• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump is being handed a great economy. What happens when it goes south?

apdst said:
The GDP has failed to reach 3% for the past 8 years. The labor non-participation rate is at a 36 year high. New business startups are at a 40 year low. That's hardly a, "great economy".
Click to expand...

No, GDP up 3.5% in the third quarter... *

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

No, the higher labor non-participation rate is a sign of a good economy. The overwhelming majority of people that chose not to participate do so because they are retired, going to school, staying home with the kids or are disabled and can not work. These things can only happen when they have the personal resource to do so, which you get with a strong economy and strong stock market hyping your investments. You need to get over this Fox News quip that people are not participating because they can't find work, because that is a lie fed to the ignorant. Don't be that guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html
Access Denied


NO, business start-ups are surging.

Business start-up activity is surging. Here's why.
MBAs Doing Startups At Nearly Four Times The Rate Previously Thought


* - note, the America is aging. The aging population are not spenders... they are not buying houses & furnishings and boats... they are saving. There isn't necessarily 3% growth in our economy (despite the fact that we had it in the third quarter).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...imple-explanation-for-americas-economic-mess/
http://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/aging-population-slow-growth

Its always a good idea to check your facts before posting lest you get publicly schooled by someone that does know the facts.

PS - notice I backed up every one of my statements with some type of third party evidence. That is how you debate.

Did I mention, that as an employer, the biggest restraint on my growth is that I can't find good people. I think its because the economy is pretty damn good. I think Obama whipped us up some good lemonade (given all the lemons he was handed at the start of his presidency).
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
No, GDP up 3.5% in the third quarter... *

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

No, the higher labor non-participation rate is a sign of a good economy. The overwhelming majority of people that chose not to participate do so because they are retired, going to school, staying home with the kids or are disabled and can not work. These things can only happen when they have the personal resource to do so, which you get with a strong economy and strong stock market hyping your investments. You need to get over this Fox News quip that people are not participating because they can't find work, because that is a lie fed to the ignorant. Don't be that guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html
Access Denied


NO, business start-ups are surging.

Business start-up activity is surging. Here's why.


* - note, the America is aging. The aging population are not spenders... they are not buying houses & furnishings and boats... they are saving. There isn't necessarily 3% growth in our economy (despite the fact that we had it in the third quarter).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...imple-explanation-for-americas-economic-mess/

Its always a good idea to check your facts before posting lest you get publicly schooled by someone that does know the facts.

PS - notice I backed up every one of my statements with some type of third party evidence. That is how you debate.
Click to expand...

Every bit of that is a Trump bounce.
 
NIMBY said:
What was it during the 2nd half of 2008?

And how many Presidents do we have at one time ?
Click to expand...

Does Bush's performance absolve Obama's lackluster GDP? This is actually the first quarter he's seen anything above 3%.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/grading-the-obama-economy-by-the-numbers.html

PRESECON%20GDP_0.JPG
 
Donc said:
Better than losing 8.7 million jobs between 2008 to 2010.Wonder who the trumpets if that is revisited?
Click to expand...

You did hear most of Obama's job growth has been low paying part time work, right?
 
He'll blame it all on him being out of the economy.
 
Captain America said:
What happens when things go south?

That's an easy one. We'll just hear the Trumpers blame Obama or democrats... or libtards.... or messkin's.... or Mooslums... You know the drill.

They will run the country in to the ground and the dems will have to come and fix it. Again.

Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

But this time, they run Congress and the presidency and will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Make no mistake, the cognitive dissonance will run straight off the charts.
 
Things have to go south. The question is when do they go south? 2008 was a symptom we stuck a band aid on. for the past 4 decades we have solved every economic problem with the same solution.
1) Lower interest rates
2) Flood the market with money.
Banks do not even know how to operate as banks anymore without the fed giving them money. Interest rates are near zero. They can't use them anymore to solve the problem. Interest rates have to come up. They will attempt to do it gradually but the economy will suffer anyway. It's one of the reasons I pulled for Trump. Hillary just knows the old tricks, we need new innovations for the economy. I just hope either way we can survive it with minimal impact.
 
X Factor said:
I always have an issue with the idea of tax cuts creating a budget deficit. It's like it's already been claimed by the government before it's even been earned by someone else. It would be like if I gave my brother $1000 a month for a year then him accusing me of taking money from him if I cut it back to $500 or decided to stop giving him the money altogether.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to being analogous. Not unless your brother is using that $1,000 to run a fricken country of 320 million people.
 
brothern said:
That's not even close to being analogous. Not unless your brother is using that $1,000 to run a fricken country of 320 million people.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.

Government claims untaxed income as a loss of revenue when it isn't.
It is only a loss of revenue if you think it is the government money to begin with.

Tax cuts do not cost the government as the money was never theirs.
 
countryboy said:
Wait, 3.5% GDP is a "great economy"? :roll:
Click to expand...
With low inflation, low interest rates, and low employment? I'd say it's pretty reasonable.

Plus labor participation and wages have both been rising lately, as well.

I'll be happy if continues chugging along just as it is ...
 
ludin said:
Sure it is.

Government claims untaxed income as a loss of revenue when it isn't.
It is only a loss of revenue if you think it is the government money to begin with.

Tax cuts do not cost the government as the money was never theirs.
Click to expand...
Tax cuts do not cost the government, but they must be paid for by other taxpayers.

Unless the gov is running a surplus, taxes are a zero sum game. Somebody's gotta' pay for it.
 
Chomsky said:
With low inflation, low interest rates, and low employment? I'd say it's pretty reasonable.

Plus labor participation and wages have both been rising lately, as well.

I'll be happy if continues chugging along just as it is ...
Click to expand...

If "low employment" meant to say low unemployment I'd suggest reading this article

Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time | Zero Hedge

Most jobs are part time jobs.

The CPI numbers understate inflation that means real GDP at 3.5% is Overstated. CPI understates it because it measures indices but doesn't take into account financial markets because these economists don't understand that inflation affects Capital markets as well as consumer markets.

Interest rates are rising, when the rates pop the bond market everyone will blame trump when it's really been the last 16 years of bad economic policies
 
austrianlib said:
If "low employment" meant to say low unemployment I'd suggest reading this article

Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time | Zero Hedge

Most jobs are part time jobs.

The CPI numbers understate inflation that means real GDP at 3.5% is Overstated. CPI understates it because it measures indices but doesn't take into account financial markets because these economists don't understand that inflation affects Capital markets as well as consumer markets.

Interest rates are rising, when the rates pop the bond market everyone will blame trump when it's really been the last 16 years of bad economic policies
Click to expand...
I'd like to address your complaint about the part-time jobs, even though your link seems to be down.

The jobs economy has been changing for decades now, and this has been due to globalization and technology.

Varying hours of less than 40 hours to avoid benefits and overtime is the new norm for much of the job market. And I don't see any change on the horizon.

There will be professional and highly-skilled full-time jobs jobs, but I don't see a turnaround for unskilled, laborer, or semiskilled jobs. Just like those manufacturing jobs will never return, I see no return for full-time full-benefits unskilled labor.
 
Chomsky said:
I'd like to address your complaint about the part-time jobs, even though your link seems to be down.

The jobs economy has been changing for decades now, and this has been due to globalization and technology.

Varying hours of less than 40 hours to avoid benefits and overtime is the new norm for much of the job market. And I don't see any change on the horizon.

There will be professional and highly-skilled full-time jobs jobs, but I don't see a turnaround for unskilled, laborer, or semiskilled jobs. Just like those manufacturing jobs will never return, I see no return for full-time full-benefits unskilled labor.
Click to expand...

You might be correct but we can't discount Obamacare, minimum wage either. I guess after Obamacare there was a spurt, and with some states implementing a $15 min wage we will see much higher part time jobs. But my complaint about part time jobs is that when one person gets fired from a full time job and picks up 3 part time jobs Obama gets credited for creating 2 new jobs so it distorts the unemployment statistics.
 
austrianlib said:
You might be correct but we can't discount Obamacare, minimum wage either. I guess after Obamacare there was a spurt, and with some states implementing a $15 min wage we will see much higher part time jobs. But my complaint about part time jobs is that when one person gets fired from a full time job and picks up 3 part time jobs Obama gets credited for creating 2 new jobs so it distorts the unemployment statistics.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not going to denigrate Obama's job record, but I see what you're getting at there.

But irrespective of Obama or others, this is looking like the new economy for non-professional unskilled labor.
 
X Factor said:
I always have an issue with the idea of tax cuts creating a budget deficit. It's like it's already been claimed by the government before it's even been earned by someone else. It would be like if I gave my brother $1000 a month for a year then him accusing me of taking money from him if I cut it back to $500 or decided to stop giving him the money altogether.
Click to expand...

Yet if your brother was financially dependent on that $1000 a month to pay his rent and feed his family, he should be rightfully concerned if it goes away. Why shouldn't we as Americans be concerned when we will have at least a trillion dollars less to take care of our people and pay the bills? What will be cut to make up for that?
 
apdst said:
The economy isn't, "great". We survived the recession in spite of Obama, not because of Obama. You can't post one single Obama policy that had a significant positive effect on the US economy. The fact that we survived the recession and 8 years of Obama proves just how resilient The United States really is.
Click to expand...

If Presidents Bush and Obama had not worked together to provide loans for the Detroit auto companies it is my firm believe we would no longer be making autos in any of our US states and that we would would would still be in a recession if not a full depression.
 
Chomsky said:
Tax cuts do not cost the government, but they must be paid for by other taxpayers.

Unless the gov is running a surplus, taxes are a zero sum game. Somebody's gotta' pay for it.
Click to expand...

I agree the whole point of tax cuts is to stimulate economic activity it's which is where
Taxes really come from.
 
It's primarily going to depend on WHY it goes south, if it does go south.

While we humans like things to fit into the narrow constructs we create, that isn't really the case. Just because a President serves for 4 years or 8 years doesn't mean the economy subscribes to that.

If you took a snapshot of 2006, the economy in the US under George Bush was doing fabulous. By 2008, we were in a recession, with the general consensus being that the prosperity found in the mid 2000's were build upon a fraudulent bubble, one who's bursting largely contributed to the downfall of the economy. In that instance, the timeline just happened to line up with Bush's Presidency. But had the bubble burst in late 2009 instead of late 2007, it wouldn't have changed the fact that the good economy in the mid-2000's were because of said bubble. The fact that it popped under Obama instead of under Bush wouldn't magically change that.

If it's clearly illustrated that changes in Policy by Trump had had ample time to impact the economy, and had a negative impact on it, then his administration would certainly deserve the blame. But if it's something to do with say, insurances costs and the ACA, it'll likely be something like the housing bubble....an economic issue that will trace it's roots and causes back across multiple administrations and policies.

So while "We won't know until it happens" may not be a satisfying partisan answer, it's the only real reasonable answer to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom