How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

That's you. Didn't you post that you went to Harvard?

Nope.

Bottom line is: You have never said a derogatory thing about the Trump economy.

Oh dear! Isn't it enough if I just say he was rude and tweeted a lot of mean things? Why should I pick through a pretty solid economic record in search of a fly in the ointment when I can let a clueless amateur like you try to do that?


You have been critical of the Obama economy when the GDP numbers are practically the same.

Except they aren't the same. Your own links tell us that. Trump averaged 2.5% annual growth in his first 3 years of office, before covid hit. Obama averaged 2.2% real GDP growth in his last 7 years of office (2010-2016). To be fair, I excluded Obama's first year (2009) when he was weighed down by the recession he inherited. Of course, a non-economist like you would say a difference of 0.3% is no biggie, so their GDP records are "practically the same". In reality, that three-tenths of one percent is huge. It translates into $630 billion in lost output in a single year. Over ten years, that adds up to $6.3 trillion (actually more, since it compounds) in less income for our country. Which also means significantly lower tax revenues for dim-retards like you to fund all your crazy and corrupt green new deal boondoggles.

Then when a link provided you play word games. LOL.

Sorry adav8, but you're the one playing word games here. When Trump infuriates you with his boasts about building "the world's greatest economy", you don't know whether he's talking specifically about jobs, inflation, GDP, your personal paycheck - or any of a dozen other economic performance measures.

On the other hand, you said very specifically that someone (yet to be identified) considered 2% GDP growth as "setting a record". I asked you to tell us who that person (or persons) was, and all you've done since then is evade the question by playing word games.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Real GDP grew in 3.1% in 2015. But that was considered under performing by Republicans/conservatives.

There you go again. Can you identify a single person who pointed to that peak number alone and called it "under performing"?

Didn't think so.

Granted, Obama's multi-year growth record was indeed criticized as under performing. Most of the critics (including me) were comparing how slowly the US economy recovered under Obama's stewardship with how rapidly it had recovered from previous recessions.

Here ya go...

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=49

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again. Can you identify a single person who pointed to that peak number alone and called it "under performing"?

Didn't think so.

Granted, Obama's multi-year growth record was indeed criticized as under performing. Most of the critics (including me) were comparing how slowly the US economy recovered under Obama's stewardship with how rapidly it had recovered from previous recessions.

Here ya go...

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=49

and there is this .. i'll jump in here without replying to a ton of posts only to say Obama's economic policy is widely regraded as a second failure of FDR's "Let's spend our way out of this depression" only to be proved wrong again. somewhere i hear AOC, Bernie and Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff screaming. lol



an Obama primer ... of failure ... plenty more of that ...


https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...09&postcount=1

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Obama's economic failures outweigh successes

Public debt rose, many tax reforms failed under Barack Obama's 8-year term

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/ob...ccesses/691847


How Trump rescued the economy from Obama's failed policies

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ailed-policies


Just one day after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, famed New York Times writer Paul Krugman wrote, “It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? A first-pass answer is never … So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”



Nearly two years later, Krugman couldn’t possibly look more foolish, as President Trump has ushered in one of the most stunning and successful economic turnarounds in modern history. Under former President Barack Obama, the economy was stuck in neutral, but Trump has pushed the economic gas pedal firmly to floor by allowing businesses and individuals to control more of their own money and easing government-imposed restrictions that limited growth throughout Obama’s tenure.



More Economic Mistakes Made By The Obama Administration

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...dministration/


Last week, we published our first paper. The subject was Obama’s mishandling of the Great Recession and how that mishandling destroyed middle class wealth and middle class black wealth in particular. The paper does not go into all of Obama’s economic failures, but instead focuses narrowly on the decisions made about how to allocate home value losses. A more comprehensive paper about his overall mismanagement would have included things like the too-small stimulus, the unnecessary sequester deal, and the failure to staff the Federal Reserve with aggressive unemployment-fighters.


When Obama came into office, one of the very first things he had to do was pass a fiscal stimulus plan to deal with the effects of the Great Recession. According to reporting from Noam Scheiber, the job of deciding how big the stimulus should be was initially given to Christy Romer, the soon-to-be chief White House economist. Romer calculated that closing the gap caused by the Great Recession would require a stimulus of $1.7-to-$1.8 trillion and presented her figures to Larry Summers, Obama’s top economic advisor.


Summers decided unilaterally that Romer’s figures were impractical. So Romer got working again, producing a second proposal of $1.2 trillion that also included options for $600 billion and $850 billion. Summers again decided to unilaterally kill the $1.2 trillion proposal and eventually president-elect Obama was presented a choice between $600 billion and $850 billion. The $850 billion figure, which was $1 trillion too small, eventually became the basis for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus bill). So, despite unified Democratic control of government, the Obama administration put forward a stimulus plan that was never going to come anywhere close to solving the macroeconomic problem of the day.


Just a few years after bungling the stimulus, the Obama administration agreed to a sequester arrangement in 2011 that promised to slash government spending by $1.2 trillion between 2013 and 2023. This agreement was struck at a time when the black unemployment rate was an eye-watering 15.7%. By the time the austerity plan hit in 2013, black unemployment was still north of 12%.


Arguably the effects of a stimulus that was $1 trillion too small and $1.2 trillion of austerity could have been counteracted by extremely aggressive monetary policy. But Obama did not pursue this kind of monetary policy, apparently because of the mistaken belief that monetary policy had already “shot its wad.” Obama allowed vacancies at the Federal Reserve to go unfilled rather than packing the Board with people who would pursue aggressive expansionary policy and appointed a Fed chair in Janet Yellen who similarly failed to ramp up monetary policy once in power.


All of these decisions created enormous and unnecessary economic pain, especially for black families. While failed housing policies wiped out middle class black wealth, the failed fiscal and monetary policies kept black unemployment sky high for years longer than it needed to be.


Those who say Obama did a good job of managing the economy often say things like “Obama had 8 straight years of month-over-month job growth.” This is supposed to be an impressive statistic, but when viewed correctly, it is really an indictment of his economic mismanagement and the excruciatingly slow recovery it delivered. Good economic policy would have resulted in massive job gains over a brief period of time after Obama came into office followed by fairly stagnant job numbers after full employment was reached. Instead, the Obama economy only delivered modest job gains each month, so modest in fact that after 8 years in office, we were still not at full employment.


Insofar as black and Latino unemployment is consistently much higher than white unemployment, the labor market pain caused by these bad economic decisions was disproportionately shouldered by communities of color.



This economy is definitely not Obama’s recovery

https://nypost.com/2018/09/12/this-e...amas-recovery/


Barack Obama is trying to take credit for the booming economy under President Trump. “When you hear how great the economy is doing right now,” Obama said on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates a few days ago, “let’s just remember when this recovery started.”


By this logic, the Kingston Trio laid the groundwork for the Beatles.


But the contrast in economic performance between the two presidents is undeniable. Obama’s multitrillion-dollar spend-and-borrow policies produced 2 percent growth. In his final year, Obama handed off to Trump an economy that was limping at 1.6 percent.


After only 18 months in office, Trump has elevated growth to 3 percent on an annual rate and the latest projections are that the growth rate for the second and third quarter (which ends Sept. 30) will be over 4 percent. One might say all it took to get the economy really crackling was getting Obama out of office.


Obama is right that this has been a long recovery — beginning in June 2009. But the real economic boom started almost the day after the election in 2016 with the surge in small business, investor and consumer confidence.

No one on the left, least of all Obama, thought this was remotely possible.


Two years ago, Obama famously ridiculed Trump’s campaign promise of faster growth and a comeback in manufacturing jobs by saying this could only happen if Trump was waving “a magic wand.” Obama’s first chief economist, Larry Summers, proclaimed to the world that 2 percent was the best we could hope for. Other liberal economists were so disdainful of Trump’s tax cuts, deregulation and energy development that they predicted Trump would crash the world economy and the stock market.


It’s a little early to be declaring Trump’s policies a “miracle,” as Trump has boasted. All we can say is whatever he’s doing, it’s working.


And that Obama’s economic experiment of Keynesian economics on steroids was a profound disappointment. It began with the $830 billion stimulus plan, and then cash-for-clunkers, bailouts, ObamaCare, tax hikes on the rich, minimum-wage hikes and a wave of financial and economic regulations. All told, the national debt nearly doubled in eight years.


