• 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!

CBO: Economic Growth is projected at 1.9%. 3-4% is unrealistic.

upsideguy said:
....or, "you guys" claim there is everything wrong with Obama's 1.9%, but are cool with Trump's 1.9% (which he will have a very difficult time achieving).
Click to expand...


Well, I am not one of the guys. From my personal experience I have seen that slow steady growth is actually better in the long run than faster growth followed by steeper pullbacks. So, I was fine with Obama's 1.9% growth. I'm not the one being the hypocrite here, you are.
 
Moderate Right said:
So you're OK with Trump's projected 1.9% then and just want to partake in biased liberal talking points solely for political purposes.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the projection of 1.9% growth. It was not, however, Trump's projection. His prediction (based on what? who knows) was for 4% growth, which doesn't appear to be a possibility. I'm ok with the fact that 4% growth isn't a possibility, I'm not ok with Trump predicating his budget projections on 4% growth, when he's been shown that it isn't going to happen.
 
Critter7r said:
I'm ok with the projection of 1.9% growth. It was not, however, Trump's projection. His prediction (based on what? who knows) was for 4% growth, which doesn't appear to be a possibility. I'm ok with the fact that 4% growth isn't a possibility, I'm not ok with Trump predicating his budget projections on 4% growth, when he's been shown that it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Apparently even the 1.9% growth is at risk. Consumer spending is dropping as people realize what a failure Trump is.

American consumers account for the majority of economic growth. And they're cutting back on their spending.
Retail sales dropped in June for the second straight month, according to Commerce Department data released on Friday. Sales in June dropped 0.2% compared to May. It's the third decline this year.
"This was disappointing and does seem to be a broad based decline," says Michael Pearce, U.S. economist at Capital Economics, a research firm. "We've got a weak base going into the second half of the year."
Americans pulled back spending across the board in June. Sales dropped at gas stations, grocery stores, department stores, restaurants and bars.
At the same time, Americans' confidence in the economy's future is cooling off after spiking following President Trump's election, according to indexes from the University of Michigan and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Click to expand...

Americans are cutting back on spending - Jul. 14, 2017
 
MTAtech said:
CBO: Trump's 2018 budget would not balance as White House has claimed - CBS News

Trump originally promised 4%. Neither will likely happen.

I also predict that if the budget was passed, there is so much less federal spending that GDP will actually be much lower than 1.9% and Americans will be worse off.
Click to expand...

Ultimately the economy can't realistically grow much faster if any faster than the population grows. With birth rates declining, baby boomers dying, and attempts by Republicans to keep immigrants out it would not shock me if we had a long term net zero growth coming in the future. It might not have anything at all to do with economic policy of either party, it's just a natural thing that's going to happen.
 
Critter7r said:
I'm ok with the projection of 1.9% growth. It was not, however, Trump's projection. His prediction (based on what? who knows) was for 4% growth, which doesn't appear to be a possibility. I'm ok with the fact that 4% growth isn't a possibility, I'm not ok with Trump predicating his budget projections on 4% growth, when he's been shown that it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Every politician who ever existed has given rosy figures for many different things, including Obama on Obamacare and other things as well. When Hillary was running for president I specifically remember her declaring that she would not add one penny to the national debt. A little bit rosy there to, don't you think? To take advantage of these kinds of things merely for political ammunition is nothing but partisan and both sides do it. If you are going to do this then you should at least admit that you are doing it for politically partisan purposes. And, I don't deny that Trump has done this with numerous things. It's what they all do.
 
Moderate Right said:
Too funny! You guys claim there was nothing wrong with Obama's 1.9% then you jump all over Trump because of 1.9% projections.
Click to expand...
sigh

2% is not great, no matter who is President. However, context matters.

Obama presided over the recovery from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, including a global recession that reduced US exports. He also had to deal with an obstructionist Congress.

Obama and Trump share certain structural weaknesses and strengths. Overall though, Trump is in a very different situation. He came into office when most of the recovery was over, unemployment near historic lows, credit is still absurdly cheap, and a stock market that spent years on a tear.

Unfortunately, any President right now would face numerous structural issues, such as:
• Reduced global demand
• Very high income / economic inequality
• Debt mostly maxed out (especially on the consumer side)
• Aging population
• Increasing automation
• Boomers retiring


Thus, Trump hitting a 2% growth rate does not automatically produce cries of "TRUMP'S FAULT!!!" The real issue is in his policies, which will make it difficult to hit even 2%. Such as:
• Anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment and pronouncements (e.g. tourism by foreign nationals is already getting hurt; immigration, yes immigration, increases US GDP; our trading partners are less likely to buy US goods when we insult them)
• Policies that exacerbate income inequality
• No policies that help people dislocated by automation
• No serious policies to help low-wage or less educated employees, let alone deal with the opium crisis (which corrodes some of the communities in which these displaced and discouraged workers live)
• Potentially reducing safety nets and benefits, where all that spending goes into the economy, in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and military spending (both of which have abysmally low multiplier effects) -- this includes numerous gut-punches to rural communities, mostly in cutting benefits and assistance to states (including Medicaid)
• Setting the stage for a repeat of the 2007 financial crisis, by eliminating regulations (particularly those on financial institutions)

And of course, another serious issue is that the Trump administration is basically lying out its ass by claiming that cutting taxes for the wealthy, and regulations on business, will boost growth to 3%. And while Trump may be a megalomaniacal moron who would fail Macroeconomics 101, Mnuchin is not... and really ought to know better.

I.e. it's the lies that are almost as bad as the policies.

Almost.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Ultimately the economy can't realistically grow much faster if any faster than the population grows. With birth rates declining, baby boomers dying, and attempts by Republicans to keep immigrants out it would not shock me if we had a long term net zero growth coming in the future. It might not have anything at all to do with economic policy of either party, it's just a natural thing that's going to happen.
Click to expand...
That's true and productivity hasn't been increasing as it used to.
 
Moderate Right said:
Too funny! You guys claim there was nothing wrong with Obama's 1.9% then you jump all over Trump because of 1.9% projections.
Click to expand...

Do you understand how gdp is calculated?

If not, leave.

If you do, consider the contribution generally provided by discretionary spending.....

Do you know, roughly, how much it contributed to gdp under Obama? How does that compare to the average of the past 45 -50 years?

Remember how glib Trump was in his insistence that he would achieve 4%?
 
Iceberg Slim said:
Do you understand how gdp is calculated?

If not, leave.

If you do, consider the contribution generally provided by discretionary spending.....

Do you know, roughly, how much it contributed to gdp under Obama? How does that compare to the average of the past 45 -50 years?

Remember how glib Trump was in his insistence that he would achieve 4%?
Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmm. You just joined this month and you are telling ME to leave? I assume GDP isn't calculated any differently under Obama's 1.9% than Trump's 1.9% projections. Even second graders know that 1.9 is the same as 1.9. Time for you to go back and learn.
 
NIMBY said:
And now Ryan wants to cut funds to the CBO .
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe his ****ty explanation either; "we can use Heritage" (paraphrased). The whole point of the CBO is to have an organization that makes an effort NOT to have ulterior political motives, while organizations like Heritage are the opposite of that...
 
Absentglare said:
I couldn't believe his ****ty explanation either; "we can use Heritage" (paraphrased). The whole point of the CBO is to have an organization that makes an effort NOT to have ulterior political motives, while organizations like Heritage are the opposite of that...
Click to expand...

Especially with the CBO chief appointed by GOP leaders
 
MTAtech said:
Of course, an independent, non-partisan agency charged with reporting facts, is the enemy of the con man.
Click to expand...

The fact is neither party is happy all the time with the CBO. In addition you need to better understand the difference between a fact and an estimate. The best estimates are still just that. No one should take very seriously a 10 year projection for our huge economy.
 
Moderate Right said:
Ummmmmmmmmm. You just joined this month and you are telling ME to leave? I assume GDP isn't calculated any differently under Obama's 1.9% than Trump's 1.9% projections. Even second graders know that 1.9 is the same as 1.9. Time for you to go back and learn.
Click to expand...

so you have no idea....

let yourself out.
 
NIMBY said:
And now Ryan wants to cut funds to the CBO .
Click to expand...

data tends to be ruthless with Supply Side hacks....so the best solution is to shoot the messenger.
 
washunut said:
The fact is neither party is happy all the time with the CBO. In addition you need to better understand the difference between a fact and an estimate. The best estimates are still just that. No one should take very seriously a 10 year projection for our huge economy.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of being happy with CBO analysis. The CBO gives an unbiased best estimate with the available data -- and they historically have done a very good job at that.

What we have now is attacks upon the CBO because that unbiased best estimate doesn't confirm what the authors of legislation want. Instead of embracing the CBO estimates and stepping back to pause about where the bill has gone wrong, they attack the CBO.
 
