In Blow to Trump, America’s Trade Deficit in Goods Hits Record $891 Billion

Kushinator · Mar 15, 2019

Casca XV said:
Yes, because of cheap fuel caused by Fracking and other things Obama opposed there were a couple of quarters above 3% GDP

No... yearly gdp from quarter to quarter.

But because of Obama policies the overall economy stagnate and never an annual average of 3%. Annual average GDP is how Presidents economic policies are measured and Obama was the worst in modern times.

Annual average for 2018 was 2.9%.

Real GDP increased 2.9 percent in 2018 (from the 2017 annual level to the 2018 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.2 percent in 2017 (table 1)

Your partisan bull**** blinds you.

Integrityrespec · Mar 15, 2019

Mongidig said:
Trade negotiations are still ongoing. Lets not judge until we see how this ends up. Something had to change and Trump is tackling it head on. If they end up with a great deal Trump may end up being the greatest President of all time.

This is true and anytime you take action to fix a problem it may get worse before it gets better. The situation in China is getting bad and at some point they are likely to give in to pressure. But the left would rather do nothing and let the situation stay bad just like the last President.

Casca XV · Mar 15, 2019

Kushinator said:
No... yearly gdp from quarter to quarter.

Annual average for 2018 was 2.9%.

Your partisan bull**** blinds you.

None seasonally adjusted is like not adjusting for inflation. I would say "Nice Try" but that would be giving you too much credit.

Kushinator · Mar 15, 2019

Casca XV said:
None seasonally adjusted is like not adjusting for inflation. I would say "Nice Try" but that would be giving you too much credit.

Are you incapable of reading? Your response is of zero merit.

Checkerboard Strangler · Mar 15, 2019

MTAtech said:
In Blow to Trump, America’s Trade Deficit in Goods Hits Record $891 Billion

Donald Whatshisname said "trade wars are good and easy to win." This is what Trump said about how he was going to decrease the trade deficit:

According to the Times article:

This is what happens when a leader institutes bad policies without thinking them through.

I did not "LIKE" the post because it made me happy, it makes me angry. I "LIKED" it because it's important to indicate support for the truth.

MTAtech · Mar 15, 2019

Casca XV said:
Actually the US annual GDP for 2018 is available was 3.1%. Q1=2.2%, Q2=4.2%, Q3=3.4%, Q4=2.6%. these add up to 12.4, divided by 4 equals 3.1%

MSM is trying to avoid reporting this because Obama was the first President in US history to never reach 3% annual GDP, and now he still is. • U.S.: real GDP growth by quarter 2011-2018 | Statista

I know what you are saying. Which one you use depends on what you want to measure -- whether you want to look at GDP levels or GDP growth rates. If you want the level, use annual figures. If you want growth rates, use year-over-year figures.

Annual GDP numbers add up all the economic activity in the year. It’s as if you were setting the odometer back to zero on Jan. 1 and measuring how many miles you drove.

So, for 2018, the economy produced $18.6 trillion (inflation-adjusted) of goods and services (versus $18.1 trillion in 2017). It tells us how much income was received during the year.

By this measurement the annual growth rate of 2.9% compares all the activity throughout 2017 with all the activity in 2018.

In any case, there isn't really much difference between 2.9 and 3.1.

Conservative · Mar 15, 2019

Kushinator said:
Everyone gets a rebate check. Not everyone will get a tax cut, and those that do, typically won't spend that tax cut. Remember, fiscal stimulus is only a temporary measure to boost aggregate demand enough to offset some losses due to economic contraction. When the economy is healthy again, it is pertinent that deficit reduction follow. And that's what happens with fiscal stimulus in the form of expenditures; they are only temporary.

Your understanding of macroeconomics is severely lacking. Again, not a personal attack, but anyone who had even the slightest clue wouldn't say the ridiculously false things you say.

People that don't pay FIT are getting a benefit each and every day, those getting a rebate check when cashed is money spent and gone. there is a reason for Obama having the worst recovery in history and you are a walking example of liberal ignorance thus why.

Stop with the leftwing bull****, my understanding of micro economic is irrelevant to what is actually happening to people, you know those lines on the graph that you post. People keeping more of what they earn is a problem for you just like people with part time jobs for economic reasons show the failure of the Obama Administration. You are never going to change my mind because the facts don't support you.

Kushinator · Mar 15, 2019

Conservative said:
People that don't pay FIT are getting a benefit each and every day

We are discussing the nature of the fiscal stimulus; people who lose jobs due to recession don't benefit from tax cuts. It's the lost income and purchasing ability of the newly unemployed which drives economies into recession. Giving everyone money is simply more efficient than giving anyone with a job more money.

those getting a rebate check when cashed is money spent and gone.

That's why it's called stimulus.

there is a reason for Obama having the worst recovery in history and you are a walking example of liberal ignorance thus why.

You are a liar. It's not the worst recovery in history and isn't even no.2. The Great and Long Depressions had far weaker of recoveries.

Stop with the leftwing bull****

I haven't stated anything that can be confused for leftwing. Do a better job connecting rational thoughts.

my understanding of micro economic

I said macroeconomics. And it is highly relevant when you make matter of fact statements pertaining to the macro economy. This is why you're a failure as a poster.

Conservative · Mar 16, 2019

Kushinator;1069820991]We are discussing the nature of the fiscal stimulus; people who lose jobs due to recession don't benefit from tax cuts. It's the lost income and purchasing ability of the newly unemployed which drives economies into recession. Giving everyone money is simply more efficient than giving anyone with a job more money.

That isn't even the issue, the stimulus was sold as something to create shovel ready jobs and it failed!!! What incentive does a person have to get a job if they receive money from the gov't and were were those shovel ready jobs promised, 142 million down to 138 million by the end of 2009 and 139 million still down 3 million at the end of 2010. Those are lost taxpayers costing the treasury billions

That's why it's called stimulus.

what it stimulated was deficits, poor economic growth and no shovel ready jobs creating the worst recovery in histor

Y

ou are a liar. It's not the worst recovery in history and isn't even no.2. The Great and Long Depressions had far weaker of recoveries.

Name calling is what you do best, this wasn't the worst recession for the American people as most didn't suffer at all not like the 81-82 recession that affected everyone. You bought the liberal spin and continue to show your ignorance of the recession. It was a financial recession that impacted the banks and the world a lot more than it affected you, your family, or the country. TARP recapitalized the banks and Obama inherited TARP, a Democratic Congress, no budget and still generated the worst recovery in history

MTAtech · Mar 16, 2019

Conservative said:
People that don't pay FIT are getting a benefit each and every day, those getting a rebate check when cashed is money spent and gone. there is a reason for Obama having the worst recovery in history and you are a walking example of liberal ignorance thus why.

Stop with the leftwing bull****, my understanding of micro economic is irrelevant to what is actually happening to people, you know those lines on the graph that you post. People keeping more of what they earn is a problem for you just like people with part time jobs for economic reasons show the failure of the Obama Administration. You are never going to change my mind because the facts don't support you.

I color coded my replies.
That's the lucky duckies excuse -- the poor are 'lucky' to not have enough income to be eligible to pay income tax.
In addition to what Kushinator said above, I'll repeat what I said in previous threads when you made the same assertion (yes folks, Conservatives learns nothing and repeats the same statements over and over, even when dispelled) Obama proposed a stimulus plan that was smaller than many Keynesian economists said would be necessary. Why? To win the Senate votes of Republicans that wanted no stimulus at all. That's why about 40% of the stimulus was tax-cuts (something Republicans say they like), which have a lower efficiency than direct federal spending. Let's also remember that Republicans wanted to keep the economy in recession because they wanted Obama to fail. Mitch McConnell said so.

