Atlantic City anymore, and since Huricane Sandy, has never been the same.

>>718048120
>make America a manufacturer
In order for people to buy the goods you manufacture, they have to be priced competitively with the competition, which in this case is China and southeast Asia.

This goes one of two ways. You impose tariffs on imported goods or you sell your items at competitive prices. The former implies a relative rise in prices for consumers of those goods, while the latter implies paying your workers less to squeeze out a profit from your smaller margins.

>>718045870
Oh how you faggots don't understand politics and economics...

File: fuckouttahere.jpg (26KB, 480x542px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x542px

>>718047880
Did you even read the paper?
It goes on to say that the vast majority of the reason why democrats "seem" to be better is due to the economy at the time being stable. No oil shocks, no international crisis, heavy defense spending,(having contractors make weapons for the gov to buy) and the most important part, both job growth and GDP growth happen at the beginning of the presidents term. When looking at growth from Republicans, It was slow. Due to smaller use of Federal funds. Towards the end of there terms, they showed better GDP and a decrease in unemployment. Democrats on the other hand, spend large amounts of Federal funds into programs to rapidly create jobs and "stimulate" the economy. Once there 1st term is coming to a close and into there 2nd term. This growth slows and is even taken over statistically by the Republicans based on track record. Don't believe me? How about you read your own fucking article you use to pretend to give meaning to your bullshit graphs and semen spewing shit talk about how Democrats are better with the economy than Republicans.

>>718045870
Sources. Lol.

>>718048984
The paper does not provide reasoning as to which economic policy is better because it tries to not be partisan.

It just says that when looking at the actual data, democrats are better at almost every single statistic. and i will tell you this - it's the result of policy, not luck

>>718049010
The image in the OP provides a source below every graph

>>718049060
I know, it's hilarious.

>>718048893
And look at the last 3 months, rose nearly 16-17%. You can thank Donald Trump for that. Sadly Obama will get credited because he's acting president. But when you look into the facts and buying patterns of people, Trump is the victor in this economic miracle.

File: dow jones.png (107KB, 1320x738px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1320x738px

>>718048796
>>718048893
Here is the Dow Jones in the past 5 years according to Yahoo Finance.

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/%5EDJI#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI6ZmFsc2UsImJvbGxpbmdlclVwcGVyQ29sb3IiOiIjZTIwMDgxIiwiYm9sbGluZ2VyTG93ZXJDb2xvciI6IiM5NTUyZmYiLCJtZmlMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjNDVlM2ZmIiwibWFjZERpdmVyZ2VuY2VDb2xvciI6IiNmZjdiMTIiLCJtYWNkTWFjZENvbG9yIjoiIzc4N2Q4MiIsIm1hY2RTaWduYWxDb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAiLCJyc2lMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjZmZiNzAwIiwic3RvY2hLTGluZUNvbG9yIjoiI2ZmYjcwMCIsInN0b2NoRExpbmVDb2xvciI6IiM0NWUzZmYiLCJyYW5nZSI6IjV5In0%3D


The rise in the Dow has nothing to do with trump's campaign. it's because of obama's economic policy

>>718048984
Why would they read the article. They see the title and how it's bias and just send it without reading. Politics plays a major part in the market but you cannot let it control the whole thing. You can easily see benefits of both sides. When the country is in shit, it seems a republican stops the nonsense spending and creates long term jobs to prosper the economy for years to come.

File: 5870c83a8483e1df8b0177043758feb9ca769d4f6acadc6ed47062c4aa830a7d_3.jpg (28KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 245x245px

>>718049291
>The article shows republicans get worse GDP, worse Stock Market numbers, worse employment numbers and more recessions

>NAH GUYS!!! Republicans actually save the US, they were just unlucky and had more accidents

>>718049122
>Trump is the victor in this economic miracle.

Get Trump's dick out of your mouth for a second and think about what you're looking at rather than desperately trying to feed confirmation bias.

File: 1476600626209.gif (68KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 120x120px

>>718049037
Holy flying fucks that are flying fighter jets are you autistic.
The ENTIRE ARTICLE is about showing what seems to be that Dem's have better policies than Republicans and showing through variables and motherfucking SCIENCE that it is all bullshit. They were able to account for over 60% of the D-R difference and even said them fucking self's, the other 40% is a mystery.

>>718049364

It is true that people trend towards conservatism when things are getting shit. It's not a leap to suggest that republicans would be more likely to be elected when shit needs fixing.

Not a republican and not arguing with the stats, though.

>>718049349
Look at the graph in the OP and see the GDP bush inherited from clinton and how he made it go to shit.

The picture is more obvious when you look at every 4 years term on it's own

>>718049388
to add to this super post, That "staggering difference" for the D-R to begin with is a whopping 1.9% and they figured over 60% of that has to due with oil shocks and Democrats being in office when the economy wasn't in shit or when a war was over and got to play with the bonus labor/money.

>>718049542
Democrats start wars, Republicans had to end them. Up until Bush.

>>718049542
Exactly. It depends on what's going on at the time, and what world affairs are. Within the Obama administration, we've not been involved in any serious war or conflict. The only thing we had was isis attacks and that's a daily to weekly shock, let alone a war that is yearly or tri yearly shock

>>718049461
Casually forgetting the 2008 financial crisis

>>718049857
Financial crysis is exactly what happens when you decide that it's a good idea to deregulate wall street

>>718050375
wrongo me bucko
financial crisis is exactly what happens when you bail companies out letting all the bankers and phat cats on wall street, who were the ones directly responsible for the 2008 crisis that its okay to keep doing the same thing that put us in the situation. Because, if another recession were to happen because of the same idiots at wall street. The'll just get bailed out. and so the cycle continues.

>>718046065

>muh CTR

Just going to ignore the fucking MASSIVE collective of Russian troll brigade propagandists then, eh?

>>718047180

>not realizing the Fed is working overtime to keep the market from crashing under Trump transitional uncertainty and incompetence.

DOW caused an actual shutdown panic when Trump was elected. It felt over 350 points.

>>718045870
Obama - 8 years of 2% growth

>there's your answer dipshit

>>718051206
Which is a much better growth than bush

File: Republican traitors.jpg (20KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 236x236px

>>718051206

Daily Reminder: the regrowth was slowed and sabotaged for 6.5 years by the subhuman trash in the House GOP.

>>718051644
and a much worse rate of growth than even the republican average, let alone the democrat average

>the obama economy has sucked for 8 years

>>718051829
>Occupy Democrats
Immediately invalidated

File: 1483078299512.jpg (83KB, 964x605px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 964x605px

>>718051829
Daily Reminder: Obama came to the Presidency with huge majorities in both the House & the Senate, and he squandered all of his political capital on a mandatory health insurance law that caused the Democrats to lose their huge majorities and cede control of the legislature.

>13th dimensional chess

>>718052484

>attacking source not content, which is a direct quote.

immediately ridiculed for the butthurt retard you are.

>>718047482
I'm surprised you could even read that much

>>718052607
That's just the way of politics. Say one thing in position another one in opposition. It's nothing new, all political parties does. Commenting on the picture, not your written texty word things.

>>718053091
yes

politics is blatant hypocrisy

>remember that fact if you ever find yourself having a shred of respect for any politician