• 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!

GDP grows 3.1% in 2018!

CriticalThought said:
You don't invest do you?
Click to expand...
Yep, I do. Extensively.

CriticalThought said:
Let me guess. You read the Wall Street Journal article on individual income tax receipts rising and you mistakenly assumed that was the same as overall revenue and overlooked corporate tax revenue and inflation.

Has Revenue Risen in 2018? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Sorry to dash your pie in the sky dream, but tax revenue fell as a result of the tax cuts. It isn't a partisan reality, it is a business reality. The kind that people who actually invest pay attention to because it affects a number of projections.
Click to expand...
How about instead of trying to create an extensive and idiotic strawman, you just address the point, rather than trying to attack me? And why should I belief some LW think tank blather from eight months ago vs CBO monthly data?
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, probably.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between the two, especially when the cost of living is rising faster than inflation.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
There's a big difference between the two, especially when the cost of living is rising faster than inflation.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. :roll:
 
Bullseye said:
Yep, I do. Extensively.

How about instead of trying to create an extensive and idiotic strawman, you just address the point, rather than trying to attack me? And why should I belief some LW think tank blather from eight months ago vs CBO monthly data?
Click to expand...

Well if you want to start with sources, the OP article is from IBD and IBD takes a conservative political stance in its news and analysis.

Here is a different take...

U.S. economic growth in 2018 misses Trump's 3 percent target | Reuters

You are awfully excited about a news article from a conservative publication and you ignored the parts regarding the tumbling housing market and increasing likelihood of recession because you liked this one line, "The report shows how Republican-backed tax cuts may have continued to aid growth and help bring the full-year figure to 3.1%, just above President Donald Trump's 3% goal" but the problem is that number is the year-over-year calculation. That is fine if you want to use those figures, but then you would have to use the same for Obama, which means without the spin, Obama did better without massive tax cuts than Trump did with them.

How the Republicans moved the goal posts on GDP - MarketWatch

Under that report Obama's 3.8% gdp growth for 2014-2015 was a "massive failure", so where does that leave Trump's 3.1%?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Well if you want to start with sources, the OP article is from IBD and IBD takes a conservative political stance in its news and analysis.
Click to expand...
Actually no, it takes a business/financial view point. It was, and still is highly critical of Trump's tariff wars.
CT said:
Here is a different take...

U.S. economic growth in 2018 misses Trump's 3 percent target | Reuters
Click to expand...
Yeah, IBD used a calendar year that just happened to coincide with the effective dates of the tax cuts. The 2.9% is based on fiscal year which includes one quarter before the cuts were enacted.
CT said:
You are awfully excited about a news article from a conservative publication and you ignored the parts regarding the tumbling housing market and increasing likelihood of recession because you liked this one line, "The report shows how Republican-backed tax cuts may have continued to aid growth and help bring the full-year figure to 3.1%, just above President Donald Trump's 3% goal" but the problem is that number is the year-over-year calculation. That is fine if you want to use those figures, but then you would have to use the same for Obama, which means without the spin, Obama did better without massive tax cuts than Trump did with them.
Click to expand...
LOL, yeah. toss out a few red herring to distract from the topic.
CT said:
How the Republicans moved the goal posts on GDP - MarketWatch

Under that report Obama's 3.8% gdp growth for 2014-2015 was a "massive failure", so where does that leave Trump's 3.1%?
Click to expand...
2014-2015 isn't a calendar year. Let's see 2014 or 2015
vs CY 2018

PS: you do see that is an "opinion", a classic "Nuh-uh" from the left.

But I do like this part of them opinion:
The reader notes that Jason Furman, who was President Barack Obama’s top economist, said he thought 3.1% was the better measure of how the economy performed, and not just because it was higher.
I agree, even though I used 2.9% in my column (for reasons I’ll explain later).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Actually no, it takes a business/financial view point. It was, and still is highly critical of Trump's tariff wars.
Yeah, IBD used a calendar year that just happened to coincide with the effective dates of the tax cuts. The 2.9% is based on fiscal year which includes one quarter before the cuts were enacted.
LOL, yeah. toss out a few red herring to distract from the topic.
2014-2015 isn't a calendar year. Let's see 2014 or 2015
vs CY 2018

PS: you do see that is an "opinion", a classic "Nuh-uh" from the left.

But I do like this part of them opinion:
Click to expand...

Lol. No. The 2018 CY for Trump is 2.9%. IBD used year-over-year to get 3.1%. If we are doing apples to apples then Obama CY 2015 was 2.9% to Trump CY 2018 which was 2.9%. Whereas year-over-year Obama 14/15 was 3.8% whereas year-over-year Trump 17/18 was 3.1%. You didn't even realize that IBD had confused you.
 
CriticalThought said:
Lol. No. The 2018 CY for Trump is 2.9%. IBD used year-over-year to get 3.1%. If we are doing apples to apples then Obama CY 2015 was 2.9% to Trump CY 2018 which was 2.9%. Whereas year-over-year Obama 14/15 was 3.8% whereas year-over-year Trump 17/18 was 3.1%. You didn't even realize that IBD had confused you.
Click to expand...
I'll go with the Market Watch guy 3.1% is the correct number. Blather on as you wish.

And again from your link:

This calculation measures how much the economy changed between Dec. 31, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018. What happened in 2017 is irrelevant. Only activity in 2018 is counted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
I'll go with the Market Watch guy 3.1% is the correct number. Blather on as you wish.

And again from your link:
Click to expand...

Good job. Keep reading. When you get to the end of the Market Watch article then let me know.
 
CriticalThought said:
Good job. Keep reading. When you get to the end of the Market Watch article then let me know.
Click to expand...
Nah, I've had enough of your supercilious bull****. I've proved my point and used your link to do so.
 
Bullseye said:
Nah, I've had enough of your supercilious bull****. I've proved my point and used your link to do so.
Click to expand...

Funny how when people are wrong they like to tuck tail and run. For others reading the thread...

The Republicans made a big point about how the economy never grew 3% in any year during Obama’s presidency. It was a wonderful, easy-to-understand symbol of what they depicted as Obama’s economic failures.

The best annual figure under Obama was 2.9% in 2015, and the Trump White House was sure it would beat that this year. It put everything it could into it: lots of jawboning, a big tax cut and a huge increase in government spending.

Unfortunately, the economy fell just short of Trump’s 3% goal post. According to the latest estimates, Trump’s best year just matches Obama’s best.

That’s why the White House switched to the 3.1% year-over-year figure when it touted Trump’s successes in its press release on GDP. The economic difference between 2.9% and 3.1% is trivial, but the political difference is the difference between the Greatest President Ever and the Kenyan Marxist.

Unfortunately for the pro-Trump spin machine, the best year-over-year growth in Obama’s presidency (3.8% from the first quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2015) is higher than the best year-over-year growth under Trump (3.1% from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018).
Click to expand...
 
Vern said:
Your confusion is not surprising. You’ve been inundated with conservative lies concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Here’s an excellent thread detailing the actual facts of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. The first thing you learn is that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started almost 4 years into Bush’s admin.



If you can make far to the second page of the thread you’ll see Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending a few months before a bubble based on predatory lending started. But FK, forget all the facts that prove Bush is responsible. The liars telling you he’s not responsible or even more hilariously blame Barney Frank are the same liars who told you “President Obama was born in kenya”, “his BC a forgery”, “he wants to kill old people”, the vile and disgusting “stand down” lies. And more recently they told you “republicans really really really want to balance the budget”. At some point you need to realize they’re liars.
Click to expand...

The only lies are the ones you're peddling. It was the Democrats that pushed banks into giving loans to people who wouldn't have qualified with their efforts put into the Community Reinvestment Act and Government Sponsored Agencies. And at least you know a little bit about one of the biggest players involved and responsible with Barney Frank, so you tried to head that off at the pass. Unfortunately for you, there's video evidence of Frank saying everything was A-OK and to keep things going, nothing to see here, while plenty of videos of Ron Paul clearly explaining the problem and the causes of the bubble due to these issues. And...wait for it...Paul point it all out before it happened. Not trying to Monday morning quarterback it after the fact and to rewrite history to blame Bush.

I've already had this discussion so many times and ya'll will never admit the facts right in front of your face. It never fails.
 
Bullseye said:
BS. Many of us spoke out on both issues.
Click to expand...

Only the libertarian-minded ones and the honest ones who weren't sucked into the 'compassionate conservatism' neocon BS. In other words, very very few on the Right.


Because tax cuts can't negate laws forcing lenders to ignore sensible qualification standards for creating mortgages - a tactic the Dems used for at least ten to fifteen years prior to the crash.
Click to expand...

As is typical with you hyperpartisans, you give half truths while ignoring the full context as it does not always suit your agenda. Reality is this: Bush Administration and Fed willingly ignored the warning signs in 2006. On top of that, banks were more than happy to hand out high-risk loans as they believed they were well insured against defaults.


Yaaawwwwnnnn. CBO says we MAY get to one trillion deficits by 2022. Predictions are notoriously wrong.
Click to expand...

Deficits are expected to be lower during better economic times. The government spends more during harder times in order to offset the impact of a recession/depression. At the same time the GDP deficit has been higher under Trump than it was under Obama's last few years in office. Wasn't that supposed to be one of Trump's biggest campaign points?


Look harder. My source is US Department of Commerce, yours is "the balance"? WTF "the balance".
Click to expand...

Show me how anything I posted is inaccurate. The Balance is a good source.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Bush was routinely criticized for his lack of s[ending control by conservatives.
Click to expand...

No, he was not. And I'd say provide sources, but I do not doubt there were a few outliers here and there who did criticize Bush spending. As I said, they were the rare libertarians and honest conservatives. Most of the GOP/conservatives were wrapped up in terrorism and the ME wars to even begin to care about his spending. And now history repeats itself as there is nary a peep about the debt and deficit from the right over Trump's spending.
 
Geoist said:
Only the libertarian-minded ones and the honest ones who weren't sucked into the 'compassionate conservatism' neocon BS. In other words, very very few on the Right.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. The criticism was wide spread.



Geoist said:
As is typical with you hyperpartisans, you give half truths while ignoring the full context as it does not always suit your agenda. Reality is this: Bush Administration and Fed willingly ignored the warning signs in 2006. On top of that, banks were more than happy to hand out high-risk loans as they believed they were well insured against defaults.
Click to expand...
Nothing "hyperpartisan" about facts. The mortgage crisis was a long time building - at least back to Clinton administration that cranked up the pressure on lender to show equal lending practices. Oh, and it was Dems like Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank that held up any corrective actions. Yeah, the GOP wasn't blameless but Dems led the parade from the beginning.



Geoist said:
Deficits are expected to be lower during better economic times. The government spends more during harder times in order to offset the impact of a recession/depression. At the same time the GDP deficit has been higher under Trump than it was under Obama's last few years in office. Wasn't that supposed to be one of Trump's biggest campaign points?
Click to expand...
And he's still in office, isn't he? Trump has a long way to got to match Obama's four Trillion Dollar deficits that totaled over $5.5 Trillion.



Geoist said:
Show me how anything I posted is inaccurate. The Balance is a good source.
Click to expand...
But CBO is better.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Sorry, no. The criticism was wide spread.
Click to expand...

Keep up the historical revisionism. No honest person believes you.



Nothing "hyperpartisan" about facts. The mortgage crisis was a long time building - at least back to Clinton administration that cranked up the pressure on lender to show equal lending practices. Oh, and it was Dems like Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank that held up any corrective actions. Yeah, the GOP wasn't blameless but Dems led the parade from the beginning.
Click to expand...

And I never said the Dems weren't blameless, themselves. However, people like you and Fish King choose to write a narrative that it was the evil Demoncrats who orchestrated the crisis. You are right in that the housing crisis was a longtime coming. There is a reason why economists call it a boom bust cycle. It has happened for over 200 years. Yes, that includes time way before those evil Demoncrats were writing legislation to make it easier to get a home loan.
 
Bullseye said:
Because tax cuts can't negate laws forcing lenders to ignore sensible qualification standards for creating mortgages - a tactic the Dems used for at least ten to fifteen years prior to the crash.
.
Click to expand...

Amazing how the debunked talking points from ten years ago....keep coming back.

Republicans and their Zombie "facts".

No lender ever, was forced to give a loan to anyone. Ever.
 
Vern said:
Its a shame conservatives didn't approve of deficits when the economy was recovering from the Great Bush Recession. With UE at 9%, a jobs bill that was mostly tax cuts was shot down by republicans because of concern for …… wait for it...…..deficits. With UE at a 25 year low, republicans think nothing of adding 300 billion to the deficit every year to help ….. wait for it.... UE. Hence proving they were flaming lying hypocrites and let Americans suffer and suffer longer for their political agenda.

and here's another thing. conservatives obediently called the stimulus a failure because it didn't live up to its "expectations". Post after post saying "ha,Obama promised UE wouldn't go over 8%". President Obama made no such claim. a chart in a report was dishonestly twisted into "Obama promised". And UE was over 8% before the stimulus was even signed. Geez, sometimes I forget how dishonest and/or dumb conservatives were. anyhoo, trump promised 4% GDP. no tortured dishonest narrative is required. He said it. He didn't meet his own standard. But lets face it, if conservatives can obediently flip flop on every narrative they spewed for 8 years concerning deficits, repealing Obamacare, vacations, golf, bailouts, stimulus, undermining our allies/embolden our enemies, adultery, investigations into corruption, the rule of law, income inequality and the constitution then this should be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

It is truly a shame that you have so little understanding of the U.S. economy and the private sector apparently sleeping through economics and civics classes in school. Your partisan rants ignore the official data and the actual results being generated as once again you spout partisanship not backed by any official data. The link does provide specific data that you refuse to even address as you continue your anti Trump tirades and total ignorance of civics, economics, and history
 
Geoist said:
No, he wasn't. Conservatives don't give a crap about out of control spending when their guy is in office.

Btw, why didn't those Bush Tax Cuts save the economy from the Great Recession?




Lol, what do you mean, none?
Trump's Economy: The Federal Budget Deficit Is On A Path To $1 Trillion
Deficit by Year: Compared to GDP, Debt, and Events



From what I'm seeing, 2018 was at 2.9% which ties Obama's 2015.
U.S. GDP by Year: Compared to Recessions and Events
Click to expand...

More negative predictions none of which when refuted by actual data are discussed and apologized for. What you are seeing is what you want to see and ignoring the impact of things like the Stimulus on GDP under Obama that didn't happen under Trump. Obama generated 4.2 trillion GDP Growth in 8 years, Trump has generated 2 trillion dollars in growth in two years. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and radicalism
 
Conservative said:
More negative predictions none of which when refuted by actual data are discussed and apologized for. What you are seeing is what you want to see and ignoring the impact of things like the Stimulus on GDP under Obama that didn't happen under Trump. Obama generated 4.2 trillion GDP Growth in 8 years, Trump has generated 2 trillion dollars in growth in two years. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and radicalism
Click to expand...

Obama inherited the worst recession in a generation. Trump inherited an economy with the longest period of sustained growth in a generation. It isn't loyalty or radicalism, it is not buying the apples and oranges bullcrap you guys have tried to peddle for years.
 
CriticalThought said:
Obama inherited the worst recession in a generation. Trump inherited an economy with the longest period of sustained growth in a generation. It isn't loyalty or radicalism, it is not buying the apples and oranges bullcrap you guys have tried to peddle for years.
Click to expand...

How long are you going to continue to promote that lie, the worst part of the recession was 2008 and TARP recapitalized the banks with 350 billion spent by Bush in 2008 by December 2008 so what Obama inherited was a Democratic Congress, TARP, NO budget, and had his stimulus passed almost Day 1.

He set up a website to track gov't spending, recovery.org a site that doesn't show the stimulus spending until AFTER the recession ended, June 2009 so exactly what did Obama do that brought us out of recession? Amazing what loyalty you have to Obama and liberalism!

What Ended the Great Recession?
 
Bullseye said:
Actually no, it takes a business/financial view point. It was, and still is highly critical of Trump's tariff wars.
Yeah, IBD used a calendar year that just happened to coincide with the effective dates of the tax cuts. The 2.9% is based on fiscal year which includes one quarter before the cuts were enacted.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Let’s look at the actual release from BEA Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter and Annual 2018 (Initial Estimate)

Scroll down to table 5 and you will see
“Percent change from preceding year” for 2018 is 2.9%
That is based on the change in the average annual level from 2017 to 2018 and is 2.9%


You will also see “Percent change from fourth quarter to fourth quarter one year ago” (self explanatory) and is at 3.1%.


Year to year is the usual number reported, not change from same quarter previous year.

But if you want to go that route:
Q3, 2010 was 3.2%
Q1, 2014 was 3.8%
Q2, 2014 was 3.4%


All data available at Apps Test | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Table 1.1.1 is change from previous period and table 1.1.11 is change from same period previous year.
 
Fishking said:
The only lies are the ones you're peddling. It was the Democrats that pushed banks into giving loans to people who wouldn't have qualified with their efforts put into the Community Reinvestment Act and Government Sponsored Agencies. And at least you know a little bit about one of the biggest players involved and responsible with Barney Frank, so you tried to head that off at the pass. Unfortunately for you, there's video evidence of Frank saying everything was A-OK and to keep things going, nothing to see here, while plenty of videos of Ron Paul clearly explaining the problem and the causes of the bubble due to these issues. And...wait for it...Paul point it all out before it happened. Not trying to Monday morning quarterback it after the fact and to rewrite history to blame Bush.

I've already had this discussion so many times and ya'll will never admit the facts right in front of your face. It never fails.
Click to expand...

FK, I don’t remember you ever having this conversation with me. And I wasn’t “trying to head you off at the pass”. I was trying to prevent you from posting another dishonest conservative narrative. Remember how you felt after you believed Elway’s lies? And fyi, this is what a “head them off at the pass” looks like
OpportunityCost said:
Just read the CRA government page before you ask for a source.
Click to expand...
That’s from the same thread I already directed you to. If you go to that thread you'll see bush telling Barney there was nothing wrong with the GSEs in post 20. In post 21 you’d see Bush stopping GSE reform in 2003. In post 66 you’ll see Barney telling Bush his policies will put people into houses they cant afford. In post 63 you see Bush once again stopping GSE reform. Let me post it for you. Pay close attention why Bush was against it.
Vern said:
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Click to expand...

Did you see it? Let me cut and paste the reason he was against GSE reform. It “would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.” There are more Bush policies and actions like those regarding the GSEs. So if you want to blame the GSE’s then you need to blame bush. And could you explain why you’re mad at Barney for ignoring a supposed Ron Paul warning but not the republican congress or president? Thanks in advance.
 
pinqy said:
Wrong.
Let’s look at the actual release from BEA Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter and Annual 2018 (Initial Estimate)

Scroll down to table 5 and you will see
“Percent change from preceding year” for 2018 is 2.9%
That is based on the change in the average annual level from 2017 to 2018 and is 2.9%


You will also see “Percent change from fourth quarter to fourth quarter one year ago” (self explanatory) and is at 3.1%.


Year to year is the usual number reported, not change from same quarter previous year.
If you read the link above you'd see this was already covered. Including the author's opinion that the same quarter comparisons more accurately describe the state of the economy.

pinqy said:
But if you want to go that route:
Q3, 2010 was 3.2%
Q1, 2014 was 3.8%
Q2, 2014 was 3.4%


All data available at Apps Test | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Table 1.1.1 is change from previous period and table 1.1.11 is change from same period previous year.
Click to expand...
Except quarterly data are projections, not actual numbers.

PS: Thanks for the link to the BEA data - looking at the quarter to quarter comparisons for 2016 shows just how poor the economy Trump "inherited" was doing, and how Trump has enjoyed a growing improvement each quarter compared to it's previous year. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom