• 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!

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

Conservative said:
Absolutely stunning how you believe the liberal interpretation of actual data is accurate when the reality is you and others interpreting that data are clueless. Typical liberal claim that I don't understand the official data that you tried to refute with Washington Post reports.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. sorry dude but its "liberal interpretation of the data".

The trends in the economy are clear. Its not a "liberal interpretation"...

You have a right wing interpretation in which you ignore the facts.. like the economy was in free fall.. prior to Donald trump.. and then miraculously he has saved us all.

Sorry dude.. the actual data exists.. I presented it to you. Its not a liberal interpretation.. its the facts.

You simply have demonstrated that you don't understand the data.

In fact..you have demonstrated that you know little about business.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. sorry dude but its "liberal interpretation of the data".

The trends in the economy are clear. Its not a "liberal interpretation"...

You have a right wing interpretation in which you ignore the facts.. like the economy was in free fall.. prior to Donald trump.. and then miraculously he has saved us all.

Sorry dude.. the actual data exists.. I presented it to you. Its not a liberal interpretation.. its the facts.

You simply have demonstrated that you don't understand the data.

In fact..you have demonstrated that you know little about business.
Click to expand...

Trends are indeed clear but context isn't and context doesn't resonate with you. How much of the GDP Growth under Obama was due to the stimulus? You buy the rhetoric and it is you that doesn't understand context or even how to interpret the data properly.

You want to give Obama credit for returning jobs calling them jobs created but ignoring that jobs were lost during his term AFTER the stimulus was signed, over 4 million of them in 2009 that never returned until 2014. You want to give Obama credit for GDP growth upward on a chart ignoring the dollar amount of those increases and how much of those increases was due to gov't spend. it is a true embarrassment that you are so poorly educated on this issue and call yourself a conservative. You are liberal in denial about your own ideology. No one in their right mind running a business would interpret the data without context
 
MTAtech said:
Agreed -- at least the fact Europe has a higher p% of govt spending. Your analysis however is faulty, that govt spending per se is the cause. Let's say 50% of European GDP is government spending. What happens when government decides to stop spending during austerity? That's right, it contracts the economy. The flaw in your thinking is ideological -- you are hostile to government, so government spending is necessarily evil, when the problem is macroeconomic -- slowing government spending is contractionary. Europe during the recession should have spent more, not less.
Click to expand...


Okay.. I admit that you got this one wrong.

See.. Con.. is NOT hostile to government nor is he hostile to spending.

Con is hostile to democrat government and democrat spending.

IF Trump wants to increase the power of government.. say by doing an end run around the constitution by declaring a national emergency that does not exist..well con is all for it.
If trump wants to increase the budge defict back to a trillion dollars in an already good economy...then trump is all for it. And points to all that deficit spending into the economy as "great results".
IF Trump takes away peoples property by banning bump stocks and make then instantly criminals unless they destroy or turn in their previously legal property.. Con is all for it.
 
Conservative said:
that is exactly why the European economy was so slow to recover, too much emphasis on gov't spending whereas here the private sector is almost 2/3 of our economy and gov't spending about 25%. Cutting gov't spending here doesn't impact our economy here like it does in Europe but neither you or Obama understood that. I am NOT hostile to gov't spending only gov't overreach on those so called safety net programs you believe are beneficial. Those are state and local responsibilities not an opportunity for bureaucrats to buy votes and create dependence. Gov't spending in the right areas is a good thing, for example defense spending in the private sector which generates a good return on investment

Where does Europe get the money for all that gov't spending????? Oh, wait, taxes such as VAT, gasoline, sales taxes, and higher income taxes hurting consumer spending. You pointing out GDP growth in Europe is irrelevant unless you put the growth in context by line item
Click to expand...
The U.S. economy was suffering from low private spending -- that's why the govt became the demand of last resort. Nothing stopped European allies from spending more govt money. They are all sovereign currencies.

We discussed previously why it makes more sense to have the Federal government run Medicare and Social Security, not the states. The first is that it requires 50 duplicate bureaucracies. The next is that it's inefficient to have 50 different programs with different rules. Then, people move from state-to-state. How do we manage benefits earned in different states and provided in other states? It makes much more sense running that centrally.

The fallacy of dependence has already been discussed. These programs were created to address certain problems that existed before the program. Blaming the programs for the problems is ass-backwards.
 
Conservative said:
Trends are indeed clear but context isn't and context doesn't resonate with you.
Click to expand...

Sorry sir.. but I understand the context why you do not..

How much of the GDP Growth under Obama was due to the stimulus?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I would be tempted to say not much if any. It probably kept GDP growth from falling anymore.. but growth.. not much. But that's because I don't believe the government is the be all end all of the economy like you do.


but here is where you fall off the rails here Con.


The fact is Con... YOU aren't even consistent in your logic.


The fact is the economy improved under OBama.. tremendously in fact. Now.. I don't give Obama the credit.. but NEITHER do I give Trump credit for it.. because I don't think that government has that big of an effect.


YOU on the other hand are being inconsistent. You claim that Obama is NOT to be credited with the improvement in the economy..

BUT.. then the minute that Trump became president... you now claim that TRUMP is to be credited with improvement in the economy?


Why? Because trump increased deficit spending? So did OBama


Because trump lowered taxes? So did Obama.. 1/3 of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.


See Con.. I am a true conservative. I don't believe the PResident is the be all end all of the economy. I believe the economy is largely the result of the American people..and not government.

YOU however don't believe that... you believe that its the government..
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. sorry dude but its "liberal interpretation of the data".

The trends in the economy are clear. Its not a "liberal interpretation"...

You have a right wing interpretation in which you ignore the facts.. like the economy was in free fall.. prior to Donald trump.. and then miraculously he has saved us all.

Sorry dude.. the actual data exists.. I presented it to you. Its not a liberal interpretation.. its the facts.

You simply have demonstrated that you don't understand the data.

In fact..you have demonstrated that you know little about business.
Click to expand...

Here is your problem with this logic, GDP has four basic components with Gov't spending being one of those. Normally gov't spending is between 20-25% of GDP but under the Obama Administration it exceeded 30% and went as high as 35%. that skews the data and is what you want to tout so interpret that GDP growth for me so I understand why this is a good thing and a continuation of what Trump is doing especially since that gov't spending was for shovel ready jobs that didn't materialize and didn't go into the private sector that supports defense

I ran a 200 million dollar business and every year i was judged on performance. during the year I would add new businesses to my network thus increasing my sales numbers but I was held responsible for the mature units not the bottom line number with the new businesses with no numbers for the previous year. Same deal with gov't spending, when you increase gov't spending one year over another you are going to have a spike in bottom line but that bottom line is skewed upward with that gov't spending and that is a short term benefit
 
MTAtech said:
The U.S. economy was suffering from low private spending -- that's why the govt became the demand of last resort. Nothing stopped European allies from spending more govt money. They are all sovereign currencies.

We discussed previously why it makes more sense to have the Federal government run Medicare and Social Security, not the states. The first is that it requires 50 duplicate bureaucracies. The next is that it's inefficient to have 50 different programs with different rules. Then, people move from state-to-state. How do we manage benefits earned in different states and provided in other states? It makes much more sense running that centrally.

The fallacy of dependence has already been discussed. These programs were created to address certain problems that existed before the program. Blaming the programs for the problems is ass-backwards.
Click to expand...

yes, because 4 million people lost their jobs and didn't return until 2014 to get us back to the 146 million employed when the recession began and of those jobs returning most were part time for economic reasons something you don't seem to understand but something that affected consumer spending. Gov't spending was quite different during the Obama term vs. the Reagan term which is why the Reagan recovery was booming and Obama's the worst recovery in U.S. history. 10 million more Americans voted for Reagan in 1984 than 1980 and 4 million fewer voted for Obama in 2012 than 2008, that speaks volumes but as usual you don't understand the GDP growth or where gov't spending does the most good
 
Conservative said:
Here is your problem with this logic, GDP has four basic components with Gov't spending being one of those. Normally gov't spending is between 20-25% of GDP but under the Obama Administration it exceeded 30% and went as high as 35%. that skews the data and is what you want to tout so interpret that GDP growth for me so I understand why this is a good thing and a continuation of what Trump is doing especially since that gov't spending was for shovel ready jobs that didn't materialize and didn't go into the private sector that supports defense

I ran a 200 million dollar business and every year i was judged on performance. during the year I would add new businesses to my network thus increasing my sales numbers but I was held responsible for the mature units not the bottom line number with the new businesses with no numbers for the previous year. Same deal with gov't spending, when you increase gov't spending one year over another you are going to have a spike in bottom line but that bottom line is skewed upward with that gov't spending and that is a short term benefit
Click to expand...

You need to read your post just a little bit more.

So when you increase spending one year over another.. like trump did.

Or when you give a tax cut... like trump did.

Just a short term bump.. thats barely above what the trend was before Trump took office.

I don;t think you realize that you just killed your argument.
 
jaeger19 said:
You need to read your post just a little bit more.

So when you increase spending one year over another.. like trump did.

Or when you give a tax cut... like trump did.

Just a short term bump.. thats barely above what the trend was before Trump took office.

I don;t think you realize that you just killed your argument.
Click to expand...

My response was exactly to the point of yours talking about the Obama economic growth, you have yet to respond to the data presented or the effects of gov't spending on the GDP with the stimulus none of which went to the private sector. What I did as usual is make you look like the liberal you are
 
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.
Click to expand...

LOL Trump could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag. All that has changed is that now because of tariffs our own products are no longer competitive in the world market. That is why the trade deficit is up.
 
Conservative said:
My response was exactly to the point of yours talking about the Obama economic growth, you have yet to respond to the data presented or the effects of gov't spending on the GDP with the stimulus none of which went to the private sector. What I did as usual is make you look like the liberal you are
Click to expand...

1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts that ALL went to the private sector. As usual you are totally inaccurate. It's hard to bat 1000 but you sure come close.

The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Click to expand...


Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts | PolitiFact
 
Conservative said:
So we were told, how much of a tax cut did you get? Further isn't it your position that tax cuts are an expense to the gov't? 1/3 tax cuts? You think a rebate is a tax cut? What is it about liberalism that creates people like you?
Click to expand...

How much did I get? I got a refundable credit of $800 (married couples.) You got one too.

I, and others, contend that tax-cuts reduce revenue. In the case of a near-depression, it's worth reducing revenue to help heal an economy with 10% unemployment.

What does this have to do with Trump's trade deficit -- the subject of this thread?
 
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.
Click to expand...

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
 
MTAtech said:
How much did I get? I got a refundable credit of $800 (married couples.) You got one too.

I, and others, contend that tax-cuts reduce revenue. In the case of a near-depression, it's worth reducing revenue to help heal an economy with 10% unemployment.

What does this have to do with Trump's trade deficit -- the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it, tax cuts boost economic activity when implemented properly, rate cuts are a tax cut , tax credits do not provide immediately help. Obama didn't heal the economy, he prolonged the recession and made it the worst recovery in history. That is reality, keep ignoring it
 
iguanaman said:
1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts that ALL went to the private sector. As usual you are totally inaccurate. It's hard to bat 1000 but you sure come close.




Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Love how the left calls a rebate or tax credit a tax cut especially for people who aren't employed. The stimulus was sold as a shovel ready jobs program that was supposed to create new taxpayers not save existing tax payers including teachers which aren't federal responsibilities. This just goes to show how clueless the left is on economic policies and the private sector

Stimulus Checks: Who Received Them, How Much Was Spent

Stimulus signed February 2009, Employment when recession began 146 million, when Obama took office 142 million and by the end of 2009 138 million or a loss of 4 million taxpayers. When jobs did return they returned to reduced hours creating part time for economic reasons employment thus never generating the revenue promised by the stimulus
 
Conservative said:
Love how the left calls a rebate or tax credit a tax cut especially for people who aren't employed.
Click to expand...

Cutting taxes on working individuals when job losses are exceeding 500k/month is simply a less efficient type of fiscal stimulus than direct expenditures into the private sector.
 
Kushinator said:
Cutting taxes on working individuals when job losses are exceeding 500k/month is simply a less efficient type of fiscal stimulus than direct expenditures into the private sector.
Click to expand...

So how many of those working people aren't paying and Federal Income taxes and how do you give a tax cut to people who aren't paying FIT. You have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn, why? What are all those rich people doing with that extra money, burying it in their backyard?
 
Conservative said:
So how many of those working people aren't paying and Federal Income taxes
Click to expand...

Why does it matter?

how do you give a tax cut to people who aren't paying FIT.
Click to expand...

Rebate checks do the trick.

You have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn, why?
Click to expand...

I have a problem giving tax cuts to people who do not need them to eat, live, learn, etc... when we are facing demographic shifts which alter our fiscal future.

What are all those rich people doing with that extra money, burying it in their backyard?
Click to expand...

Saving it or buying stocks. This doesn't improve economic growth.
 
Kushinator said:
Why does it matter?



Rebate checks do the trick.



I have a problem giving tax cuts to people who do not need them to eat, live, learn, etc... when we are facing demographic shifts which alter our fiscal future.



Saving it or buying stocks. This doesn't improve economic growth.
Click to expand...

How many times do you spend a rebate check? how many times do you spend a tax cut?? More money in every paycheck again showing liberal ignorance

You have no idea what actual people need as you look at lines on a chart or graph and never relate to any individual. It isn't the government's money, it is the taxpayer that earned it
 
MTAtech said:
A. There are no 2019 GDP numbers.
B. 2018 numbers aren't entirely available.
C. Yes, 2017 numbers are relevant to discredit your claim that 'countries especially in Europe are economically declining.' They aren't.

The U.S. 2018 GDP numbers are marginally better and the trade policies have been a disaster. That's what this thread reveals.

I know this is a shock to you since you are used to Trump lying and you swearing to his lies.
Click to expand...

"European economies not in decline?" Bloomberg disagrees with you and this data is two weeks old not two years old. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
MTAtech said:
A) 2017's U.S. annual GDP number was 2.2%. The 2018 number was 2.9%. That is well within the standard deviation of historical GDP rates by year, and therefore is not a consequential difference.
B) The slower recovery in Europe from the Great Recession was because Europe addressed the recession with austerity. The U.S. addressed the recession with fiscal and monetary stimulus. Notably, Republicans at the time were also advocating for austerity. Thanks for finally admitting that the Obama stimulus programs worked.
C) As stated a number of times, real GDP did NOT grow by $2 trillion in two years. You have been corrected repeatedly and still you post misleading numbers again. Real GDP was $18.7 trillion at the end of 2016 and $17.7 trillion at the end of 2018. That's a gain of one trillion, which isn't especially remarkable -- no different from 2013 to 2015.
Click to expand...


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
 
Conservative said:
How many times do you spend a rebate check? how many times do you spend a tax cut?? More money in every paycheck again showing liberal ignorance
Click to expand...

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.
 
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%
Click to expand...

Nobody is debating that... but this sort of measurement is not the annual GDP growth, it is 4th quarter 2018 - 4th quarter 2019. Obama had several instances during his administration where quarterly annualized growth was above 3%.


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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Kushinator said:
Nobody is debating that... but this sort of measurement is not the annual GDP growth, it is 4th quarter 2018 - 4th quarter 2019. Obama had several instances during his administration where quarterly annualized growth was above 3%.




Incorrect. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes, because of cheap fuel caused by Fracking and other things Obama opposed there were a couple of quarters above 3% GDP. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom