Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Shouldn’t we credit President Trump for a strong, booming economy?

Recommended Posts

One of my biggest criticisms in recent years, regarding Trump supporters, is that often IMO they deny facts that they find unpleasant: Led by their leader, they refer to it as “fake news”. 

Facts are facts. It’s not that I find good economic news unpleasant (I certainly don’t) but I DO find unpleasant the idea that it might help President Trump get re-elected. 

 

But that being said, the economic news is terrific and President Trump deserves a lot of credit for it. He deserves credit for cutting taxes, which  has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that it would not. He deserves credit for slashing regulations, which has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that some of these regulation cuts damage our environment and safety (these remain compelling arguments.) 

Now as I have noted before, there are problems with what’s happening. In my estimation, we’re spending way too much on the military, which means at least some of the job growth is sustainable only to the extent that we continue to pump money into the military- a never ending very dangerous cycle. The tax cuts were only accomplished by enlarging the annual deficit- we are putting them on our credit card, in other words, and hoping the resulting growth will be enough to cover it. That’s not sustainable either. The tariffs are awful; we might have grown even more without them. And of course, the decline in manufacturing jobs represent a major issue and strengthen Bernie Sanders’ contention that this sort of economic growth does not really  benefit either the middle class or people beneath it. 

All of those arguments are valid. Still, 250,000 jobs are tremendous. The growth rate is at a level that the Obama people warned us we would never reach again. Minority unemployment is way down.  Things are very good. We need to acknowledge it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

One of my biggest criticisms in recent years, regarding Trump supporters, is that often IMO they deny facts that they find unpleasant: Led by their leader, they refer to it as “fake news”. 

Facts are facts. It’s not that I find good economic news unpleasant (I certainly don’t) but I DO find unpleasant the idea that it might help President Trump get re-elected. 

 

But that being said, the economic news is terrific and President Trump deserves a lot of credit for it. He deserves credit for cutting taxes, which  has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that it would not. He deserves credit for slashing regulations, which has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that some of these regulation cuts damage our environment and safety (these remain compelling arguments.) 

Now as I have noted before, there are problems with what’s happening. In my estimation, we’re spending way too much on the military, which means at least some of the job growth is sustainable only to the extent that we continue to pump money into the military- a never ending very dangerous cycle. The tax cuts were only accomplished by enlarging the annual deficit- we are putting them on our credit card, in other words, and hoping the resulting growth will be enough to cover it. That’s not sustainable either. The tariffs are awful; we might have grown even more without them. And of course, the decline in manufacturing jobs represent a major issue and strengthen Bernie Sanders’ contention that this sort of economic growth does not really  benefit either the middle class or people beneath it. 

All of those arguments are valid. Still, 250,000 jobs are tremendous. The growth rate is at a level that the Obama people warned us we would never reach again. Minority unemployment is way down.  Things are very good. We need to acknowledge it. 

 

The economy is doing well and today's unemployment numbers are outstanding. And if Trump deserves credit, great. I'm happy to give it to him.

But is there any evidence for what you wrote in the bolded paragraph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the economy was already great before Trump schtick.  :lol:

Of course Tim.  The economy is crushing it and is why I am convinced Trump will win easily in 2020.  Why would someone vote to raise taxes and support policies that gave us sub 2% growth over 8 years under Obama?  That is assuming Biden is the nominee.  If it is a socialist like Sanders we will likely see a depression in the U.S.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

 

The economy is doing well and today's unemployment numbers are outstanding. And if Trump deserves credit, great. I'm happy to give it to him.

But is there any evidence for what you wrote in the bolded paragraph?

You have to accept the arguments I made: that cutting taxes and slashing regulations spur economic growth. If you reject that argument then no you’ll find no evidence. But I would suggest you’d be hard put to find alternatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally know a lot of blue collar working families still struggling ...... Wall Street cleaning up vs. Main Street getting cleaned up on :2cents: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People give Presidents way too much credit and way too much blame for the economy.

