Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

Labor Force Participation Rate continues Rebound from depths of Obama's crappy economy

2»

Comments

  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,562
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:




    A steep steady decline in the Labor Participation rate all through the Obama years as the Food Stamp President continued to reward people for not working.
    H loved the boomer retirement excuse

    That line looks like its finally going back up
    I guess Bill Clinton must have been the greatest President evah!


    Meanwhile, back in the rational world:

    “In 2019, the last of the baby boomers will reach age 55 and transition into age groups with much lower labor force participation rates. Due in large part to an aging population, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026.”(emphasis added)

    -Bureau of Labor Statistics
    The Clinton era was good. He focused on the economy, stupid. He worked with Congress and the good times rolled

    I go for results. I voted for him twice
    You can’t be right. Income taxes went up from the very start of his presidency. Communism!
    What a simlpe minded idiot

    https://forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/#4f4ec146e8ae

    The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

    If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

    During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

    For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

    However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

    Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
    The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
    In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
    The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
    Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
    The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

    The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

    Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
    Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
    As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
    Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
    Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,221
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:




    A steep steady decline in the Labor Participation rate all through the Obama years as the Food Stamp President continued to reward people for not working.
    H loved the boomer retirement excuse

    That line looks like its finally going back up
    I guess Bill Clinton must have been the greatest President evah!


    Meanwhile, back in the rational world:

    “In 2019, the last of the baby boomers will reach age 55 and transition into age groups with much lower labor force participation rates. Due in large part to an aging population, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026.”(emphasis added)

    -Bureau of Labor Statistics
    The Clinton era was good. He focused on the economy, stupid. He worked with Congress and the good times rolled

    I go for results. I voted for him twice
    You can’t be right. Income taxes went up from the very start of his presidency. Communism!
    What a simlpe minded idiot

    https://forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/#4f4ec146e8ae

    The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

    If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

    During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

    For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

    However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

    Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
    The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
    In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
    The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
    Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
    The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

    The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

    Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
    Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
    As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
    Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
    Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
    You know, of course, that you won’t be invited to the GOP barbecue when you say Clinton gets credit for anything. More importantly, the tax cuts you cite didn’t remotely undo the tax increases of 1993, which affected much larger swaths of the population than those targeted cuts did. The economy should have swooned according to your team. It didn’t.
  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,954
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,221
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    edited February 2020

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    Just so you know, there's this large demographic called "Baby Boomers" making its way through the later stages of life. I know it's Daddy Uber Alles for you hens, but the long term decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate says more about the graying of America than it does anything else.
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,221
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    Just so you know, there's this large demographic called "Baby Boomers" making its way through the later stages of life. I know it's Daddy Uber Alles for you hens, but the long term decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate says more about the graying of America than it does anything else.
    Imagine rooting against prosperity.
    Someone should really help you, Mike. You're pressing.
  • Options
    MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,781
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    edited February 2020

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    We know he has daddy issues. He was forced to suck his dads cock and is struggling with those memories. He sees trump as his poppa.
  • Options
    SledogSledog Member Posts: 30,924
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:




    A steep steady decline in the Labor Participation rate all through the Obama years as the Food Stamp President continued to reward people for not working.
    H loved the boomer retirement excuse

    That line looks like its finally going back up
    I guess Bill Clinton must have been the greatest President evah!


    Meanwhile, back in the rational world:

    “In 2019, the last of the baby boomers will reach age 55 and transition into age groups with much lower labor force participation rates. Due in large part to an aging population, the labor force participation rate for all workers (age 16 and over) is projected to decline to 61.0 percent in 2026.”(emphasis added)

    -Bureau of Labor Statistics
    The Clinton era was good. He focused on the economy, stupid. He worked with Congress and the good times rolled

    I go for results. I voted for him twice
    You can’t be right. Income taxes went up from the very start of his presidency. Communism!
    What a simlpe minded idiot

    https://forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/#4f4ec146e8ae

    The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

    If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

    During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

    For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

    However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

    Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
    The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
    In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
    The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
    Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
    The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

    The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

    Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
    Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
    As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
    Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
    Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
    Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. His successor dealt with the bust.
  • Options
    WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 13,969
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Standard Supporter
    Clinton's spending was also constrained by Newt and a much more conservative House. Then they all became swamp people and sold out.


  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,954
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    HHusky said:

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    Just so you know, there's this large demographic called "Baby Boomers" making its way through the later stages of life. I know it's Daddy Uber Alles for you hens, but the long term decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate says more about the graying of America than it does anything else.
    No shite...that’s why when looking at the 25-54 age range after years of decay and stagnation it’s pretty impressive in the last 3 years it’s climbed to about where it was in 2007.

    Thanks for (unknowingly) reinforcing the positive outcome of your daddy’s economic policies.
  • Options
    2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes

    HHusky said:

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    Just so you know, there's this large demographic called "Baby Boomers" making its way through the later stages of life. I know it's Daddy Uber Alles for you hens, but the long term decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate says more about the graying of America than it does anything else.
    No shite...that’s why when looking at the 25-54 age range after years of decay and stagnation it’s pretty impressive in the last 3 years it’s climbed to about where it was in 2007.

    Thanks for (unknowingly) reinforcing the positive outcome of your daddy’s economic policies.
    No the labor participation rate is no where near 2007.
  • Options
    UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 14,278
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam

    HHusky said:

    With the last 3 years the 25-54 age group is almost back to 2007 levels. Its actually pretty impressive.

    Also why HHusky wanted to group the retired folks with them. And I’m sure it’s not because he has daddy issues.



    Just so you know, there's this large demographic called "Baby Boomers" making its way through the later stages of life. I know it's Daddy Uber Alles for you hens, but the long term decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate says more about the graying of America than it does anything else.
    No shite...that’s why when looking at the 25-54 age range after years of decay and stagnation it’s pretty impressive in the last 3 years it’s climbed to about where it was in 2007.

    Thanks for (unknowingly) reinforcing the positive outcome of your daddy’s economic policies.
    He’s too much off a dumbfuck to realize his arguments against his position. Lol. What a bitch
    H once again showing off that deep knowledge of economics. The hilarious thing is that he keeps acting like he has a fucking clue.
  • Options
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    The way I look at that chart. It was much higher in 2013 than now. HTH
    Obama just needed a little bit for tim for his policies to fully take affect.
Sign In or Register to comment.