The Trump Economy

[BeginnersMind]

22 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Crediting Obama with fiscal conservatism is like Housley praising the Sabres for scoring 2 goals in the 3rd period after they gave up 6 in the 2nd.  

 

We don’t have it now either. This leadership group is just paying for ***** with more deficit. 

 

The Rs are less responsible than the Ds on spending. They pretend to know better!

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

I love when people scream headlines but don’t read the article they posted. 

HAHA Gator does a little jig when he reads a headline that he thinks is bad for the USA. I wonder if it was enough to get a belly laugh, or if he needs someone to die to get that kind of response?

Edited March 8, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[row_33]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Crediting Obama with fiscal conservatism is like Housley praising the Sabres for scoring 2 goals in the 3rd period after they gave up 6 in the 2nd.  

 

he was a suitable President for his day

 

 

[3rdnlng]

34 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

he was a suitable President for his day

 

 

No, no he wasn't. He campaigned on fundamentally changing America and when he couldn't buy legislators off (like he did with the ACA) he just made up Executive Orders to do what he wanted. Those EO's set us back in many ways, specifically with the economy and immigration and their reversal has been a boon to our economy. Obama was worse than Carter and will be viewed as such in the future. He was a scoundrel who schemed his way to try to get what he wanted.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[row_33]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, no he wasn't. He campaigned on fundamentally changing America and when he couldn't buy legislators off (like he did with the ACA) he just made up Executive Orders to do what he wanted. Those EO's set us back in many ways, specifically with the economy and immigration and their reversal has been a boon to our economy. Obama was worse than Carter and will be viewed as such in the future. He was a scoundrel who schemed his way to try to get what he wanted.

 

 

even as a conservative i have no real complaints about him

 

it's just doesn't matter and it's not worth it to complain.

 

this wasn't Carter bumbling along leading to the Reagan Doctrine, which has basically lasted right to this day and the next 6 years at a minimum.... 

 

 

 

 

[TPS]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Crediting Obama with fiscal conservatism is like Housley praising the Sabres for scoring 2 goals in the 3rd period after they gave up 6 in the 2nd.  

I wasn't crediting him.  You stated that lackluster growth during his terms proved that huge Keynesian spending policies don't work. I am simply pointing out that, while there was a temporary stimulus to help stabilize the economy, spending declined for most of the rest of his terms--there was no additional Keynesian expansion after that, and the Republicans certainly saw to this in his second term.  

Again, Trump has been more of a Keynesian than post-2010 Obama.  

 

52 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, no he wasn't. He campaigned on fundamentally changing America and when he couldn't buy legislators off (like he did with the ACA) he just made up Executive Orders to do what he wanted. Those EO's set us back in many ways, specifically with the economy and immigration and their reversal has been a boon to our economy. Obama was worse than Carter and will be viewed as such in the future. He was a scoundrel who schemed his way to try to get what he wanted.

 

I agree that ee was not a good president. Endless war and no visionary policies.

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

even as a conservative i have no real complaints about him

 

it's just doesn't matter and it's not worth it to complain.

 

this wasn't Carter bumbling along leading to the Reagan Doctrine, which has basically lasted right to this day and the next 6 years at a minimum.... 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/10/president-who-has-done-most-damage-dennis-prager/

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dicintio/110924

[row_33]

national review.... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..... the most toothless wussy "conservative voice" imaginable (since WFB gave up control)

 

i can only imagine what renewamerica is going to tilt toward

 

 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, TPS said:

I wasn't crediting him.  You stated that lackluster growth during his terms proved that huge Keynesian spending policies don't work. I am simply pointing out that, while there was a temporary stimulus to help stabilize the economy, spending declined for most of the rest of his terms--there was no additional Keynesian expansion after that, and the Republicans certainly saw to this in his second term.  

Again, Trump has been more of a Keynesian than post-2010 Obama.  

 

I agree that ee was not a good president. Endless war and no visionary policies.

Glad to see we agree on something. I do question your premise that Obama's spending declined after the first year or so. While you may be technically correct it's the same old trick the grocery stores use when they double the price on an item and then offer it at 33% off. If Obama raised spending by a trillion then the next year's spending was 900 billion he did reduce spending by 100 billion for that year but increased it by 900 billion from two years ago.

[row_33]

AGAIN!!!  It isn't 1% worth it to attack Obama, you will be stamped a racist for doing it as well.

 

let it go already.... and enjoy the greatness right now....

 

 

[GG]

2 minutes ago, TPS said:

I wasn't crediting him.  You stated that lackluster growth during his terms proved that huge Keynesian spending policies don't work. I am simply pointing out that, while there was a temporary stimulus to help stabilize the economy, spending declined for most of the rest of his terms--there was no additional Keynesian expansion after that, and the Republicans certainly saw to this in his second term.  

Again, Trump has been more of a Keynesian than post-2010 Obama.  

 

 

$871 billion stimulus package, 0% interest rates and QE begs to differ.   Just because it wasn't the classic utility of throwing more money at the problems, doesn't mean that Obama's economic policies didn't rely on the financial backing of the greenback.   Again, I don't give him any credit for keeping spending down, when the expense base was reset by nearly $800 billion (29%)

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

23 minutes ago, row_33 said:

AGAIN!!!  It isn't 1% worth it to attack Obama, you will be stamped a racist for doing it as well.

 

let it go already.... and enjoy the greatness right now....

 

 

So, this is not a place to come for discussion and if I disagree with a black person, I'm a racist?

23 minutes ago, row_33 said:

AGAIN!!!  It isn't 1% worth it to attack Obama, you will be stamped a racist for doing it as well.

 

let it go already.... and enjoy the greatness right now....

 

 

So, this is not a place to come for discussion and if I disagree with a black person, I'm a racist?

[DC Tom]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

So, this is not a place to come for discussion and if I disagree with a black person, I'm a racist?

 

Or if, like @transplantbillsfan, you agree with them but they're well-spoken.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Or if, like @transplantbillsfan, you agree with them but they're well-spoken.

Joe Biden thought he was clean too.

[TPS]

38 minutes ago, GG said:

 

$871 billion stimulus package, 0% interest rates and QE begs to differ.   Just because it wasn't the classic utility of throwing more money at the problems, doesn't mean that Obama's economic policies didn't rely on the financial backing of the greenback.   Again, I don't give him any credit for keeping spending down, when the expense base was reset by nearly $800 billion (29%)

 

 

 

 

So now the Fed's policy is lumped in with Keynesian spending?  Weird definition...(almost as bad as Austrians defining inflation as an increase in the money supply...)

 

Also, the budget wasn't re-set by the value of the stimulus.  Again, about 1/3 was tax cuts and credits, not spending; Of the nearly $500 billion spent from 2009-11, $200 billion was in transfers to states so they wouldn't have to make cuts and worsen the situation. That leaves $300 billion over a three year period, or $100 billion/year, which is < 1% of GDP each year.

The main cause (about 3/4) of the significant rise in deficits in those years was the loss of tax revenue and the rise in transfer payments associated with higher unemployment and transfers to states.  

 

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by TPS

[GG]

29 minutes ago, TPS said:

So now the Fed's policy is lumped in with Keynesian spending?  Weird definition...(almost as bad as Austrians defining inflation as an increase in the money supply...)

 

When the President has the Fed Chair's family jewels in a vice?  Yeah, that's part of it.   How long did the Fed keep rates at zero?  You can't have a booming recovery and zero interest rates.

 

29 minutes ago, TPS said:

Also, the budget wasn't re-set by the value of the stimulus.  Again, about 1/3 was tax cuts and credits, not spending; Of the nearly $500 billion spent from 2009-11, $200 billion was in transfers to states so they wouldn't have to make cuts and worsen the situation. That leaves $300 billion over a three year period, or $100 billion/year, which is < 1% of GDP each year.

The main cause (about 3/4) of the significant rise in deficits in those years was the loss of tax revenue and the rise in transfer payments associated with higher unemployment and transfers to states.  

 

 

 

I'm not talking the deficit, which you always bring the discussion to.  I'm talking about total spending, which went from a $2.7 tr base to a $3.5 tr level in 2 years and essentially stayed there.

[TPS]

45 minutes ago, GG said:

 

When the President has the Fed Chair's family jewels in a vice?  Yeah, that's part of it.   How long did the Fed keep rates at zero?  You can't have a booming recovery and zero interest rates.

 

 

I'm not talking the deficit, which you always bring the discussion to.  I'm talking about total spending, which went from a $2.7 tr base to a $3.5 tr level in 2 years and essentially stayed there.

I see. We've been comparing apples to oranges.  I'm talking discretionary spending, and you're adding in mandatory expenditures. If we are considering the latter, then you'd have to agree Trump is quite the Keynesian too since spending has gone up $250 billion in his first two years...

[TPS]

After reading some of the AB threads on TBD, I feel like this was a really productive discussion today...

[GG]

5 hours ago, TPS said:

I see. We've been comparing apples to oranges.  I'm talking discretionary spending, and you're adding in mandatory expenditures. If we are considering the latter, then you'd have to agree Trump is quite the Keynesian too since spending has gone up $250 billion in his first two years...

 

It’s good to be the king to jack up mandatory spending and absolve yourself of all the blame.  Again, it wasn’t all Obama’s doing.  But keeping in the spirit of the thread, at least Trump knows well enough to unleash the private sector to grow our way out of the mess and there’s a better chance that he won’t be as amenable in the next budget battle. 

[Thurmal34]

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or start a new thread. Given the fragile and reactionary nature of the posting base here I thought in thread was best.

 

Trade deficit grows by 100 billion under Trump:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-trade/u-s-trade-deficit-hits-10-year-high-in-2018-on-record-imports-idUSKCN1QN1M4?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

 

maybe an adult like Kasich will win in 2020.

 

please.