People should try to be consistent about things. If someone isn’t going to give Trump much credit, he also shouldn’t give Obama or Clinton much credit, or Bush much blame. But being consistently realistic is better than consistently over-attributing short-term economic results to Presidents.

I do think there have been some good things done (and some bad things, but the good things are the point here) with deregulation over the last few years.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy is the one thing that I agree that Trump has done a very good job.  :thumbup:

 

Pretty much everything else has been a disaster.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

In before the economy was already great before Trump schtick.  :lol:

Of course Tim.  The economy is crushing it and is why I am convinced Trump will win easily in 2020.  Why would someone vote to raise taxes and support policies that gave us sub 2% growth over 8 years under Obama?  That is assuming Biden is the nominee.  If it is a socialist like Sanders we will likely see a depression in the U.S.

I think it will help Trump but I don’t believe it will put him over the top, unless the Dems choose a progressive like Bernie. 

The reason I don’t think it will put him over the top, even assuming things stay good, is that the public, since 2017,  doesn’t like Donald Trump. Most elections are “its the economy stupid” I agree. But this one will be “Its Trump, stupid”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

People give Presidents way too much credit and way too much blame for the economy.

People should try to be consistent about things. If someone isn’t going to give Trump much credit, he also shouldn’t give Obama or Clinton much credit, or Bush much blame. But being consistently realistic is better than consistently over-attributing short-term economic results to Presidents.

I do think there have been some good things done (and some bad things, but the good things are the point here) with deregulation over the last few years.

 

This is where I come out. I reckon the truth is that the economy was doing well when Trump was elected and some of the deregulation that Trump enacted probably helped. But that's just a guess. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

One of my biggest criticisms in recent years, regarding Trump supporters, is that often IMO they deny facts that they find unpleasant: Led by their leader, they refer to it as “fake news”. 

Facts are facts. It’s not that I find good economic news unpleasant (I certainly don’t) but I DO find unpleasant the idea that it might help President Trump get re-elected. 

 

But that being said, the economic news is terrific and President Trump deserves a lot of credit for it. He deserves credit for cutting taxes, which  has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that it would not. He deserves credit for slashing regulations, which has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that some of these regulation cuts damage our environment and safety (these remain compelling arguments.) 

Now as I have noted before, there are problems with what’s happening. In my estimation, we’re spending way too much on the military, which means at least some of the job growth is sustainable only to the extent that we continue to pump money into the military- a never ending very dangerous cycle. The tax cuts were only accomplished by enlarging the annual deficit- we are putting them on our credit card, in other words, and hoping the resulting growth will be enough to cover it. That’s not sustainable either. The tariffs are awful; we might have grown even more without them. And of course, the decline in manufacturing jobs represent a major issue and strengthen Bernie Sanders’ contention that this sort of economic growth does not really  benefit either the middle class or people beneath it. 

All of those arguments are valid. Still, 250,000 jobs are tremendous. The growth rate is at a level that the Obama people warned us we would never reach again. Minority unemployment is way down.  Things are very good. We need to acknowledge it. 

The tax cuts spurred growth?  Im all for facts...lets see some supporting this.

There wasn't really any jump in growth from previous years after the tax cuts.  Growth has remained about what it was there with Obama at the end.  Similar with the rise in the market, the lowering of unemployment...and so on.  In addition those cuts have come at a time of growth and added to the debt greatly.  

Cutting regulations may be the only thing that has spurred anything.  And I would argue "at what cost" as you mentioned.

Job creation was good last month...bad the month before...and again has stayed along the same trend lines as it was with Obama.

The fact is he gets credit for maintaining the growth that was already happening.

What growth rate is at this level?  One quarter?  That seems to be the issue many have with Trump supporters pumping it up at times and then ignoring the quarters where its been bad.  Why do the same thing tim?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You have to accept the arguments I made: that cutting taxes and slashing regulations spur economic growth. If you reject that argument then no you’ll find no evidence. But I would suggest you’d be hard put to find alternatives. 

 

I don't want to accept your arguments. Unless you bring data. And this isn't an anti-Trump thing. I'd really like to see why the economy is doing well. 

We've had like 10 straight  years of economic growth. So clearly there are reasons beyond just Trump's tax cuts and deregulation that are contributing to the economy.

Also - this article from yesterday throws a little cold water on the economic news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am of the school of thought that the economy is like a tide or a wave, capable of being well-ridden by a President, but not of being controlled or directed by one.  When the wave is coming in have a fun ride on the surge. When it is going out, try to not get caught in a rip current. 

 

I have never credited any President with the good economy.  I have, occasionally felt that some might be exacerbating the bad, but frankly my opinion n this subject is mostly to completely uninformed.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing is the economy is doing so good and unemployment at a 50 year low it does not even have to be discussed for the dem candidates running for POTUS.  That takes a lot of heat off of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens every time. Yes Bush deregulated but that was partly due to Clinton’s passing the Graham bill. Yes Obama’s economy got better and better but only because his Tarp 2 followed Bush’s Tarp 1. Yes Trump gets some credit, but only based on what has been possible under Obama’s momentum. And Trump has taken bigger risks than anyone I can recall since Carter with the tariffs and deficit. 

I’m also a believer that credit for economic success goes first to the American people, not presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give Trump credit for not screwing up the seven straight years of economic growth that we had before he took office. As much as I hate Trump, the two years of continued growth is very good for my 401K. I'm rooting for two more good years of performance from him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And if this was a Hillary administration I think conservatives would be discussing the labor participation rate still being low and stagnant (and the real unemployment rate being at high levels not seen since the 70s) and the proper definition of inflation. But of course those worthy arguments are turned off right now.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

I give Trump credit for not screwing up the seven straight years of economic growth that we had before he took office. As much as I hate Trump, the two years of continued growth is very good for my 401K. I'm rooting for two more good years of performance from him.

I was going to say the exact same thing.  I give him credit for not screwing it all up.  I think it could have been better yet actually but it's still doing well.  I'm not a fan of the tariffs yet and i think he really screwed farmers over so far.  I'll have to wait and see if it all works out in the long run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think it will help Trump but I don’t believe it will put him over the top

If we accept (not saying that "we" do) that Trump was elected in a large part due to economic anxiety of those people that felt "stuck in the mud" as the promised "raising tides" arrived then I'd think that it depends on how much these people still feel "stuck in the mud".  If they still do and Trump goes around bragging about the rising tides I'd think it kills him.  If they feel like they have raised from the mud then he wins reelection (assuming the economy isn't about to collapse for one reason or another between now and Nov '20.) 

Wonder how  they feel?  ( 🤷‍♂️  I don't know.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition...be consistent.  You can't on one hand have complained about Obama being terrible for the economy...and then praise Trump when the trends are nearly identical.  Its nonsense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In addition...be consistent.  You can't on one hand have complained about Obama being terrible for the economy...and then praise Trump when the trends are nearly identical.  Its nonsense.

 

If you look at a graph of economic growth from 2010 to 2018, the incline continues at the same rate. You'd never be able to tell where the political transition took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In addition...be consistent.  You can't on one hand have complained about Obama being terrible for the economy...and then praise Trump when the trends are nearly identical.  Its nonsense.

 

Does the chart below look like GDP is the same as 2016?  :lmao:

United States GDP Annual Growth Rate

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, timschochet said:

One of my biggest criticisms in recent years, regarding Trump supporters, is that often IMO they deny facts that they find unpleasant: Led by their leader, they refer to it as “fake news”. 

Facts are facts. It’s not that I find good economic news unpleasant (I certainly don’t) but I DO find unpleasant the idea that it might help President Trump get re-elected. 

 

But that being said, the economic news is terrific and President Trump deserves a lot of credit for it. He deserves credit for cutting taxes, which  has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that it would not. He deserves credit for slashing regulations, which has spurred growth despite liberal arguments that some of these regulation cuts damage our environment and safety (these remain compelling arguments.) 

Now as I have noted before, there are problems with what’s happening. In my estimation, we’re spending way too much on the military, which means at least some of the job growth is sustainable only to the extent that we continue to pump money into the military- a never ending very dangerous cycle. The tax cuts were only accomplished by enlarging the annual deficit- we are putting them on our credit card, in other words, and hoping the resulting growth will be enough to cover it. That’s not sustainable either. The tariffs are awful; we might have grown even more without them. And of course, the decline in manufacturing jobs represent a major issue and strengthen Bernie Sanders’ contention that this sort of economic growth does not really  benefit either the middle class or people beneath it. 

All of those arguments are valid. Still, 250,000 jobs are tremendous. The growth rate is at a level that the Obama people warned us we would never reach again. Minority unemployment is way down.  Things are very good. We need to acknowledge it. 

I don't recall anyone claiming that cutting taxes would not spur economic growth, and everyone knows that slashing regulations is good for the economy in the short term.

The argument is always about the short term vs the longer term. We could do away with environmental regulation entirely, and the economy would certainly benefit in the short term. It would take years for the massive costs of such a move to show up in terms of health care costs, lost tourism dollars, more natural disasters, cleanup and repair costs, etc.  We could do away with regulation of markets and public companies entirely and the economy would certainly benefit in the short term; it would be years before the inevitable monopolies and fraudulent practices and failure to safeguard risk would come back to haunt us. We could slash taxes across the board in massive amounts, and it could take years before the budgetary issues and rapidly expanding debt come back to haunt us.

The unique problem with Trump is that this "short term benefit, worry about the long term costs later" fits everything we know about him and has been taken to the extreme. A simplified hypothetical: say there was an economic policy option that would increase the GDP by .5% each quarter between now and November 2020, thus increasing his reelection chances and making him look like a hero- but would also produce the worst recession America has ever seen starting in 2025. Does anyone- even Trump supporters- doubt that he would choose that option? Everything we know about him tells us he would.

And IMO most of his economic and regulatory decisions are basically smaller, more complicated examples of him making this choice.  A massive tax cut during an economic boom that adds to the deficit and will make it harder for the government to fund stimulus when the next recession comes. Rolling back the economic restrictions put in place after the 07-08 financial crisis that were designed to ensure that it never happens again. Just yesterday his administration rolled back the offshore drilling safety regulations that were put in place after Deepwater Horizon to prevent another large-scale spill.

It all fits the same basic pattern.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In addition...be consistent.  You can't on one hand have complained about Obama being terrible for the economy...and then praise Trump when the trends are nearly identical.  Its nonsense.

 

Personally I’ve praised both men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Does the chart below look like GDP is the same as 2016?  :lmao:

United States GDP Annual Growth Rate

When you cherry pick 5 years...how about you try a bit harder next time.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

Click the 10 year option under the chart to get a better idea. 

And again understand where we were in 2010 and what it took to come out of that.  Also that Trump didn't take office until 2017.  HTH

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Personally I’ve praised both men. 

I wasn't talking about you in particular.  That was a general you...including this POTUS who was highly critical before but now everything is all rosey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP, no...we shouldn't credit an individual for an entire economy.  It's dumb.  It's as dumb now as it's ever been.  It's ALMOST as dumb as looking at single stats like GDP, stock market value etc in a vacuum as THE indicator of our entire economy.  That's always been dumb too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

I don't recall anyone claiming that cutting taxes would not spur economic growth, and everyone knows that slashing regulations is good for the economy in the short term.

The argument is always about the short term vs the longer term. We could do away with environmental regulation entirely, and the economy would certainly benefit in the short term. It would take years for the massive costs of such a move to show up in terms of health care costs, lost tourism dollars, more natural disasters, cleanup and repair costs, etc.  We could do away with regulation of markets and public companies entirely and the economy would certainly benefit in the short term; it would be years before the inevitable monopolies and fraudulent practices and failure to safeguard risk would come back to haunt us. We could slash taxes across the board in massive amounts, and it could take years before the budgetary issues and rapidly expanding debt come back to haunt us.

The unique problem with Trump is that this "short term benefit, worry about the long term costs later" fits everything we know about him and has been taken to the extreme. A simplified hypothetical: say there was an economic policy option that would increase the GDP by .5% each quarter between now and November 2020, thus increasing his reelection chances and making him look like a hero- but would also produce the worst recession America has ever seen starting in 2025. Does anyone- even Trump supporters- doubt that he would choose that option? Everything we know about him tells us he would.

And IMO most of his economic and regulatory decisions are basically smaller, more complicated examples of him making this choice.  A massive tax cut during an economic boom that adds to the deficit and will make it harder for the government to fund stimulus when the next recession comes. Rolling back the economic restrictions put in place after the 07-08 financial crisis that were designed to ensure that it never happens again. Just yesterday his administration rolled back the offshore drilling safety regulations that were put in place after Deepwater Horizon to prevent another large-scale spill.

It all fits the same basic pattern.

I agree with all of this. 

But we have Presidential elections every 4 years, so short term gains benefit an incumbent far more than long term do. Ironically this exact argument was made by the Founding Fathers of...the Confederacy! One of the more interesting things to me about the Confederacy is that they debated ways to improve on the Constitution though in most respects they basically copied it. But they felt that events had shown that the President was too caught up  in the goal of re-election and therefore put short term interests ahead of long term gain. Therefore they limited the Presidency to a single 6 year term. Then, fearing that this move weakened the executive branch too much, they decided to give him a line item veto. I’ve always been fascinated by these ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Does the chart below look like GDP is the same as 2016?  :lmao:

United States GDP Annual Growth Rate

You artificially manipulated the starting date on the graph. Pretty shady.

The 10 year graph (the one that actually captures most of Obama's presidency) paints a picture of an economy that recovered from a deep recession during Obama's first term and has been steady and healthy since then. The upward trend during Trump's presidency began in mid-2016, while Obama was still in office, after a small downward tick in late 2015 and early 2016.  The numbers have returned to about the level they were before that, during most of Obama's second term.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where folks like Sho Nuff and JuniorNB are proven wrong.  There are many reasons to not like Trump but the economy simply is not one of them.

Obama averaged 1.88% real annual GDP growth in his 8 years.  He was the only President in the history of the United States serving two terms to not get 1 single year of real annual GDP growth of at least 3%. 

Trump got 2.47% in 2017 and 2.97% in 2018.  Quarter 1 is typically the lowest number and it just posted 3.2% in 2019.  Taking the average over 2 years Trump is at 2.72% his first 2 years, almost 1% higher.  

With a tariff deal likely soon this will only help GDP numbers.  It looks likely we will be over 3% this year.  :pickle:

Annual Gdp

How are these facts Sho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

You artificially manipulated the starting date on the graph. Pretty shady.

The 10 year graph (the one that actually captures most of Obama's presidency) paints a picture of an economy that recovered from a deep recession during Obama's first term and has been steady and healthy since then. The upward trend during Trump's presidency began in mid-2016, while Obama was still in office, after a small downward tick in late 2015 and early 2016.  The numbers have returned to about the level they were before that, during most of Obama's second term.

When the only thing your guy hasn't screwed up during his tenure is the economy, you tend to REALLY want to make it seem more impressive than it is. Trump hasn't done a single thing that anyone can point to to take responsibility for the continued success of the economy.  It's on autopilot. I guess Noonan doesn't consider the deficit to be part of the economy. Because there's never been a president who increased it at the rate that Trump has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

This is where folks like Sho Nuff and JuniorNB are proven wrong.  There are many reasons to not like Trump but the economy simply is not one of them.

Obama averaged 1.88% real annual GDP growth in his 8 years.  He was the only President in the history of the United States serving two terms to not get 1 single year of real annual GDP growth of at least 3%. 

Trump got 2.47% in 2017 and 2.97% in 2018.  Quarter 1 is typically the lowest number and it just posted 3.2% in 2019.  Taking the average over 2 years Trump is at 2.72% his first 2 years, almost 1% higher.  

With a tariff deal likely soon this will only help GDP numbers.  It looks likely we will be over 3% this year.  :pickle:

Annual Gdp

How are these facts Sho? 

This is pretty dishonest.  Obama inherited a recession. Trump inherited a booming economy.  Comparing their average annual GDP growth without acknowledging that is shady. It's like comparing a coach who inherited a 2-14 football team and turned it into an 12-4 football team with one who inherited an 12-4 football team and turned it into a 13-3 football team and saying the latter is clearly the better coach because he's got a better winning percentage.  And even that undersells how dishonest you're being here, since under Obama the economy actually recovered from the recession and had quarters better than any under Trump, plus the original question wasn't about which one is better but about why people like you who praise Trump's handling of the economy were totally silent about it with Obama.

 

It's always tough to know what to do with posters who are consistently dishonest and misleading. On the one hand it's great to ignore them. But on the other hand you don't want their dishonesty and bad faith to mislead others.  The eternal problem with social medi.

 

ETA: I think all of this is silly, by the way.  I agree with MT that we attribute way too much of this stuff to the president. I'm just saying that if you're gonna go down that road, you at least have to do it honestly.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JuniorNB said:

 Trump hasn't done a single thing that anyone can point to to take responsibility for the continued success of the economy.  

This simply isn’t true. I listed two items in the OP. Your statement is hyperbole IMO not really any different from the hyperbole by DN and other Trump defenders in the Russia thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

This simply isn’t true. I listed two items in the OP. Your statement is hyperbole IMO not really any different from the hyperbole by DN and other Trump defenders in the Russia thread. 

Tim. its like you just re-discovered the word hyperbole and are committed to using it 130,000 times this week.

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I’m sorry but I can’t accept the argument that we’re just experiencing an extended growth dating back to the Obama years which Trump had the good sense not to screw up. First off the numbers now are simply better than they were even in the last couple of years during Obama- they represent a break in the pattern not a continuation. 

Second, Trump has tried to reverse everything Obama did. So I’m not buying the notion that in this particular case he decided to let well enough alone. We know he hasn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

This is pretty dishonest.  Obama inherited a recession. Trump inherited a booming economy.  Comparing their average annual GDP growth without acknowledging that is shady. It's like comparing a coach who inherited a 2-14 football team and turned it into an 12-4 football team with one who inherited an 12-4 football team and turned it into a 13-3 football team and saying the latter is clearly the better coach because he's got a better winning percentage.  And even that undersells how dishonest you're being here, since under Obama the economy actually recovered from the recession and had quarters better than any under Trump, plus the original question wasn't about which one is better but about why people like you who praise Trump's handling of the economy were totally silent about it with Obama.

 

It's always tough to know what to do with posters who are consistently dishonest and misleading. On the one hand it's great to ignore them. But on the other hand you don't want their dishonesty and bad faith to mislead others.  The eternal problem with social media

I posted links to reports on GDP and you are calling me dishonest?  Do you see what is wrong here?  Only liberals like yourself will try and spin me being the one as dishonest!  :lmao:

I would love to ignore you since you clog up the boards with paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense every day but I don't ignore anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

This is where folks like Sho Nuff and JuniorNB are proven wrong.  There are many reasons to not like Trump but the economy simply is not one of them.

Obama averaged 1.88% real annual GDP growth in his 8 years.  He was the only President in the history of the United States serving two terms to not get 1 single year of real annual GDP growth of at least 3%. 

Trump got 2.47% in 2017 and 2.97% in 2018.  Quarter 1 is typically the lowest number and it just posted 3.2% in 2019.  Taking the average over 2 years Trump is at 2.72% his first 2 years, almost 1% higher.  

With a tariff deal likely soon this will only help GDP numbers.  It looks likely we will be over 3% this year.  :pickle:

Annual Gdp

How are these facts Sho?

This is where you ignore what situations each were in to cherry pick things like you did with the dates as I pointed  out as did Tobias.  And this is why it’s not worth discussing with someone like you.

So no...nothing instated was wrong.  HTH

Also, don’t bother anymore because I’m done trying with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

Tim. its like you just re-discovered the word hyperbole and are committed to using it 130,000 times this week.

Perhaps that’s because I’m reading it 130,000 times this week. 

It seems like so many people here are so committed to their sides that there is no gray; everyone on their side is 100% right about everything, everyone on the other side is 100% wrong. Life doesn’t work that way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

This is where you ignore what situations each were in to cherry pick things like you did with the dates as I pointed  out as did Tobias.  And this is why it’s not worth discussing with someone like you.

So no...nothing instated was wrong.  HTH

Also, don’t bother anymore because I’m done trying with you.

You might learn something but that is your loss!  America is in trouble if there is a bunch of Sho Nuffs going to the polls in 2020.  I highly doubt that will be the case.  The PSF was blindsided and wrong in 2016 and it will be the same in 2020.  :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I posted links to reports on GDP and you are calling me dishonest?  Do you see what is wrong here?  Only liberals like yourself will try and spin me being the one as dishonest!  :lmao:

I would love to ignore you since you clog up the boards with paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense every day but I don't ignore anyone.

You focused on the dishonest part which I tend to agree with you was pretty unfair. 

But you didn’t respond to Tobias’ main argument which is actually pretty compelling: that Obama began with a terrible economy that he had to spend time fixing, while Trump began with a good one (which I credit him for making better.) Please explain why this argument doesn’t effectively negate yours? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It seems like so many people here are so committed to their sides that there is no gray

I'm not sure I want to be here when you discover color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm not sure I want to be here when you discover color.

So now I’m one of the old dudes from Pleasantville? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

And I’m sorry but I can’t accept the argument that we’re just experiencing an extended growth dating back to the Obama years which Trump had the good sense not to screw up. First off the numbers now are simply better than they were even in the last couple of years during Obama- they represent a break in the pattern not a continuation. 

Second, Trump has tried to reverse everything Obama did. So I’m not buying the notion that in this particular case he decided to let well enough alone. We know he hasn’t. 

Disagree. And it's not hyperbole. He does a lot of things to artificially inflate the economy.  His tariffs screwed the farmers over big time and it cost the country 12 billion dollars to fix. That's 12 billion dollars to save what would have been horrible for the economy. And Obama could have easily lifted restrictions on business and said 'environment be damned'. That would have made his economy look even better. I'm not bashing Trump's economy. I'm simply saying he's kept it going, which I am grateful for. But I'm not willing to pretend the deficit and environment are not important and act like Trump is some kind of economic wizard. Others have had the option to ignore those things too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

You focused on the dishonest part which I tend to agree with you was pretty unfair. 

But you didn’t respond to Tobias’ main argument which is actually pretty compelling: that Obama began with a terrible economy that he had to spend time fixing, while Trump began with a good one (which I credit him for making better.) Please explain why this argument doesn’t effectively negate yours? 

Did you look at the chart I posted?  GDP was declining in 2015 and 2016.  Obama also had the Fed helping him with lowering rates and quantitative easing.  Trump has had the Fed raising rates and selling its treasuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Did you look at the chart I posted?  GDP was declining in 2015 and 2016.  Obama also had the Fed helping him with lowering rates and quantitative easing.  Trump has had the Fed raising rates and selling its treasuries.

Yes. I noted the improvement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

  Trump has had the Fed raising rates and selling its treasuries.

Isn’t raising the rate a sign that the economy is doing well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/hispanic-unemployment-rate-sets-new-record-low-april

Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/05/03/unemployment-rate-for-women-falls-to-lowest-since-1953/

 

Edited by John Blutarsky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

George Siefert had a 98-30 (.766) record with SF, including 2 SB's.

Bill Walsh had a 92-59-1 (.609)  record with Sf, including 3 SB's.

Jimmy Johnson had a 44-36 (.550) record with the Cowboys, including 2 SB's.

Barry Switzer had a 40-24 (.625) record with the Cowboys, including 1 SB.

Should we conclude that Seifert and Switzer were better coaches than Walsh and Johnson?

eta: H/T to @TobiasFunke

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Isn’t raising the rate a sign that the economy is doing well? 

yes, but it also hampers future growth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.