Hiring by US businesses hits a record high

means-tested benefits

Benefits that are available only to individuals whose income is below a certain level. For example, in the U.S. food stamps are a means-tested benefit. They are available only to low-income families.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/means-tested-benefits.html

The analysis is base on Means-test benefit spending.

 

You know that your descendants will eventually pay for your tax cut (or should I say tax deferment)?

I also see that you are not commenting on the GDP growth numbers for Q2? Is the Trump tax cut sugar high already running out of steam, eventually leading to the predicted hypoglycemia?

 

So your chart says we spend 700 Billion on food stamps?

 

Good point.. So then I suspect you should also give the republicans congress credit for cutting military spending during this same period?

 

Nope, not just.. Means tested benefits. Snap program does account for a chunk of it, however (roughly 11%).

 

Since the BEA doesn't report Q2 GDP until June 27, I have no comment at this time.

Bearish investors may make predictions but that's all they are until actual numbers are released.

Do I expect an economic slowdown this quarter, probably. Less than 3.1% but higher than what the bears are predicting.
Do I expect a recession, No, and probably not this year.

There’s no need to get emotional about this report as initial estimates are subject to revisions.

 

You started comparing the two presidents and continue to do so in point 3 that compared two years to eight. I merely pointed out obamas avg GDP which was 2%and the fact that in eight years he is the first president never to achieve 3%annual GDP in a full term. Obama had two shots at that and failed. love repeating that at every opportunity.

 

Merely look at Obama's last 2 years to Trumps first 2 years.

 

Well, SNAP bene's are down some since 2016 but, yeah there are still over 41 million households getting food stamps so the numbers are still way up there.

National and/or State Level Monthly and/or Annual Data
Latest Available Month March 2019
Annual:
FY 2019 - 27,413,031,048 (through 03 2019)
FY2018 - 60,407,786,888
FY2017 - 63,711,051,076
FY2016 - 66,539,269,256

https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

 

Why are you noting it when I did in my post?

"The Democrats, including Senator Obama and then President Obama............."

FYI the Democrats won back the Congress November of 2006 and took that control January of 2007.

Hardly. 2011 comes after 2010 and unemployment didn't begin is steady decline until 2011. As I said it was after 2010 that we started to see that steady improvement, after the the Republicans took back the House and them mover power they took back the better things got.

 

Oh yes, Republicans are magical.

 

So the changed tune goes. Your initial claim was that the decline started during 2010. You changed to "after 2010" only after our discussion. Hence the shifting goalposts. Again: you are only proving that the conclusion is more important to you than the evidence behind it. The moment I bring it to your attention that the evidence you mention does not support your conclusion, rather than questioning your conclusion, you change what evidence you want to look at. One moment it is all about who is in control of Congress, the next it isn't. One moment the trend started in 2010, then next it didn't start until after 2010. The only thing that changed was your awareness that the control of Congress and the year in question did not support your conclusion in the way you had previously claimed.

 

I never compared 2 years to 8. That was you folks. I looked over the course of 10 years in total and openly invited you to expand the conversation past that if you like or to look at any other economic indicator you wish. I'll keep making the same argument no matter what economic indicator you'd like to discuss over the course of 10+ years. You, on the other hand, continue trying to compare 2 years to 8 and you even did so again in this post. I repeat: please make up your mind.

If I had wanted to compare 2 years to 8 I would have shown my graph for the 8 years, drawn a trend line, then for the next 2 and drawn a separate trend line, and then compared the slope of the 2 lines, the steeper slope showing stronger growth. Unlike you guys, though, I'm not comparing 2 years to 8, and I agree with your assessment that to do so would be dishonest. One second you say it would be dishonest and the next you use exactly that kind of tactic. I, meanwhile, have remained consistent.

 

Desperate, nonsensical dodges/strawmen around the world.

Quoted post 2019: 1

 

Obama received honors for his advanced degree. Trump received no honors for his bachelors and then lied about being top of his class.

 

No it isn't, tariffs are alive in the world.

Even the United States has tariffs on imports from countries that we don't have trade agreements with.

Some act if tariffs are a bad thing and don't exist today.

The oligarchy..."New World Order" globalist want to remove all tariffs in the word.

I have a friend from Australia who becomes a visas overstay (illegal alien) every time he comes to America.

He's a smuggler, the tariffs in Australia on Chevrolet Corvettes are so freaking high he smuggles Corvettes into Australia.

Tariff
Get past, current, and future U.S. tariff rates in multiple formats.
https://dataweb.usitc.gov/tariff

 

"Tariffs are alive in the world" is a straw man. No one argued that tariffs don't exist. No one. ever. At all. How did you stumble on that complete misrepresentation?

 

But Obama doesn't have an Obama Force One.

There was Hillary's Force One but nothing comparable to Trump Force One.

 

What's consistent and what you consistently avoid is Obama's average GDP was 2% over eight years and he's the first post war president not to achieve a single yearly GDP of 3% and he had two shots at it. If that's an economic record you want to defend go for it but to do so is laughable.

 

Your "responses" grow increasingly non-responsive and non-sensical and still have yet to actually address anything I've said in the slightest.

 

The method you are using (8 years vs 2) is one you've described as dishonest. Please make up your mind. I will continue repeating this observation until you actually address it . . . which, let's face it, is never going to happen. But at least it will keep being entertaining.

 

I have no idea why you think making **** up is in any way a valid argument or rebuttal to anything I said.

 

Of course

 

So does a portion of veterans pension

 

He also had to deal with the worst recession in 80 years, and still managed to turn that around, cut UE in half, double the stock market and holds the record for mostly consecutive months of job creation of any US president.