The Trump Economy

[plenzmd1]

14 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Keep praying for that economic collapse!

No one wants a bad economy..what we want is for people to not blindly follow Trump's policies without looking at the actual results. The sugar rush of his tax cuts have worn off, his trade policies are rhetoric are eroding confidence in business leaders causing decrease investments and what may be a slowing economy and a ballooning deficit. Again, growth below 2% without the increase in government spending last quarter..that is not a great economy

 

The problem we have now is not anti Trumpers wanting a bad economy, it is Trump loyalists who will not believe what the numbes are clearly foretelling with a "nothing to see here, all is well" attitude.

[GG]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

No one wants a bad economy..what we want is for people to not blindly follow Trump's policies without looking at the actual results. The sugar rush of his tax cuts have worn off, his trade policies are rhetoric are eroding confidence in business leaders causing decrease investments and what may be a slowing economy and a ballooning deficit. Again, growth below 2% without the increase in government spending last quarter..that is not a great economy

 

The problem we have now is not anti Trumpers wanting a bad economy, it is Trump loyalists who will not believe what the numbes are clearly foretelling with a "nothing to see here, all is well" attitude.

 

Who's saying that?  Everyone knows that a slowing economy will be Trump's undoing.  The only person oblivious to that is Trump.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...leave it to that dopey, irrelevant, POS putz Maher to hope that the economy tanks to prevent Trump's re-election...yet ANOTHER example why relaxed mental hygiene was NOT a good idea.....perfect cast for the re-make of "Three's Company"....the Putz, Handler and Griffith.......lower ratings than CNN.............

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

No one wants a bad economy..what we want is for people to not blindly follow Trump's policies without looking at the actual results. The sugar rush of his tax cuts have worn off, his trade policies are rhetoric are eroding confidence in business leaders causing decrease investments and what may be a slowing economy and a ballooning deficit. Again, growth below 2% without the increase in government spending last quarter..that is not a great economy

 

The problem we have now is not anti Trumpers wanting a bad economy, it is Trump loyalists who will not believe what the numbes are clearly foretelling with a "nothing to see here, all is well" attitude.

Really? You think "no one wants a bad economy"? Read through a good portion of this thread with an open mind. Go on Twitter and follow a few lefties... practically gleeful with the idea that the economy may (if the MSM has its way) be heading for a slowdown.

The last few years have been amazing... the US economy has grown whereas the rest of the world is . A lot of it is simply getting rid of regulations. We have been a nanny-state for years now, and watching the Ds on stage at the debates, they'd like to take it even further. By simply removing impediments to growth (no, no one wants to watch a river burn, but neither does anyone want to take jobs out of the country simply because of US regulations), and Congress not doing anything to harm the economy (don't kid yourself, a divided Congress isn't a terrible thing), the economy has been unleashed. The Fed has tried its level best to slow the economy since Trump took office, but have not yet succeeded. They just might yet, however.

Will this wonderful continue forever? Of course not.  But enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Really? You think "no one wants a bad economy"? Read through a good portion of this thread with an open mind. Go on Twitter and follow a few lefties... practically gleeful with the idea that the economy may (if the MSM has its way) be heading for a slowdown.

The last few years have been amazing... the US economy has grown whereas the rest of the world is . A lot of it is simply getting rid of regulations. We have been a nanny-state for years now, and watching the Ds on stage at the debates, they'd like to take it even further. By simply removing impediments to growth (no, no one wants to watch a river burn, but neither does anyone want to take jobs out of the country simply because of US regulations), and Congress not doing anything to harm the economy (don't kid yourself, a divided Congress isn't a terrible thing), the economy has been unleashed. The Fed has tried its level best to slow the economy since Trump took office, but have not yet succeeded. They just might yet, however.

Will this wonderful continue forever? Of course not.  But enjoy it while it lasts.

 

Maher: I'm "Hoping" For "A Crashing Economy" So We Can Get Rid Of Trump, "Bring On The Recession"

 

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date June 9, 2018

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

Maher: I'm "Hoping" For "A Crashing Economy" So We Can Get Rid Of Trump, "Bring On The Recession"

 

 

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date June 9, 2018

 

...as if it would affect this pure schmuck..........

 

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Really? You think "no one wants a bad economy"? Read through a good portion of this thread with an open mind. Go on Twitter and follow a few lefties... practically gleeful with the idea that the economy may (if the MSM has its way) be heading for a slowdown.

The last few years have been amazing... the US economy has grown whereas the rest of the world is . A lot of it is simply getting rid of regulations. We have been a nanny-state for years now, and watching the Ds on stage at the debates, they'd like to take it even further. By simply removing impediments to growth (no, no one wants to watch a river burn, but neither does anyone want to take jobs out of the country simply because of US regulations), and Congress not doing anything to harm the economy (don't kid yourself, a divided Congress isn't a terrible thing), the economy has been unleashed. The Fed has tried its level best to slow the economy since Trump took office, but have not yet succeeded. They just might yet, however.

Will this wonderful continue forever? Of course not.  But enjoy it while it lasts.

 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/obama-vs-trump-economy-whos-winning-51559328982

 

Fair article i believe...what worries me in this 

 

Quote

The government component of GDP has actually made a greater contribution to overall GDP over the recent period than over the prior period. So if we back out the government’s contribution from all the figures on quarterly growth, we pick up four eight-quarter periods when growth ran faster under Obama.

I am just not sure how supposed conservatives dismiss the fact that without the huge increase in government spending, and subsequent huge increase in the deficit, Trumps record on the economy is not great. The numbers just do not support it. I get the argument going on here if the deficit matters or not, i do believe it does. And I am 100% confident if Obama ran the deficit up like this when the economy was good like it was when Trump took office...almost all Trump folks would be railing on gig government wasteful spending etc....but Trump is growing government spending and deficits at rates unprecedented and his supporters, who praise him for "taking on government"..praise the fact he his spending like a drunken sailor!

[Buffalo_Gal]

20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/obama-vs-trump-economy-whos-winning-51559328982

 

Fair article i believe...what worries me in this 

 

I am just not sure how supposed conservatives dismiss the fact that without the huge increase in government spending, and subsequent huge increase in the deficit, Trumps record on the economy is not great. The numbers just do not support it. I get the argument going on here if the deficit matters or not, i do believe it does. And I am 100% confident if Obama ran the deficit up like this when the economy was good like it was when Trump took office...almost all Trump folks would be railing on gig government wasteful spending etc....but Trump is growing government spending and deficits at rates unprecedented and his supporters, who praise him for "taking on government"..praise the fact he his spending like a drunken sailor!

Many pages back I listed the deficit increases and linked to sources. Trump will be the least increase over the former president in 50 years (assumed over 8 years in office).   But hey, don't read source material and numbers. The narrative is more important. 
 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[plenzmd1]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Many pages back I listed the deficit increases and linked to sources. Trump will be the least increase over the former president in a 50 years (assumed over 8 years in office).   But hey, don't read source material and numbers. The narrative is more important. 
 

Apoligies if i did not see your post..cant say i see every poat made.

 

I will post this ..as a percentage of GDP in non recarrionary years..Trump has the highest deficit as a percent of GDP....

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/01/18/trumps-big-win-the-largest-budget-deficit-with-a-strong-economy/#3989e0b749d1

 

this from a supposed conservative who promised to run a balanced budget within two year..with a Republican majority in both the house and the senate..and yet Trump supporters say massive deficit expansion under a supposed great economy is nothing to worry about..what will happen when the economy slows ?

[Buffalo_Gal]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Apoligies if i did not see your post..cant say i see every poat made.

 

I will post this ..as a percentage of GDP in non recarrionary years..Trump has the highest deficit as a percent of GDP....

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/01/18/trumps-big-win-the-largest-budget-deficit-with-a-strong-economy/#3989e0b749d1

 

this from a supposed conservative who promised to run a balanced budget within two year..with a Republican majority in both the house and the senate..and yet Trump supporters say massive deficit expansion under a supposed great economy is nothing to worry about..what will happen when the economy slows ?

There may be a lot of things Trump promised and has not delivered on (with lots of "help" from the GOPe, Democrats and deep staters), but promising a balanced budget? It isn't listed (unless I missed it). That pdf is from 10.23.16. 

 

[TPS]

20 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Many pages back I listed the deficit increases and linked to sources. Trump will be the least increase over the former president in 50 years (assumed over 8 years in office).   But hey, don't read source material and numbers. The narrative is more important. 
 

This is not true. You made an error in that post.  You said Trump's increase would be 30% "estimated for 8 years," but the 30% was for his first term only.  The projected amount for 8 years was an increase of $9.1 trillion over Obama's ending total of $20.245 trillion, which is a 45% increase.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, TPS said:

This is not true. You made an error in that post.  You said Trump's increase would be 30% "estimated for 8 years," but the 30% was for his first term only.  The projected amount for 8 years was an increase of $9.1 trillion over Obama's ending total of $20.245 trillion, which is a 45% increase.

If, after 8 years, it ends up 45% increase it would still be lower than most of the peeps of the last 50 years.

[TPS]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

If, after 8 years, it ends up 45% increase it would still be lower than most of the peeps of the last 50 years.

I guess if you ignore the democratic presidents...

 

34 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/obama-vs-trump-economy-whos-winning-51559328982

 

Fair article i believe...what worries me in this 

 

I am just not sure how supposed conservatives dismiss the fact that without the huge increase in government spending, and subsequent huge increase in the deficit, Trumps record on the economy is not great. The numbers just do not support it. I get the argument going on here if the deficit matters or not, i do believe it does. And I am 100% confident if Obama ran the deficit up like this when the economy was good like it was when Trump took office...almost all Trump folks would be railing on gig government wasteful spending etc....but Trump is growing government spending and deficits at rates unprecedented and his supporters, who praise him for "taking on government"..praise the fact he his spending like a drunken sailor!

Blasphemy!  You mean government spending explains faster growth under Trump?  I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya....

[3rdnlng]

We can argue about how the economy is going but remember one thing---------------------------the low unemployment rate due to growth in the economy has raised wages. Anecdotal I know, but everywhere I go in WNY I see "Help Wanted" signs with the local Walmart offering starting unskilled labor at $13.75 an hour.

[Buffalo_Gal]

14 minutes ago, TPS said:

I guess if you ignore the democratic presidents...

 

Blasphemy!  You mean government spending explains faster growth under Trump?  I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya....

On 7/20/2019 at 2:37 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:

Kick the can. Every Congress does it. No one wants to be the one to suggest America cuts an entitlement program. Can you imagine the ads with Grannie living on the street? And Congress figured out a few years back that it is better not to pass a budget - "better" for pork that is - than to pass one. Watch what comes out of the next debt ceiling bill. That will be a doozy.
 

The U.S. Federal Budget for FY 2020 is $4.7 trillion. That's $2.8 trillion in mandatory spending which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There's $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending that includes Defense, Education, and Energy. Interest payment on national debt is $479 billion.

</snip>
 

Federal Spending Breakdown
 

Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress.
 

The interest payments on the national debt consume 10% of the budget. These are also required to maintain faith in the U.S. government.

The remaining 30% of spending goes toward discretionary spending. This pays for all federal government agencies. The largest is the military.

Mandatory Spending
 

The mandatory budget will cost $2.841 trillion in FY 2020. Mandatory spending is skyrocketing because more baby boomers are reaching retirement age. By 2030, one in five Americans will be older than 65.

</snip>
 

Interest Payments on the National Debt
 

In FY 2020, interest payments on the national debt are estimated at $479 billion. That's enough to pay for 10 Justice Departments. It's also one of the fastest growing expenses.
 

By 2029, it will more than double to $823 billion, becoming the third-largest budget item after Social Security and Medicare. It's not a mandatory program, but it must be paid to avoid a U.S. debt default. These estimates will increase as interest rates continue rising.
 

</snip>
 

When you get to the bottom of this article, it is very interesting. It shows who were the top 5 (#3 will astound you!). There are links to stuff like historical debt, etc if you want to deal with lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 

• Trump (estimated over 8 years) increase 30% over Obama's last budget
• Obama 74% increase over W's last budget
• W 101% increase over Clinton's last budget
• Clinton 34% increase over Poppie Bush's last budget
• HW 54% increase over Reagan's last budget
• Reagan 186% increase over Carter's last budget
 

On and on back through Woodrow Wilson. Who increased the debt the least by percentage? Truman (3%).

No new president is accountable for the budget deficit in his first year in office ('cause he's stuck with the last guy's budget).
 

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President
 

You can measure the debt by a president by summing up his budget deficits. The president is responsible for his budget priorities.

The deficit by president reveals how much deficit was in each year's budget.
 

The terminology sounds similar, but a difference exists between the deficit and the debt by a president. All presidents can employ a little sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit. For example, they can borrow from federal retirement funds.
 

</snip>
 

The Top Five Contributors by Percent
 

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Percentage-wise, President Roosevelt increased the debt by the largest amount. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt level left by President Herbert Hoover.
 

Woodrow Wilson: President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt, percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 727 percent increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. During his presidency, the Second Liberty Bond Act gave Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.
 

Ronald Reagan: President Reagan increased the debt by 186 percent. Reaganomics added $1.86 trillion. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. That was partly because Reagan increased the defense budget by 35 percent.
 

George W. Bush: President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest dollar amount. It was the fourth-largest percentage increase. Bush increased the debt by 101 percent from where it started at $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That's the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget.

Barack Obama: Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise. He added $8.588 trillion. This 74 percent increase was the fifth-largest. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $831 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects.

The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.

 

 

My gwad I post a lot in this thread.   Took me forever to find that. 

All increases except two decreases.  The are increases (or decreases) over the President prior. 

Obama 74%
Clinton 34%
Carter 43%
LBJ 13%
Kennedy 8% 
Truman 3% 
FDR 1048%
Woodrow Wilson 727%


Trump (estimate) 30%
GW Bush 101%
GHW Bush 54%
RR 186%
Ford 47%
Nixon 34%
Eisenhower 9%
Hoover 33%
Coolidge - 26% (decrease)
Warren G. Harding - 7% (decrease)

I just separated them by party. 

 

[TPS]

Again, 30% is the projection for Trump’s first term only. It’s also hard to compare Admins who experienced serious recessions like Rr and Obama.

I’m not sure what your point was, and I don’t think I gave it much of a look the first time...it bordered on my length! ?

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 hours ago, TPS said:

Again, 30% is the projection for Trump’s first term only. It’s also hard to compare Admins who experienced serious recessions like Rr and Obama.

I’m not sure what your point was, and I don’t think I gave it much of a look the first time...it bordered on my length!

No, it is the projection for 8 years. I am not certain if it is his years 2-8 plus 1 of the next person (the old the new prez shouldn't be blamed for the first year as it was the prior president's budget) or if it is 1-8.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[TPS]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

No, it is the projection for 8 years. I am not certain if it is his years 2-8 plus 1 of the next person (the old the new prez shouldn't be blamed for the first year as it was the prior president's budget) or if it is 1-8.

Here's what it states:

Quote

Donald Trump: As projected in Table S-10 in the FY 2020 budget, Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

On 8/16/2019 at 5:00 PM, 3rdnlng said:

I SEE GLEEFUL SHADY IS TOO MUCH OF A CHICKENSHIT TO FACE THE MUSIC FOR HIS DISHONEST POSTING EARLIER. DOES IT SURPRISE ANYONE?

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

 

There is much hate in this one 

[Teddy KGB]

50 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

 

There is much hate in this one 

 

This is the part where you’re supposed to defend yourself with coherent sentences. 

 

Lot to ask for from a CNN bot with a busted brain.    

[LB3]

21 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

This is the part where you’re supposed to defend yourself with coherent sentences. 

 

Lot to ask for from a CNN bot with a busted brain.    

I think I know who Shady used to be. BillsFan-4-Ever. Oddly enough, Shady was the last person to check his profile. His posting style makes sense, as I remember BF4E saying that he had Aspergers. He seemed like a decent guy, just got stuck on certain things.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/profile/10009-billsfan-4-ever/

Edited August 19, 2019 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I think I know who Shady used to be. BillsFan-4-Ever. Oddly enough, Shady was the last person to check his profile. His posting style makes sense, as I remember BF4E saying that he had Aspergers. He seemed like a decent guy, just got stuck on certain things.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/profile/10009-billsfan-4-ever/

 

Lmao.    That man rode for Ej the way he rides for Zay.           

[LB3]

Just now, Teddy KGB said:

 

Lmao.    That man rode for Ej the way he rides for Zay.           

 I think his battle with Metzelaars over EJ is what got him the ban hammer. He used to love calling out "Faux News" all the time too.

[Teddy KGB]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

 I think his battle with Metzelaars over EJ is what got him the ban hammer. He used to love calling out "Faux News" all the time too.

 

Good work ??     Maybe he can verify it for us. 

[Tiberius]

This is interesting and probably represents the thinking of a group of people who are looking past the rapid

y closing Trump era to the rise of a New Democratic majority that they might have to deal with: 

 

 

In this 2014 file photo, JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon listens as President Barack Obama speaks to leading CEOs at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

By Jena McGregor

August 19 at 10:30 AM

The organization representing the nation’s most powerful chief executives is rewriting how it views the purpose of a corporation, updating its decades-old endorsement of the theory that shareholders’ interests should come above all else.

The new statement, released Monday by the Business Roundtable, suggests balancing the needs of a company’s various constituencies and comes at a time of widening income inequality, rising expectations from the public for corporate behavior and proposals from Democratic lawmakers that aim to revamp or even restructure American capitalism.

“Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity,” reads the statement from the organization, which is chaired by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The group says its members “share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” and commit to doing well by their customers, employees, suppliers and local communities. “Each of our stakeholders is essential,” the group adds. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

The new statement includes 181 signatures of the 192 current members of the Business Roundtable, which represents many of the biggest companies in the United States. While the statement represents at the very least a symbolic change in the group’s thinking, it was not clear how companies would change their practices in light of the new commitments, nor how any changes in behavior would be assessed or monitored.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/19/lobbying-group-powerful-ceos-is-rethinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 hours ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I think I know who Shady used to be. BillsFan-4-Ever. Oddly enough, Shady was the last person to check his profile. His posting style makes sense, as I remember BF4E saying that he had Aspergers. He seemed like a decent guy, just got stuck on certain things.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/profile/10009-billsfan-4-ever/

By checking a profile means that is who I am or was? 

 

I have checked Teddy's profile.  Am I him? 

I have checked DCTom profile.  Am I him?

I have checked Deranged Rhino's profile.  Am I him?

 

I have checked your profile too.    Am I you?  

 

You must be Bray Wyatt then 

Or Mike from Horseheads

 

Have you ever clicked on a profile out of curiosity? 

 

Or  had an accidental click on someones profile?  Christ I do it once or twice a week.  

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

By checking a profile means that is who I am or was? 

 

I have checked Teddy's profile.  Am I him? 

I have checked DCTom profile.  Am I him?

 

 

You wish.  ?

[Tiberius]

The latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll finds: “Amid President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they support free trade with foreign countries. ... That represents a new high in the NBC/WSJ survey on this question, and it’s a 7-point increase from the last time it was asked in 2017.” Only 27 percent think free trade is bad.

[LB3]

13 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

By checking a profile means that is who I am or was? 

 

I have checked Teddy's profile.  Am I him? 

I have checked DCTom profile.  Am I him?

I have checked Deranged Rhino's profile.  Am I him?

 

I have checked your profile too.    Am I you?  

 

You must be Bray Wyatt then 

Or Mike from Horseheads

 

Have you ever clicked on a profile out of curiosity? 

 

Or  had an accidental click on someones profile?  Christ I do it once or twice a week.  

 

 

Quite the meltdown here, BF4E. 

[sherpa]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll finds: “Amid President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they support free trade with foreign countries. ... That represents a new high in the NBC/WSJ survey on this question, and it’s a 7-point increase from the last time it was asked in 2017.” Only 27 percent think free trade is bad.

 

Do you think you are knowledgeable regarding the subject of US-China trade?

If you aren't, it is absolutely not free, and has never been.

 

It has been an issue that in the interest of fairness, has needed addressing for at least a decade. 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Do you think you are knowledgeable regarding the subject of US-China trade?

If you aren't, it is absolutely not free, and has never been.

 

It has been an issue that in the interest of fairness, has needed addressing for at least a decade. 

For sure, but don't do something that causes a recession, puts our farmers on welfare and places higher taxes on American consumers. I'm mean be smart about. Trump does not understand any of this. 

[Benjamin Franklin]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

By checking a profile means that is who I am or was? 

 

I have checked Teddy's profile.  Am I him? 

I have checked DCTom profile.  Am I him?

I have checked Deranged Rhino's profile.  Am I him?

 

I have checked your profile too.    Am I you?  

 

You must be Bray Wyatt then 

Or Mike from Horseheads

 

Have you ever clicked on a profile out of curiosity? 

 

Or  had an accidental click on someones profile?  Christ I do it once or twice a week.  

 

 

 

If you criticize the conspiracists, you’re part of the conspiracy. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Benjamin Franklin

[Teddy KGB]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

If you criticize the conspiracists, you’re part of the conspiracy. 

 

Maybe you can explain why he’s clicking on a profile that hasn’t posted in years ? 

 

Whatcha got ? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 8/18/2019 at 9:06 AM, plenzmd1 said:

No one wants a bad economy..what we want is for people to not blindly follow Trump's policies without looking at the actual results. The sugar rush of his tax cuts have worn off, his trade policies are rhetoric are eroding confidence in business leaders causing decrease investments and what may be a slowing economy and a ballooning deficit. Again, growth below 2% without the increase in government spending last quarter..that is not a great economy

 

The problem we have now is not anti Trumpers wanting a bad economy, it is Trump loyalists who will not believe what the numbes are clearly foretelling with a "nothing to see here, all is well" attitude.

Simply not true. The opposition party generally wants people disappointed with the economy.  "What's in it for me" is the benchmark for a regime change. The fact is that a struggling economy rarely touches people like Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell et al in any significant way, so it becomes the flag to carry. 

 

The anti-trumpers argument goes "it'll never work...", "it will temporarily work", "its only working for the rich" and of course "where it works it's a clear sign of racism". 

 

Its boring, old, and repetitive. The Trump tax cuts benefited me and the people who were employed as a result. In the alternative, had that money gone to the govt, it's gone forever, and well, by the time the skim takes place, any benefit I might realize is purely a coincidence.

[GG]

On 8/17/2019 at 12:53 PM, TPS said:

The US has already given up its economic supremacy, and, as I stated, it has nothing to do with MMT.  The economic demise is inevitable, and it is usually associated with finance becoming the dominant "industry," an industry that produces no tangible good.

Please explain why QE is "fundamentally inflationary."  As I've suggested, your errors seem to stem from not understanding the causes of inflation, so please do explain.

If this was true, then please explain why there is no inflation in Japan.  And "some day" is not an answer....do YOU have a theory?

 

The demise of USA's economic supremacy is only inevitable if somebody overtakes it, and it won't be China in its current form.   Your standard for US losing its edge in the '70s is due more to other countries finally getting their act together and increasing their share of global output.  But if you look at any tangible metrics on who's still driving the global economic train, there's still only one country that sits between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  USA's economic growth is consistently higher than the other G8 continues.

 

QE is fundamentally inflationary because the central bank created nearly $3 trillion of assets out of thin air.   I don't know how much more basic it can get.  Just because the Fed parked the assets on its balance sheet doesn't mean it's not inflationary.  Same with Japan, because the only reason BOJ is getting away with inflating its balance sheet is that the currency traders don't have a better Asian benchmark. 

 

That's why I said that Japan is playing with fire by betting that China will never take a more capitalist turn and truly privatizes its economy.   If China makes that move, then Japan is toast.  You are totally underestimating the roles that government bond and currency markets play in determining whether a country experiences inflation or not.  If a sovereign falls out of favor with investors, then there's nothing a central bank can do. 

 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim that US will lose its supremacy but then be sanguine about the debt build up.   

 

 

On 8/17/2019 at 12:53 PM, TPS said:

The statement that "deficit spending stimulates an increase in private sector wealth creation" is not the same thing as saying "all private sector wealth creation depends on government actions." I'll say it again for you, government does not create wealth, but it does spur greater wealth creation by the private sector when it deficit spends because it puts more REAL resources to work (like the Raytheon example).  As TRump has shown, government does not have to tax to spend more on Raytheon's "products; in fact, he cut taxes AND increased defense spending--he increased the level of deficit spending!  (I wonder how Raytheon's share prices reacted to Trump's increase in defense spending...?)

 

Yes, the discussion will go nowhere because you don't understand the nature of the argument, as that second sentence indicates.  Where does money come from? How do people and firms pay their taxes?

A complete straw man statement.    

 

Your DoD obsession is a bit overboard in explaining away gov't spending.  Raytheon's annual revenues are only $25 billion.  That's a pittance compared to the overall GDP, and even the DOD budget, the majority of which are personnel and other expenses related to running the bases.    Raytheon's share price increase as a result of new contracts is insignificant to the overall market, unlike movements in other sectors.  For comparison, Apple earns more in one month than Raytheon does in the entire year.    The markets moved much more with anticipation of Apple bringing more cash to the US than anything that happened with Raytheon's contracts.

 

Again, people use US$ because it's the most convenient and liquid.   They will easily move to other currencies (ie method of payment) if the US$ is no longer convenient and liquid.

[LB3]

18 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Maybe you can explain why he’s clicking on a profile that hasn’t posted in years ? 

 

Whatcha got ? 

I double checked some old OTW threads where BF4E was a regular poster. It's like Shady picked up right where BF4E left off after about a year away. Plus they basically live in the same place.

 

He can deny it, but I think I Perry Mason'd the shite out of this one. 

 

Holy ***** I'm bored as hell at work today.

[Teddy KGB]

1 minute ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I double checked some old OTW threads where BF4E was a regular poster. It's like Shady picked up right where BF4E left off after about a year away. Plus they basically live in the same place.

 

He can deny it, but I think I Perry Mason'd the shite out of this one. 

 

Holy ***** I'm bored as hell at work today.

 

BF4E was a big pot fan as well.     I think we have enough evidence to move forward with the prosecution ???

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

For sure, but don't do something that causes a recession, puts our farmers on welfare and places higher taxes on American consumers. I'm mean be smart about. Trump does not understand any of this. 

And you’re Program would be what again? I’m it’s something like keep doing what we’ve been doing until nobody in America has a job, so the government can take over everything and save the day....right?

[Benjamin Franklin]

33 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Maybe you can explain why he’s clicking on a profile that hasn’t posted in years ? 

 

Whatcha got ? 

 

I’m trying to imagine caring enough to think of a reason. 

 

Can’t do it. 

[Teddy KGB]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

I’m trying to imagine caring enough to think of a reason. 

 

Can’t do it. 

 

Can you explain why you chose to speak on the matter ?   

[TPS]

29 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The demise of USA's economic supremacy is only inevitable if somebody overtakes it, and it won't be China in its current form.   Your standard for US losing its edge in the '70s is due more to other countries finally getting their act together and increasing their share of global output.  But if you look at any tangible metrics on who's still driving the global economic train, there's still only one country that sits between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  USA's economic growth is consistently higher than the other G8 continues.

 

QE is fundamentally inflationary because the central bank created nearly $3 trillion of assets out of thin air.   I don't know how much more basic it can get.  Just because the Fed parked the assets on its balance sheet doesn't mean it's not inflationary.  Same with Japan, because the only reason BOJ is getting away with inflating its balance sheet is that the currency traders don't have a better Asian benchmark. 

The $1.5 trillion in Reserves are also on the BS of banks, so why isn't it inflationary? It's clear you don't understand the fundamental causes of inflation.

29 minutes ago, GG said:

 

That's why I said that Japan is playing with fire by betting that China will never take a more capitalist turn and truly privatizes its economy.   If China makes that move, then Japan is toast.  You are totally underestimating the roles that government bond and currency markets play in determining whether a country experiences inflation or not.  If a sovereign falls out of favor with investors, then there's nothing a central bank can do. 

 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim that US will lose its supremacy but then be sanguine about the debt build up.   

You clearly underestimate the power of central banks.  And, the majority of Japanese debt is held internally, so the government bond market doesn't have much influence on the yen exchange rate. 

29 minutes ago, GG said:

 

 

 

Your DoD obsession is a bit overboard in explaining away gov't spending.  Raytheon's annual revenues are only $25 billion.  That's a pittance compared to the overall GDP, and even the DOD budget, the majority of which are personnel and other expenses related to running the bases.    Raytheon's share price increase as a result of new contracts is insignificant to the overall market, unlike movements in other sectors.  For comparison, Apple earns more in one month than Raytheon does in the entire year.    The markets moved much more with anticipation of Apple bringing more cash to the US than anything that happened with Raytheon's contracts.

Raytheon is used as one example of how government spending influences the value of a companies shares (wealth creation).  So it appears that you now agree that government spending influences wealth creation....

29 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Again, people use US$ because it's the most convenient and liquid.   They will easily move to other currencies (ie method of payment) if the US$ is no longer convenient and liquid.

And the US controls most of the international payments system.  Look what happens when a country gets on our bad side....a dominant military force is also a requirement to be the reserve currency....