Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, moleculo said:

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?

This.  Also, what is tougher, bringing back an economy on the verge of a depression and following with seven years of growth, or being handed a great economy and keeping it going?

Share this post


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

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?

It all comes down to basic economics.  Did you take an economics course in college?  The recipe for growth is lower taxes and less government, not more government and higher taxes.  This is what is taught in basic economics and why Republican policies work.

Share this post


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

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. 

That was an attempt at humor through hyperbole.  

Swingandamiss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. His Labor Force Participation Rates and Real Wage rates are (in the words of Immortan Joe)...mediocre.

The deficit is also hanging there like an Acme piano over future generations heads.

Someone's making money......but it's not  translating to overall economic health in this country. 

Edited by Thunderlips
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly Reminder

On 1/2/2019 at 2:56 PM, Don't Noonan said:

I wouldn't say pure shtick, but I definately say things on here that I would never say in real life.  I admittedly like seeing the usual suspects freak out.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump supporters also kind of make themselves look foolish when they bring Obama up.  If they wanted to be even remotely intellectually and politically honest....they shouldn't try to throw Obama under the bus to elevate Trump.  

Edited by Thunderlips
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes 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.

No it wasn't.  It was at various points growing at a rate less than the rate in 2015 ... only because it rose to almost 4% at that point. But "growing at a slower pace" is not the same as "declining." Declining means a recession.

Nobody around here expects anything resembling honesty from you on this stuff, but maybe you could at least try not to make simple mistakes like this one?

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It all comes down to basic economics.  Did you take an economics course in college?  The recipe for growth is lower taxes and less government, not more government and higher taxes.  This is what is taught in basic economics and why Republican policies work. 

I did but I slept through it mostly.  And it was a long time ago.  I remember passing the class by typing a paper including lots of irrelevant Supply and demand graphs.  I have read up on the subject since then though and feel like I know more about it now than I did then, which really means I don't know much at all.  My level of economics knowledge is close to the "valley of despair" in terms of the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. I would think that basing knowledge of economics on the simple "low taxes and regulation = good" meme is probably closer to "Mt. Stupid" because it's all a lot more complicated than that. 

I have always subscribed to the belief that presidents are given more credit and blame for economics.  How can one man have that much influence on something as vast and complicated as the economy? 

On a micro-level, Trumps effect on my company has been mixed.  I am convinced that the tariffs have saved my job (and 200 or so co-workers, plus local supply chain, etc) , which I have commented on earlier.  On the other hand, the regulation bit has actively hurt my business and keeps products in the field less safe than they would be otherwise.

 

Share this post


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

Friendly Reminder

 

The problem is when he does stuff like this where he appears reasonable to people who don't know any better because he's using numbers and charts and links and stuff.  This stuff probably should get a response in case some reasonable person reads it and gets the wrong information.  It's different than his usual trolling, which is generally harmless and easy to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

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

So, how many years did Obama achieve 3% or greater GDP growth in a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ack88 said:

So, how many years did Obama achieve 3% or greater GDP growth in a year?

How many years has Trump?

Also that doesn’t really address anything I said.  

Share this post


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

How many years has Trump?

Also that doesn’t really address anything I said.  

You didn't answer his question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

So, how many years did Obama achieve 3% or greater GDP growth in a year?

How many quarters has Trump achieved 3.5% of greater GDP growth?

How many quarters has Trump achieved a jump of .5% or more from the previous quarter's GDP growth?

How many years has Trump shrunk the federal deficit while overseeing sustained GDP growth?

 

Cherry-picking: it works for everyone!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No it wasn't.  It was at various points growing at a rate less than the rate in 2015 ... only because it rose to almost 4% at that point. But "growing at a slower pace" is not the same as "declining." Declining means a recession.

Nobody around here expects anything resembling honesty from you on this stuff, but maybe you could at least try not to make simple mistakes like this one?

If you look at the chart I posted on the last page here are the numbers.

2014. 2.70% GDP

2015. 2.00% GDP

2016. 1.88% GDP

2017. 2.47% GDP

2018. 2.97% GDP

To say GDP was not declining in 2015 and 2016 is a lie.  Also, a recession by definition is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP.  Although 2016 was a paltry 1.88% it was not negative but it was declining.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A MT said above:

There are many, many factors that impact our economy.  Who is in the White House is just one of those.  

 

 

Share this post


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

If you look at the chart I posted on the last page here are the numbers.

2014. 2.70% GDP

2015. 2.00% GDP

2016. 1.88% GDP

2017. 2.47% GDP

2018. 2.97% GDP

To say GDP was not declining in 2015 and 2016 is a lie.  Also, a recession by definition is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP.  Although 2016 was a paltry 1.88% it was not negative but it was declining.

Contrary to popular left talking points the Obama trend was clearly down at the end. 

 

Lowest unemployment since 1969 today, tough to complain about. 

Share this post


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

How many years has Trump?

Also that doesn’t really address anything I said.  

Sure it does. You talked about cherry picking data. The reality is Obama had zero years of achieving 3% or greater GDP growth. Say what you want about Trump, he has delivered demonstrably better economic data than Obama. 

Share this post


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

It all comes down to basic economics.  Did you take an economics course in college?  The recipe for growth is lower taxes and less government, not more government and higher taxes.  This is what is taught in basic economics and why Republican policies work.

What did that course teach you about debt/deficits?  You forgot to cover that.

Less taxes is wonderful. Any candidate can do well by promising that. Hell, maybe I'll run and claim no taxes whatsoever. I'll be the best president evah!

Edited by JuniorNB

Share this post


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

Why would someone vote to raise taxes and support policies that gave us sub 2% growth over 8 years under Obama?

Because some of us caree about more than just how much money is in our paycheck. It's not actually all that complicated. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ack88 said:

Sure it does. You talked about cherry picking data. The reality is Obama had zero years of achieving 3% or greater GDP growth. Say what you want about Trump, he has delivered demonstrably better economic data than Obama. 

And Trump has had zero years of 3% or better. 

Say what you want but when you ignore where we were at the start of Obamas term vs the start of Trump you don't appear to be willing to have an honest discussion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

So, how many years did Obama achieve 3% or greater GDP growth in a year?

Same as Trump.  Zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

If you look at the chart I posted on the last page here are the numbers.

2014. 2.70% GDP

2015. 2.00% GDP

2016. 1.88% GDP

2017. 2.47% GDP

2018. 2.97% GDP

To say GDP was not declining in 2015 and 2016 is a lie.  Also, a recession by definition is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP.  Although 2016 was a paltry 1.88% it was not negative but it was declining.

What do you think the weird little sign with the two "o"s separated by the diagonal line refers to in these numbers?

 

Let me put it another way: Let's say you weigh yourself in 2016 and you weigh 150 pounds.  Then you weigh yourself in 2017 and you weigh 180 pounds. Then you weigh yourself in 2018 and you weigh 190 pounds.

Did you lose weight in 2018? Was your weight in decline?

Ultimately this silly mistake you're making here isn't a big deal. But (1) its part of a clear pattern of sustained dishonesty from you to make politicians you like look good and ones you don't like look bad, and (2) you've been acting pretty snobby with your "did you take an economics course in college?" nonsense so you were kinda asking for it.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

Sure it does. You talked about cherry picking data. The reality is Obama had zero years of achieving 3% or greater GDP growth. Say what you want about Trump, he has delivered demonstrably better economic data than Obama. 

His zero years with 3% growth is somehow better than Obama's zero years? :lol:

Share this post


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

How many quarters has Trump achieved 3.5% of greater GDP growth?

How many quarters has Trump achieved a jump of .5% or more from the previous quarter's GDP growth?

How many years has Trump shrunk the federal deficit while overseeing sustained GDP growth?

 

Cherry-picking: it works for everyone!

 

This is not a winning argument for you. 

A comparison of the economic data under Trump shows clearly better performance in the areas of growth, jobs,  and unemployment. You can go as deep as you would like and debate the reasons, but the numbers don't support a stronger economy under Obama than Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ack88 said:

This is not a winning argument for you. 

A comparison of the economic data under Trump shows clearly better performance in the areas of growth, jobs,  and unemployment. You can go as deep as you would like and debate the reasons, but the numbers don't support a stronger economy under Obama than Trump. 

Did anyone claim a stronger economy under Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ack88 said:

This is not a winning argument for you. 

A comparison of the economic data under Trump shows clearly better performance in the areas of growth, jobs,  and unemployment. You can go as deep as you would like and debate the reasons, but the numbers don't support a stronger economy under Obama than Trump. 

You didn't even answer his three questions. Obama accomplished all those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Contrary to popular left talking points the Obama trend was clearly down at the end.

This is also a lie. There was a downward trend in late 2015 into 2016 but his final two quarters each had greater GDP growth than the previous quarter.

Why do you guys feel the need to lie about Obama so much? Why can't you just agree with the obvious, indisputable facts about the remarkable sustained economic recovery under Obama?  We don't lie about the economy under Trump; we only worry about the long term consequences of his short-term moves to goose it.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Regarding the GOP tax cuts, the former vice president said, “There was a $2 trillion tax cut last year. Did you feel it? Did you get anything from it?”

- This isn't a Biden thing but it is the right question and the right chord to strike. I am sure Sanders or any of the other candidates if nominated will say this as they should, but hopefully they are that concise about it.

Because let's face it - unless the economy is absolutely disastrous - Carter, Hoover - or unless there is a major third party bid - Bush Sr. - as long as the economy is reasonably all right presidents typically get reelected. And this economy is pretty good.

People are not generally like left/right alike on this board into politics, quibbles about inflation, tariffs, deficits, participation rate, tax marginal rates, debt usually don't hold much sway. I do think a conservative Republican running against a Dem holding such policies would have some good pull but again obviously fiscal conservatism is either muted or dead under Trump.

At any rate the headwinds are very favorable, which again makes DJT's approval rating all the worse.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

What do you think the weird little sign with the two "o"s separated by the diagonal line refers to in these numbers?

 

Let me put it another way: Let's say you weigh yourself in 2016 and you weigh 150 pounds.  Then you weigh yourself in 2017 and you weigh 180 pounds. Then you weigh yourself in 2018 and you weigh 190 pounds.

Did you lose weight in 2018? Was your weight in decline?

Ultimately this silly mistake you're making here isn't a big deal. But (1) its part of a clear pattern of sustained dishonesty from you to make politicians you like look good and ones you don't like look bad, and (2) you've been acting pretty snobby with your "did you take an economics course in college?" nonsense so you were kinda asking for it.

You are either really bad at analogies or or you are being purposefully dishonest after calling me dishonest.  Which is it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You didn't even answer his three questions. Obama accomplished all those things.

I don't need to. This tells the story of who has better numbers:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

The reasons for these numbers are cause for debate, but one cannot empirically state that Obama's GDP growth was better than Trumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ack88 said:

I don't need to. This tells the story of who has better numbers:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

The reasons for these numbers are cause for debate, but one cannot empirically state that Obama's GDP growth was better than Trumps.

Again who has claimed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

This is not a winning argument for you. 

A comparison of the economic data under Trump shows clearly better performance in the areas of growth, jobs,  and unemployment. You can go as deep as you would like and debate the reasons, but the numbers don't support a stronger economy under Obama than Trump. 

I didn't make an argument. I called out your cherry-picking. My numbers (just as meaningless in the big picture as yours) were cherry-picked on purpose to illustrate how it works and what you were doing.

Share this post


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

His zero years with 3% growth is somehow better than Obama's zero years? :lol:

Obama has 8 years, Trump has has less than 2 and Trump's GDP is demonstrably superior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is also a lie. There was a downward trend in late 2015 into 2016 but his final two quarters each had greater GDP growth than the previous quarter.

Why do you guys feel the need to lie about Obama so much? Why can't you just agree with the obvious, indisputable facts about the remarkable sustained economic recovery under Obama?  We don't like about the economy under Trump; we only worry about the long term consequences of his short-term moves to goose it.

Exactly. I bet people would be more willing to give Trump credit if they weren't so adamant about ignoring the fact that Obama was great for the economy too.  Unemployment was over 10% when he took office. He left with it under 5%. That's outstanding. Amazing, even.  He lowered the rate by over 5% and they give no credit. Trump lowers it one more percent and they act like he's the God of Economy. lol    The stock market also increased by 150% under Obama.  Trump is at around 30%.  All you ever hear is that it's at its highest ever. Well big deal. Of course it is. That's what trends do. They continue in the path they were on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I didn't make an argument. I called out your cherry-picking. My numbers (just as meaningless in the big picture as yours) were cherry-picked on purpose to illustrate how it works and what you were doing.

The numbers aren't meaningless. They clearly show, based on GDP, unemployment, and wage growth that Trump has outperformed Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

I don't need to. This tells the story of who has better numbers:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth

The reasons for these numbers are cause for debate, but one cannot empirically state that Obama's GDP growth was better than Trumps.

Exactly. Cherry pick the facts you like. Ignore the ones you don't. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ack88 said:

Obama has 8 years, Trump has has less than 2 and Trump's GDP is demonstrably superior.

Awesome. So when Trump has a year over 3%, talk to me. Until then, don't beat on your chest because he's failed so far but still has time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we should. Just like I’ll credit it tanking in the unlikelyhood a Democrat beats trump this election to that democrat. 

Edited by boots11234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ack88 said:

The numbers aren't meaningless. They clearly show, based on GDP, unemployment, and wage growth that Trump has outperformed Obama.

That really isn’t what all the numbers show.  It ignores many factors including where the economy is/was and was going when each took over as well as other factors.  As have been pointed out yet some seem to want to keep ignoring that.

Share this post


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

Exactly. Cherry pick the facts you like. Ignore the ones you don't. :popcorn:

So, if you think I'm cherry picking- find me economic data that shows Obama had stronger GDP, unemployment, and wage growth numbers over the course of a year.

Share this post


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

You are either really bad at analogies or or you are being purposefully dishonest after calling me dishonest.  Which is it?

You know, you can just admit that you confused increases and decreases in growth rates with increases and decreases in the GDP itself.  That's what you did. 

And it's OK. We all make silly mistakes or type things that aren't exactly what we mean sometimes.  So why can't you just admit that? I get the feeling you're sharp enough to know that's exactly what happened here.  So just say it.  Here, I'll even type it for you so you can cut and paste:
 

You're right, my bad. I meant the GDP growth rate declined during various quarters in 2015 and 2016, not that the GDP itself declined. I obviously understand the difference, just didn't type it out accurately.

 

See? It's not that hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Awesome. So when Trump has a year over 3%, talk to me. Until then, don't beat on your chest because he's failed so far but still has time.

Better than Obama, no matter how you slice it. Facts are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

The numbers aren't meaningless. They clearly show, based on GDP, unemployment, and wage growth that Trump has outperformed Obama.

Just like the numbers show that George Siefert outperformed Bill Walsh.

 

 

Again,as MT said I think this is all silly and we're giving way too much credit to the presidents who have relatively little to do with the economy and not enough to the American people who drive it. I'm just pointing out the flaw in basing the argument on the data you're using that ignores rates of improvement and other variables.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

So, if you think I'm cherry picking- find me economic data that shows Obama had stronger GDP, unemployment, and wage growth numbers over the course of a year.

Nobody is saying he did, just that the minimal amount of economic growth we've had does not make up for the ballooning deficits and the long term damage of recklessly slashing consumer protection and environmental protection regulations.

Share this post


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

Just like the numbers show that George Siefert outperformed Bill Walsh.

 

 

Again,as MT said I think this is all silly and we're giving way too much credit to the presidents who have relatively little to do with the economy and not enough to the American people who drive it.

That's a false comparison. Regular season records in the NFL are less important than playoff records. 

Share this post


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

What do you think the economy would be like now if Hillary had won?

Honestly, and I don't claim to know the answer, I do think it would be better and that Obama did leave office during an upswing. I do not think it would be as robust as it is under Trump because slashing the corporate tax from 35% to 21% was not even on the radar for most. In fact, many thought Trump was crazy for that dramatic a reduction, and my opinion is that this cut spurred job and wage growth. Again- I don't know, but that's what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ack88 said:

So, if you think I'm cherry picking- find me economic data that shows Obama had stronger GDP, unemployment, and wage growth numbers over the course of a year.

I just gave you two facts. Obama shrunk unemployment from over 10% to under 5%.    And Obama increased the stock market by 150%.

That's two humungous and very important economic indicators where Obama blows Trump out of the water.  Of course, I'm sure you want to stick to GDP because that one favors Trump. :popcorn:

 

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.