Jump to content

The Trump Economy


GG

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Well, Trump said would be north of 4% no problemo did he not? maybe even 5 to 6% if i remember correctly

 

Yeah, you'd almost think that the Federal Reserve stepped in and jacked up interests rates specifically to prevent that from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Context.

What Trump says has ZERO, and I mean ZERO to do wit Obama..so explain to me the context of Trump implementing a tax cut a year  and declaring this

 

Quote

So we're at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don't go to 4 percent, 5 percent, and even 6 percent."

Lets not forget the 3.3% was before his policies really took effect and most would agree should be assisgned to the previous admins.. and we are below that now. 

 

But somehow the statement above is related to Obama and context two years later ..how????????

 

Argue your boys record .or are you afraid to do that?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/trump-defies-data-with-6-percent-gdp-growth-forecast.html

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, you'd almost think that the Federal Reserve stepped in and jacked up interests rates specifically to prevent that from happening.

Yep , the guy appointed by Trump actively worked to make the economy falter so Trump would look bad. Yep, that sounds about right!!!

Edited by plenzmd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Yep , the guy appointed by Trump actively worked to make the economy falter so Trump would look bad. Yep, that sounds about right!!!

 

That's not what I said, but you go with the dumbassery. It's working for you today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

then explain what you meant

 

Okay, i did misread your comment..my bad.

 

They jacked up the rates specifically to prevent 4-6% growth. That's not really a debate. It was pretty widely reported why they were increasing rates.

 

They didn't want the economy to overheat, causing problems down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

They jacked up the rates specifically to prevent 4-6% growth. That's not really a debate. It was pretty widely reported why they were increasing rates.

 

They didn't want the economy to overheat, causing problems down the line.

I agree, as stated above i misinterpreted your comments..my apologies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

What Trump says has ZERO, and I mean ZERO to do wit Obama..so explain to me the context of Trump implementing a tax cut a year  and declaring this

 

Lets not forget the 3.3% was before his policies really took effect and most would agree should be assisgned to the previous admins.. and we are below that now. 

 

But somehow the statement above is related to Obama and context two years later ..how????????

 

Argue your boys record .or are you afraid to do that?

 

 

Discuss honestly. You know damn well that 2 years doesn't equal 8 years and without comparison (context) the figures don't mean jackshit. We all know that the economy is much improved with the increased % in the workforce, the fact that there are more jobs than people looking and the increase in wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Discuss honestly. You know damn well that 2 years doesn't equal 8 years and without comparison (context) the figures don't mean jackshit. We all know that the economy is much improved with the increased % in the workforce, the fact that there are more jobs than people looking and the increase in wages.

again, to my point..that is an argument we can have..and you made it without referencing Obama! Thats all I ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 1:40 PM, Koko78 said:

 

I don't see how that was 'dumbing down' the discussion for Trump (other than it was a HuffPo piece, and they're dipschiffs with a mandate to attack Trump regardless of reality). He wasn't wrong.

 

People forget Trump has been involved in negotiating and signing complex contracts for decades.

 

Yeah, and then not honoring them... maybe it was because those contracts were just to complex for him to understand that he was supposed to pay people/small businesses back the amount he committed  :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I haven't yet seen anyone say "Did better than expected."  Outlets seem to be going way out of their way to make this seem negative.

 

When you have a President who was elected primarily for his economic acumen as a businessman--I disagree with anyone who thinks "Build a wall from sea to shining sea!!!" was what legitimately got moderates to vote for him--who kept touting how he'd inevitably get GDP growth above 4% and even 5%, it seems perfectly fair to present the 4th quarter in that manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah, and then not honoring them... maybe it was because those contracts were just to complex for him to understand that he was supposed to pay people/small businesses back the amount he committed  :lol:

Too. You're like a little lapdog that nips at heels.

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

When you have a President who was elected primarily for his economic acumen as a businessman--I disagree with anyone who thinks "Build a wall from sea to shining sea!!!" was what legitimately got moderates to vote for him--who kept touting how he'd inevitably get GDP growth above 4% and even 5%, it seems perfectly fair to present the 4th quarter in that manner.

He won the election because of the SCOTUS nominations coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

When you have a President who was elected primarily for his economic acumen as a businessman--I disagree with anyone who thinks "Build a wall from sea to shining sea!!!" was what legitimately got moderates to vote for him--who kept touting how he'd inevitably get GDP growth above 4% and even 5%, it seems perfectly fair to present the 4th quarter in that manner.

 

First, I'm glad you're down here. More voices are needed in the dungeon - especially those who present differing points of view. :beer: 

 

Second, I'd argue the bolded is not the primary reason why Trump was elected. The primary reason was because he was not Hillary Clinton. A secondary reason was because he, as Michael Moore so eloquently put it in the video below, was "the biggest ***** you ever recorded in human history". People understood exactly who and what Trump was when they elected him. Which is why the normal smear attacks of "racists/sexist/Islamophobic" which works to sink 9 out of 10 politicians had no impact on his numbers. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Wow.

 

You got me on a typo.

 

Apparently that typo somehow proves your point... :blink:

 

Congratulations.

The misuse of "to" was not the point of my response. The nipping at the heels was a reference to your weak arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

They jacked up the rates specifically to prevent 4-6% growth. That's not really a debate. It was pretty widely reported why they were increasing rates.

 

They didn't want the economy to overheat, causing problems down the line.

 

Federal Interest rates are still incredibly low when you look at the span of interest rates over the last 60 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

 

Shouldn't Trump be held to his own standards as he publicly represents them?  Or are we supposed to assume there was an unsaid asterisk at the end of his statement of "...as long as the Fed doesn't raise interest rates."...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

The misuse of "to" was not the point of my response. The nipping at the heels was a reference to your weak arguments.

 

Yes, using a nebulous insult calling me a lapdog nipping at heals is clearly a much stronger argument than my weaker argument of bringing up something material and substantial that resurfaced about Trump and his business practices just yesterday.

The-Naked-Gun-Facepalm.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yes, using a nebulous insult calling me a lapdog nipping at heals is clearly a much stronger argument than my weaker argument of bringing up something material and substantial that resurfaced about Trump and his business practices just yesterday.

The-Naked-Gun-Facepalm.gif

Heels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TPS said:

It's very easy to find that...

Fox News

 

I don't usually check comedy sites for news, though.

 

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Well, Trump said would be north of 4% no problemo did he not? maybe even 5 to 6% if i remember correctly

 

Who the ***** cares?  Trump says lots of things, usually wrong.  I don't check comedy twitter feeds for news either.

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

When you have a President who was elected primarily for his economic acumen as a businessman--I disagree with anyone who thinks "Build a wall from sea to shining sea!!!" was what legitimately got moderates to vote for him--who kept touting how he'd inevitably get GDP growth above 4% and even 5%, it seems perfectly fair to present the 4th quarter in that manner.

 

He has no economic acumen as a businessman.  Anyone with half a brain has known that since the 90s.  He went bankrupt in the casino business.  

 

If you think it's fair to present economic data in this manner - as dismal news based on what a failed casino owner thinks, even though it's better than what economists predicted - then you are the problem.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If you think it's fair to present economic data in this manner - as dismal news based on what a failed casino owner thinks, even though it's better than what economists predicted - then you are the problem.

 

Trump's real problem is that he doesn't speak in metaphors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

He has no economic acumen as a businessman.  Anyone with half a brain has known that since the 90s.  He went bankrupt in the casino business.  

 

If you think it's fair to present economic data in this manner - as dismal news based on what a failed casino owner thinks, even though it's better than what economists predicted - then you are the problem.

 

Well, at least I'm not one of those people with half a brain who voted for Trump thinking he was a business genius who could propel our country back into a post WWII boom.

 

I really see nothing wrong with the news coverage considering it's a mixed bag of news and 4th quarter growth alone hasn't exactly been presented as dismal.

 

We had better-than-expected growth in the 4th Quarter, which is how it's being covered if you actually choose to read articles rather than merely look at headlines... though that might be difficult for some in the modern world. 

 

Although... why do you really think we should even look at 2.6% growth as a good thing, regardless of what economists predicted?  If I'm an A student, but I take a test and predict I got an F and then got a D, should I really advertise that as good?

 

Regardless, GDP for 2018 fell short of the 3% that Trump himself and most economists were actually predicting we'd reach several months ago and the economy is forecast to slow down this year, so Trump may never even reach the 3% GDP growth he thought he'd inevitably reach, much less the 4% or 5% he thought was easily attainable for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well, at least I'm not one of those people with half a brain who voted for Trump thinking he was a business genius who could propel our country back into a post WWII boom.

 

 

 

Contrary to what you might think about PPP, there isn't a single poster (that I know of) who voted for trump for that reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Contrary to what you might think about PPP, there isn't a single poster (that I know of) who voted for trump for that reason. 

Of those reluctant Trump supporters I think the biggest reason that pushed them over the top was SCOTUS nominations.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Of those reluctant Trump supporters I think the biggest reason that pushed them over the top was SCOTUS nominations.

 

No, the biggest reason was simply that he wasn't Clinton.  

 

It's the old saw about standing on a river bank, being stalked by a hungry lion.  Maybe there's crocodiles in the water.  But there's definitely a hungry lion stalking you.  Better the hypothetical crocodiles than the realized lion.

51 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well, at least I'm not one of those people with half a brain who voted for Trump thinking he was a business genius who could propel our country back into a post WWII boom.

 

 

No, you're one of those people who thinks everyone who voted for Trump is one of those people.  You're insisting you're better than them because even though you've got your head stuck as far up your ass as they do, you think your ass smells sweeter.

 

And maybe it does.  Doesn't change the fact that your head's stuck up your ass.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the biggest reason was simply that he wasn't Clinton.  

While Hilary was in fact an awful candidate, the biggest single reason why Trump got elected was because he was an outsider. It's still his biggest asset.  The country is tired of the same inside the beltway gang telling the people of this country to shut up and take it.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the biggest reason was simply that he wasn't Clinton.  

 

It's the old saw about standing on a river bank, being stalked by a hungry lion.  Maybe there's crocodiles in the water.  But there's definitely a hungry lion stalking you.  Better the hypothetical crocodiles than the realized lion.

I know people who were on the fence until SCOTUS was brought up. They weren't overly political and disliked Hillary but abhorred Trump for his comments. The SCOTUS nomination(s) ended up getting them over the top for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

No, you're one of those people who thinks everyone who voted for Trump is one of those people.  You're insisting you're better than them because even though you've got your head stuck as far up your ass as they do, you think your ass smells sweeter.

 

And maybe it does.  Doesn't change the fact that your head's stuck up your ass.

 

 

Did I say that everyone who voted for Trump is one of those people?  Is that legitimately how you read what I said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Regardless, GDP for 2018 fell short of the 3% that Trump himself and most economists were actually predicting we'd reach several months ago and the economy is forecast to slow down this year, so Trump may never even reach the 3% GDP growth he thought he'd inevitably reach, much less the 4% or 5% he thought was easily attainable for him.

 

And let's be honest: how much of the incredible economic improvements are Trump, and how much of it is simply the business world breathing a huge sigh of relief that Obama is no long screwing  everything up and making everyone keep their money away from his greedy little socialist fingers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Federal Interest rates are still incredibly low when you look at the span of interest rates over the last 60 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart\

 

Didn't say they were.

 

Do you comprehend basic English, or should I type slower going forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Yes, moron, you did.

 

Oh, we're namecalling and allowed to here?

 

No, I didn't.

 

You present yourself as intelligent and then resort to this.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for economic reasons.

(This was the one I mentioned)

 

but...

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for social reasons.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for immigration.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily to plant conservative judges in all different courts.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily because he wasn't Hilary.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily because he was anti-establishment and was going to drain the swamp.

 

 

So, how is me mentioning one of those reasons covering all people who voted for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Oh, we're namecalling and allowed to here?

 

No, I didn't.

 

You present yourself as intelligent and then resort to this.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for economic reasons.

(This was the one I mentioned)

 

but...

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for social reasons.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily for immigration.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily to plant conservative judges in all different courts.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily because he wasn't Hilary.

 

Some people voted for Trump primarily because he was anti-establishment and was going to drain the swamp.

 

 

So, how is me mentioning one of those reasons covering all people who voted for him?

this is not going to end well, dumb ass.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Didn't say they were.

 

Do you comprehend basic English, or should I type slower going forward?

 

Sure looks like you're insinuating "if it weren't for the Fed, Trump would have his 4%-6%."

 

Sounds like an excuse.

 

For the record, I think the entire notion that a President is solely or even primarily responsible for the economy in most cases is pretty ridiculous, but the fact that those who want to give credit to Trump for the economy are giving excuses like the Fed for why we still aren't even above 3% is just silly considering the last time our economy was over 3% annual GDP Federal Interest Rates was in a year when our Interest Rates were higher than they currently are at the beginning of the year and were raised over 2% in the span of that same year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

this is not going to end well, dumb ass.

 

Are you a twitter bot?

 

I'm sure there's some computer algorithm out there throwing out these ridiculous one-liners you've almost exclusively been throwing out for a couple years at least.

 

You used to have occasionally thoughtful and insightful posts.

 

Now you're just a solid representation of so much that is wrong with social media and message boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Are you a twitter bot?

 

I'm sure there's some computer algorithm out there throwing out these ridiculous one-liners you've almost exclusively been throwing out for a couple years at least.

 

You used to have occasionally thoughtful and insightful posts.

 

Now you're just a solid representation of so much that is wrong with social media and message boards.

as usual, you have entirely missed the point.

 

axJmn.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...