• 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

Kushinator said:
Context in your mind is anything you want, while ignoring everything else. This silly argument where you cherry pick time frames to create your own definitions of failure, then call it fact have already been refuted dozens upon dozens of times.



Angry (i'm assuming white) man on the internet doesn't represent the American people. He represents himself.
Click to expand...

Right, Obama wasn't in office for 8 years and never generated the results that BLS, BEA. and Treasury show

Why don't you tell us how much of the Obama GDP was due to the stimulus which was additional gov't spending?

Apparently the American people don't share in your feelings about Trump but I am in that 56%, apparently you aren't

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy
 
Conservative said:
Right, Obama wasn't in office for 8 years and never generated the results that BLS, BEA. and Treasury show
Click to expand...

Obama inherrited an economy that lost 784,000 jobs the month he was inaugurated. February and March attributed 743,000 and 800,000 respectively to the reduction in total non-farm payrolls. By the time Trump was sworn in, the U.S. economy had returned to positive real GDP growth for 7 consecutive years, annual job growth eclipsed 2 million for 5 consecutive years, and budget deficits had fallen from $1.4 trillion to $665 billion. That's what the results show. Trump has managed to preside over the first two aspects of the Obama trend, but has failed to continue on with deficit reduction.

Why don't you tell us how much of the Obama GDP was due to the stimulus which was additional gov't spending?
Click to expand...

The stimulus was a one-time thing. But i can show you how much the stimulus impacted government expenditures:

fredgraph.png


Apparently the American people don't share in your feelings about Trump but I am in that 56%, apparently you aren't
Click to expand...

I've been satisfied with the economy for the past 9 years. But by all means, continue habitually posting the same poll.
 
Kushinator said:
Obama inherrited an economy that lost 784,000 jobs the month he was inaugurated. February and March attributed 743,000 and 800,000 respectively to the reduction in total non-farm payrolls. By the time Trump was sworn in, the U.S. economy had returned to positive real GDP growth for 7 consecutive years, annual job growth eclipsed 2 million for 5 consecutive years, and budget deficits had fallen from $1.4 trillion to $665 billion. That's what the results show. Trump has managed to preside over the first two aspects of the Obama trend, but has failed to continue on with deficit reduction.



The stimulus was a one-time thing. But i can show you how much the stimulus impacted government expenditures:

fredgraph.png




I've been satisfied with the economy for the past 9 years. But by all means, continue habitually posting the same poll.
Click to expand...

And Obama signed a stimulus in February 2009 for shovel ready jobs that saw 4 million more jobs lost in 2009 and only 1 million of those recovered in 2010. He didn't get back to pre recession employment until 2014. so much for a successful economic policy!!

Apparently your very selective and partisan memory ignored the stimulus and again you have such very low standards that Obama economics is what you need thus no question about it, you are satisfied, the American people overall weren't thus the election results

Looks like about an addition 500 billion dollars in gov't spending in that 4.3 trillion dollar GDP growth for Obama. Trump has generated close to 3 trillion growth in 3 years WITHOUT that additional gov't spending stimulus Obama generated. What you show and continue to show is how ignorant you are on the private sector economy which is the foundation upon which this country was built and prospered. You and the radical left deserve each other but that isn't what the American people in general want

10 different poll numbers represented here

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy
 
Kushinator said:
Excon said:
This post of yours has not a damn thing to do with what you quoted from me and makes you even more wrong.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. The projections that were the basis of the article turned out to be false. We waited and we've seen...
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
Again.
Excon said:
This post of yours has not a damn thing to do with what you quoted from me and makes you even more wrong.

Again.
Your claim that you were 100% right and I 100% wrong, was 100% wrong. I made no claim which could be wrong and we never had an argument in which you could be right. So you were pathetically just making up nonsense.

Your claims were false and you baited.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
And Obama signed a stimulus in February 2009 for shovel ready jobs that saw 4 million more jobs lost in 2009 and only 1 million of those recovered in 2010. He didn't get back to pre recession employment until 2014. so much for a successful economic policy!!
Click to expand...

This just goes to highlight the significance of the economic and financial crisis.

Looks like about an addition 500 billion dollars in gov't spending in that 4.3 trillion dollar GDP growth for Obama. Trump has generated close to 3 trillion growth in 3 years WITHOUT that additional gov't spending stimulus Obama generated.
Click to expand...

:lol:

fredgraph.png


Stimulus is the same as deficit growth, as it creates additional economic activity via government borrowing from the private sector.

Government spending growth during both the Obama and Trump administrations can be seen more clearly in the graph above.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
This just goes to highlight the significance of the economic and financial crisis.



:lol:

fredgraph.png


Stimulus is the same as deficit growth, as it creates additional economic activity via government borrowing from the private sector.

Government spending growth during both the Obama and Trump administrations can be seen more clearly in the graph above.
Click to expand...

So 4.3 trillion of which 500 billion was stimulus making the GDP growth of 3.8 trillion in 8 years without the stimulus. Trump is approaching 3 trillion now without any Federal spending stimulus just normal federal spending as a component of GDP. 2020 spending is a PROJECTION but the graph supports my claim about the stimulus spending as added Gov't spending component of GDP. Your graph shows about 1 trillion dollars in federal spending during the Obama term but not sure what context that data is in, Stimulus spending was about 550 billion I believe

Seems rather difficult for you to admit you are wrong on any subject even though your graph shows it quite distinctly that the stimulus spending was quite significant in 2009-2010 and never generated the promised results in terms of employment thus new taxpayers. When jobs were created they were under employed thus part time which impacted federal revenue.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

You were clearly in the camp that was predicting 3%, 4%, 5%, and even 6% real output growth. You wouldn't have posted the same line of

Excon said:
"I guess we will have to wait and see."
Click to expand...

in every post questioning the projections.

We have waited and we have seen.
 
Conservative said:
So 4.3 trillion of which 500 billion was stimulus making the GDP growth of 3.8 trillion in 8 years without the stimulus.
Click to expand...

Government spending grew by $870 billion during the Obama administration. So far, government spending has grown by $596 billion during the Trump administration.

2020 spending is a PROJECTION but the graph supports my claim about the stimulus spending as added Gov't spending component of GDP. Your graph shows about 1 trillion dollars in federal spending during the Obama term
Click to expand...

It shows $870 billion in federal spending growth during the Obama administration (and no, it is fiscal year data so the time series is adjusted accordingly... you just have problems interpreting data). All federal government spending is a component of GDP, so your claim is nothing but a subset of common knowledge. Government spending growth that is not financed by revenue is a deficit. All deficits are stimulus. The deficit has grown by almost $400 billion during the Trump presidency.

but not sure what context that data is in, Stimulus spending was about 550 billion I believe
Click to expand...

What context the data is in? What the **** does that even mean? The graph clearly shows growth (or decay) in government spending for the fiscal year.

Seems rather difficult for you to admit you are wrong on any subject
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong on this subject. You are! And i have demonstrated this to be so in an overwhelming fashion.
 
:laughat:
Kushinator said:
[SUP]You were clearly in the camp that was predicting 3%, 4%, 5%, and even 6% real output growth. You wouldn't have posted the same line of

in every post questioning the projections.

We have waited and we have seen.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
You really do have trouble understanding.
As you were already told, if you have an issue with the report or what was being reported - take it up with the author or the person they were interviewing. Period. End of story.
But for that small portion informing you as to where you should address your concerns to, the bulk of my replies have been addressing your absurdity in making false claims about me and in your baiting. This is why your posts continually have not addressed what you were actually quoting.


It is pretty obvious you are avoiding your false claims, but I am not willing to let them go.
So either address your false claims about me and the ones you used to bait, or push on with your nonsense.


Again.

Excon said:
Again.
Your claim that you were 100% right and I 100% wrong, was 100% wrong. I made no claim which could be wrong and we never had an argument in which you could be right. So you were pathetically just making up nonsense.

Your claims were false and you baited.
Click to expand...
 
=Kushinator;1071339268]Government spending grew by $870 billion during the Obama administration. So far, government spending has grown by $596 billion during the Trump administration.
Click to expand...

Where is the data to support that and what were the line items? The 850 billion includes the stimulus and recyclying of TARP payments



It shows $870 billion in federal spending growth during the Obama administration (and no, it is fiscal year data so the time series is adjusted accordingly... you just have problems interpreting data). All federal government spending is a component of GDP, so your claim is nothing but a subset of common knowledge. Government spending growth that is not financed by revenue is a deficit. All deficits are stimulus. The deficit has grown by almost $400 billion during the Trump presidency.
Click to expand...

See above, context matters, How much of that gov't spending increases were due to debt service and entitlement spending. With interest rates at historic low during the Obama term very little of the gov't spending was interest expense and entitlement spending.



What context the data is in? What the **** does that even mean? The graph clearly shows growth (or decay) in government spending for the fiscal year.
Click to expand...

It shows when most of the stimulus was spent but not the results of that spending nor the line items that make up that spending.



I'm not wrong on this subject. You are! And i have demonstrated this to be so in an overwhelming fashion.
Click to expand...

yes, you are wrong, typical big gov't liberal rhetoric that ignores context. Gov't spending is a component of GDP and much of Obama's gov't spending was Stimulus and TARP recycling expenditures. Most of TARP was paid but only the interest expense went back into reducing the deficit not the principle which was respent
 
Conservative said:
Where is the data to support that
Click to expand...

The graph and the link in the post you chose to quote.

The 850 billion includes the stimulus and recyclying of TARP payments
Click to expand...

TARP repayments reduced the deficit... they weren't recycled.

How much of that gov't spending increases were due to debt service
Click to expand...

Debt service has increased by $135 billion during the Trump administration. Government spending has increased by $596 billion.
 
Kushinator said:
The graph and the link in the post you chose to quote.



TARP repayments reduced the deficit... they weren't recycled.



Debt service has increased by $135 billion during the Trump administration. Government spending has increased by $596 billion.
Click to expand...

The graph shows numbers not context. It does appear that Chicago education system has not taught you the definition of context

No, TARP repayments did not reduce the deficit, interest expense paid did, Geithner recycled TARP thus re-spent it

Another subject you know nothing about

TARP Returns Won't Lower Federal Deficit
 
MTAtech said:
America's economy grew at its weakest pace since Trump took office


New York (CNN Business)The US economy in 2019 grew at its slowest pace in three years, according to preliminary data from the Commerce Department.

The economy expanded by 2.3% last year, its lowest level since 2016, when growth stood at 1.6%.
The economy under President Donald Trump has been consistently strong but not electric. In its best year, 2018, the economy expanded at a 2.9% clip. In 2017, it grew by 2.4%.
The dropoff in 2019 was because personal consumption and exports fell, according to the Commerce Department.
Critics of Obama said his economy was mediocre because he never had GDP growth at 3% or higher. Neither has Trump, with low unemployment and a trillion dollar deficit that's basically fiscal stimulus.
Trump promised on the campaign trail that he'd bring in 4, 5, and maybe 6% growth. Didn't happen. His tax-cuts were supposed to be the economic miracle to boost growth. It didn't happen. His tariffs were supposed to help exports. Exports fell.
Click to expand...

After any crash the market will have some of its strongest growths. It cannot continue such growth indefinitely. The growth of the market is affected by every country in the world as well as climate and the feelings of the investors. All this turmoil in the government of a country with the largest economy will cause fear among investors. This none stop coup by the democrats is clearly striking fear in industry. The other thing is many businesses fear the democrats will take control and all their investments will be lost as we go back to putting other economies first.
 
Conservative said:
The graph shows numbers not context.
Click to expand...

The data is concise and clear. The Trump economy is addicted to government spending and deficits.

No, TARP repayments did not reduce the deficit, interest expense paid did, Geithner recycled TARP thus re-spent it
Click to expand...

:lol:

22a373b26e.png


Not that you'll accept the data or (more likely) be able to understand the table.

Another subject you know nothing about
Click to expand...

A 2009 article doesn't refute the data. TARP repayments lowered the deficit in FY's 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014. You're not an expert.
 
Kushinator said:
The data is concise and clear. The Trump economy is addicted to government spending and deficits.



:lol:

22a373b26e.png


Not that you'll accept the data or (more likely) be able to understand the table.



A 2009 article doesn't refute the data. TARP repayments lowered the deficit in FY's 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014. You're not an expert.
Click to expand...

Note that you ignored the accounting change and that the LOANS were charged as part of the PROJECTED Deficits but then when repaid because of accounting changes were never used to reduce the deficit. What I do accept is the reality that you can never admit when wrong, have no understanding of the private sector or even context of what you post.

You also ignored what Geithner did with the repayments

What happens to returned TARP money?
 
Conservative said:
Note that you ignored the accounting change and that the LOANS were charged as part of the PROJECTED Deficits but then when repaid because of accounting changes were never used to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...

I just showed you how these repayments reduced the deficit. The table specifically shows total deficit impact.

What I do accept is the reality that you can never admit when wrong, have no understanding of the private sector or even context of what you post.
Click to expand...

You were wrong and i was not. The article out of Kiplinger doesn't refute what has actually happened... TARP repayments lowered the deficit in FY's 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. This is simply a matter of fact.

You also ignored what Geithner did with the repayments
Click to expand...

You're basing an entire argument on an 11 year old article.

What happens to returned TARP money?
Click to expand...

Your outdated trash article aside, everything that has to do with how TARP is accounted or impacts deficits/debt/etc... has already been linked. Like in all of our discussions, you're simply outclassed and outmatched. You lack the necessary knowledge to continue this discussion without cowering behind a poll.
 
Kushinator said:
I just showed you how these repayments reduced the deficit. The table specifically shows total deficit impact.



You were wrong and i was not. The article out of Kiplinger doesn't refute what has actually happened... TARP repayments lowered the deficit in FY's 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. This is simply a matter of fact.



You're basing an entire argument on an 11 year old article.



Your outdated trash article aside, everything that has to do with how TARP is accounted or impacts deficits/debt/etc... has already been linked. Like in all of our discussions, you're simply outclassed and outmatched. You lack the necessary knowledge to continue this discussion without cowering behind a poll.
Click to expand...

Treasury doesn't show that reduction but again Treasury data is apparently irrelevant to you. I am basing my argument on FACT something you cannot accept as partisanship and Chicago style politics are all that motivate and drive you.

this thread is about the U.S. economy which for three years is higher than anything Obama ever generated and it was done by the private sector not the public sector. Go back to your apparent gov't bean counter job that will never allow you to grow any understanding of the private sector, the components of GDP, the context of the under employed, and the failures of liberalism.

More name calling, not surprising as radicals like you can never admit when wrong. You are the one outclassed by one of the "deplorables" according to Hillary and one of the over 56% of the American people who approve of the job Trump is doing with the economy. He got my vote in 2016 and has earned it again in 2020.
 
:laughat:
Kushinator said:
[SUP]We have waited and we have seen.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Still avoiding reality I see.

Again.

Excon said:
You really do have trouble understanding.
As you were already told, if you have an issue with the report or what was being reported - take it up with the author or the person they were interviewing. Period. End of story.
But for that small portion informing you as to where you should address your concerns to, the bulk of my replies have been addressing your absurdity in making false claims about me and in your baiting. This is why your posts continually have not addressed what you were actually quoting.


It is pretty obvious you are avoiding your false claims, but I am not willing to let them go.
So either address your false claims about me and the ones you used to bait, or push on with your nonsense.


Again.

Excon said:
Again.
Your claim that you were 100% right and I 100% wrong, was 100% wrong. I made no claim which could be wrong and we never had an argument in which you could be right. So you were pathetically just making up nonsense.

Your claims were false and you baited.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
:laughat:
Kushinator said:
Again... we have waited and we have seen.
Click to expand...
:lamo
How about replying to what has actually been said instead of what you have imagined? Or is that too hard for you?


Again.

Excon said:
Still avoiding reality I see.

Again.

Excon said:
You really do have trouble understanding.
As you were already told, if you have an issue with the report or what was being reported - take it up with the author or the person they were interviewing. Period. End of story.
But for that small portion informing you as to where you should address your concerns to, the bulk of my replies have been addressing your absurdity in making false claims about me and in your baiting. This is why your posts continually have not addressed what you were actually quoting.


It is pretty obvious you are avoiding your false claims, but I am not willing to let them go.
So either address your false claims about me and the ones you used to bait, or push on with your nonsense.


Again.

Excon said:
Again.
Your claim that you were 100% right and I 100% wrong, was 100% wrong. I made no claim which could be wrong and we never had an argument in which you could be right. So you were pathetically just making up nonsense.

Your claims were false and you baited.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Need I remind you of

The Internet Directions Instituting Official Tactics In Colloquia Rules (Part IV - § 473.1 - ¶ ABA - sub¶ xiv - clause q) which states

"It is perfectly proper to make totally unrelated accusations since no one will ever challenge you on them and you can then later use the fact that the unrelated accusation was not challenged to prove that it was true.".
​

upon which many posts are based?
Click to expand...



Please, don't remind me.
 
Kushinator said:
This just goes to highlight the significance of the economic and financial crisis.



:lol:

fredgraph.png


Stimulus is the same as deficit growth, as it creates additional economic activity via government borrowing from the private sector.

Government spending growth during both the Obama and Trump administrations can be seen more clearly in the graph above.
Click to expand...

Would you like to place a bet that, should the US economy falter, "Conservative" will find that Mr. Trump has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the "economic health" of the country?

Unfortunately since I ship all winnings by registered mail, you will have to bet at least $1,000,000 (which I will actually have to have received [i.e. your cheque will have to have actually cleared and the money will actually have to be in my bank account]) in order to win enough to cover the postage costs at the 1 :: 793,650 odds against factor that is the currently applicable one.
 
Kushinator said:
Government spending grew by $870 billion during the Obama administration. So far, government spending has grown by $596 billion during the Trump administration.
Click to expand...

Another way of putting it is that government spending has been growing around 1.566 times as fast under Mr. Trump as it did under Mr. Obama.

As for "What contest the date is in" is concerned, the "context" is quite simple and that is

"Are the data things that I want to hear about or not?"
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom