Assholes's Speech

Mike Pence used a private email on an easily-hacked consumer email provider server. Pence used this private account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.

Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked this past summer.


http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...cked/98604904/ Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Oh.....Now your claim is not private email server. Private email you now claim. Was that illegal? No. It wasn't illegal. Snowflakes spreading fake news......Loser.

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1059349735]

He keeps rolling back Obama's policies that have kept employment and the economy down.

/QUOTE]

Would you stop with the economy. DJIA was about 6600 when Obama took office and was close to 19,000 when he left office. Unemployment down. Consumer sentiment (confidence) was about 55% when Obama took office and about 98% when he left office. It would be difficult to find any economic indicator that did not improve while Obama was in office. Originally Posted by centexguy

UNDER OBAMA THIS IS THE ECONOMY:

- lowest labor participation rate since 1979
- lowest home ownership in 51 years
- 11 million more people on Food Stamps
- numbers of Americans in poverty rose to 43 million
- 1 in 5 families have not even one member in the workforce
- 1 in 6 men between 18 and 34 incarcerated or out of the workforce
- more debt than all other Presidents combined, increase of 9.3 tillion
- 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost in 8 years
- 732 billion dollar trade deficit
- health insurance premiums up 24 percent in last year alone
- in 2008 a family insurance plan cost was on average 12,680. and rose to 18,142....an increase of 43 percent under the "Affordable" Care Act

As for last year's Census Bureau report claiming a 5 percent increase in average family income in one year you can put this misinformation in perspective by listening to an economist describe the context here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDdL9r1fvhY
median income 20 year decline

Also during this era of hardship for most people for the super rich they were immune from harm and became even richer year after year (remember Obama's biggest contributors were banks)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DT-DTQke58
rich get richer during recession



Oh and for most people the fact that the stock market is way up doesn't mean shit. The fact that you would cite that as evidence of economic health shows your bias toward the super rich and your indifference against the great American middle class that made this country great once, and who voted for our leader Donald Trump! Only someone like Trump can restore the middle class (well maybe).

If you are going to give Trump credit, then you need to give Obama credit as well. However, you mainly say negative things about people that don't fit your ideological bent. Generally, presidents get too much credit and blame for economic outcomes. The Fed, Congressional budgets/laws, and macroeconomic events have bigger impacts...

If you back out the first 2 years of Obama's presidency (when the US economy shrank almost 3%... UK almost 5% and US unemployment rate was 10%) the GDP growth was ~2.5%. Not great for traditional recession recoveries, but 2008 was not a traditional recession. And that is pretty close to long term growth rate of our mature economy. Originally Posted by EagleEye

It's too early to give Trump credit for anything other than the run-up in the stock market and improved consumer confidence - and I wouldn't necessarily give him 100% credit for those. I'm not saying anything to fit an "ideological bent". As an economist, I look at the data - it is what it is. It's not ideological in the least to note that when government imposes regulatory costs on the private sector, it slows growth. That's just a fact. Ask any reputable economist.

Below are the numbers for real GDP growth under Obama. Even if you back out the first 2 years, annual growth averaged less than 2%. I have no idea where you came up with your 2.5% figure, which would add trillions of dollars to national output. Also, in the two decades from 1981 to 2000, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.4%. So you are quite wrong to say recent growth is "close to long term growth rate of our mature economy". We used to do much better.

I do agree that Presidents get too much credit/blame for what happens on their watch. We can sometimes moderate the business cycle, but not eliminate it. If the subprime lending crisis had blown up a year later than it did (i.e. in late 2009 rather than late 2008), Obama might never have been elected. In 2008, the democrats were helped mightily by the fact that the economy, which had already been sputtering, slid into a free-fall two months before election day. Timing is everything.

Real GDP Growth Under Obama
2009: -2.8 percent
2010: 2.5 percent
2011: 1.6 percent
2012: 2.2 percent
2013: 1.5 percent
2014: 2.4 percent
2015: 2.4 percent
2016: 1.6 percent

Yeppers.

It's too early to give Trump credit for anything other than the run-up in the stock market and improved consumer confidence - and I wouldn't necessarily give him 100% credit for those. I'm not saying anything to fit an "ideological bent". As an economist, I look at the data - it is what it is. It's not ideological in the least to note that when government imposes regulatory costs on the private sector, it slows growth. That's just a fact. Ask any reputable economist.

Below are the numbers for real GDP growth under Obama. Even if you back out the first 2 years, annual growth averaged less than 2%. I have no idea where you came up with your 2.5% figure, which would add trillions of dollars to national output. Also, in the two decades from 1981 to 2000, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.4%. So you are quite wrong to say recent growth is "close to long term growth rate of our mature economy". We used to do much better.

I do agree that Presidents get too much credit/blame for what happens on their watch. We can sometimes moderate the business cycle, but not eliminate it. If the subprime lending crisis had blown up a year later than it did (i.e. in late 2009 rather than late 2008), Obama might never have been elected. In 2008, the democrats were helped mightily by the fact that the economy, which had already been sputtering, slid into a free-fall two months before election day. Timing is everything.

Real GDP Growth Under Obama
2009: -2.8 percent
2010: 2.5 percent
2011: 1.6 percent
2012: 2.2 percent
2013: 1.5 percent
2014: 2.4 percent
2015: 2.4 percent
2016: 1.6 percent Originally Posted by lustylad

I agree with you a couple of things. 1) President's do get too much credit for things that they can sway but not control. 2) Regulations can stall growth. Also I won't argue your Real GDP numbers, I don't argue data.

However, those regulations didn't slow private sector growth under Obama. He actually had 70 plus months of job growth (longest on record) and that was almost all in the private sector. In fact, he had almost 10 million more private sector jobs added than Bush. But let's talk about the jobs that swung the election. The Trump voter who swung states like Ohio and Pennsylvania were pro Trump because he promised them something no President can accomplish without doing what you said Obama did but at an even higher level. Trump would have to regulate companies to ensure that those coal and manufacturing jobs come back. The thing is the jobs they had have been phased out. Natural gas is cheaper than coal so it's killing those jobs. And Trump is pro fracking and Keystone, so they directly lowers the need for more coal jobs. And manufacturing jobs are being phased out by computers. There use to be people who worked switchboards for phone companies, those people weren't needed anymore. No one was out campaigning to bring back those jobs. It was a selling point for Trump to get that bloc of voters. Yet companies have automated machines that can do it for a cheaper cost. Trump nominated Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. A man who wants to bring automation to the work place. Wouldn't that sped up the use of automation in manufacturing that's killing those jobs? My point is that the jobs that people are fighting to get back aren't coming back in the numbers they want. It's just not cost effective for a company to do it. And Trump would have to force those companies to and that would be against their "fiduciary responsibility".

Lastly on timing. If anyone benefited from timing, it's Trump. But I would argue that Obama and Trump didn't benefit from timing of things like subprime lending or ACA. They benefited from the fact that the other party had the office for 8 years. Go back to when the term rules were changed after FDR, no party gets more than 8 years. Maybe it's a self fulfilling prophecy that imposing the term limit signaled to people that no person or party should be in office more than 8 years. It's probable that it's fatigue. We like something new. New is exciting. That's why you run on change. You point out how different you are so that it's more alluring. So Obama was more likely than not to beat McCain or anyone running that cycle. The outlier was suppose to be Trump and even he proved that winning basically with the drain the swamp, changing Washington narrative.

It's too early to give Trump credit for anything other than the run-up in the stock market and improved consumer confidence - and I wouldn't necessarily give him 100% credit for those. I'm not saying anything to fit an "ideological bent". As an economist, I look at the data - it is what it is. It's not ideological in the least to note that when government imposes regulatory costs on the private sector, it slows growth. That's just a fact. Ask any reputable economist.

Below are the numbers for real GDP growth under Obama. Even if you back out the first 2 years, annual growth averaged less than 2%. I have no idea where you came up with your 2.5% figure, which would add trillions of dollars to national output. Also, in the two decades from 1981 to 2000, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.4%. So you are quite wrong to say recent growth is "close to long term growth rate of our mature economy". We used to do much better.

I do agree that Presidents get too much credit/blame for what happens on their watch. We can sometimes moderate the business cycle, but not eliminate it. If the subprime lending crisis had blown up a year later than it did (i.e. in late 2009 rather than late 2008), Obama might never have been elected. In 2008, the democrats were helped mightily by the fact that the economy, which had already been sputtering, slid into a free-fall two months before election day. Timing is everything.

Real GDP Growth Under Obama
2009: -2.8 percent
2010: 2.5 percent
2011: 1.6 percent
2012: 2.2 percent
2013: 1.5 percent
2014: 2.4 percent
2015: 2.4 percent
2016: 1.6 percent Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't think I am wrong. My source is here: http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-gr.../table/by-year Also note the GDP in the 8 years proceeding Obama:
2008 -2.77%
2007 1.87%
2006 2.39%
2005 3.03%
2004 3.12%
2003 4.36%
2002 2.04%
2001 0.21%
2000 2.89%

Average 1.9%.

I am not defending his economic record, merely pointing out it is not nearly as bad on a historical basis. Hard to compare the US in the last 8-10 years with the 80s and 90s, especially given the changing demographics (i.e., aging) of the US population.

Oh.....Now your claim is not private email server. Private email you now claim. Was that illegal? No. It wasn't illegal. Snowflakes spreading fake news. Originally Posted by veedub63

veedub, the Neurotransmitter-challenged simpleton, is not intelligent enough to understand the difference between factual reporting and fake news.

Ignorant and/or deceitful people use the term "fake news" for whatever they don't want to hear, regardless of whether their are facts to back it up. Did I report that what Pence did was illegal? No, but it was reckless, as Hillary's use of emails was. It makes hypocrites out of those who blasted Hillary but want to completely ignore Mike Pence's use of private email and less than private "GoDaddy"-type commercial server.

Dipshits like veedub wanted to lock Hillary up for doing things reckless but not illegal. Dipshit hypocrites don't want Mike Pence treated the same way for doing something reckless but not illegal.

Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically.

The following quote is factual reporting by the IndyStar. It is not a hoax and it is not misinformation:

Mike Pence used a private email on an easily-hacked consumer email provider server. Pence used this private account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.

Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked this past summer.


http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...cked/98604904/ Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Oh Cap'n - When you quoted Veebud - you forgot the loser part. Just trying to be helpful

Oh.....Now your claim is not private email server. Private email you now claim. Was that illegal? No. It wasn't illegal. Snowflakes spreading fake news......Loser. Originally Posted by veedub63

veedub, the Neurotransmitter-challenged simpleton, is not intelligent enough to understand the difference between factual reporting and fake news.

Ignorant and/or deceitful people use the term "fake news" for whatever they don't want to hear, regardless of whether their are facts to back it up. Did I report that what Pence did was illegal? No, but it was reckless, as Hillary's use of emails was. It makes hypocrites out of those who blasted Hillary but want to completely ignore Mike Pence's use of private email and less than private "GoDaddy"-type commercial server.

Dipshits like veedubwanted to lock Hillary up for doing things reckless but not illegal. Dipshit hypocrites don't want Mike Pence treated the same way for doing something reckless but not illegal.

Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically.

The following quote is factual reporting by the IndyStar. It is not a hoax and it is not misinformation: Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Cappy, you might want to know that Veedub is a fictional character. I find it quite humorous that another fictional character, namely Cappy would feign such disappointment and anger. Almost as though the person hiding behind Cappy is actually expressing sincere feelings. Well, maybe not humorous, but it is pathetic.

Go back to your LOL endeavors Cappy........and be careful.

It's too early to give Trump credit for anything other than the run-up in the stock market and improved consumer confidence - and I wouldn't necessarily give him 100% credit for those. I'm not saying anything to fit an "ideological bent". As an economist, I look at the data - it is what it is. It's not ideological in the least to note that when government imposes regulatory costs on the private sector, it slows growth. That's just a fact. Ask any reputable economist.

Below are the numbers for real GDP growth under Obama. Even if you back out the first 2 years, annual growth averaged less than 2%. I have no idea where you came up with your 2.5% figure, which would add trillions of dollars to national output. Also, in the two decades from 1981 to 2000, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.4%. So you are quite wrong to say recent growth is "close to long term growth rate of our mature economy". We used to do much better.

I do agree that Presidents get too much credit/blame for what happens on their watch. We can sometimes moderate the business cycle, but not eliminate it. If the subprime lending crisis had blown up a year later than it did (i.e. in late 2009 rather than late 2008), Obama might never have been elected. In 2008, the democrats were helped mightily by the fact that the economy, which had already been sputtering, slid into a free-fall two months before election day. Timing is everything.

Real GDP Growth Under Obama
2009: -2.8 percent
2010: 2.5 percent
2011: 1.6 percent
2012: 2.2 percent
2013: 1.5 percent
2014: 2.4 percent
2015: 2.4 percent
2016: 1.6 percent Originally Posted by lustylad

Take these GDP numbers and take a full point off each one because of population increase. When corrected for population increase the economy nationwide hasn't grown much in twenty years or more. The population has exploded from 240 million in 1980 to 320 million today, and it's this growth alone which explains the increases in sales of homes, apartments, cars, beer and toothpaste.

But per capita growth has been flat.

Oh Cap'n - When you quoted Veebud - you forgot the loser part. Just trying to be helpful Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Thank you. I had to think about it for a second, but it all makes sense (veedub aka loser).

I forgot about how some people end their posts with their name or nickname, like a signature line......Cap'n

I agree with you a couple of things. 1) President's do get too much credit for things that they can sway but not control. 2) Regulations can stall growth. Also I won't argue your Real GDP numbers, I don't argue data.

However, those regulations didn't slow private sector growth under Obama. He actually had 70 plus months of job growth (longest on record) and that was almost all in the private sector. In fact, he had almost 10 million more private sector jobs added than Bush. But let's talk about the jobs that swung the election. The Trump voter who swung states like Ohio and Pennsylvania were pro Trump because he promised them something no President can accomplish without doing what you said Obama did but at an even higher level. Trump would have to regulate companies to ensure that those coal and manufacturing jobs come back. The thing is the jobs they had have been phased out. Natural gas is cheaper than coal so it's killing those jobs. And Trump is pro fracking and Keystone, so they directly lowers the need for more coal jobs. And manufacturing jobs are being phased out by computers. There use to be people who worked switchboards for phone companies, those people weren't needed anymore. No one was out campaigning to bring back those jobs. It was a selling point for Trump to get that bloc of voters. Yet companies have automated machines that can do it for a cheaper cost. Trump nominated Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor. A man who wants to bring automation to the work place. Wouldn't that sped up the use of automation in manufacturing that's killing those jobs? My point is that the jobs that people are fighting to get back aren't coming back in the numbers they want. It's just not cost effective for a company to do it. And Trump would have to force those companies to and that would be against their "fiduciary responsibility".

Lastly on timing. If anyone benefited from timing, it's Trump. But I would argue that Obama and Trump didn't benefit from timing of things like subprime lending or ACA. They benefited from the fact that the other party had the office for 8 years. Go back to when the term rules were changed after FDR, no party gets more than 8 years. Maybe it's a self fulfilling prophecy that imposing the term limit signaled to people that no person or party should be in office more than 8 years. It's probable that it's fatigue. We like something new. New is exciting. That's why you run on change. You point out how different you are so that it's more alluring. So Obama was more likely than not to beat McCain or anyone running that cycle. The outlier was suppose to be Trump and even he proved that winning basically with the drain the swamp, changing Washington narrative. Originally Posted by Milly23

Manufacturing jobs were never phased out.

The first phase of manufacturing demise was thirty years ago when the U.S. allowed garmets and shoes to be imported from countries with slave labor, wiping out domestic companies and their employees.

The second phase began twenty years ago with NAFTA and the WTO. Under those agreements instead of American companies going out of business these companies moved their factories to China and Mexico to use their slave labor. Then when those products are brought to the United States they are counted as exports from China and Mexico even though they are American owned products made by American corporations.

Fuck dat shit.

Mike Pence used a private email on an easily-hacked consumer email provider server. Pence used this private account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.

Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked this past summer.


http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...cked/98604904/ Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

There is no such thing as "less secure" email accounts, or more secure email accounts. ALL email accounts can be penetrated with the right tools.

Pence violated no laws. He just operated email in an ignorant way just like John Podesta and everyone else who isn't in IT.

Hilary broke the law by violating specific Federal Statutes forbiding her from emailing content on a system other than that supplied by the State Department.

The only reason why she wasn't prosecuted is because the FBI under Comey declared that when she broke these laws that she didn't understand the illegality of her acts, which is not only not a defense legally but is also untrue. She signed documents stating that she was informed of these statutes.

Both Presidents simply didn't want her prosecuted. Trump said he would but he didn't really mean it. It was just something he said to get people fired up.

The truth is that Trump and Hilary have always been personal friends, but they are both hard competitors.

Manufacturing jobs were never phased out.

The first phase of manufacturing demise was thirty years ago when the U.S. allowed garmets and shoes to be imported from countries with slave labor, wiping out domestic companies and their employees.

The second phase began twenty years ago with NAFTA and the WTO. Under those agreements instead of American companies going out of business these companies moved their factories to China and Mexico to use their slave labor. Then when those products are brought to the United States they are counted as exports from China and Mexico even though they are American owned products made by American corporations.

Fuck dat shit. Originally Posted by pussycat

Yeah the manufacturing jobs are being loss because of cheaper labor. That's not going to change. But don't ignore what automation did to those jobs. And actually there is a new method that we saw last year, were a Chinese company actually opened their plant here in Ohio. Why? Because it's about 35% less of a tax hit here than China. So while it seems that China is talking all our jobs, the trend could reverse and even out. But since you want to talk to me about those damn government agencies allowing our jobs to go overseas. That dame NAFTA (created by Bush I). A man once said the people in another country have to work too. I wonder who that was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYoOPgeTMQc

Yeah the manufacturing jobs are being loss because of cheaper labor. That's not going to change. But don't ignore what automation did to those jobs. Originally Posted by Milly23

Automation, computers and online retail are all huge factors. And because of this trajectory, job growth will continue to be a challenge. Trump claims he can miraculously change this trajectory and he sold this bravado to his supporters.
I honestly just don't see it happening. But since Trump promised this and was elected based on his promises, he had better prove me wrong.