Trump Admin no longer forecasting 3% growth

[MTAtech]

Sorry, forgot to post the pollution report for cities in the country, another nail in the coffin of liberalism as liberals always give lip service to problems never solutions

Infographic: This report ranks the most polluted cities in America. Guess where LA landed | 89.3 KPCC

LA was notorious for smog in the 1960s. It's improved greatly but isn't perfect.

Of course, your administration should be doing exactly opposite of what it is doing to California. Currently, the Trump Admin's Environmental Protection Agency is trying to roll back clean car regulations, not make them stronger.

 

[Conservative]

LA was notorious for smog in the 1960s. It's improved greatly but isn't perfect.

Of course, your administration should be doing exactly opposite of what it is doing to California. Currently, the Trump Admin's Environmental Protection Agency is trying to roll back clean car regulations, not make them stronger.

How is any of that relevant as this was a 2018 ranking. Liberalism run wild is the problem in this country and people like you promoting a massive central gov't that does nothing but buy votes and create dependence. You continue to refuse to admit you are wrong on any issue. You really have no understanding of state and local responsibilities do you? There is nothing to prevent the state of California for enacting their own laws which THEY HAVE DONE

The post I made was quite clear and totally ignored. Is there ever going to come a time when you realize that liberalism is nothing more than a fraud promoting feel good rhetoric, arrogance in believing they are accurate on every issue, and an ideology that ignores personal responsibility and consequences for poor choices?

 

[marke]

Thank you for outlining your taxation ideology, which conservatives hold as a religious belief. Just like religion, there is no evidence that any of it is actually true. With taxation, there is no evidence that taxes that are not so high to be conficatory (something like above 70%) cause "damage to the economy."

Unless you think Denmark is a socialist country, there is no proposal by ANY Democrat to move to Socialism more than Denmark. You see, Republicans can't argue the merits of any current proposals, which are widely popular. So, they must stand on the rooftops and scream "DEMOCRATS ARE SOCIALISTS!" in hopes of scaring the voters. The problem is that Republicans have been calling Democrats ‘socialists’ for 90 years. They did it to scare Americans about Social Security, Medicare and the ACA. How has it been working out?

Republicans are not labeling modern democrat candidates socialists, democrats are labeling themselves that. Democrats have a long history of offering government money and benefits to the masses in exchange for votes. That is now getting way out of hand. Democrats are promising to spend exponentially more than the government will ever hope to collect through taxation on government programs that appeal to wide ranges of American people. Those who are being wooed by democrat overspending schemes are:

1. People on welfare.
2. Government employees.
3. Illegal immigrants.
4. People with serious long term illnesses.
5. College administrators and teachers.
6. People on disability.
7. Young people with no employment skills.
8. Poor people.
9. Women who want to kill their unwanted unborn babies.
10. People do do not want to work for a living.
11. People who think they will be given the rich man's wealth without cause.
12. People who stand to gain a great deal financially if the government expands its global warming policies.

And so forth.

 

[Bullseye]

We're discussing post recession growth. Obviously, a recession has negative growth. In any case, do we need to go back ten years? My point, in case you missed it, was that we have been having similar growth numbers for years. So, there is no evidence that Trump policies suddenly spurred anything.

The recession ended in June of 2009; it's part of the discussion. In case YOU missed Trump didn't inherit the economy in 2009, or 2010, 0r 2011, or 2012, or 2013,0r 2014, or even 2015; he inherited the economy as of 2016, which by your own admission had a 1.6% growth. Trump's first year came in at 2.2%; as I showed a significant gain (38%) and followed up with 2.9%.

The reason you keep avoiding 2009 was because Obama oversaw a -2.6% decline which means Obama's first two years were basically a wash.

 

[Bullseye]

Thank you for outlining your taxation ideology, which conservatives hold as a religious belief. Just like religion, there is no evidence that any of it is actually true. With taxation, there is no evidence that taxes that are not so high to be conficatory (something like above 70%) cause "damage to the economy."

Unless you think Denmark is a socialist country, there is no proposal by ANY Democrat to move to Socialism more than Denmark. You see, Republicans can't argue the merits of any current proposals, which are widely popular. So, they must stand on the rooftops and scream "DEMOCRATS ARE SOCIALISTS!" in hopes of scaring the voters. The problem is that Republicans have been calling Democrats ‘socialists’ for 90 years. They did it to scare Americans about Social Security, Medicare and the ACA. How has it been working out?

By the way, Denmark, along with the other Scandinavian countries are moving away from their socialist policies. At least one has lowered tax rates.

 

[JasperL]

It's good you put Americans in quotes. I thought they were all moving to Canada after the 2016 election. I guess it's going to well down here. They love what is bad for America. They cheer even the worst disasters because they can't wait to blame it on Trump. I think these traitors should all be deported.

Yes, gooder point! If you aren't fully in agreement with right wing nutjobs, you're not a REAL AMERICAN!!! USA!! USA!! USA!!!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sorry, forgot to post the pollution report for cities in the country, another nail in the coffin of liberalism as liberals always give lip service to problems never solutions

Infographic: This report ranks the most polluted cities in America. Guess where LA landed | 89.3 KPCC

Practically every major city in the country is very liberal so what is your point? Also show me one major city on earth with a Mediterranean climate and that is surrounded on three sides by mountains that doesn't have a smog problem.

Rain is what clears the air of smog. If you have better than half the year with hardly a drop of rain and you have mountain ranges that prevent air pollutants from blowing away, you are going to have a terrible smog problem. Those environmental regulations you bemoan are the only reason LAs smog isn't much worse.

 

[Conservative]

Practically every major city in the country is very liberal so what is your point? Also show me one major city on earth with a Mediterranean climate and that is surrounded on three sides by mountains that doesn't have a smog problem.

Rain is what clears the air of smog. If you have better than half the year with hardly a drop of rain and you have mountain ranges that prevent air pollutants from blowing away, you are going to have a terrible smog problem. Those environmental regulations you bemoan are the only reason LAs smog isn't much worse.

That isn't the point, the point being California is the bluest state in the nation with among the worst results that are being ignored by the left including posters here from California, people who want this country to elect a President based on California values. Any idea what the proposed economic growth is going to be under a Democratic President and how much of that growth is due to gov't spending? Is there ever a point where dependence on gov't becomes an issue to the left?

 

[Kushinator]

The figures on pg. 14 tell a different story.

View attachment 67252874

Four cherry-picked statistics that have a questionable/skewed graph dimensions doesn't make the case that we have outstanding growth. Besides, i don't trust the trends (dashed lines) because they are calculated partially using questionable methodology / recessionary weights. If the economy was really booming, we'd of had more than 3% rGDP growth.

Even as Trump "unleashed the entreprenual spirit of the private sector" we couldn't achieve 3%. Imagine that! I am willing to wager 2019 rGDP is less than 3% (it was 2.9% in 2018)! Are you willing to take the over?

The loser has to purchase a gold, silver, and bronze donation @ DP for an entire year. Do you accept?

However, i sense a lack of conviction on your part.

 

[Mycroft]

Four cherry-picked statistics that have a questionable/skewed graph dimensions doesn't make the case that we have outstanding growth. Besides, i don't trust the trends (dashed lines) because they are calculated partially using questionable methodology / recessionary weights. If the economy was really booming, we'd of had more than 3% rGDP growth.

Even as Trump "unleashed the entreprenual spirit of the private sector" we couldn't achieve 3%. Imagine that! I am willing to wager 2019 rGDP is less than 3% (it was 2.9% in 2018)! Are you willing to take the over?

The loser has to purchase a gold, silver, and bronze donation @ DP for an entire year. Do you accept?

However, i sense a lack of conviction on your part.

I disagree with your disputes and lack of trust...especially when you cite erroneous numbers yourself. (GDP growth in Jan 2019 over Jan 2018 was 3.01%) As far as what we can achieve, since Trump became President, we've had numerous quarters of more than 3% GDP growth, including a 4.2% quarter in 2018.

In any case, I don't gamble.

Oh...I should add that the biggest impediment to continued growth of our economy will be opposition by Congress in the next two years. So don't be coming around saying "I told you so." until you make an honest evaluation of the causes of any downturn.

 

[Conservative]

I disagree with your disputes and lack of trust...especially when you cite erroneous numbers yourself. (GDP growth in Jan 2019 over Jan 2018 was 3.01%) As far as what we can achieve, since Trump became President, we've had numerous quarters of more than 3% GDP growth, including a 4.2% quarter in 2018.

In any case, I don't gamble.

Oh...I should add that the biggest impediment to continued growth of our economy will be opposition by Congress in the next two years. So don't be coming around saying "I told you so." until you make an honest evaluation of the causes of any downturn.

It does seem there is quite a disconnect between the left and the opinions of the American people regarding the economy. Wonder why that disconnect is there

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy

 

[Kushinator]

I disagree with your disputes and lack of trust....

Last's years miss shows the WH economists clearly are not a talented bunch of economic forecasters.

especially when you cite erroneous numbers yourself. (GDP growth in Jan 2019 over Jan 2018 was 3.01%)

This isn't 3%or plus rGDP growth in 2018. If we want to arbitrarily pick quartley reference periods of annualized growth, well... if you're familiar with the data, that's not an argument you would make.

As far as what we can achieve, since Trump became President, we've had numerous quarters of more than 3% GDP growth, including a 4.2% quarter in 2018.

So? That's nothing exceeding previous quarters.

In any case, I don't gamble.

I wouldn't bite on that offer either. But at least the heat is officially off the GOP. Now that they don't control the federal government, anything negative can now be blamed (as opposed to their own pig dressing) on the Democrat controlled HoR.

Oh...I should add that the biggest impediment to continued growth of our economy will be opposition by Congress in the next two years. So don't be coming around saying "I told you so." until you make an honest evaluation of the causes of any downturn.

Right on queue. Blame the impending recession on the opposition party because your tax cut strategy was followed by a recession. :lamo The GOP is going to have a fun time explaining that to voters.

 

[Conservative]

Last's years miss shows the WH economists clearly are not a talented bunch of economic forecasters.



This isn't 3%or plus rGDP growth in 2018. If we want to arbitrarily pick quartley reference periods of annualized growth, well... if you're familiar with the data, that's not an argument you would make.



So? That's nothing exceeding previous quarters.



I wouldn't bite on that offer either. But at least the heat is officially off the GOP. Now that they don't control the federal government, anything negative can now be blamed (as opposed to their own pig dressing) on the Democrat controlled HoR.



Right on queue. Blame the impending recession on the opposition party because your tax cut strategy was followed by a recession. :lamo The GOP is going to have a fun time explaining that to voters.

Impending recession? Gloom and Doom? Economic failures? But let's investigate, investigate, demonize, ignore actual data and facts. Not once have you ever proposed anything to improve the economy and simply focused on charts out of context. Not once have you focused on actual results but only on PREDICTIONS of gloom. How liberal of you.

As a supposed book smart liberal what affect do you think the 4 interest rate hikes had on GDP growth in 2018 or the gov't shutdown? Now that the Mueller report is released when do you think the Democratic Party will start focusing on economic growth and maximizing benefits to the American people?

There is a reason the American people's poll numbers on the economy are improving and over 50% support now, the Democrats have offered nothing positive to consider nor have you

 

[Kushinator]

Impending recession? Gloom and Doom? Economic failures? But let's investigate, investigate, demonize, ignore actual data and facts. Not once have you ever proposed anything to improve the economy and simply focused on charts out of context. Not once have you focused on actual results but only on PREDICTIONS of gloom.

The yield curve has inverted. I know that doesn't mean much to you, but that is an important turning point in the business cycle. Educate yourself in the future to prevent foot-in-mouth disorder.

 

[Conservative]

The yield curve has inverted. I know that doesn't mean much to you, but that is an important turning point in the business cycle. Educate yourself in the future to prevent foot-in-mouth disorder.

Apparently it doesn't mean much to you to be asked direct questions either as you only want to promote negativity and never offer solutions and divert from the questions or the real reasons for the failure to achieve 3% Growth

As a supposed book smart liberal what affect do you think the 4 interest rate hikes had on GDP growth in 2018 or the gov't shutdown? Now that the Mueller report is released when do you think the Democratic Party will start focusing on economic growth and maximizing benefits to the American people?

 

[finebead]

Latest Federal Reserve GDP estimates for 2019, 2020 and 2021 are 2.1%, 1.9%, and 1.8%.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20190320.pdf

Who are you going to believe, the Federal Reserve (independent), or Kevin Hassett (administration boy)?

 

[Conservative]

Latest Federal Reserve GDP estimates for 2019, 2020 and 2021 are 2.1%, 1.9%, and 1.8%.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20190320.pdf

Who are you going to believe, the Federal Reserve (independent), or Kevin Hassett (administration boy)?

So what is your solution to the issue higher taxes on the rich? How about increasing interest rates more? Any idea what affect the four interest rate hikes had on GDP growth? Or how about the gov't shutdown? Maybe the Democrats should start another investigation to help boost the economy, LOL!

 

[Kushinator]

Apparently it doesn't mean much to you to be asked direct questions either as you only want to promote negativity and never offer solutions and divert from the questions or the real reasons for the failure to achieve 3% Growth

Interest rates are still at historically low levels. Rate hikes began in December of 2015. Please try to stay relevant and not make lame excuses for failure.

We will be in recession by 2021. The tax cuts won't prevent visits cycle activity.

 

[Conservative]

Interest rates are still at historically low levels. Rate hikes began in December of 2015. Please try to stay relevant and not make lame excuses for failure.

We will be in recession by 2021. The tax cuts won't prevent visits cycle activity.

It is probably you that needs to stay relative

The Fed kept the rate at zero between 2008 and 2015. Recession ended in June 2009.

December 2015 +.5%

December 2016 .75%

Then Trump

2017

3-16 1.0%

6-15 1.25%

12-14 1.50%

2018

3-22 1.75

6-14 2.00

9-27 2.25

12-19 2.50%

Obama 2 rate increases in 8 years and the worst recovery in modern U.S. History

Trump 7 rate increases in 2 years and still almost double the GDP Growth he inherited. Now of course those 7 rate increases have nothing to do with GDP growth, right?

Keep showing nothing but partisan diversion from reality. Typical liberal revisionist history and attempts to prop up failure and distort actual success while trying to restore economic malaise, massive central gov't and continued dependence growth

 

[Kushinator]

It is probably you that needs to stay relative

Pure delusion... Nothing else explains it.

December 2015 +.5%

December 2016 .75%

Then Trump

2017

3-16 1.0%

6-15 1.25%

12-14 1.50%

2018

3-22 1.75

6-14 2.00

9-27 2.25

12-19 2.50%

The number of rate increases is irrelevant. In December 2015, the Fed embarked on a liftoff in terms of their interest rate target. 2015 was the strongest rGDP growth year following the Great Recession, along with much stabilization in labor markets and substantial deficit reduction. Fiscal stimulus, both policy and automatic stabilization, had all but been retracted, and monetary stimulus finally began to contract. Growth in 2016 and 2017 had tapered as a result, and global oil supply put a clamp on real private domestic fixed investment.

Now you want to make excuses because your predictions never panned out. 2.9% rGDP growthduring the Obama administration was labeled a failure, as misguided conservatives wrote up and down 3%,4%, or even 5% calendar growth was to be expected with new rounds of tax cuts and deregulation.

It just didn't happen... and your pathetic attempt shedding blame is comical at best.

Trump 7 rate increases in 2 years and still almost double the GDP Growth he inherited. Now of course those 7 rate increases have nothing to do with GDP growth, right?

Why the focus on the amount of increases as opposed to the underlying factors leading the Fed to normalize?

A 75 basis point rate increase in roughly a year isn't substantially less than a 175 basis point increase in roughly two years. Eight sounds bigger than two.

Why do you refuse to address the inversion of the yield curve?

Keep showing nothing but partisan diversion from reality. Typical liberal revisionist history and attempts to prop up failure and distort actual success while trying to restore economic malaise, massive central gov't and continued dependence growth

Trump has proposed a $4.7 trillion budget.

 

[Conservative]

The number of rate increases is irrelevant. In December 2015, the Fed embarked on a liftoff in terms of their interest rate target. 2015 was the strongest rGDP growth year following the Great Recession, along with much stabilization in labor markets and substantial deficit reduction. Fiscal stimulus, both policy and automatic stabilization, had all but been retracted, and monetary stimulus finally began to contract. Growth in 2016 and 2017 had tapered as a result, and global oil supply put a clamp on real private domestic fixed investment.

Now you want to make excuses because your predictions never panned out. 2.9% rGDP growthduring the Obama administration was labeled a failure, as misguided conservatives wrote up and down 3%,4%, or even 5% calendar growth was to be expected with new rounds of tax cuts and deregulation.

It just didn't happen... and your pathetic attempt shedding blame is comical at best.



Why the focus on the amount of increases as opposed to the underlying factors leading the Fed to normalize?

A 75 basis point rate increase in roughly a year isn't substantially less than a 175 basis point increase in roughly two years. Eight sounds bigger than two.

Why do you refuse to address the inversion of the yield curve?



Trump has proposed a $4.7 trillion budget.

And how much of that budget is discretionary spending???????? Keep trying to prop up failure, amazing how you ignore the effects of interest rates on GDP, why is that? Obama's interest rates were less than 2 times the interest rates Trump has now, You are truly nothing more than a partisan book smart street stupid liberal hack.

Already told you what affected the yield curve, you ignored it

 

[Kushinator]

And how much of that budget is discretionary spending???????? Keep trying to prop up failure, amazing how you ignore the effects of interest rates on GDP

I haven't ignored the effect of interest rates on GDP. You are trying to make excuses and have limited knowledge regarding monetary policy and how it impacts economic output.

why is that? Obama's interest rates were less than 2 times the interest rates Trump has now, You are truly nothing more than a partisan book smart street stupid liberal hack.

Fiscal policy carries a more meaningful impact on economic output than monetary policy. Consider the broad and unparalleled expansion in the Fed's balance sheet, ZIRP, and various lending facilities... they had limited impact on output. You cannot deny this fact.

Already told you what affected the yield curve, you ignored it

You are failing to acknowledge long end of the curve... not on purpose, but due to a failure to learn about a topic prior to making authoritative comments.

 

[Conservative]

I haven't ignored the effect of interest rates on GDP. You are trying to make excuses and have limited knowledge regarding monetary policy and how it impacts economic output.




Fiscal policy carries a more meaningful impact on economic output than monetary policy. Consider the broad and unparalleled expansion in the Fed's balance sheet, ZIRP, and various lending facilities... they had limited impact on output. You cannot deny this fact.



You are failing to acknowledge long end of the curve... not on purpose, but due to a failure to learn about a topic prior to making authoritative comments.

Since fiscal policy is so important what exactly is the democratic party fiscal policy since taking over the House? Continued posting of nothing more than personal attacks is what the left doesn't when confronted with reality, 7 interest rate hikes in 2 years has negatively affected GDP Growth and that isn't an excuse that is reality.

Democrats now control the House so what are they proposing to improve economic growth and activity, more federal spending? Since you now appear concerned about economic growth and the deficit how are the Democrats in Congress addressing both?

You predict a recession in 2021 based upon your view of the yield curve totally ignoring the factors that affect the yield curve. Factors change so do the PROJECTIONS.

 

[finebead]

So what is your solution to the issue higher taxes on the rich? How about increasing interest rates more? Any idea what affect the four interest rate hikes had on GDP growth? Or how about the gov't shutdown? Maybe the Democrats should start another investigation to help boost the economy, LOL!

First you would have to define "what issue"? The topic title is about Trump admin no longer forecasting 3% growth, actually some of them, such as Larry Kudlow, are still forecasting 3% growth.

Many economists have stated the natural growth rate of the economy is 2% over the long term, and forecast that the tax cuts would only stimulate the economy in the short run, big in year 1, less in year 2, then back to the 2% trend.

The interest rate increases have been warranted IMO. Inflation is running 2% these days, why should we not have a fed funds rate of 2.0 - 2.5%? We should. Additionally, that little rate boost helped all us retirees a little. Now we can afford to go eat a meal out once or twice a month. The interest rate hikes put money in the hands of savers, and if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of us retirees, and we can stimulate the economy a bit now that we have a little more safe income.

Actually, I like a natural growth economy. When you think you NEED a 3% growth rate, and you go out and stimulate with deficit spending, which is what Trump is doing, when the inevitable slowdown occurs, you take a harder fall since the economy was built on a weak foundation of artificial stimulation, or you stimulate more to try and keep the economy from rolling over. Both scenarios are bad.

In the 60's and 70's, tax cuts were typically for 2 or 3 years, to stimulate the economy. There was no belief that they were permanent fixes. The Reagan tax cuts were eventually reversed by Bush (no new taxes) 41 and Clinton, producing the only balanced budget of the last 70 years in 2000. The Bush 43 tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, amounting to $110 billion per year were done for 10 years, and they certainly didn't fix anything. In 2004, Greenspan still had interest rates at 1% to help get Bush re-elected, but those exceptionally low rates along with inadequate regulation of the mortgage industry and unstable mortgage products like "no doc" loans, all conspired to give us the financial crisis. So I don't think that lower tax rates is always the answer, certainly not permanently lower rates if you don't cut spending also, which we are loath to do.

But first we have to know what problem you think you are trying to solve.

 

[Conservative]

First you would have to define "what issue"? The topic title is about Trump admin no longer forecasting 3% growth, actually some of them, such as Larry Kudlow, are still forecasting 3% growth.

Many economists have stated the natural growth rate of the economy is 2% over the long term, and forecast that the tax cuts would only stimulate the economy in the short run, big in year 1, less in year 2, then back to the 2% trend.

The interest rate increases have been warranted IMO. Inflation is running 2% these days, why should we not have a fed funds rate of 2.0 - 2.5%? We should. Additionally, that little rate boost helped all us retirees a little. Now we can afford to go eat a meal out once or twice a month. The interest rate hikes put money in the hands of savers, and if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of us retirees, and we can stimulate the economy a bit now that we have a little more safe income.

Actually, I like a natural growth economy. When you think you NEED a 3% growth rate, and you go out and stimulate with deficit spending, which is what Trump is doing, when the inevitable slowdown occurs, you take a harder fall since the economy was built on a weak foundation of artificial stimulation, or you stimulate more to try and keep the economy from rolling over. Both scenarios are bad.

In the 60's and 70's, tax cuts were typically for 2 or 3 years, to stimulate the economy. There was no belief that they were permanent fixes. The Reagan tax cuts were eventually reversed by Bush (no new taxes) 41 and Clinton, producing the only balanced budget of the last 70 years in 2000. The Bush 43 tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, amounting to $110 billion per year were done for 10 years, and they certainly didn't fix anything. In 2004, Greenspan still had interest rates at 1% to help get Bush re-elected, but those exceptionally low rates along with inadequate regulation of the mortgage industry and unstable mortgage products like "no doc" loans, all conspired to give us the financial crisis. So I don't think that lower tax rates is always the answer, certainly not permanently lower rates if you don't cut spending also, which we are loath to do.

But first we have to know what problem you think you are trying to solve.

You'll have to ask the radical left what the problem is but I am sure that raising taxes is certainly part of their solution. they claim that the Trump tax cuts never generated the promised benefits but the question is what was the "promised" benefit. I see people keeping more of what they earn a benefit, states and local gov't revenue a benefit, record charitable spending a benefit, record S&P dividends a benefit, but the radical left wants the gov't to get that money and believes that tax cuts don't increase economic activity enough to warrant and always look at deficits to justify their opinion never wasteful over-reaching spending.