Meanwhile, the Obama recovery was remarkably flimsy. In 2015, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress found that compared to the eight previous post-recession events, “the Obama recovery was the weakest on record.”


The recovery was so shallow that had Obama merely achieved a normal pace of recovery, personal income in 2014 would have been $3,200 higher. If the economy had matched the Reagan trajectory, GDP in 2016 would have been almost $3 trillion larger (equivalent to the combined GDP of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania).


Even as measured by the left’s favorite metric, “economic fairness,” the policies failed. The index of income inequality rose nearly every year under Obama.


While Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Washington, DC, Wall Street and the energy states did spectacularly well (thanks to shale oil and gas), in the Rust Belt regions of the country — from upstate New York to Ohio and Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky — family incomes remained flat at best. On the campaign trail, I often asked folks in small towns across the Midwest about the Obama recovery, and their response was: What recovery?


Trump didn’t just run against Hillary Clinton and her closet overflowing with scandals, but the meager Obama economy as well. He ran against the runaway costs of ObamaCare. He ran against the regulatory assault, the tax hikes, unpopular trade deals and climate-change fanaticism. He ran against hopelessness, against opioid addiction, the $10 trillion rise in the national debt and income stagnation.


One time during the campaign, Larry Kudlow, Steve Miller and I held an impromptu discussion with Trump about economic strategy. Miller summarized the game plan to Trump succinctly: “Donald, just look at all the things that Obama has done on the economy over the past eight years, and then do just the opposite.”


Trump has done pretty much just that — which explains why the Trump boom is an everyday reminder of the Obamanomics failure.


Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign. His new book, “Trumponomics,” will be published next month.



Sorry Obama, But It's Trump's Economic Boom, Not Yours

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oming-economy/


For eight years, President Obama presided over the worst economic recovery in modern times. For six years, he blamed Republicans in Congress for thwarting his spending agenda and hampering growth. In his last two years in office, he claimed that 2% growth was the best we could hope for. And in his last year in office, while the economy was again stalling out, Obama claimed that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation would only make things worse.


But now that we're in the midst of a booming economy — which kicked in after Trump reversed almost all Obama's economic policies — we're supposed to believe that it's Obama who deserves all the credit.


Yep. That's precisely what Obama and his Amen Chorus in the press want us to believe.


In his speech in Illinois last Friday, Obama complained that Republicans were taking credit for his work.
"When you hear how great the economy's doing right now, let's just remember when this recovery started," he said. "I mean, I'm glad it's continued, but … suddenly Republicans are saying it's a miracle."


This week, White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett wisely set the record straight. At a briefing on Monday, he noted that just about every important economic indicator showed the economy was stalling out in Obama's last year.


Hassett explained that small business optimism had been on the decline before the November 2016 election. The percentage of businesses saying it's a good time to expand was, too. Business investment was stagnant. All those turned upward starting in 2017. Applications for new businesses are now well above the trend over Obama's entire second term, Hassett noted. And blue-collar jobs are growing faster than any time since the Reagan administration.
Turnaround on GDP Growth

There's more. The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama's last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one.


The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.


Real median family income didn't budge from August 2015 to November 2016, according to Sentier Research. It's up more than 4% since Trump came into office. Wages are on the upswing.


In Obama's last year, unemployment rate remained basically unchanged — it was 4.9% in Jan 2016, and 4.8% when Trump took office in Jan. 2017. Now it's down to 3.9%


We could go on.


Meanwhile, the same reporters now patting Obama on the back for today's strong economy were reporting in late 2016 about how — as The New York Times put it — "the underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White House."
Scientific Consensus

Still not convinced Trump deserves credit for the current booming economy? Consider that a survey of 68 business, financial and academic economists by The Wall Street Journal at the start of this year found that most believed Trump's policies would boost the economy, while the same group had said Obama's policies were a drag on long-term growth. Ninety percent said Trump's tax cuts would accelerate growth.


It is what the left would, in another context, call a "scientific consensus."
Yet to listen to liberal activists and the ideological press and you'd think that Trump was crazy for claiming credit for today's growth. "The economic expansion we're enjoying today was set in motion under Obama," insists Slate's Jordan Weissmann.


Doesn't this make people like Obama and Weissmann "economy deniers?"

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Sorry adav8, but you're the one playing word games here.

In post 501 you wrote Trump looked stupid for saying he built "the worlds greatest on economy" on 2% GDP growth rates. So in post 526 now it's just he said mean things?

Did you take a tap dancing class at the Ivy League university you attended? You are doing a fine job of tap dancing around what you wrote or meant.

You claim Trump had a solid economic record but his GDP numbers are just 3/10 of a percentage point higher than Obama.

Here is the difference Ivy leaguer when Obama came into Office the banks had lost all of their money on credit default swap bets that went sideways. Obama had to bail the banks out. When Trump came into office the banks were already profitable again.

You are the one who is playing the word games not me.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again. Can you identify a single person who pointed to that peak number alone and called it "under performing"?

Didn't think so.

Granted, Obama's multi-year growth record was indeed criticized as under performing. Most of the critics (including me) were comparing how slowly the US economy recovered under Obama's stewardship with how rapidly it had recovered from previous recessions.

Here ya go...

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=49

On one hand you talk about the difficulty of comparing numbers from different times , while on the other hand you compare those numbers depending on what you are trying to promote or dispel.

Sounds like a hypocrite

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and there is this .. i'll jump in here without replying to a ton of posts only to say Obama's economic policy is widely regraded as a second failure of FDR's "Let's spend our way out of this depression" only to be proved wrong again. somewhere i hear AOC, Bernie and Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff screaming. lol



an Obama primer ... of failure ... plenty more of that ...


https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...09&postcount=1

How much have you stocks increased?

Thanks Big B

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

]
Oh dear! Isn't it enough if I just say he was rude and tweeted a lot of mean things? Why should I pick through a pretty solid economic record in search of a fly in the ointment when I can let a clueless amateur like you try to do that?

You have touted Trump's economic record. How about you point out Trump record economic gains.

Start with his reduction of the national debt and then his record GDP numbers.

[rexdutchman]

Again we're NOT ,,,Theys gonna bankrupt amerkia

[Texas Contrarian]

.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Here is the difference Ivy leaguer when Obama came into Office the banks had lost all of their money on credit default swap bets that went sideways. Obama had to bail the banks out. When Trump came into office the banks were already profitable again.

You are the one who is playing the word games not me.

(The banks were, by the way, "already profitable again" before Obama and his aides even had time to figure out where the White House rest rooms are after first assuming office!)

Obama bailed out the banks? Holy smokes! Thanks for pointing that out to us. You see, most people seem to think the legislation that created "TARP" and the "bank bailouts" was passed in October of 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerge...on_Act_of_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubl...Relief_Program

So, that sneaky Barack engineered all this before he even entered the Oval Office? Damn, he must be even more hypercompetent than I thought!

.

[bambino]

https://t.me/rrndaily/102894

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bambino

https://t.me/rrndaily/102894

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Originally Posted by WTF

Thanks Big B

And "Big B" gets a 38% approval rating!!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/6320098001/


But hey, let's try to put a positive spin on it... at least Big B is still ahead of his Veep Kum-a-lot, whose approval rating has skidded to a measly 28%!

Anyone recall how low Nixon's approval rating was when he resigned the Presidency in 1974?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Obama bailed out the banks? Holy smokes! Thanks for pointing that out to us. You see, most people seem to think the legislation that created "TARP" and the "bank bailouts" was passed in October of 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerge...on_Act_of_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubl...Relief_Program

So, that sneaky Barack engineered all this before he even entered the Oval Office? Damn, he must be even more hypercompetent than I thought!

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Hey Captain, nice of you to drop in. You do know your stuff!

You're right, adav8! The Captain sure knows his stuff, doesn't he?

QUESTION: Do you prefer being corrected by him or me? Or BOTH of us?

[Texas Contrarian]

.

Originally Posted by lustylad

But hey, let's try to put a positive spin on it... at least Big B is still ahead of his Veep Kum-a-lot, whose approval rating has skidded to a measly 28%!

Anyone recall how low Nixon's approval rating was when he resigned the Presidency in 1974?

Around 24%, according to a few published reports at the time.

I suspect that if Kamala, as seems likely, ascends to the presidency at some time during the next three years, she'll give ol' Tricky Dick a serious run for his money!

The low 20s seems about the deepest descent possible, as explained by a history prof from an unspecified university on Quora a few years ago:

(The follwong is a copy & paste from quora.com)

In the broadest sense, Nixon’s surprising level of approval on the eve of his resignation means that there is probably a level of approval below which no President can fall.

Don’t get me wrong, 25% is abysmal. (Technically, Nixon’s lowest approval rating was 24% just prior to his resignation in August 1974, but that’s not statistically very different from 25%.) But you’d think it’d be worse given the circumstances. So how do we explain it?

Two years prior to his resignation, Nixon had won the largest landslide in American presidential history; he won a bit over 60% of the popular vote, and 520 of 538 electoral votes; he won 49 of 50 states. That is to say, there were a LOT of people in the country who had voted for Richard Nixon less than two years before he resigned.

And here’s the thing: people don’t like to admit when they are wrong. From a cognitive standpoint, it is a difficult thing to confront the idea that you made a bad choice in supporting someone. Certainly, Presidents do occasionally lose re-election. But that seems to be at least partially the result of dissatisfied supporters staying home rather than switching to support someone else. Yes, there absolutely are voters who will choose to support a different candidate in the next election because they are angry or dissatisfied with the one who they voted for last time. But it takes a lot to get large numbers of people to that point, where they say, “I made a mistake last time, and now I am going to correct it.”

Presidential approval ratings operate along the same basis. Some people who will say they “disapprove” of a President’s job performance may still be inclined to support them when the choice is between them and a member of the other political party. But strong supporters will take a long time to really abandon someone they previously had a strong sense of attachment to. A lot of Nixon voters did in fact turn against him, but the process was far more gradual than you’d think. As for those who continued to support him, well, partisanship is a powerful drug. There are some people who identify so strongly with their party — and so strongly against the other party — that they’ll never turn on a president from their party. Add to that the fact that there are some people who do not follow politics or the news very much at all, and might have only been dimly aware of the extent of criminal activity uncovered within the Nixon administration during the Watergate investigations. And if you’re not following the news very closely — if you’re just just picking up on little bits and pieces that you can’t completely tune out, and that lack any real context — then it’s easier to conclude that the information is false or inaccurate.

So if you had interviewed someone who counted among the 24-25% of voters who still approved of Nixon at the very end of his Presidency, you’d likely have heard some of the following explanations. (This is informed speculation on my part, rather than actual quotes from real people. Make of that what you will.)

“He’s my President and he has my support no matter what.”

“I don’t know what the whole fuss is about this Watergate mess is. President Nixon says he didn’t do anything wrong and I believe him.”

“The whole thing sounds like a conspiracy against the President to me. The media and the Democrats are out to get him.” (yes, people DID say things like this back then, and Nixon himself tried to cast Watergate this way.)

Now, the question may be asked what this means for Trump. The implications for Trump are the same as those for any President, really: there is a probably a level of support below which he cannot fall. Twenty-five percent seems to be pretty close to the floor; George W. Bush hit that number a few times over his last year in office but never went below that point despite the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and an unpopular war in Iraq.

The lowest presidential approval rating ever recorded goes to Harry Truman, at 22% in February of 1952. But we only have approval ratings that date back to Truman’s presidency; modern opinion polling was really just getting started in the 1940s.

But the low to mid 20’s seems to be the floor of a President’s support for as long as we’ve been able to measure it.

So for Trump, it means that no matter what he does or how the various scandals and investigation swirling around him play out, he’s unlikely to fall below that point. And he’s nowhere close to that low right now; his approval, on average, has been in the low to mid 40’s for a while.

But while a certain percentage of voters will apparently never abandon a sitting President, that floor of support is not enough to be leveraged as political capital. Any president whose support falls that low is not going to get much done, even if they stay in office.

-- Professor William Murphy, 2018

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You claim Trump had a solid economic record but his GDP numbers are just 3/10 of a percentage point higher than Obama...

Are you completely deaf? Or just a pisspoor listener? Read again, slowly this time:

Originally Posted by lustylad

...three-tenths of one percent is huge. It translates into $630 billion in lost output in a single year. Over ten years, that adds up to $6.3 trillion (actually more, since it compounds) in less income for our country. Which also means significantly lower tax revenues for dim-retards like you to fund all your crazy and corrupt green new deal boondoggles.