Trump suggests that it could get 'very bad' if military, police, biker supporters play 'tough'

[pamak]

The recession according to NBER began in December 2007 and ended June 2009 so tell us how February-June 2009 were the teeth of the recession? Looks to me like we were on the road to recovery thanks to TARP recapitalizing the banks when Obama took office the end of January 2009. Where did the repayment of TARP Go and why wasn't it credited against the deficit?

What Ended the Great Recession?

What Ended the Great Recession?

Worthless...

The author does not take into consideration seasonally adjusted numbers. There is always a variation from quarter to quarter and trying to deduce a definite change during such a short chronological period makes zero sense

Here ia a link showing the percent GDP change quarterly. Notice how even within the recession (and later) we have positive and negative changes. Notice also how by the second quarter of 2009 the GDP was still shrinking by 0.6% (put cursor on the graph to read values).

Percent Change of Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed

So the GDP continues to decrease during the second quarter of 2009 wayyy after Feb 2009 when the stimulus passage passed!

 

[Conservative]

Worthless...

The author does not take into consideration seasonally adjusted numbers. There is always a variation from quarter to quarter and trying to deduce a definite change during such a short chronological period makes zero sense

Here ia a link showing the percent GDP change quarterly. Notice how even within the recession (and later) we have positive and negative changes

Percent Change of Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed

LOL, yep, those damn Treasury, bureau of labor statistics, and bureau of economic analysis numbers are always wrong to the left even though those are what we pay debt service on, Treasury. GDP quarterly change is annualized and the only one that matters is the one at the end of the year but more importantly the dollars in GDP Growth in context, for example how much is consumer spending and how much is gov't spending.

Reality continues to be your total ignorance of what TARP was, when it was implemented, what it did and then when the Obama stimulus was spent. You want to believe what you are told and ignore the calendar that proves you wrong.

Why is quarterly wrong? When was the stimulus money actually spent and how does that skew data? Get it yet, You have been lied to for years?

 

[pamak]

LOL, yep, those damn Treasury, bureau of labor statistics, and bureau of economic analysis numbers are always wrong to the left even though those are what we pay debt service on, Treasury. GDP quarterly change is annualized and the only one that matters is the one at the end of the year but more importantly the dollars in GDP Growth in context, for example how much is consumer spending and how much is gov't spending.

Reality continues to be your total ignorance of what TARP was, when it was implemented, what it did and then when the Obama stimulus was spent. You want to believe what you are told and ignore the calendar that proves you wrong.

Why is quarterly wrong? When was the stimulus money actually spent and how does that skew data? Get it yet, You have been lied to for years?

The links I provided are actually using fed statistics. Your latest link is actually one by a hack who ignores the fact that GDP continued to shrink after feb 2009, meaning after the pass of the stimulus, does not use seasonally adjusted figures and uses data of a few months to make statements about the economic situation in 2009.

The one who has been lied to for years is you when hacks have convinced you that it makes sense to compare absolute numbers of dollars spent to reboot an economy of a much smaller GDP in 1980 to the money that was spent to reboot an economy with a much larger GDP in 2008 or when they try to convince you that it makes sense to compare a recession which was accompanied by a financial collapse of the private banking sector in 2008 to a recession which was not accompanied by such collapse in 1980 or to compare the economic challenge of performing well in a much more competitive international market in 2008 where new and strong competitors can challenge the US to the situation in the 1980's where Reagan had the power to tell the biggest competitors at the time (the Japanese) to "voluntarily" limit their exports to the US and the latter obeying without providing much resistance

Voluntary Export Restraint - VER Definition

You still live in the 1980's and you have not realized how things have dramatically changed since then....

 

[Conservative]

The links I provided are actually using fed statistics. Your latest link is actually one by a hack who ignores the fact that GDP continued to shrink after feb 2009, meaning after the pass of the stimulus, does not use seasonally adjusted figures and uses data of a few months to make statements about the economic situation in 2009.

The one who has been lied to for years is you when hacks have convinced you that it makes sense to compare absolute numbers of dollars spent to reboot an economy of a much smaller GDP in 1980 to the money that was spent to reboot an economy with a much larger GDP in 2008 or when they try to convince you that it makes sense to compare a recession which was accompanied by a financial collapse of the private banking sector in 2008 to a recession which was not accompanied by such collapse in 1980 or to compare the economic challenge of performing well in a much more competitive international market in 2008 where new and strong competitors can challenge the US to the situation in the 1980's where Reagan had the power to tell the biggest competitors at the time (the Japanese) to "voluntarily" limit their exports to the US and the latter obeying without providing much resistance

Voluntary Export Restraint - VER Definition

You still live in the 1980's and you have not realized how things have dramatically changed since then....

This is a waste of time, continue to live in that dream world of yours as I have no more time for you. I stand by the data presented along with the sources. Seems the American people disagree with you regarding Obama and Trump on the economic polling data

 

[noonereal]

This is a waste of time, continue to live in that dream world of yours as I have no more time for you. I stand by the data presented along with the sources. Seems the American people disagree with you regarding Obama and Trump on the economic polling data

Your sources are always bias and from extremist sites. You should run when someone takes the time to out you.

 

[dixon01767]

The words of a fascist coward.
My advice to all prospective police, military and "BIKERS" who are itching "to play tough":
Mr. Trump isn't going to be in the White House much longer.
And when he is gone, you will have to deal with people who saw and heard you standing with him.

Sounds like a threat from the Brown Shirts. They want you punished for your views.

 

[pamak]

This is a waste of time, continue to live in that dream world of yours as I have no more time for you. I stand by the data presented along with the sources. Seems the American people disagree with you regarding Obama and Trump on the economic polling data

The American people also disagreed with me regarding Bush...

I do not base my arguments on popularity. I base them on reasoning which I explained it in the last dozen or so posts.

 

[akyron]

Sounds like a threat from the Brown Shirts. They want you punished for your views.

An example of actions in case you still cannot tell the difference between calling out someones BS and weaponizing an apolitical institution against your political opponents.

Unprecedented Unmasking and Political Bias: ACLJ Uncovers Major Political Bias from Ambassador Power in the Final Days of Obama Administration

Brown shirt history because you do not seem to know.

 

[pamak]

Originally Posted by Conservative
This is a waste of time, continue to live in that dream world of yours as I have no more time for you. I stand by the data presented along with the sources. Seems the American people disagree with you regarding Obama and Trump on the economic polling data

In continuation of the previous post, something else about the TARP and the deficit

Even though your claim that TARP was a loan seems logical, apparently, TARP was recorded as an expense

From the CBO

Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009 | Congressional Budget Office


Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009

Outlays rose by 18 percent in 2009, the fastest rate of growth since 1975. Three initiatives the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), net cash infusions for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ARRA drove that growth, adding $353 billion to outlays in 2009, or 2.5 percent of GDP. Specifically, stimulus spending from ARRA totaled $108 billion in 2009$32 billion for Medicaid, $22 billion for unemployment benefits, and $54 billion for other programs and activities. All other federal spending accounted for 22.2 percent of GDP in 2009, up from 20.6 percent in 2008.

 

[Conservative]

The American people also disagreed with me regarding Bush...

I do not base my arguments on popularity. I base them on reasoning which I explained it in the last dozen or so posts.

Bush isn't in office, TARP was a loan, Obama added 9.3 trillion to the debt in 8 years, Trump's first year saw a 17% increase in the deficit due mostly to 4 interest rate hikes and entitlement spending increases so when Trump reaches the Obama level I know I can count on you letting me know.

You spend a lot of time here whining and complaining about Trump while supporting Obama, why aren't you out feeding the homeless and helping your state remove the distinction of having the most in poverty and homeless along with having the worst quality of life and among the highest cost of living in the nation? I see no reasoning on your part blaming demand for the housing problem in your state while doing nothing to promote supply.

 

[Conservative]

And something else about the TARP and the deficit

Even though your claim that TARP was a loan seems logical, apparently, TARP was recorded as an expense

From the CBO

Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009 | Congressional Budget Office


Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009

Outlays rose by 18 percent in 2009, the fastest rate of growth since 1975. Three initiatives the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), net cash infusions for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ARRA drove that growth, adding $353 billion to outlays in 2009, or 2.5 percent of GDP. Specifically, stimulus spending from ARRA totaled $108 billion in 2009$32 billion for Medicaid, $22 billion for unemployment benefits, and $54 billion for other programs and activities. All other federal spending accounted for 22.2 percent of GDP in 2009, up from 20.6 percent in 2008.

That is exactly correct it was a loan that was classified as an expense until repaid for reporting purposes similar to an accounts payable. the question is where did the repayment go? Ask Geithner, it was recycled with only the interest payments going against the deficit not the principle.

As for your argument on quarterly GDP what do you thing Stimulus spending would do to the quarterly GDP when spent in that qtr.? When you figure that out you will understand why quarterly GDP is worthless and as we grow our GDP percentage change is worthless as well as it is total dollars that matter.

 

[pamak]

Bush isn't in office, TARP was a loan, Obama added 9.3 trillion to the debt in 8 years, Trump's first year saw a 17% increase in the deficit due mostly to 4 interest rate hikes and entitlement spending increases so when Trump reaches the Obama level I know I can count on you letting me know.

You spend a lot of time here whining and complaining about Trump while supporting Obama, why aren't you out feeding the homeless and helping your state remove the distinction of having the most in poverty and homeless along with having the worst quality of life and among the highest cost of living in the nation? I see no reasoning on your part blaming demand for the housing problem in your state while doing nothing to promote supply.

I just gave you a link from the government showing the recording of TARP in OUTLAYS

Outlay | Definition of Outlay by Merriam-Webster

transitive verb

: to lay out (money) : EXPEND

And we saw links showing that Bush signed the TARP in October 2008 and that the fiscal year for the government ends in September which means that the TARP effect was recorded in the 2009 fiscal year. At this stage we are not talking about Trump or the housing problem so there is no reason to shift the conversation towards such issues unless you want to create a distraction.If you want to talk about the homeless, it is a different topic which we can discuss in a different thread and see also there Reagan's policies regarding the homeless population and the mentally ill people...

 

[pamak]

That is exactly correct it was a loan that was classified as an expense until repaid for reporting purposes similar to an accounts payable. the question is where did the repayment go? Ask Geithner, it was recycled with only the interest payments going against the deficit not the principle.

As for your argument on quarterly GDP what do you thing Stimulus spending would do to the quarterly GDP when spent in that qtr.? When you figure that out you will understand why quarterly GDP is worthless and as we grow our GDP percentage change is worthless as well as it is total dollars that matter.

Ohh, so therefore as an expense it affected the government deficit in 2009 which is something that is also revealed by the CBO link.

As for my point about the quarterly data is that you cannot be selective and argue that such data are worthless when you post an article using the data of a couple of months (which were not even seasonally adjusted) to make claims about the economic situation!

I also notice that you avoid addressing the issue of the size of the US GDP in 1980 and the size of the GDP in 2008. Since you are into absolute numbers, why are not you willing to also see the GDP in 1980 and in 2008 in absolute numbers?

 

[Conservative]

Ohh, so therefore as an expense it affected the government deficit in 2009 which is something that is also revealed by the CBO link.

As for my point about the quarterly data is that you cannot be selective and argue that such data are worthless when you post an article using the data of a couple of months (which were not even seasonally adjusted) to make claims about the economic situation!

I also notice that you avoid addressing the issue of the size of the US GDP in 1980 and the size of the GDP in 2008. Since you are into absolute numbers, why are not you willing to also see the GDP in 1980 and in 2008 in absolute numbers?

ps; okay, it seems that you deleted the post to which I replied. So, I am not sure if I should do the same or not. In any case, the last paragraph stands alone and is independent from your deleted post. I am talking about the following...

I also notice that you avoid addressing the issue of the size of the US GDP in 1980 and the size of the GDP in 2008. Since you are into absolute numbers, why are not you willing to also see the GDP in 1980 and in 2008 in absolute numbers?

Look, this is ridiculous, yes it was paid out and classified as an expense which is appropriate until repaid just like an accounts payable and the 300 billion was repaid in 2009 where did that show up? CBO projections were made in January 2009 and included TARP in the projection which is accurate but when paid back that is ignored by you and the left.

 

[pamak]

Look, this is ridiculous, yes it was paid out and classified as an expense which is appropriate until repaid just lie an accounts payable and the 300 billion was repaid in 2009 where did that show up? CBO projections were made in January 2009 and included TARP in the projection which is accurate but when paid back that is ignored by you and the left.

I do not ignore anything. I just tried to explain to you why your numbers about Obama's deficit are off compared to those calculated (based on fed statistics) by the author of the link I provided. And yes, the effect of having revenues from TARP which reduced the government deficit in later years is part of his calculations. So, it is not that he ignores this TARP effect.

I also still see a reluctance of yours to show us the dollar amount of the US GDP in 1980 and compare it to the dollar amount of the US GDP in 2008. Is there a reason you ignore the question?

 

[Conservative]

I do not ignore anything. I just tried to explain to you why your numbers about Obama's deficit are off compared to those calculated (based on fed statistics) by the author of the link I provided. And yes, the effect of having revenues from TARP which reduced the government deficit in later years is part of his calculations. So, it is not that he ignores this TARP effect.

I also still see a reluctance of yours to show us the dollar amount of the US GDP in 1980 and compare it to the dollar amount of the US GDP in 2008. Is there a reason you ignore the question?

They aren't off at all, one is a projection and the other is actual. Fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September, Bush spent 350 billion between October and December, that was included in the deficit projections from CBO and when that loan was repaid the deficit was only credited for the interest payments as Obama reused the money for AIG bailout. The loan was repaid in fiscal year 2009 so why wasn't that repayment used to reduce the deficit.

Your argument about GDP is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the thread but neither does the TARP loan and repayment, Just proving you wrong is enough.

How are Obama's deficits off compared to those calculated? Here is a link by day for the deficits, put in any day you want

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Bush had no spending authority for any of 2009 as there was no approved budget, he did sign some spending bills but not enough to create the deficits you want to blame him for as spending is only half the equation, where is the revenue? Obama's stimulus never created the shovel ready jobs promised thus seeing a loss of 4 million taxpayers from January 2009 to the end the year. Those shovels never arrived apparently until 2014 or later as we didn't get back to the 146 million employed until the middle of 2014 and that is what made Obama's stimulus a failure

 

[pamak]

They aren't off at all, one is a projection and the other is actual. Fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September, Bush spent 350 billion between October and December, that was included in the deficit projections from CBO and when that loan was repaid the deficit was only credited for the interest payments as Obama reused the money for AIG bailout. The loan was repaid in fiscal year 2009 so why wasn't that repayment used to reduce the deficit.

Your argument about GDP is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the thread but neither does the TARP loan and repayment, Just proving you wrong is enough.

How are Obama's deficits off compared to those calculated? Here is a link by day for the deficits, put in any day you want

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Bush had no spending authority for any of 2009 as there was no approved budget, he did sign some spending bills but not enough to create the deficits you want to blame him for as spending is only half the equation, where is the revenue? Obama's stimulus never created the shovel ready jobs promised thus seeing a loss of 4 million taxpayers from January 2009 to the end the year. Those shovels never arrived apparently until 2014 or later as we didn't get back to the 146 million employed until the middle of 2014 and that is what made Obama's stimulus a failure

What we discuss is two different issues and trying to conflate them just because you cannot address the points I make does not work

We were discussion how rational it is to compare absolute numbers of deficits between Reagan and Obama, and as a side issue we start discussing why the claim of the author in the link I provided about Obama's amount of deficit (he claimed a number of 8.75 trillions) differs from the number of 9.3 trillions based on the treasury link you provided.

The GDP argument has NOTHING to do with the TARP and if Obama;s deficit is 8.75 or 9.3 trillions! If you think that I made such argument you misunderstood me. The argument about the US GDP is that in 1980 it was wayyyy lower than in 2008. And this difference is ONE reason (and not the only one) why one cannot compare absolute number of dollars spent to help a much smaller economy in 1980 compared to the amount of dollars one would need to help a much larger economy in 2008. If Reagan needed 3.4 trillion (after adjusting for inflation), it is obvious that a much larger economy will need way more than 3.4 trillion.


The link of the author is not a projection.
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt | FRED | St. Louis Fed
You can actually see at the top corner that it has been updated recently. For this issue, I will go over the author's calculations and will respond in another post. In the meantime, do you now understand the GDP argument?

 

[pamak]

...

I would like to know if you are still interested in the conversation and if we are on the same page regarding the GDP argument. See previous post...

 

[dixon01767]

An example of actions in case you still cannot tell the difference between calling out someones BS and weaponizing an apolitical institution against your political opponents.

Unprecedented Unmasking and Political Bias: ACLJ Uncovers Major Political Bias from Ambassador Power in the Final Days of Obama Administration

Brown shirt history because you do not seem to know.

Sorry , not sure of your point. Yeah, powers is a snake and what the Obama administration did after Trump was elected should be prosecuted. And your brownshirt link does nothing to contradict my labeling the other poster a Brown Shirt.

 

[akyron]

Sorry , not sure of your point. Yeah, powers is a snake and what the Obama administration did after Trump was elected should be prosecuted. And your brownshirt link does nothing to contradict my labeling the other poster a Brown Shirt.

I apologize. I was unaware you were physically attacked. Please post the hospital address so we can send you flowers during your recovery.

Hope you get better soon.

 

[roguenuke]

Well then I must assume you are blind. Maybe deaf too.
The POTUS, for all his faults, is trying to make the USA a better place. A safer place. A more prosperous place.
The Libbies are, in unison, opposing everything he does.
"Walls don't work." Lie
"Illegal immigration is not a problem." Lie
"ICE are Nazis." Lie
"The NATO negotiations were bad." Lie
"Negotiations with NK was bad." Lie
"Tax cuts across the board are bad." Lie
"Trump had nothing to do with the current state of the US economy." Lie

And then there's the puntits…
Attacking conservatives in broad daylight.
Attacking police.
Attacking old men in the streets of Chicago (I think it was Chicago)
Verbal assaulting and threatening ****ing highschool kids.
Verbal assaults at restaurants and in public.
Opening fire on a gawd damn game of baseball.
The 24/7 MSM assault.
DON LEMON!

do I really need to go on...?

Most of those quotes are not mine. The one that I can say I have stated is walls will not work, with the added context (which is very important) of this is why... I don't simply say that a wall will not work, I state why it would not work, particularly in the situation given.

Oh and illegal immigration is not an emergency or a crisis. Something being important to address does not make it an emergency or crisis.

 

[Hicup]

LMAO sweet irony!!!!!!!

Weird . . i wonder what i was talking about when i said your post failed . . . we all know it was an "attempt" but it just didnt work and blew up in your face and the irony and comedy gold is YOU dont realize it or denying it to try and save face (but failing) hence why you are dodging my request. I wonder way that is.

Like i said always a pleasure completely a pleasure owning your post, Lets increase my fun and ask you AGAIN

Let me know when you have something to support the post in question or some other point that doesnt completely fail, thanks!


any takes my request is dodged again?

It takes a special kind of retarded (To use your favorite expression) to stumble a stutter in a post that can be proof-read prior to posting.. :lamo

Oh, and you still don't know why I'm mocking you, and that isn't ironic, it's just who you are.. Keep on keepin on, J, You are the AOC of DP..


Tim-

 

[Buzz62]

Most of those quotes are not mine. The one that I can say I have stated is walls will not work, with the added context (which is very important) of this is why... I don't simply say that a wall will not work, I state why it would not work, particularly in the situation given.

Oh and illegal immigration is not an emergency or a crisis. Something being important to address does not make it an emergency or crisis.

Well then you'd better let the fine folks of San Diego know, because I think they have a wall that works wonderfully.
Illegal immigration is most certainly a crisis. Millions of people die from the drugs that come across that border every year.
There are thousands huddled there now. Wanna bet on how fast even staunch Dumbocrats change their tune, once these new waves hit the border?

Just in time for the next election...BTW...

 

[roguenuke]

Well then you'd better let the fine folks of San Diego know, because I think they have a wall that works wonderfully.
Illegal immigration is most certainly a crisis. Millions of people die from the drugs that come across that border every year.
There are thousands huddled there now. Wanna bet on how fast even staunch Dumbocrats change their tune, once these new waves hit the border?

Just in time for the next election...BTW...

Millions every year huh? Funny since in 2017, only under 71K people died from drug overdoses, and that is all drug overdoses, not just those from what crosses the border. Many of those are dying from prescription drugs. But way to show that you are exaggerating the problem to benefit your argument.

Overdose Death Rates | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

And the vast majority of those illegal drugs are not coming across an open border. Most are coming through legal ports of entry or the sea, or even being grown or made right here in the US.

Most of those at the border now are not going to be turned away by a wall because they are even turning themselves over to border patrol officers at legal ports of entry and even those on the border when they cross.

 

[Buzz62]

Millions every year huh? Funny since in 2017, only under 71K people died from drug overdoses, and that is all drug overdoses, not just those from what crosses the border. Many of those are dying from prescription drugs. But way to show that you are exaggerating the problem to benefit your argument.

Overdose Death Rates | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

And the vast majority of those illegal drugs are not coming across an open border. Most are coming through legal ports of entry or the sea, or even being grown or made right here in the US.

Most of those at the border now are not going to be turned away by a wall because they are even turning themselves over to border patrol officers at legal ports of entry and even those on the border when they cross.

People are dieing...right now in America...from drugs brought into the USA from that border.
Little girls are...right now in America...whoring for pimps. Both of them are in America illegally, and this nice "refugee" will kill his "daughter" if she doesn't perform today. Cops are killed over the Christmas holidays by repeat offenders who have been in the USA illegally all along. Yet you...want to make excuses. Your opposition to Trump is so strong, that you'd actually hold your own hatred ABOVE the welfare of Fellow Americans, and watch on and do nothing, while little girls are raped over and over again.

Not even I can be that cold.