America's economy grew at its weakest pace since Trump took office (1 Viewer)

[digitusmedius]

By all means keep calling Trump a racist in the face of actual results that don't support your comments or those of polls that you want to tout. Your credibility is being destroyed by actual results as Americans all over the country are recognizing that the liberal rhetoric doesn't match the results they are seeing

By all means keep denying that Trump isn't racist and bigoted despite an immigration policy specifically targeting people of color while he openly favors white Europeans.

 

[Airyaman]

By all means keep calling Trump a racist in the face of actual results that don't support your comments or those of polls that you want to tout. Your credibility is being destroyed by actual results as Americans all over the country are recognizing that the liberal rhetoric doesn't match the results they are seeing

I cited the articles, those are not my words.

Learn how to read.

 

[Conservative]

By all means keep denying that Trump isn't racist and bigoted despite an immigration policy specifically targeting people of color while he openly favors white Europeans.

What was the difference between Trump's immigration policies and Obama's? You buy what you want to believe and nothing is going to change your mind including facts and data. that makes you a cultist

 

[Conservative]

I cited the articles, those are not my words.

Learn how to read.

You sited an article that doesn't match the data being generated and therein lies the problem. If Trump gets 18% that is 8% more than he got in 2016 and Democrats are in trouble even though there is no valid reason to vote for a Democrat in 2020

 

[Airyaman]

You sited an article that doesn't match the data being generated and therein lies the problem. If Trump gets 18% that is 8% more than he got in 2016 and Democrats are in trouble even though there is no valid reason to vote for a Democrat in 2020

Backtracking eh?

You said I called Trump racist. I did not.

And approval rating does not equal votes.

 

[Conservative]

Backtracking eh?

You said I called Trump racist. I did not.

And approval rating does not equal votes.

IF you don't think Trump is a racist why would you post the article? what does equal votes are results not rhetoric and these results make voting for a Democrat a losing proposition

DP and Dollar change
2008 14712.8
2009 14448.9
2010 14992.1
2011 15542.6 +550.5
2012 16197.0 +654.4
2013 16784.9 +587.9
2014 17527.3 +742.4
2015 18224,8 +697.5
2016 18715.0 +491.0
2107 19519.4 +804.4
2018 20580.2 +1060.8
2019 21734.3 +1154.1
Notice the drop from 742.4 to 697.5 to 492.0 then the surge. Trump inherited the 18.7 economy that is now 21.7 trillion in 3 years

Then there is this which Trump inherited and the comparison today. Anyone that claims the GDP growth now is similar to what Obama had is the true hack and totally has no credibility

Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.5% today

Employed 152.2 million January 2017 to 158.8 million today so 6 million job growth from 2008 to 2017(146 million to 152 million) is celebrated but 6.6 million growth I the last two years isn't!! LOL

U-6 in January 2017 9.3% vs 6.7% today? Wow!! 2.6% better U-6 obviously meaningless to you

Part time for economic reasons, 5.7 million January 2017 vs. 4.3 million today? Looks to me that incredible job growth you claim was boosted by part time jobs

African American unemployment 8.0% vs. 5.9% today? That explains the surge in support from African Americans for Trump

 

[Luther]

What was the difference between Trump's immigration policies and Obama's? You buy what you want to believe and nothing is going to change your mind including facts and data. that makes you a cultist

What was the difference between Trump's immigration policies and Obama's?

here's one

What a sell out!


Trump Administration announces additional 30,000 seasonal worker visas | WPMT FOX43

Trump amnesty to cover 1.8 million Dreamers; triple Obama's DACA - Washington Times

 

[Conservative]

here's one

What a sell out!


Trump Administration announces additional 30,000 seasonal worker visas | WPMT FOX43

Trump amnesty to cover 1.8 million Dreamers; triple Obama's DACA - Washington Times

Does that make Trump a racist?

 

[Metric Mouse]

I don't doubt your comment, but could you please provide a link to your source so that I can take a look at what data they use and how they do their analysis for myself?

The easiest listing that I found was the "List of countries by trade-to-GDP ratio" and that shows some countries having international trade the is as high as 400+% of their total GDP, which doesn't actually appear to make any sense at all.

That listing also puts the US at having around 25% of its GDP arising from international trade and I seriously doubt that a cut of around 25% in the US GDP would be "inconsequential".

My thinking is along the lines of IF (and to keep it simple I'll limit the example to three countries):

1. "Country A" has a GDP of 1,000,000 units and derives 10% of that from trade with "Country B" and 10% of that from trade with "Country C"; and if
   
2. "Country B" has a GDP of 1,000,000 units and derives 10% of that from trade with "Country A" and 10% of that from trade with "Country C"; and if
   
3. "Country C" has a GDP of 1,000,000 units and derives 10% of that from trade with "Country A" and 10% of that from trade with "Country B"; and if
   
4. "Country A" CEASES trading "Country B" and "Country C"; and if
   
5. "Country B" REDIRECTS the trade it formerly had with "Country A" to "Country C" while "Country C" REDIRECTS the trade it formerly had with "Country A" to "Country B"; then
   
6. the GDPs of both "Country B" and "Country C" remain unchanged; while
   
7. the GDP of "Country A" drops by 20%.

True, both "Country B" and "Country C" are still "dependent" on their foreign trade, but (in the above example) they would hardly even notice the difference. "Country A" on the other hand would most certainly notice the difference.

Thanks.

No problem; the source you found is a fine display of the data I was referencing, so you're on the right track.

As for your "ABC" example, you would be correct if Trade were just arbitrary Dollars exchanging hands, but it's not. As an example, Canadian tar sands oil is piped into the United States because refineries on the Gulf coast are some of the only facilities in the world that are tooled up to process the toxic sludge (often blended with light sweet crude from American shale fields). If America stopped importing it, not only would this Canadian tar have to be shipped in an entirely different transport network, over mountains to a port to get loaded on ships to go to...? The refinery capacity for this product just doesn't exist outside of the United States.

So that's one example of a product that just doesn't have a market (of equal size/demand) outside of the United States. There are likely dozens (or more) examples of such products that are uniquely consumed by or supplied by the United States. If America withdrew itself from all global trade, the pain would be spread worldwide, many countries would struggle and America would *still* be the world's most powerful economy. (If slightly less massive than it is now.) We saw this in the global crash on 2008/2009; America hiccuped and it reverberated across the globe.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The United States certainly is unique in the world. The governments of many countries certainly take a more active role in directing and supporting their country's economy, but I'm not sure it's accurate to generalize in the way that you did.

It appears that, in the US, "government spending" accounts for approximately 42% of GDP and the "tax burden" is approximately 25%. In Germany, the figures are 45% and 37%. Other European countries have similar numbers to Germany's (But [like Germany] include in their "tax burden" many social benefits which Americans have to purchase independently).

The US has the 45[sup]th[/sup] highest government spending as a percentage of GDP and also has the 59[sup]th[/sup] highest "tax burden". There are MORE countries that have a LOWER "government spending as a percentage of GDP" than the US than have a higher one, and there are MORE countries that have LOWER "tax burden" than the US than have a higher one.

[NOTE - Since "universal healthcare" in included in "government spending" in almost all countries BUT IS NOT provided in the US, the level of government spending is not all that accurate a measure unless you lump in what Americans pay privately for healthcare insurance. The same applies to "tax burden". A lengthy discussion of relative "government spending PLUS direct healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP" and of relative "tax burden PLUS direct healthcare costs" is well outside the character limits of the forum. However, an analogy of the second would be comparing "Restaurant A" that had a $10.00 cover charge but charged you $20.00 for your mean and "Restaurant B" that had a $20.00 cover charge but included the cost of the meal in the cover charge and concluding that it was "cheaper" to go to "Restaurant A" than it was to go to "Restaurant B".]

 

[Luther]

Does that make Trump a racist?

Did I bring up race?

You did!

 

[washunut]

It appears that, in the US, "government spending" accounts for approximately 42% of GDP and the "tax burden" is approximately 25%. In Germany, the figures are 45% and 37%. Other European countries have similar numbers to Germany's (But [like Germany] include in their "tax burden" many social benefits which Americans have to purchase independently).

The US has the 45[sup]th[/sup] highest government spending as a percentage of GDP and also has the 59[sup]th[/sup] highest "tax burden". There are MORE countries that have a LOWER "government spending as a percentage of GDP" than the US than have a higher one, and there are MORE countries that have LOWER "tax burden" than the US than have a higher one.

[NOTE - Since "universal healthcare" in included in "government spending" in almost all countries BUT IS NOT provided in the US, the level of government spending is not all that accurate a measure unless you lump in what Americans pay privately for healthcare insurance. The same applies to "tax burden". A lengthy discussion of relative "government spending PLUS direct healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP" and of relative "tax burden PLUS direct healthcare costs" is well outside the character limits of the forum. However, an analogy of the second would be comparing "Restaurant A" that had a $10.00 cover charge but charged you $20.00 for your mean and "Restaurant B" that had a $20.00 cover charge but included the cost of the meal in the cover charge and concluding that it was "cheaper" to go to "Restaurant A" than it was to go to "Restaurant B".]

I don't see the definition of "tax burden" on your link. Please detail.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No problem; the source you found is a fine display of the data I was referencing, so you're on the right track.

As for your "ABC" example, you would be correct if Trade were just arbitrary Dollars exchanging hands, but it's not. As an example, Canadian tar sands oil is piped into the United States because refineries on the Gulf coast are some of the only facilities in the world that are tooled up to process the toxic sludge (often blended with light sweet crude from American shale fields). If America stopped importing it, not only would this Canadian tar have to be shipped in an entirely different transport network, over mountains to a port to get loaded on ships to go to...? The refinery capacity for this product just doesn't exist outside of the United States.

So that's one example of a product that just doesn't have a market (of equal size/demand) outside of the United States. There are likely dozens (or more) examples of such products that are uniquely consumed by or supplied by the United States. If America withdrew itself from all global trade, the pain would be spread worldwide, many countries would struggle and America would *still* be the world's most powerful economy. (If slightly less massive than it is now.) We saw this in the global crash on 2008/2009; America hiccuped and it reverberated across the globe.

The only real problem with the example that you used is that the ONLY reason why the US is importing oil sands derived product is so that it can export it again - and at a higher price that the artificially NAFTA depressed price that it pays for it.

Your confidence that absolutely no one else in the world is capable of building refineries is heart-warming (but misplaced).

You might want to take a look at America's dependence of much humbler commodities (like Potash).

You might be interested to know that 75% of US$21,439,453,000,000 is US$16,079,589,750,000 which is LESS than the GDP of the EU (which, for all intents and purposes is "economically" one country). Not being able to purchase American weapons would, naturally, be a death blow to the European arms makers.

 

[digitusmedius]

What you show is complete ignorance to data context, yes the OFFIICAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE(U3) went down but context shows it went down because part time jobs for economic reasons were created. Do you know what those kind of jobs are?? You focus on slope and not official data as the public will always vote their pocketbooks and Obama was the only President in history that won re-election with fewer votes than he got in the original election. Reagan got 10 million more, Obama got 4 million less. That is what you want to ignore, why such loyalty and so much ignorance to data? U-6 is a much better judge of economic policies and performance

As I predicted you would you came back with a patently dishonest rebuttal. When those numbers are put into graphic form (below) it just reinforces the fact that Obama turned over a steadily improving economy in general and the only credit Trump could possibly claim is that he hasn't ****ed it up.....yet. It took Bush over 5 years to destroy the longest and strongest economy he inherited from Clinton. Anyway, thanks for being so predictable.

 

[Conservative]

As I predicted you would you came back with a patently dishonest rebuttal. When those numbers are put into graphic form (below) it just reinforces the fact that Obama turned over a steadily improving economy in general and the only credit Trump could possibly claim is that he hasn't ****ed it up.....yet. It took Bush over 5 years to destroy the longest and strongest economy he inherited from Clinton. Anyway, thanks for being so predictable.

View attachment 67272946

You do realize that Obama left office in January 2017 right? Why is it you want to hold Obama responsible solely for the results when he took office vs the results when the recession began and he was part of the Congress that helped create that recession? You try to generate the results Obama generated in the private sector at the cost generated and see how long you last. It is stunning how loyal you are to an ideology

Do you realize that Democrats were in control when the stock market went over 14k and employment was over 146 million in 2007-2008? Is it your opinion that a job lost that returns is a new job created? Why doesn't it resonate that we had 146 million Americans employed paying Federal Income Taxes in 2008 and 842 billion dollar stimulus program to create shovel ready jobs signed in February 2009 and employment still dropped another 4 million in 2009 and only recovered from that number by one million in 2010 all creating a loss of taxpayers thus a reduction in revenue??

Isn't it just possible that the Democrats wanted the WH more than preventing a recession and isn't it possible that your biases are based upon wishful thinking and not even basic logic and common sense?

 

[presluc]

I see they are still discussing Obama's financial plan from 2008 to 2016.
.
I hate to break it to the esteemed posters but Obama can't help or hurt you now whichever the case you think it may be.

Actually the truth is if you start a poll of average American voters you will find that a majority do not care how America got in dire straits "23 T in debt" and counting. not counting the nations we owe money to.

A majority of Americans don't actually give a damn which party or which president is responsible , a majority of Americans only want the problem fixed, including this humble poster.

One suggestion American politics has gave more money to the rich in the form of tax cuts , research grants bailouts ect. did it work?
Try cutting that tax cut and research grants in half and ask for results see if that 10% will start hiring more Americans at a fair wage see if they might lower prices.
This is what Americans were promised in 2000 when they first came out anyway.
More American jobs and lower prices. WELL???eace

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't see the definition of "tax burden" on your link. Please detail.

Happy to oblige

TAX BURDEN

IF the "tax burden" in "Country A" (for example "42 units") includes everything that the "tax burden" in "Country B" does PLUS the cost of providing healthcare insurance;

AND IF the "tax burden" in "Country B" is (for example "35 units") AND the taxpayer has to pay directly (for example "8 units") their own cost of providing healthcare insurance;

THEN is it 100% factually correct to say that the "tax burden" in "Country A" is higher than the "tax burden" in "Country B";

HOWEVER the TOTAL AMOUNT paid by the person is actually (from the example) "42 units" in "Country A" while it is (from the example) "43 units" in "Country B" for the same benefit to the person from whose pocket the money actually comes.

When you compare "tax burden" PLUS "direct cost of healthcare insurance", you will see that the US isn't in quite as favourable a position as some other countries as you would think it is if you believe The Current Response And Position Bulletin.

This is why any comparison of "tax burden" simpliciter is (to be incredibly generous) naive.

For example, on my income I would (absent the help of a very good accountant) have to pay $14,192 in income taxes (combined for all levels of government). To that I have to add $0.00 for 100% medical care coverage with no caps or exclusions for an ACTUAL COST total of $14,192.

On the same income in Washington state, I would have to pay $25,838 in income taxes (combined for all levels of government). To that I would also have to pay $6,348 for medical care coverage (subject to co-pays, caps, and exclusions) for an ACTUAL COST total of $32,186.

Thus, my "tax burden" simpliciter would be 82.06% higher in Washington state, but my ACTUAL COST (for the same benefits [or possibly less]) would be 126.79% higher.

 

[Conservative]

Did I bring up race?

You did!

No, I didn't bring up race and you aren't the only poster in this OP, so suggest before accusing me read the other posts. I am the least racist person in the world and don't believe for a moment that Trump is a racists as racists don't generate the results Trump is generating for African and Hispanic Americans, results that the name calling liberals want to ignore

 

[washunut]

Happy to oblige

TAX BURDEN

IF the "tax burden" in "Country A" (for example "42 units") includes everything that the "tax burden" in "Country B" does PLUS the cost of providing healthcare insurance;

AND IF the "tax burden" in "Country B" is (for example "35 units") AND the taxpayer has to pay directly (for example "8 units") their own cost of providing healthcare insurance;

THEN is it 100% factually correct to say that the "tax burden" in "Country A" is higher than the "tax burden" in "Country B";

HOWEVER the TOTAL AMOUNT paid by the person is actually (from the example) "42 units" in "Country A" while it is (from the example) "43 units" in "Country B" for the same benefit to the person from whose pocket the money actually comes.

When you compare "tax burden" PLUS "direct cost of healthcare insurance", you will see that the US isn't in quite as favourable a position as some other countries as you would think it is if you believe The Current Response And Position Bulletin.

This is why any comparison of "tax burden" simpliciter is (to be incredibly generous) naive.

For example, on my income I would (absent the help of a very good accountant) have to pay $14,192 in income taxes (combined for all levels of government). To that I have to add $0.00 for 100% medical care coverage with no caps or exclusions for an ACTUAL COST total of $14,192.

On the same income in Washington state, I would have to pay $25,838 in income taxes (combined for all levels of government). To that I would also have to pay $6,348 for medical care coverage (subject to co-pays, caps, and exclusions) for an ACTUAL COST total of $32,186.

Thus, my "tax burden" simpliciter would be 82.06% higher in Washington state, but my ACTUAL COST (for the same benefits [or possibly less]) would be 126.79% higher.

Seems like you either did not understand my question or refuse to answer.

 

[Conservative]

I don't see the definition of "tax burden" on your link. Please detail.

What most see here is a 2014 report that includes the stimulus in gov't spending. Historically the U.S. is around 37% well below European standards and skewed upward by programs like the stimulus that added to normal gov't spending. Still trying to figure out why so many want the European economy implemented in this country that relies on gov't more than the private sector.

It also ignores that there are hidden taxes required to fund those gov't programs that are implemented in foreign countries. Too many focus purely on perception and not reality. Europe suffered greatly during the last recession because of gov't spending being such a high percentage of their GDP and when austerity hits or individuals suffer the GDP of those countries suffer as well thus creating very slow recovery

United States Government Spending To GDP | 1970-2017 Data | 2019-2020 Forecast | Chart

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Seems like you either did not understand my question or refuse to answer.

I thought that your "I don't see the definition of "tax burden" on your link. Please detail." asked for an explanation of what the term "tax burden" meant.

That's what I provided.

If you want something different, then please be more specific.

If you just wanted to be gratuitously obnoxious, you ain't in my class.

 

[jpn]

As I predicted you would you came back with a patently dishonest rebuttal. When those numbers are put into graphic form (below) it just reinforces the fact that Obama turned over a steadily improving economy in general and the only credit Trump could possibly claim is that he hasn't ****ed it up.....yet. It took Bush over 5 years to destroy the longest and strongest economy he inherited from Clinton. Anyway, thanks for being so predictable.

Trump hasn't f****d it up yet, no thanks to Trump. In fact Trump's trade policies have created an investment headwind for the economy. But the "tailwind" has been more significant.

The "tailwind" consists of Republicans suddenly no longer concerned about deficits for some reason!

[Thanks to the Republican tax cut,] Revenue is about $220 billion less than expected, spending about $70 billion higher, so the overall deficit has gone up almost $300 billion relative to expectations.
Now, $300 billion at an annual rate is a lot of money. It's almost as big as the annualized rise in the deficit associated with the Obama stimulus at its peak — but taking place in an economy with low unemployment.
And for those wondering why the economy is still chugging along, that's why. Trumpism in practice is very Keynesian. It's a highly inefficient stimulus, with not much bang for the buck (multiplier about 0.7, for the nerds). But it is stimulus.​

And that's not even counting government spending, which is higher now that there's a "small government" Republican in the White House!

 

[Kushinator]

Why is that even an issue since it wasn't tax cuts that created it?

The tax cuts have not led to additional economic growth. We are growing at the same trajectory that we have for the past 8 years.

Name for me the year during the Obama term that the Deficit wasn't higher than the GDP growth?

LMAO, you're not on my level, nor are you in any position to make demands. I'll allow it this time just so i can dominate you some more.

 

[MTAtech]

What this demonstrates more than anything else is that the choices one makes in life and how hard one works is the overwhelming reason for where you get in your life as opposed to who's ass is in the White House.

I don’t see how my post about slow economic growth has anything to do with personal choices. When in a country in which success in life can be predicted by your zip code, personal choices aren’t the major influence in success. What we know is that people who studied hard and got doctorate degrees lag in income growth to the top 1%.

 

[MTAtech]

Perhaps but WWII isn't economic policies. There obviously is a loyalty to liberalism that for some reason cannot be explained in actual results, that speaks volumes

World War II was indeed economic policy. We engaged in massive deficit spending. That spending lifted the economy.