MTAtech said:
It's not a matter of being happy with CBO analysis. The CBO gives an unbiased best estimate with the available data -- and they historically have done a very good job at that.

What we have now is attacks upon the CBO because that unbiased best estimate doesn't confirm what the authors of legislation want. Instead of embracing the CBO estimates and stepping back to pause about where the bill has gone wrong, they attack the CBO.
Click to expand...

But I replied to your description of CBO analysis as FACT not estimate which it is. Perhaps you want to call them alternate facts.

Not sure that the estimates on ACA were as accurate as you claim. My sense is you know better. Not being truthful is not the type of political debate I care to participate in. Have fun in your echo chamber.
 
Iceberg Slim said:
data tends to be ruthless with Supply Side hacks....so the best solution is to shoot the messenger.
Click to expand...

I say RHETORICALLY shoot the messenger.

We don't get too many new lefties on DP these days, mostly righties, so I'll give you some words I hope help. It takes most new posters time to get used to posting on Debate Politics, no matter how experienced they think they are on other boards.

I find this board to be quite libertarian in nature, pro gun and pro lgbtq. Most liberties feign ignorance of their previous association with both parties but still vote that way.

Click on quick links and go to forum leaders to see who the moderators are. If you see one in your thread, be on your best behavior.

If you go to a thread with a warning in it, read the warning first before posting so you don't get infracted with snark posts. 10 infracted points gets you temp. suspended for 2 days, 20 gets you 2 weeks, 30 gets you permanently banned. Don't get banned.

My advice is to read lots of posts and post with those of your kind and have lots of fun on DP. When you find a rightie who seems okay, go for it, but read the rules so you don't get gigged .
 
washunut said:
But I replied to your description of CBO analysis as FACT not estimate which it is. Perhaps you want to call them alternate facts.

Not sure that the estimates on ACA were as accurate as you claim. My sense is you know better. Not being truthful is not the type of political debate I care to participate in. Have fun in your echo chamber.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that CBO analysis is the best available data. Those attacking the CBO as being wrong are the ones not telling the truth, because they have an agenda.

When the CBO makes a projection, they of course are making an estimate because they don't have a time machine. However, past CBO estimates have come close to the future actuals.
 
NIMBY said:
I say RHETORICALLY shoot the messenger.

We don't get too many new lefties on DP these days, mostly righties, so I'll give you some words I hope help. It takes most new posters time to get used to posting on Debate Politics, no matter how experienced they think they are on other boards.

I find this board to be quite libertarian in nature, pro gun and pro lgbtq. Most liberties feign ignorance of their previous association with both parties but still vote that way.

Click on quick links and go to forum leaders to see who the moderators are. If you see one in your thread, be on your best behavior.

If you go to a thread with a warning in it, read the warning first before posting so you don't get infracted with snark posts. 10 infracted points gets you temp. suspended for 2 days, 20 gets you 2 weeks, 30 gets you permanently banned. Don't get banned.

My advice is to read lots of posts and post with those of your kind and have lots of fun on DP. When you find a rightie who seems okay, go for it, but read the rules so you don't get gigged .
Click to expand...

Thanks.... don't consider myself a "lefty"......I'm stridently, and unapologetically, Anti-Stupid... I'm conditioned to the prevailing ethos of Moron Curation at these locations...

That said, I do try to play by the local rules.
 
Moderate Right said:
You apparently have no idea that 1.9 and 1.9 are the very same numbers. You have already let yourself out.
Click to expand...

I think it critically important to put Obama's number in context....

History will ask why the same fiscal tools employed by every administration since WW2 were denied Obama...

And the answers will embarrass all decent Americans.
 
MTAtech said:
Please don't misinterpret. My ridicule was squarely aimed at Trump supporters, Republicans and conservatives that jump all over Obama for policies that produced 1.9% economic growth and will either cheer 1.9% growth under Trump or hold back on any criticism.

While Trump claimed that his economic policies will generate 4% growth, we, once again, see that those claims were mere BS. His policies will do no better while enriching the already rich and hurting everyone else.
Click to expand...

Christ it's only been 6 months, give him time. Moving from 1.5% to 4% is not going to happen overnight. Hell Obama had 8 yrs to boost the GDP and failed miserably and borrowed 10 trillion and still failed. In fact Obama's best GDP number did not come above Clinton's worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom