• 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!

First GDP month entirely under Trump...falling hard

Good, you should start a thread on it, I'd love to see where that goes.

But first, how about you address this one?

Too soon to tell anything.

One poster wrote that he felt, based on personal experience, the the fist quarter was always a tad slow.

If February was above 1%, that is ahead of, but close to the performance of the first quarter last year, but there is always an adjustment that occurs in about April.

I'm not sure there are monthly numbers for this stat reaching back into the past to gauge GDP performance against historical norms.

Do you have a link we could use to check this? I couldn't find anything useful.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/28/final-reading-on-q1-2016-gdp.html
 
gdpnow-forecast-evolution.gif


https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx?panel=1


The Atlanta Fed GDP Now numbers - which have been remarkably accurate in their relatively short history - are now putting the GDP at only 1.3%.

Not a good sign.


Thoughts?


Once again, I have zero political loyalty to either a party or a movement.

We might want to get ready for a crash. The Democrats have left and the House of Cards is in the wind!

;)
 
What's going to happen when there is a good quarter? "Oh, that? That is clearly Obama's doing." But a single month with a small return? "SEE!?! TRUMP IS RUINING EVERYTHING!!!!!"

I would see your point, except that the OP didn't blame the bad quarter on trump.
 
BTW...it is down to 1.2% today.
 
The GdpNow estimate is now down to 0.9%.
 
Obama inherited a tanked growth rate from Bush in 2009.

Then after 2011, Obama was unable to manage the recovery as he saw fit thanks to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and then later the Republican-controlled Senate as well.
 
, Obama was unable to manage the recovery as he saw fit

Obama is a socialist; if he had been free it would have been far worse. Remember East/West Germany?? Can you name anything that Barry would have done that would have helped rather than hurt our economy??
 
Obama is a socialist; if he had been free it would have been far worse. Remember East/West Germany?? Can you name anything that Barry would have done that would have helped rather than hurt our economy??

No, Obama is not a socialist, and no, there is no use trying to establish an intelligent dialogue with anyone who thinks he is. Goodbye.
 
No, Obama is not a socialist, and no, there is no use trying to establish an intelligent dialogue with anyone who thinks he is. Goodbye.

Obama not a socialist????????????

There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams For My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union? And why did Obama vote to the left of Bernie Sanders and open communist? When did he listen to Rev. God Damn America Wright" for 25 years. And why was he so friendly with communist mentor Frank Davis?,( Communist Party number: 47544)



Obama said, in his biography, he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry.

Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate.

Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked."

Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn’t say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.

Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."

A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields:
 
Atlanta Fed Slashes Q1 GDP To Just 0.6%, Lowest In Three Years

'Remember when the Fed was "data dependent"? Well, if the Atlanta Fed is right, Janet Yellen will have hiked the Fed's interest rate in a quarter in which GDP has grown by a paltry 0.6%, down from 1.2% as of its latest estimate. If confirmed, this would be the lowest quarterly GDP growth in three years, since Q1 of 2014.

Incidentally, just over two months ago, the same forecast stood at 3.4%, it has since fallen by over 80%.'


Atlanta Fed Slashes Q1 GDP To Just 0.6%, Lowest In Three Years | Zero Hedge
 
Atlanta Fed Slashes Q1 GDP To Just 0.6%, Lowest In Three Years

'Remember when the Fed was "data dependent"? Well, if the Atlanta Fed is right, Janet Yellen will have hiked the Fed's interest rate in a quarter in which GDP has grown by a paltry 0.6%, down from 1.2% as of its latest estimate. If confirmed, this would be the lowest quarterly GDP growth in three years, since Q1 of 2014.

Incidentally, just over two months ago, the same forecast stood at 3.4%, it has since fallen by over 80%.'


Atlanta Fed Slashes Q1 GDP To Just 0.6%, Lowest In Three Years | Zero Hedge

you do realize that it is going to take at least a year or so to see the affect of anything trump does right?
 
so he supports single payer because he's a capitalist?????

No, he supports it despite the fact that he is a capitalist. There are numerous public need exceptions to capitalist financing and management which even a good capitalist can back:

Roads, dams, numerous utilities, the armed forces, numerous schools, local, state and national parks, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. James 972 supports many, if not most, if not all of them too, doesn't he?

BTW ACA is not single-payer, but despite the evidence from other (capitalist) countries that single-payer works, it is not politically feasible in the US with its massive irrational red dog reactionary electoral component.
 
ocean515 said:
I haven't left the point of the thread. Just making sure the parameters of measurement are equally applied.

Except, not everything is equal. Some strident Trump supporters were claiming that optimistic news from even before he was sworn in was his doing. I think these threads are meant to poke back on those claims.
 
Except, not everything is equal. Some strident Trump supporters were claiming that optimistic news from even before he was sworn in was his doing. I think these threads are meant to poke back on those claims.

Trump is pro business while Barry was anti business so it stands to reason markets would be up.
 
James972 said:
Trump is pro business while Barry was anti business so it stands to reason markets would be up.

I imagine if I were President people would think I'm anti-business for supporting the following notions:

1. People should be paid fairly, and what is fair is not determined by what those in power have dictated for a few years.

2. No one, businesses included, should not get away with poluting the environment wihtout paying for the damages.

3. Everyone should respect sovereign rights.

4. Businesses, along with everyone else, should pay their fair share of taxes.

5. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against people for what they do not choose, or what they have a right to choose.

6. Generally speaking, businesses should do the right thing, all of the time. At no time should businesses do what is wrong.

Frankly, I think it's nuts to suppose that someone who believes all of those things, and who believes in crafting laws and regulations in accord with those principles, is "anti-business."

But there are plenty of crazy people in the world...
 
I imagine if I were President people would think I'm anti-business for supporting the following notions:

1. People should be paid fairly,.

and thus a libNazi with a gun would decide what a fair and higher wage would be and what fair and higher prices would be so no net benefit possible.
 
and thus a libNazi with a gun would decide what a fair and higher wage would be and what fair and higher prices would be so no net benefit possible.

Jeez man...you gotta learn to chill.

Every post you make seethes with anger and hatred.


Imo, neither libs nor cons at the highest level have a blessed clue how to properly run America's economy.

Libs want bigger and bigger government while cons want bigger and bigger military budgets...and neither seems to have a clue how to pay for their toys.

The solution is simple - balance the budget by slashing BOTH the military and the social budget, replace the bloated whale that is Obamacare with BASIC healthcare for all Americans (full for needy children/disabled people) who need it - if they need more - either get insurance or use a charity, let insurance companies make their own rules, simplify AND lower taxes for all classes...especially the poor/middle classes, end corporate/business taxes, make the Fed ONLY responsible for inflation (not employment as well) and have the government stay the hell out of the economy.

Do this and the economy would undoubtedly grow and the national debt would slowly shrink and America would still have FAR MORE military protection than she knows what to with.

But most leaders are macroeconomically clueless and useless. They couldn't properly run a lemonade stand - let alone the largest economy in the world.
 
James972 said:
and thus a libNazi with a gun would decide what a fair and higher wage would be and what fair and higher prices would be so no net benefit possible.

I didn't say anything about setting prices, or about setting wages, for that matter. Anyway, "libnazi" isn't a word and it doesn't refer to anything. If you're saying I think there should be laws that regulate wages, you are correct, and I think those laws should be enforced. I doubt very seriously guns would be necessary to do so.
 
Except, not everything is equal. Some strident Trump supporters were claiming that optimistic news from even before he was sworn in was his doing. I think these threads are meant to poke back on those claims.

Or to support those claims, depending on how one wants to apply their bias.
 
ocean515 said:
Or to support those claims, depending on how one wants to apply their bias.

I would agree, and I think most reasonable people would agree, that it's too early to attribute any economic news, good or bad, to Trump's policies. The same principle applies at the beginning of every new administration--it takes at least a year for new policies to work themselves into the economy and have an effect. There could be some exceptions (for example, if a President ever fired all federal workers on the first day, we would rightly attribute the ensuing rise in unemployment to that act), but generally speaking, this is a good rule of thumb. For now, Obama and the previous two Congresses own all the economic news, good and bad. That becomes less and less the case as time wears on, and after roughly a year, Trump and the current congress own the economy, good and bad.

The point I was making is that some Trump supporters were cheering positive economic news from even before Trump was sworn into office as his doing. That's a pretty crazy view--there's been generally positive economic news for quite a while. But if that's the principle by which hard-core Trump supporters want to proceed, then they have to do so fairly, and own all the economic news, good and bad. I would agree it's a nonsense argument--but it's based on the same logic as the argument of the Trump supporters making claims that positive news is due to Trump's policies (or simply the superlative radiance of his being in office). If it's nonsense to blame the bad news on Trump, it must be nonsense to credit Trump with the good news as well.

Now, if you're saying there are partisan leftists who are so biased as to want to present this kind of argument in a positive light (see! Trump is wrecking the economy!), then I agree with you. There are such people on my side of the fence, and they're dumb-asses. I would not claim that all liberals are reasonable and all conservatives stupid. There are reasonable, intelligent people on both sides, and I maintain hope, despite present appearances, that perhaps those people will learn to talk to each other and we can come together as a nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom