Trump overrules GOP with deal on spending, debt, Harvey aid

bluesmoke · Sep 13, 2017

Conservative said:
No he wasn't as he took office in January of 2009 so you want to blame the entire year 2009 on Bush with a DEMOCRATIC Congress and a stimulus that was passed and signed in February 2009? Obama also signed the 2009 budget in March 2009

I posted the BEA.gov data and not one year did Obama ever have a 3% GDP growth and coming off a negative that is a disaster. I suggest better research vs. buying leftwing rhetoric, bea.gov will give you the data and it was 1.5% in 2016 and .6% first quarter 2016 and 3% second qtr. 2017, Trump's first full quarter in office

What you fail to understand is that the economic responsibility is based on budget years. The 2009 budget was Obama's, and it takes a year to impact the forward movement of established action. To say that a president can take over completely from day one is asinine. Many economists use a July to August date of the following year, if not the entire year. Just as year 2001, though when Obama was in office, is considered, by economic standards, to be the responsibility of the previous administration. Or, are you saying the Great Recession economic measurements of 2001 are on Obama?

Conservative · Sep 13, 2017

bluesmoke said:
What you fail to understand is that the economic responsibility is based on budget years. The 2009 budget was Obama's, and it takes a year to impact the forward movement of established action. To say that a president can take over completely from day one is asinine. Many economists use a July to August date of the following year, if not the entire year. Just as year 2001, though when Obama was in office, is considered, by economic standards, to be the responsibility of the previous administration. Or, are you saying the Great Recession economic measurements of 2001 are on Obama?

Lol ok negative GDP in 2009 and still no 3 % growth off a negative? 142 million employed in Jan 2009 a stimulus and 139 million two years later is a success?

Such low standards, why?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

bluesmoke · Sep 14, 2017

Conservative said:
No he wasn't as he took office in January of 2009 so you want to blame the entire year 2009 on Bush with a DEMOCRATIC Congress and a stimulus that was passed and signed in February 2009? Obama also signed the 2009 budget in March 2009

I posted the BEA.gov data and not one year did Obama ever have a 3% GDP growth and coming off a negative that is a disaster. I suggest better research vs. buying leftwing rhetoric, bea.gov will give you the data and it was 1.5% in 2016 and .6% first quarter 2016 and 3% second qtr. 2017, Trump's first full quarter in office

“No he wasn't as he took office in January of 2009 so you want to blame the entire year 2009 on Bush with a DEMOCRATIC Congress and a stimulus that was passed and signed in February 2009? Obama also signed the 2009 budget in March 2009”

It’s not about blame. It’s about responsibility. Tell me, at what time do you believe the economic results are the responsibility of who’s administration? As I said, economic standard is that it is the full year following the previous administration. However, July and August figures are used just the same.

“I posted the BEA.gov data and not one year did Obama ever have a 3% GDP growth and coming off a negative that is a disaster. I suggest better research vs. buying leftwing rhetoric, bea.gov will give you the data and it was 1.5% in 2016 and .6% first quarter 2016 and 3% second qtr. 2017, Trump's first full quarter in office”

So, what. Obama came out of a disastrous year, by anybody’s estimation, and went up 4.3% from there. Your argument is a 3% GDP growth is to be measured against the fact that coming out of a -2.8% growth. That makes no sense. You can’t refute that fact. That’s a plus 4.3%. You can’t refute that fact.

Conservative · Sep 14, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“No he wasn't as he took office in January of 2009 so you want to blame the entire year 2009 on Bush with a DEMOCRATIC Congress and a stimulus that was passed and signed in February 2009? Obama also signed the 2009 budget in March 2009”

It’s not about blame. It’s about responsibility. Tell me, at what time do you believe the economic results are the responsibility of who’s administration? As I said, economic standard is that it is the full year following the previous administration. However, July and August figures are used just the same.

“I posted the BEA.gov data and not one year did Obama ever have a 3% GDP growth and coming off a negative that is a disaster. I suggest better research vs. buying leftwing rhetoric, bea.gov will give you the data and it was 1.5% in 2016 and .6% first quarter 2016 and 3% second qtr. 2017, Trump's first full quarter in office”

So, what. Obama came out of a disastrous year, by anybody’s estimation, and went up 4.3% from there. Your argument is a 3% GDP growth is to be measured against the fact that coming out of a -2.8% growth. That makes no sense. You can’t refute that fact. That’s a plus 4.3%. You can’t refute that fact.

Obama took office January 21, 2009 with a Democratic Congress that already had his stimulus program on the docket and it was passed almost immediately. Obama signed it mid February 2009 thus as a leader his responsibility began when he took office and the results generated February-September are his. He had all the time in the world to bring forth a positive pro growth policy and failed miserably but knew people like you would always blame Bush based upon Obama's own rhetoric.

Please show me the 4.3% GDP growth with a reputable source like bea.gov? Do you realize that percentage change is from the previous year? How can anyone call what Obama did as successful when he took two years of negatives and still didn't have 3% growth over those negatives? Reagan took a negative and turned it into a 7+% growth

What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who cannot admit they are wrong and are easily fooled by rhetoric totally ignoring results?

bluesmoke · Sep 15, 2017

Conservative said:
Lol ok negative GDP in 2009 and still no 3 % growth off a negative? 142 million employed in Jan 2009 a stimulus and 139 million two years later is a success?

Such low standards, why?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I'm saying the Obama administration brought GDP up 4.3%. That's a positive. Ronald Reagan inherited a 1981 GDP growth rate of 2.6% that ended up a 1.9% in 1990. His average growth rate was 3.9%, but ended up a 1.9% and the country in a recession. He took the GDP down a -.7%.

bluesmoke · Sep 15, 2017

Conservative said:
Obama took office January 21, 2009 with a Democratic Congress that already had his stimulus program on the docket and it was passed almost immediately. Obama signed it mid February 2009 thus as a leader his responsibility began when he took office and the results generated February-September are his. He had all the time in the world to bring forth a positive pro growth policy and failed miserably but knew people like you would always blame Bush based upon Obama's own rhetoric.

Please show me the 4.3% GDP growth with a reputable source like bea.gov? Do you realize that percentage change is from the previous year? How can anyone call what Obama did as successful when he took two years of negatives and still didn't have 3% growth over those negatives? Reagan took a negative and turned it into a 7+% growth

What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who cannot admit they are wrong and are easily fooled by rhetoric totally ignoring results?

Don’t give all the credit for the economic turnaround on Obama’s $787B stimulus program. Bush helped with his $700B bailout of the financial institution.

Like any POTUS, Obama was responsible for his own actions from day one. Like any other, the impact of the previous administration actions didn’t stop on that day. It takes time to reverse a 9.9% unemployment rate to 4.7%. Reagan took a 2.6% growth rate from 1981 2.6% growth rate to a 1990 1.9% growth rate, lower than Obama. Reagan’s 1990 unemployment rate was 5.4%, higher than Obama’s 4.7% as of 2016.

Here’s the link to my GDP source. What source can you provide to show otherwise?:

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Historical unemployment rates:

US Unemployment Rate by Year

Conservative · Sep 15, 2017

bluesmoke said:
I'm saying the Obama administration brought GDP up 4.3%. That's a positive. Ronald Reagan inherited a 1981 GDP growth rate of 2.6% that ended up a 1.9% in 1990. His average growth rate was 3.9%, but ended up a 1.9% and the country in a recession. He took the GDP down a -.7%.

No they didn't post your data? bea.gov

Reagans Gross domestic product

1980-1988

1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
1982 -1.9
1983 4.6
1984 7.3
1985 4.2
1986 3.5
1987 3.5
1988 4.2

Notice the -1.9% in 1982 and then the next year 4.6 then 7.3. Where do you people get this information?

bluesmoke · Sep 16, 2017

Conservative said:
No they didn't post your data? bea.gov

Reagans Gross domestic product

1980-1988

1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
1982 -1.9
1983 4.6
1984 7.3
1985 4.2
1986 3.5
1987 3.5
1988 4.2

Notice the -1.9% in 1982 and then the next year 4.6 then 7.3. Where do you people get this information?

How disingenuous can you be. You conveniently left of the years 1989 and 1990. Reagan did not start out with a -.2% GDP growth. His first full year of office was a 2.6% growth, which is commonly accepted as a result of the previous administration economic policy and budget. Did you not know that the 1989 budget year was Carter's, not Reagan's? Go away.

Conservative · Sep 17, 2017

bluesmoke said:
How disingenuous can you be. You conveniently left of the years 1989 and 1990. Reagan did not start out with a -.2% GDP growth. His first full year of office was a 2.6% growth, which is commonly accepted as a result of the previous administration economic policy and budget. Did you not know that the 1989 budget year was Carter's, not Reagan's? Go away.

Disingenuous? Reagan inherited a double dip according to NBER and when the GDP was negative he generated a 4.6% growth and never had one under 3% after that. What is disingenuous is trying to blame him for 89-90 when he left office after 88. Budgets are irrelevant but rather how you spend the money in those budgets. Did they ever teach you civics in school?

You want badly to prop up Obama and the question is why, the Electorate told you what kind of President Obama was yet you ignored it. Such low expectations because he is a Democrat!

But the issue truly is economic policies and the private sector. Reagan has been out of office almost 30 years, Obama has been out of office 8 months and the legacy he left was Donald Trump. Obama's anti growth policies tell it all but you are too blinded by your own ideology to see it.

bluesmoke · Sep 20, 2017

Conservative said:
Disingenuous? Reagan inherited a double dip according to NBER and when the GDP was negative he generated a 4.6% growth and never had one under 3% after that. What is disingenuous is trying to blame him for 89-90 when he left office after 88. Budgets are irrelevant but rather how you spend the money in those budgets. Did they ever teach you civics in school?

You want badly to prop up Obama and the question is why, the Electorate told you what kind of President Obama was yet you ignored it. Such low expectations because he is a Democrat!

But the issue truly is economic policies and the private sector. Reagan has been out of office almost 30 years, Obama has been out of office 8 months and the legacy he left was Donald Trump. Obama's anti growth policies tell it all but you are too blinded by your own ideology to see it.

What Obama left Trump, after inheriting the greatest recession since The Great Depression from Bush2, was a lower than average, much improved, unemployment rate, the highest after-tax corporate profits, the highest S&P 500 and wage growth. Just as you did with Reagan in the context of what he inherited from Carter, as opposed to Trump inheriting a much improved economy from Obama. To me, any failure on Obama's part was to have not improved income equality.

BTW, the budget does categorize where the money is spent. Hence, there is not a whole lot any POTUS can do in the first year of office to change where the money goes than how budgeted.

Conservative · Sep 20, 2017

bluesmoke said:
What Obama left Trump, after inheriting the greatest recession since The Great Depression from Bush2, was a lower than average, much improved, unemployment rate, the highest after-tax corporate profits, the highest S&P 500 and wage growth. Just as you did with Reagan in the context of what he inherited from Carter, as opposed to Trump inheriting a much improved economy from Obama. To me, any failure on Obama's part was to have not improved income equality.

What Obama inherited from Bush was generated by Bush AND A DEMOCRATIC Congress, have you ever taken a civics class? How did that recession affect you and your family? It didn't affect mine at all. When you have a negative GDP growth and cannot exceed 3% that is a failure except to people with such low expectations. Context matters to most people and did to the electorate. there is a reason Obama lost the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14-16 but people like you will continue to prop up failure and never get reality.

Obama's economic results were total and complete failure which his resume predicted but was ignored. What Reagan inherited was a double dip and 20+ misery index. Doubt you were old enough to even know what happened then but read revisionist history. Rather sad to see so many ignore history, ignore civics and ignore actual results in context.

bluesmoke · Sep 20, 2017

Conservative said:
What Obama inherited from Bush was generated by Bush AND A DEMOCRATIC Congress, have you ever taken a civics class? How did that recession affect you and your family? It didn't affect mine at all. When you have a negative GDP growth and cannot exceed 3% that is a failure except to people with such low expectations. Context matters to most people and did to the electorate. there is a reason Obama lost the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14-16 but people like you will continue to prop up failure and never get reality.

Obama's economic results were total and complete failure which his resume predicted but was ignored. What Reagan inherited was a double dip and 20+ misery index. Doubt you were old enough to even know what happened then but read revisionist history. Rather sad to see so many ignore history, ignore civics and ignore actual results in context.

“What Obama inherited from Bush was generated by Bush AND A DEMOCRATIC Congress, have you ever taken a civics class? How did that recession affect you and your family? It didn't affect mine at all. When you have a negative GDP growth and cannot exceed 3% that is a failure except to people with such low expectations. Context matters to most people and did to the electorate. there is a reason Obama lost the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14-16 but people like you will continue to prop up failure and never get reality.”

Republicans controlled the Senate for two years and the House for six years of Obama's eight years and Trump has inherited a Republican Congress from Obama. So what?

The electorate did not choose Trump over Obama but rather Trump over Hillary. Obama’s approval rating at the end of his presidency were positive.

“Obama's economic results were total and complete failure which his resume predicted but was ignored. What Reagan inherited was a double dip and 20+ misery index. Doubt you were old enough to even know what happened then but read revisionist history. Rather sad to see so many ignore history, ignore civics and ignore actual results in context.”

Obama raised the consumer confidence level from about 28 in Feb. of ’09, the height of the Great Recession, to about 75 when he left office. That’s an improvement in actual results and your “civics” argument falls flat. BTW, the President has little effect on how money is spent from the previous President’s budget. Even the President’s discretion in outlay is limited by the Congress and the Constitution, and to non-defense discretionary outlays, which make up about 16% of the total budget. The President’s influence on the budget are only on those budgets that President makes. That’s your civics lesson of the day.

Conservative · Sep 20, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“What Obama inherited from Bush was generated by Bush AND A DEMOCRATIC Congress, have you ever taken a civics class? How did that recession affect you and your family? It didn't affect mine at all. When you have a negative GDP growth and cannot exceed 3% that is a failure except to people with such low expectations. Context matters to most people and did to the electorate. there is a reason Obama lost the House in 10-12 and the Congress in 14-16 but people like you will continue to prop up failure and never get reality.”

Republicans controlled the Senate for two years and the House for six years of Obama's eight years and Trump has inherited a Republican Congress from Obama. So what?

The electorate did not choose Trump over Obama but rather Trump over Hillary. Obama’s approval rating at the end of his presidency were positive.

“Obama's economic results were total and complete failure which his resume predicted but was ignored. What Reagan inherited was a double dip and 20+ misery index. Doubt you were old enough to even know what happened then but read revisionist history. Rather sad to see so many ignore history, ignore civics and ignore actual results in context.”

Obama raised the consumer confidence level from about 28 in Feb. of ’09, the height of the Great Recession, to about 75 when he left office. That’s an improvement in actual results and your “civics” argument falls flat. BTW, the President has little effect on how money is spent from the previous President’s budget. Even the President’s discretion in outlay is limited by the Congress and the Constitution, and to non-defense discretionary outlays, which make up about 16% of the total budget. The President’s influence on the budget are only on those budgets that President makes. That’s your civics lesson of the day.

Look, results matter and there isn't any Trump results to date worse than Obama and that seems to confuse people like you. We have a pro growth, private sector supporting President, something apparently neither you or Obama understood. Budgets mean nothing, how that money is spent does. I suggest a basic civics class and then setting higher standards for yourself. Obama's resume came to fruition but that is something else you didn't understand.

The height of the Great Recession was 2008 and it was Obama's lack of leadership which prolonged it. Leadership generates positive attitude and consumer confidence which never happened under Obama. Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.

bluesmoke · Sep 23, 2017

Conservative said:
Look, results matter and there isn't any Trump results to date worse than Obama and that seems to confuse people like you. We have a pro growth, private sector supporting President, something apparently neither you or Obama understood. Budgets mean nothing, how that money is spent does. I suggest a basic civics class and then setting higher standards for yourself. Obama's resume came to fruition but that is something else you didn't understand.

The height of the Great Recession was 2008 and it was Obama's lack of leadership which prolonged it. Leadership generates positive attitude and consumer confidence which never happened under Obama. Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.

“…isn't any Trump results to date worse than Obama…”

Of course there aren’t any. That’s because what Obama set in motion continues to improve. And, what kind of measure is it to be not “…worse than…”?
“Budgets mean nothing, how that money is spent does.”

We already went through this. In our government, budgets largely dictate how money is spent, by law. In the private sector, budgets do not. Again, you are the one that needs the civics lesson. Look it up and tell me what you find that supports what you say to do with a President’s first year in office (OK, the nine months of the budget year in the calendar year).

“Obama's resume came to fruition but that is something else you didn't understand.”

Of course, I don’t understand what you are saying because you didn’t explain. What specifically of Obama’s resume came to fruition that you are talking about?

“The height of the Great Recession was 2008 and it was Obama's lack of leadership which prolonged it. Leadership generates positive attitude and consumer confidence which never happened under Obama. Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.”

Apparently, you require instant gratification. It is not sensible to believe anyone taking over the most failed economy since the Great Depression would not take time to turn it around. Unlike your false statement, consumer confidence did go up under Obama. I already gave that fact you ignore.

“Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.”

Again, it takes time. Employment reached a bottom in 2010. It went up every year thereafter, verified by the following reference, through 2013, covering your time-period:

Ugly US Employment Charts - Business Insider

How disingenuous you are.

Conservative · Sep 23, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“…isn't any Trump results to date worse than Obama…”

Of course there aren’t any. That’s because what Obama set in motion continues to improve. And, what kind of measure is it to be not “…worse than…”?
“Budgets mean nothing, how that money is spent does.”

We already went through this. In our government, budgets largely dictate how money is spent, by law. In the private sector, budgets do not. Again, you are the one that needs the civics lesson. Look it up and tell me what you find that supports what you say to do with a President’s first year in office (OK, the nine months of the budget year in the calendar year).

“Obama's resume came to fruition but that is something else you didn't understand.”

Of course, I don’t understand what you are saying because you didn’t explain. What specifically of Obama’s resume came to fruition that you are talking about?

“The height of the Great Recession was 2008 and it was Obama's lack of leadership which prolonged it. Leadership generates positive attitude and consumer confidence which never happened under Obama. Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.”

Apparently, you require instant gratification. It is not sensible to believe anyone taking over the most failed economy since the Great Depression would not take time to turn it around. Unlike your false statement, consumer confidence did go up under Obama. I already gave that fact you ignore.

“Obama stimulus February 2009, employment 142 million, two years later 139 million or 3 million less and still no year of 3%. What a waste of time some of you are.”

Again, it takes time. Employment reached a bottom in 2010. It went up every year thereafter, verified by the following reference, through 2013, covering your time-period:

Ugly US Employment Charts - Business Insider

How disingenuous you are.

You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country today where perception is reality and actual results don't matter. Employment charts out of context are touted and election results and actual data such as discouraged workers and part time for economic reason employees ignored. I do still suggest civics and economics because you seem to lack knowledge in each.

Jetboogieman · Sep 23, 2017

Conservative said:
We have a pro growth, private sector supporting President.

No, for you, you have a president with an (R) next to their name that could do ANYTHING and you'd support it, he could announce tomorrow, he's suddenly decided to support turning America into a one party communist state and you would carve Marxs face into your kitchen table and only wear red for the rest of time.

Conservative · Sep 24, 2017

Jetboogieman said:
No, for you, you have a president with an (R) next to their name that could do ANYTHING and you'd support it, he could announce tomorrow, he's suddenly decided to support turning America into a one party communist state and you would carve Marxs face into your kitchen table and only wear red for the rest of time.

What I support is the private sector, pro growth, states' rights economy where there are actual consequences for poor personal choices made in life. Keep spewing that partisan mantra totally ignoring that I was a JFK Democrat and voted for more Democrats than you probably voted Republican but since you have nothing this is what you spout.

bluesmoke · Sep 24, 2017

Conservative said:
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country today where perception is reality and actual results don't matter. Employment charts out of context are touted and election results and actual data such as discouraged workers and part time for economic reason employees ignored. I do still suggest civics and economics because you seem to lack knowledge in each.

“Employment charts out of context…”

Then, what context do you suggest?

“…actual data such as discouraged workers and part time for economic reason employees ignored.”

Do you mean those “discouraged workers” that can’t find jobs that don’t exist? What do you mean?

Corporation made a business decision to hire more PT than FT workers to save money on total employee benefits. What are you talking about? What’s your point?

Conservative · Sep 24, 2017

bluesmoke said:
“Employment charts out of context…”

Then, what context do you suggest?

“…actual data such as discouraged workers and part time for economic reason employees ignored.”

Do you mean those “discouraged workers” that can’t find jobs that don’t exist? What do you mean?

Corporation made a business decision to hire more PT than FT workers to save money on total employee benefits. What are you talking about? What’s your point?

In a good economy jobs do exist, the problem is you have such low expectations you don't understand how Obama's resume came to life. He had no private sector experience, no leadership skills, and management experience and it showed in the job creation numbers, part time jobs, people with no confidence in the economy thus dropped out of looking for jobs.

Yes, corporations hired part time employees because Obama's policies including ACA caused companies to do that, small corporations, not big ones. You just don't get it and probably never will

Trump overrules GOP with deal on spending, debt, Harvey aid

Somewhere in Babylon