So, what happened? A weaker stimulus plan was crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan reversed the rise in unemployment, but things were still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 10% before dropping. And then Mitch McConnell and Conservative said, "See, government spending doesn’t work."

First, it's macroeconomics not microeconomics. Second, everything liberals here stating was mostly ECO 101, not some radical left philosophy. Government spending money borrowed at zero percent interest is indeed stimulative. Moreover, money borrowed isn't people's tax money that they would keep if it wasn't borrowed.

During the crisis demand fell. The Obama government became the demand of last resort. Republicans, instead, wanted austerity, not recognizing (or wanting to recognize) the simple principle: my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if both of us try to spend less at the same time, what we end up achieving is mutual impoverishment.

Conservative · Mar 16, 2019

MTAtech said:
I color coded my replies.
That's the lucky duckies excuse -- the poor are 'lucky' to not have enough income to be eligible to pay income tax.
In addition to what Kushinator said above, I'll repeat what I said in previous threads when you made the same assertion (yes folks, Conservatives learns nothing and repeats the same statements over and over, even when dispelled) Obama proposed a stimulus plan that was smaller than many Keynesian economists said would be necessary. Why? To win the Senate votes of Republicans that wanted no stimulus at all. That's why about 40% of the stimulus was tax-cuts (something Republicans say they like), which have a lower efficiency than direct federal spending. Let's also remember that Republicans wanted to keep the economy in recession because they wanted Obama to fail. Mitch McConnell said so.

So, what happened? A weaker stimulus plan was crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan reversed the rise in unemployment, but things were still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 10% before dropping. And then Mitch McConnell and Conservative said, "See, government spending doesn’t work."

During the crisis demand fell. The Obama government became the demand of last resort. Republicans, instead, wanted austerity, not recognizing (or wanting to recognize) the simple principle: my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if both of us try to spend less at the same time, what we end up achieving is mutual impoverishment.

Your persistence continues as you somehow believe you know what others need to live on and what they can afford. There is no justification for anyone earning income not to pay SOMETHING in federal income taxes to fund the gov't that we have

Keep trying to re-write the Obama legacy totally ignoring that his policies are what created the worst recovery in U.S. History from a major recession. Keep ignoring that he inherited TARP, a Democratic Congress, and NO budget thus giving him every opportunity to succeed but he failed. His stimulus failed, his economic policies failed and the American people suffered on those pocketbook issues. No matter how many times you say it or try to re-write it, Obama was an economic failure, nice guy who told you what you wanted to hear but totally clueless like most liberals on our private sector economy.

Weaker stimulus plan?? How much of a stimulus plan did Reagan create to get us out of the 81-82 recession? The stimulus was enough just focused in the wrong areas, the public vs. private sector. Demand fell because people didn't have money so what did Obama do about that money, gave us a rebate check, implemented programs to encourage spending like cash for clunkers totally ignoring that people cannot participate in those kind of programs without a job. The stimulus was sold on creating shovel ready jobs something Obama finally admitted didn't do.

Republicans didn't control anything from 2007 to 2011 and all Obama did was expand the role of gov't, create more dependence on gov't, rack up massive debt due to spending on the stimulus as well as losing revenue due to the loss of 4 million taxpayers in 2009 alone. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn always leads to economic activity which increases demand thus jobs.

you don't seem to grasp the fact of where the money comes from that gov't spends and how that impacts state and local governments. Gov't taxes the people, prints or borrows none of which helps the American people as gov't spending in this country as a percentage of GDP is around 25%. We are a private sector economy which is why a liberal should never be elected to public service as they and you don't understand it.

When TARP recapitalized the banks that brought us out of recession and what did Obama do, squandered that by creating a stimulus program that supposedly saved teacher's jobs, jobs that aren't federal responsibility but are state and local responsibilities. Believing that states couldn't handle their own problem shows the true problem with liberalism, always blame someone else for poor personal choices and economic policies.

I continue to ask you where the state and local governments get their money for handling state and local problems and you still refuse to answer that just like you refuse to answer what percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes. Apparently you saying the same thing and having the same argument over and over again is ok but me countering your argument with data and facts isn't. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

MTAtech · Mar 16, 2019

Conservative said:
Your persistence continues as you somehow believe you know what others need to live on and what they can afford. There is no justification for anyone earning income not to pay SOMETHING in federal income taxes to fund the gov't that we have
...
Weaker stimulus plan?? How much of a stimulus plan did Reagan create to get us out of the 81-82 recession? The stimulus was enough just focused in the wrong areas, the public vs. private sector. Demand fell because people didn't have money so what did Obama do about that money, gave us a rebate check, implemented programs to encourage spending like cash for clunkers totally ignoring that people cannot participate in those kind of programs without a job. The stimulus was sold on creating shovel ready jobs something Obama finally admitted didn't do.

Republicans didn't control anything from 2007 to 2011 and all Obama did was expand the role of gov't, create more dependence on gov't, rack up massive debt due to spending on the stimulus as well as losing revenue due to the loss of 4 million taxpayers in 2009 alone. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn always leads to economic activity which increases demand thus jobs.
...

I'm only going to address three areas in your above rant, also color coded.

Then you fundamentally disagree with Ronald Reagan, who thought the poor shouldn't pay federal income taxes. This is what the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote before the passage of the legislation that would do just that:

Ronald Reagan's tax reform plan offers major gains for the working poor. It does so as part of a comprehensive effort to lighten the tax burden on families, correcting in part the anti-family bias of the current tax code. The Reagan plan seeks specifically to raise the zero-bracket amount and personal exemptions and to expand the earned income tax credit, thereby improving the lot of the poor and of families. If enacted, the Reagan proposal would ensure that families with income at or below the poverty level no longer paid any federal income tax.

As I've tried to school you before, the 1981-83 recession was nothing like the Great Recession. The 81-83 recession was a typical V-shaped recession, created intentionally by the Federal Reserve to control inflation. The Fed raised interest rates to high levels and it brought inflation down. It also caused a severe recession. However, once the Fed took its foot off the brakes, and lowered rates, everything bounced back. It had nothing to do with Reagan.

The Great Recession was quite different: It was caused by asset overinvestment. When the bubble burst, real asset value was lost and required years of unwinding.

Ok, you're peddling the zombie claim that there had been a huge expansion in the federal government under Obama. One way to address this claim is to ask, where were the huge new federal programs? The Affordable Care Act had not yet even been written yet. Yes, there was more spending, but that was due to more Americans being eligible for unemployment insurance, Medicaid, etc., because they became unemployed. What we saw wasn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we saw the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. This factcheck discredits everything you said about "shovel ready jobs."

Conservative · Mar 16, 2019

MTAtech said:
I'm only going to address three areas in your above rant, also color coded.

Then you fundamentally disagree with Ronald Reagan, who thought the poor shouldn't pay federal income taxes. This is what the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote before the passage of the legislation that would do just that:

As I've tried to school you before, the 1981-83 recession was nothing like the Great Recession. The 81-83 recession was a typical V-shaped recession, created intentionally by the Federal Reserve to control inflation. The Fed raised interest rates to high levels and it brought inflation down. It also caused a severe recession. However, once the Fed took its foot off the brakes, and lowered rates, everything bounced back. It had nothing to do with Reagan.

The Great Recession was quite different: It was caused by asset overinvestment. When the bubble burst, real asset value was lost and required years of unwinding.

Ok, you're peddling the zombie claim that there had been a huge expansion in the federal government under Obama. One way to address this claim is to ask, where were the huge new federal programs? The Affordable Care Act had not yet even been written yet. Yes, there was more spending, but that was due to more Americans being eligible for unemployment insurance, Medicaid, etc., because they became unemployed. What we saw wasn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we saw the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. This factcheck discredits everything you said about "shovel ready jobs."

Disagree all you want but Reagan didn't have a 4.4 trillion dollar federal gov't funded by 56% of the working Americans. What you want to ignore about the so called Great recession was that it was a financial crisis not a human crisis and besides the 842 billion stimulus there was a 700 billion dollar TARP program more than enough to get us out of recession if implemented properly, it wasn't thus the worst recovery in U.S. History

There was a huge expansion of DEBT under Obama and we didn't have a 4 trillion dollar gov't until Obama funded by a shrinking number of taxpayers. This so called fact check offers no sources for calculating a saved job, please point out a source for me?

your total ignorance of 81-82 is on full display, the 81-82 recession was a double dip recession that affected almost every American. It was driven by two factors, poor economic policies and federal reserve actions, Reagan showed the leadership to get us out of the recession implementing a stimulus plan that was totally based upon people keeping more of what they earn by reducing FIT not increased gov't spending. The two stimulus are starkly different as are the results of Reagan vs. Obama

Please stop trying to school anyone and educate yourself on U.S. History. Our Founders understood that power corrupts thus put that power at the state and local levels. Politicians found a way to create career jobs thus grew the size of gov't and creating dependence to keep their jobs. The lost incentive caused by massive dependence is destroying this country with the help of people like you

Gov't spending has a distinct place in this country, supporting and boosting the private sector, Reagan's spending went to the private sector, Obama's to the public sector thus the difference in results.

MTAtech · Mar 16, 2019

Recession of 1981–82

In late 1980 and early 1981, the Fed once again tightened the money supply, allowing the federal funds rate to approach 20 percent. Despite this, long-run interest rates continued to rise. The ten-year Treasury bond rate increased from about 11 percent in October 1980 to more than 15 percent a year later, possibly because the market believed the Fed would back down from its tight policy when unemployment rose (Goodfriend, Marvin, and Robert G. King. “The Incredible Volcker Disinflation.” Journal of Monetary Economics 52, no. 5 (July 2005): 981-1015.). This time, however, Volcker was adamant that the Fed not back down: “We have set our course to restrain growth in money and credit. We mean to stick with it” (Volcker 1981a).

The economy officially entered a recession in the third quarter of 1981, as high interest rates put pressure on sectors of the economy reliant on borrowing, like manufacturing and construction. Unemployment grew from 7.4 percent at the start of the recession to nearly 10 percent a year later. As the recession worsened, Volcker faced repeated calls from Congress to loosen monetary policy, but he maintained that failing to bring down long-run inflation expectations now would result in “more serious economic circumstances over a much longer period of time” (Monetary Policy Report 1982, 67).

Ultimately, this persistence paid off. By October 1982, inflation had fallen to 5 percent and long-run interest rates began to decline. The Fed allowed the federal funds rate to fall back to 9 percent, and unemployment declined quickly from the peak of nearly 11 percent at the end to 1982 to 8 percent one year later (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Goodfriend and King 2005).

Someone can believe what they want but the 1981-2 recession was caused by and ended by the Federal Reserve combating inflation.

Conservative · Mar 16, 2019

MTAtech said:
Recession of 1981–82
Someone can believe what they want but the 1981-2 recession was caused by and ended by the Federal Reserve combating inflation.

Don't have to believe, the facts speak for themselves not your cherry picking. 10 million more Americans voted for Reagan in 1984 and they didn't believe it either

Double-Dip Recession

MTAtech · Mar 16, 2019

Conservative said:
Don't have to believe, the facts speak for themselves not your cherry picking. 10 million more Americans voted for Reagan in 1984 and they didn't believe it either

Double-Dip Recession

From your own link:
"After the Federal Reserve hiked up interest rates to combat inflation, the economy fell back into recession from July 1981 to November 1982."

Conservative · Mar 16, 2019

MTAtech said:
From your own link:
"After the Federal Reserve hiked up interest rates to combat inflation, the economy fell back into recession from July 1981 to November 1982."

Yet you ignore the double dip and the loss of demand and jobs coupled with the Fed interest rate hikes along with the Reagan economic plan that generated the actual results of getting us out of recession by creating economic activity through total tax cuts and no spending in his stimulus. When spending was done it was done in the private sector not saving public service jobs or so Obama claims

So this double dip occurred what brought us out of it?

Tbird19482 · Mar 17, 2019

Conservative said:
Yet you ignore the double dip and the loss of demand and jobs coupled with the Fed interest rate hikes along with the Reagan economic plan that generated the actual results of getting us out of recession by creating economic activity through total tax cuts and no spending in his stimulus. When spending was done it was done in the private sector not saving public service jobs or so Obama claims

So this double dip occurred what brought us out of it?

Reagan cut FIT once and raised other taxes 11 times and you Republicans don't say a word about that
have a nice day

Conservative · Mar 17, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
Reagan cut FIT once and raised other taxes 11 times and you Republicans don't say a word about that
have a nice day

Yes he did, but you continue to show that you have no idea what taxes you pay and their purpose. All the taxes raised by Reagan were use taxes if you don't use a service you don't pay the tax. Federal income tax however is a different story

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Tbird19482 · Mar 17, 2019

Conservative said:
Yes he did, but you continue to show that you have no idea what taxes you pay and their purpose. All the taxes raised by Reagan were use taxes if you don't use a service you don't pay the tax. Federal income tax however is a different story

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Well for one thing some of them were not use taxes , ex FICA
now you say they werre use taxes and if you don't use something you don't have to pay for it.
well we can see how you are now.
You say if they raise FIT on corporations the Corporations will only raise prices to cover those taxes Well what do you think they did when Reagan raised those use taxes?
Indirectly if you bought something you paid those use taxes.
Fact is IF you bought it then at one time or another it was on a truck and trucks pay use taxes and that tax is included in the price
SO it is ok for Reagan to increase the taxes he did and we have to pay for but it isn't ok with you to have a min FIT for Corporations
so the that the 42% or more of large Corporations pay something and not get away with out paying a cent
have a nice day

Conservative · Mar 17, 2019

Tbird19482 said:
Well for one thing some of them were not use taxes , ex FICA
now you say they werre use taxes and if you don't use something you don't have to pay for it.
well we can see how you are now.
You say if they raise FIT on corporations the Corporations will only raise prices to cover those taxes Well what do you think they did when Reagan raised those use taxes?
Indirectly if you bought something you paid those use taxes.
Fact is IF you bought it then at one time or another it was on a truck and trucks pay use taxes and that tax is included in the price
SO it is ok for Reagan to increase the taxes he did and we have to pay for but it isn't ok with you to have a min FIT for Corporations
so the that the 42% or more of large Corporations pay something and not get away with out paying a cent
have a nice day

You are indeed clueless, you think everyone gets SS? Where in the hell did you get your education. FICA was indeed increased to reload the SS and Medicare trust fund where previous Presidents and Congress "borrowed" the money to fund things like the Vietnam War.

It is so sad to see people like you so poorly informed and educate which is why we have the problems we have today. You haven't responded to anything I posted. You want states to stop getting mandates, then get your Democratic House to repeal the legislation

Why don't you post the taxes that Reagan increased for all to see, FICA funds SS and Medicare so those that benefit from it will get that money back. You continue to show you are just nothing more than a radical liberal and a waste of time

In Blow to Trump, America’s Trade Deficit in Goods Hits Record $891 Billion

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Integrityrespec

Casca XV

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

MTAtech

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

MTAtech

Conservative

MTAtech

Conservative

MTAtech

Conservative

MTAtech

Conservative

Tbird19482

Conservative

Tbird19482

Conservative