• 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!

America's economy grew at its weakest pace since Trump took office

MSgt said:
Oh, no, no, no...

You have been caught altering data to support your obnoxious partisanship. You were caught by two others; and when they showed me, I discovered that you lied to me too. I was willing to defend you, as if the cut/paste job merely showed some change over time, but then I saw the numbers. The changes were drastic, and from prior established years. That was disappointing. In the meantime, you insist that nobody but you understands economy and civics; and that you get your numbers from .govs and .orgs. The problem is that you take the data, that we all get, and alter them. Now I understand why you, and you alone, differ from the rest when it comes to analyzing the same data.

Nobody gets to alter data and then declare that the results are "actual." Since your "actual" results are designed after altering the data, you present false results, false conclusions, and plain lies. The irony is that you wouldn't feel compelled to do this had you based your arguments in a proper place that would give Trump credit where credit is due and criticize Trump where criticism is earned. But your partisanship does not permit such integrity. Your insistence that Trump is heaven-sent, to save us from Obama destruction, is why you are on this ignorant path of obvious goal post shifting:

- For example, you actually declared GDP as not being important next to cryptocurrency and currency exchange.

- Another example, you argue that the Global Recession was exaggerated in order to brand Obama as malicious as possible in "his" fixes.

- Another example, you went from using Trump's 3.0% argument against Obama to abandoning it in the absence of a 3.0% in recent Trump years.

And now? ****ing cryptocurrency?! Since you have to lie to support your partisanship, you are obviously without argument and willing to sacrifice even your own economic interests to satisfy your need to prove loyalty to a party that has completely abandoned the principles of Conservatism while pretending to represent you. You are in need of some soul searching.
Click to expand...

You might find this slightly longer term chart of government spending as a percentage of GDP interesting
united-states-government-spending-to-gdp.webp
[SOURCE]
​

Given that the "normal" thing is to NOT "credit" the first year of their term to the sitting President (but rather to "credit" it to the former holder of that office), that would mean that the 43.3% apex should be assigned to Mr. GW Bush, and the 37.9 point falls clearly inside the time that Mr. Obama was the President of the United States of America. The 34.3% nadir clearly belongs to Mr. Clinton.

Under Mr. Bush, the percentage increased by 21.63% (from 35.5 to 43.3).

Under Mr. Obama, the percentage decreased by 13.68% (from 43.2 to 38).
 
Conservative said:
Love the fact that Trump won't take any crap from anyone that personally attacks him, this is new for people like you and you don't like it. The American public in general does
Click to expand...

:lamo

I always love how you make silly assumptions. I have no issue with anyone exchanging banter with those who attack them; defending oneself comes with the territory in politics. What I don't like is that he chooses to be crass, childish, and petty. I expect more from people in senior positions, but it seems you prefer the underperformance in this regard as well. Calling people names (Crooked Hillary, Lyin' Ted etc.) should be unacceptable to most adults; unless I'm incorrect in thinking adults are supposed to behave in that manner. What Trump has done is tap into the vein of the people who want to flip off those whom they feel are deserving of it. So on a broader note, do you think his manner of behavior is something that should be emulated by everyone? Is this something you'd want taught to kids as a means of standing up for oneself?
 
MSgt said:
Oh, to be sure. The genius of our two-Party system is that it protects the plutocracy while using social cues against each other to fool the people. This plutocracy protection largely began with the GOP in the late nineteenth century, but steadily at the end of the twentieth century Democrats jumped on board too. But make no mistake; protecting the plutocracy is a core enthusiasm that defines the GOP. Corporations largely dictate Foreign Policy and domestic affairs. This is how 90 corporations of the Fortune 500 paid zero taxes on their billions in revenue in 2018, while people like "Conservative" rejoice over the extra one hundred dollars in his pocket and "support the troops" as they play in the desert protecting corporate interests.
Click to expand...

"Protecting the plutocracy" is "as American as Mom and Apple Pie". All you have to do to verify that statement is to actually read the Constitution of the United States of America IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME at which it was written.

MSgt said:
But we should be clear on "liberal" and "conservative." The problem is that what we understand as the general psychological difference between the two have been perverted by the political parties. For example; Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible and not trusting of government, yet ever since Reagan it has been the Republican Party that has blown debt through the roofs, expanded government, and encouraged government intrusion. I declare this off of the history that Bush created the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and officially sanctioned CIA domestic spying; and Trump just created a Space Force. And, mind you, Conservatives cheered the whole way. On the other side, Bill Clinton, a liberal centrist, managed to acknowledge his duties to America's social issues while correcting Reagan's debt.
Click to expand...

I agree with the "Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible" bit (with the emphasis on the "supposed to be" part), However it is only in America where anyone thinks that "Conservatives are not trusting of government".

In the rest of the world "Conservatives" are looked at as the party that wants to enshrine as much power as possible in "The Gummint" by keeping things just the way they think that they have always been (or the way that they think they used to be in some sort of historical 'Golden Age').

In the rest of the world "Liberals" are looked at as the party that wants to enshrine as much power as possible in "The Gummint" by changing things so that they are 'the way that they should be' in some sort of future 'Golden Age'.

In a society where the norm is to "purchase" votes (albeit indirectly) through lavish slatherings of "Government Money" NEITHER "(that society's) Conservatives" NOR "(that society's) Liberals" are going to be in the least bit hesitant to sling "Government Money" around with gay abandon.

MSgt said:
Conservatives are, by nature, traditionalist, however outdated, and even reminisce of a "golden age" in the face of change. And that fear of change is so all consuming that they will abandon everything they believe in just to cling to the past while promoting themselves as victims. Which idiot recently actually declared that America's golden age was the Antebellum period, a period when good Southern white Christian Conservatives celebrated slavery? Add in religion, and we are pretty much talking about, what another culture would call, Islamism. For all their outrage of Iran's theocracy, our country is full of Conservative Christians who would decorate the Oval Office with Crucifixes and Old Testament scriptures... and call it good.
Click to expand...

And, mutatis mutandi, the same applies to (most) "Liberals".

My position is that society must have those "Liberals" in order to make any progress at all, AND that society must have those "Conservatives" in order to fix the screw-ups that the "Liberals" made in changing too rapidly.
 
Conservative said:
Here is a pretty good article explaining Donald Trump, do you have the guts to read it? Indoctrination by the Deep State continues affecting some very good people who want to believe the rhetoric, focus on the perceived Trump personality faults while ignoring the Trump actual results. You and other anti Trump posters need to take a step back and think about exactly what you are supporting and what kind of country you really want. Apparently it isn't one where states control social issues, millions of jobs are being created, economic growth is coming from the private sector, and personal responsibility is being promoted by allowing people to keep more of what they earn. I await you response

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...democrats_fear_in_donald_trump_greatness.html
Click to expand...


I read the article and don't disagree with the assessment from that particular opinion; I do think that's how many of his supporters see him. I don't agree that he just brushes insults back though, nor does he just respond to attacks; he initiates them as well. The most distracting aspect of his rhetoric is it is often loaded with ad hominem attacks rather than attacking the issue. I expect to hear a lot of "radical liberals" and "socialism is evil" in the coming months with little or no substance behind it; but that's how Trump rolls. I've already stated the direction in which I'd like to see the country move toward, and it's not with this type of leadership and its myopia. The idea that because some don't support unfettered capitalism means they don't want economic growth is a silly trope that's used by those too lazy to actually debate what the best solutions are. Saying that people should be more responsible or any other platitude doesn't address anything.

As I've already stated, I do think management of social programs (and the like) are better at the local level where states can manage based on their particular needs. Where the federal government can assist is in funding for states which may not be able to sustain social programs through their own funding.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You might find this slightly longer term chart of government spending as a percentage of GDP interesting

Given that the "normal" thing is to NOT "credit" the first year of their term to the sitting President (but rather to "credit" it to the former holder of that office), that would mean that the 43.3% apex should be assigned to Mr. GW Bush, and the 37.9 point falls clearly inside the time that Mr. Obama was the President of the United States of America. The 34.3% nadir clearly belongs to Mr. Clinton.

Under Mr. Bush, the percentage increased by 21.63% (from 35.5 to 43.3).

Under Mr. Obama, the percentage decreased by 13.68% (from 43.2 to 38).
Click to expand...

Interesting the results that gov't spending generated isn't it? Obama, 4.3 trillion GDP growth in 8 years including that stimulus spending, Trump 2.8 trillion growth in 3 years without the stimulus spending, spending that didn't create the promised jobs that a shovel ready jobs bill should have done. Percentage change is always promoted by the left when the left believes it helps their cause but applying numbers to those percentages makes quite a difference. the larger the GDP the lower the percentage change is going to be yet generate strong economic results.
 
presluc said:
There's two words I'd like to adress from your post , not cherry picking just using for reference.

For business to EXPAND? many business across America are cutting back not expanding Example; The GM plant Lordsburg , Ohio.
Click to expand...

I did NOT say "business is expanding". Rather I DID say "one way for business to expand". Your point that business is not expanding is quite correct. Sloppy terminology is rife in almost any economic debate. For example, it isn't unusual to see something like "_[fill in the blank]_ is investing $X in _[fill in the blank]_." when what is being done is - in fact - purchasing an existing company (often for more than the existing company is worth). This no more results in an "expansion" of the total economy than 2 + 2 = 6. In fact what it IS is

"A (worth 2)" + "B (worth 2)" = "A (worth 4)" + "B (worth 0)"
​
(for a net gain of 0)

​
presluc said:
Winning the Long War ? I take it mean the economic financial war in America at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Click to expand...

That, indeed, is "The Long War" that China and the US are engaged in.

presluc said:
Yet company after company are not building more sites , they are closing down some of what they have even Macy's said they should be where they want to be by 2100 as far as closing sites and cutting back.
Click to expand...

In any sort of war (military, political, economic, theological, or ...) the side that stops fighting first is the side that loses and the side that stops fighting last is the side that wins.

presluc said:
On a personal observation I noticed that Trump has authorized budget cuts yet again on Medicare, medicaid and SS, and perhaps education again..
Click to expand...

The money for "The Great Wall of America" has to come from someplace. Either incomes has to increase (and that would mean tax increases) or expenditures have to go down. If Mr. Trump consults his usual circle of acquaintances, I have absolutely no doubt that he will learn that not a one of them would be in the slightest bit adversely effected should all of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security be completely shut down.

presluc said:
I must say for a booming economy in America today there seems to be a lot of budget cuts and more cutting back by industry so I have to wander just what area is the real beneficiary of this great economic boom?:peace
Click to expand...

All one has to do is to take a look at the statistics concerning "concentration of wealth".

In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent of all wealth. By 2016, the bottom 90 percent of the population held only 23 percent of wealth. The wealth share of the top 1 percent increased from about 30 percent to about 40 percent over the same period.
[SOURCE]
 
Kushinator said:
I wasn't refuting this idea... i was simply stating that the U.S. economy would have been far better off not going to war and investing those funds in our own infrastructure and security.
Click to expand...

That might well have been the case as long as you are talking only about the US domestic economy.

Given the fact that it is highly likely that Germany would have lost WWII even without American intervention beyond the sale (for domestic profits) of armaments, the US international economy might not have looked quite so rosy when faced with the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which would have been the most likely result of NOT jumping into the European fray.

Kushinator said:
Sadly, this wasn't an option.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it wasn't.

Of course, the Japanese originally planned only on making the US negotiate "a favourable peace" (which would have cut rather deeply into the profits that American firms were hoping to make in Asia and the Pacific) and the US could quite easily have negotiated an agreement whereby not an inch of American soil (not even American colonial holdings) were ceded to Japan and Japan paid quite handsomely for the damage done at Pearl Harbour. Mind you, the US would also have had to simply shrug off the German declaration of war against the United States of America as the pompous blustering without any realistic capacity to back it up that it was.
 
Erod said:
In other words, the economy is kicking slightly less ass than it was a year ago.

Liberals are PRAYING for the economy to tank. They've been hoping and warning about a crash for three years. Trying to "scare" us into a recession, I guess.

It isn't happening. The economy is just getting started under these policies.
Click to expand...

The economy is strong, it is at all time highs in many economic indicators. Unemployment numbers are outstanding, the stock markets are booming, the jobs numbers are high and overall household imcomes are rising.
I don't see why anyone would attack the economy, but the democrats lay their constant, "it isn't working for the working class, only the rich". Bull, most everybody I talk to says they are much better off and these are almost all middle class working folks.
Imagine where the economy would be if Democrats were on board with trying to help in the growth instead of being pissed at HRC loss in the 2016 election and trying to remove Donald Trump from offense. TRumps scaling back regulation on businesses has been a definite help, the tax cut despite democrat claims did boost he economy and put more money in the taxpayers pocket. Democrats need to learn a key term. COMPROMISE, I get sick of hearing the "nonstarter" from Nancy and Chuck every time there is a proposal.
 
ElChupacabra said:
As I've already stated, I do think management of social programs (and the like) are better at the local level where states can manage based on their particular needs. Where the federal government can assist is in funding for states which may not be able to sustain social programs through their own funding.
Click to expand...

Management at the local level is one thing, setting standards of delivery at the local level, is something else. Funding based on meeting independently set standards (and/or progress towards meeting those standards) is something else again.

Lest you think that that is advocating a "one size fits all" approach, it is not.

For example (all numbers invented for purely illustrative purposes), if in "Area A" it takes $1,000 per month in order to provide "Service X" (which was determined to be necessary), and if in "Area B" it takes $750 per month to provide "Service X", then it would be silly to advocate mandating that BOTH "Area A" AND "Area B" spend EITHER $1,000 per month or $750 per month to provide "Service X" (since the appropriate amounts would be $1,000 in "Area A" and $750 in "Area B"). The fact that different amounts were being spent in "Area A" and "Area B" to provide "Service X" is totally irrelevant to the fact that it would be the same "Service X" that was being provided in both "Area A" and "Area B".
 
ElChupacabra said:
Cool. So why are you flaunting approval polls?
Click to expand...

Individual polls are much less meaningful than the trend lines of the polls (which [one hopes] at least 50% of the people can understand) over time.

The trend lines of the polls over time are less meaningful than the rate of change of those trend lines (which [one hopes] at least 5% of the people can understand) over time.

The rate of change of trend lines over time is less meaningful than the rate of change of the rate of change of those trend lines (which [one hopes] at least 0.5% of the people can understand) over time.

PS - "National" polls don't actually reflect what is happening in the individual states and it is what is happening in the individual states that determines what is going to happen in the Electoral College. Statistically, it is possible to get elected to the office of President of the United States of America while only receiving around 25% of the popular vote and it is possible NOT to get elected to the office of President of the United States of America despite receiving around 75% of the popular vote. [Admittedly, that would take some rather bizarre voting patterns, but it IS POSSIBLE.]
 
Robertinfremont said:
We have it posted here that this is the same trend for Trump and Obama.
Click to expand...

That's essentially true. Obama held down spending/ Trump added all kinds of stimulus, from tax-cuts to increased government spending. Of course, now government spending that conservatives railed against is no fine.
 
Conservative said:
I would have thought someone who is so book smart would understand what challenged means but apparently not. Stop with the name calling and man up to your own ignorance of context
Click to expand...

Anyone who purposefully fudges data after being warned at least a dozen times is a disingenuous poster, and should not be trusted.

You are not challenging anyone... It's a copy/paste of garbage that has already been addressed.

You've lost, so this is all we can expect.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The economy is strong, it is at all time highs in many economic indicators. Unemployment numbers are outstanding, the stock markets are booming, the jobs numbers are high and overall household imcomes are rising.
I don't see why anyone would attack the economy, but the democrats lay their constant, "it isn't working for the working class, only the rich". Bull, most everybody I talk to says they are much better off and these are almost all middle class working folks.
Imagine where the economy would be if Democrats were on board with trying to help in the growth instead of being pissed at HRC loss in the 2016 election and trying to remove Donald Trump from offense. TRumps scaling back regulation on businesses has been a definite help, the tax cut despite democrat claims did boost he economy and put more money in the taxpayers pocket. Democrats need to learn a key term. COMPROMISE, I get sick of hearing the "nonstarter" from Nancy and Chuck every time there is a proposal.
Click to expand...

Watch Democrats jump on the slight rise in unemployment in recent days.

People are re-entering the work force lately because of all of the new opportunity. Not all have been hired yet. This is great news that they're back out there looking, and soon they'll find a good fit.

Democrats will bad mouth this. The more kept dependent on welfare, the better.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I did NOT say "business is expanding". Rather I DID say "one way for business to expand". Your point that business is not expanding is quite correct. Sloppy terminology is rife in almost any economic debate. For example, it isn't unusual to see something like "_[fill in the blank]_ is investing $X in _[fill in the blank]_." when what is being done is - in fact - purchasing an existing company (often for more than the existing company is worth). This no more results in an "expansion" of the total economy than 2 + 2 = 6. In fact what it IS is

"A (worth 2)" + "B (worth 2)" = "A (worth 4)" + "B (worth 0)"
​
(for a net gain of 0)

​


That, indeed, is "The Long War" that China and the US are engaged in.



In any sort of war (military, political, economic, theological, or ...) the side that stops fighting first is the side that loses and the side that stops fighting last is the side that wins.



The money for "The Great Wall of America" has to come from someplace. Either incomes has to increase (and that would mean tax increases) or expenditures have to go down. If Mr. Trump consults his usual circle of acquaintances, I have absolutely no doubt that he will learn that not a one of them would be in the slightest bit adversely effected should all of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security be completely shut down.



All one has to do is to take a look at the statistics concerning "concentration of wealth".

In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent of all wealth. By 2016, the bottom 90 percent of the population held only 23 percent of wealth. The wealth share of the top 1 percent increased from about 30 percent to about 40 percent over the same period.
[SOURCE]
Click to expand...

I'll take this one at a time .
In your first paragraph you said I was correct business is not expanding, then you say instead it's purchasing an existing company or investing in what pork bellies?

My question is what company would want to sell in a booming economy, and in a booming economy are companies going to spend more money investing or advertising to capitalize on a booming economy.

China and the U.S. are in a trade war . that's exports vs imports.
The financial war in America that companies face is based on a something seldom discussed in business but is needed. The American people a majority of when they have a substancial amount spend money they buy things , they gamble in short this makes companies very happy, however just as the more money they make they spend , the less money they make they don't they put on the brakes new T.Vs , cellphones computers furniture houses are replaced by higher health cost , rent, utilities and very often savingsplus the children and the parents on a fixed income that may need their help.

The American worker has been fighting against a weapon used against them it's called outsourcing maybe you've heard of it?

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the money going for the great wall of America , last I heard it was down from a gust of wind perhaps it should be looked over , thought over once again , or was it ever though over to begin with?

I care not about the statistics from 1989 , why would I that time is over it is past, I'm more concerned with the statistics today, Unless I'm mistaken the wealth of America is controlled by 10% what I want to know if this is such a good thing , if giving tax cuts to rich ,if giving research grants to the rich, if outsourcing jobs by rich corporations. and bailing out the rich when they hit hard times is so good for America why is it America is 23 TRILLION AND COUNTING IN DEBT:peace
 
Erod said:
Watch Democrats jump on the slight rise in unemployment in recent days.

People are re-entering the work force lately because of all of the new opportunity. Not all have been hired yet. This is great news that they're back out there looking, and soon they'll find a good fit.

Democrats will bad mouth this. The more kept dependent on welfare, the better.
Click to expand...

What is also exceptional is this is January which is normally a rather slow month but you are right, good news is always treated badly by the left who continue to pray for American failures. Why can't they celebrate the successes that the American people are feeling. 10 Polls here showing the same thing that the left wants to ignore. The economy is strong and it is growing by consumer spending NOT gov't spending

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy
 
Conservative said:
Yes
Click to expand...

Yet you try to paint the data in a way that doesn't reflect seasonal adjustment by claiming January is normally a slow month.

Wanna know what job growth looks like without seasonal adjustment???
 
Kushinator said:
Yet you try to paint the data in a way that doesn't reflect seasonal adjustment by claiming January is normally a slow month.

Wanna know what job growth looks like without seasonal adjustment???
Click to expand...

I posted the official data, you don't like it, take it up with the bureau of economic analysis. Don't really give a damn, only what the American people see and feel, data that you want to ignore. You do understand there are people not just numbers?
 
Conservative said:
I posted the official data, you don't like it, take it up with the bureau of economic analysis.
Click to expand...

You can't claim claim January is typically a slow month because this has already been accounted for. It has nothing to do with taking it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics....

fredgraph.png


You're an ignorant, dishonest, partisan hack who will say anything to advanced or make excuses for their ideology. Do you think the American people understand seasonal adjustment? You sure do not.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
You can't claim claim January is typically a slow month because this has already been accounted for. It has nothing to do with taking it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics....

fredgraph.png


You're an ignorant, dishonest, partisan hack who will say anything to advanced or make excuses for their ideology. Do you think the American people understand seasonal adjustment? You sure do not.
Click to expand...

Thank you, the name calling is all you are good for. Please find some purpose in life as your arrogance and ignorance is on full display
 
Kushinator said:
You've learned something in this thread, and showed the forum your true colors.
Click to expand...

I have learned a lot in this forum but mostly that people like you cannot admit when wrong and are an arrogant bully used to getting your own way. I also learned that you don't have the guts to admit your real lean and that you are a big gov't promoting nanny state liberal always running when challenged and ignoring data context.

You want to blame Trump for the interest expense being double what Obama had and the 7 interest rate hikes. You want to judge Trump by a different standard than Obama when the data I posted comes from the same site. You ignore the components of GDP and the fact that Obama's big GDP growth came when the Gov't stimulus was spent whereas Trump's is due to consumer spending. Then you still haven't recognized where the states get their revenue and how that revenue is affected by higher federal taxes.

Yes, I have learned a lot I this forum you don't change the mind of left wing cult followers

Trump-O-Meter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept | PolitiFact
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom