• 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!

Bullseye said:
pinqy said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are multiple links in this thread. Which one do you mean?

Except quarterly data are projections, not actual numbers.
Click to expand...
The numbers I have were the change from same quarter in previous year....just like you are using.
So people cannot use the Q4-Q4 change of 3.1% for Trump and claim Obama never reached 3%
Using the same measure, either both exceeded 3% or neither has.

I’m not sure how you could think data from 2020 and 2014 are projections, though.
Click to expand...
 
Bullseye said:
Yes, Trumponomics strikes again: For the entire year of 2018 GDP grew 3.1%
Click to expand...

Bullseye, I see the economic data continues to confuse you. Lets try something simple. You are here celebrating trump's 2.8% GDP. Use the 3.1% you just discovered if you like. It makes no difference. Trump promised 4% and was allowed to balloon the deficit to achieve that. He failed. And here's the funny thing, your conservative "editorial" said this

"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.

I'm pretty sure his prediction was 4%

“We're bringing it (the GDP) from 1 percent up to 4 percent. And I actually think we can go higher than 4 percent. I think you can go to 5 percent or 6 percent.”

Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year | PolitiFact

well that was candidate Trump. what did "president" trump say after the tax cuts

At a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump told reporters he's holding out for the prospect of U.S. gross domestic product more than doubling to a 6 percent annual growth rate.

Trump's Economy: GDP Growth Could Be Slipping Away
 
Vern said:
Bullseye, I see the economic data continues to confuse you. Lets try something simple. You are here celebrating trump's 2.8% GDP. Use the 3.1% you just discovered if you like. It makes no difference. Trump promised 4% and was allowed to balloon the deficit to achieve that. He failed. And here's the funny thing, your conservative "editorial" said this

"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.

I'm pretty sure his prediction was 4%

“We're bringing it (the GDP) from 1 percent up to 4 percent. And I actually think we can go higher than 4 percent. I think you can go to 5 percent or 6 percent.”

Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year | PolitiFact

well that was candidate Trump. what did "president" trump say after the tax cuts

At a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump told reporters he's holding out for the prospect of U.S. gross domestic product more than doubling to a 6 percent annual growth rate.

Trump's Economy: GDP Growth Could Be Slipping Away
Click to expand...
Blather and insult all you want Vernie Boy.
 
Bullseye said:
Blather and insult all you want Vernie Boy.
Click to expand...

Bullseye, this is a debate forum not a preteen conservative chat room. I made clear straight forward points and I backed them up. trump predicted 4%. He was allowed to balloon the deficit (remember the days you pretended to care about that) and still did not meet his goal. whining at me and about me doesn't change that.
 
Vern said:
Bullseye, this is a debate forum not a preteen conservative chat room. I made clear straight forward points and I backed them up. trump predicted 4%. He was allowed to balloon the deficit (remember the days you pretended to care about that) and still did not meet his goal. whining at me and about me doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
LOL, delude yourself however you must, Vern.
 
Fishking said:
The only lies are the ones you're peddling. It was the Democrats ,,,,,,,,,.
Click to expand...

er uh FK, I don't mean to be a bother but you said I was "peddling lies". I responded in an honest and intelligent fashion with actual facts. Its one thing to cowardly cut and run from the facts I post but you're cowardly cutting and running after accusing me of "peddling lies" when you actually were. Why is that acceptable to you? Help me understand why your obedient narratives are more important than your integrity. thanks in advance.
 
CriticalThought said:
Given the amount of revenue the government gave up via the tax cuts to squeeze out that amount of growth, you cannot possibly think this is sustainable unless you ascribe to an unlimited borrowing theory.
Click to expand...
Correct.



[h=3]Latest forecast: 0.3 percent — March 4, 2019[/h]The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2019 is 0.3 percent on March 4, unchanged from March 1. After this morning’s construction spending release from the U.S. Census Bureau, the nowcast of first-quarter real nonresidential structures investment decreased from -0.8 percent to -2.7 percent and the nowcast of first-quarter real residential investment increased from -13.2 percent to -11.0 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Vern said:
er uh FK, I don't mean to be a bother but you said I was "peddling lies". I responded in an honest and intelligent fashion with actual facts. Its one thing to cowardly cut and run from the facts I post but you're cowardly cutting and running after accusing me of "peddling lies" when you actually were. Why is that acceptable to you? Help me understand why your obedient narratives are more important than your integrity. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Because I've had this discussion so many times, and laid the lies bear, so many times.

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

Good article on the issue. It even mentions Bush's contribution but those contributions where just a small part of it and the policies were in place before Bush.

And, again, I'll take the word of someone who predicted the problem ahead of time over people trying to massage the facts to their favor every. single. time.
 
Fishking said:
Because I've had this discussion so many times, and laid the lies bear, so many times.

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

Good article on the issue. It even mentions Bush's contribution but those contributions where just a small part of it and the policies were in place before Bush.

And, again, I'll take the word of someone who predicted the problem ahead of time over people trying to massage the facts to their favor every. single. time.
Click to expand...

You've presented a poorly researched opinion piece.

If you want embrace a more technical/academic approach:

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
Click to expand...
 
Kushinator said:
Utter nonsense.

See above.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the economic interventionism by the left, and also some with Bush, was laid bare long ago. This isn't a matter of opinion now to be litigated by discussion but a matter of recorded facts. It's cause and effect but those who think they can mess with the market in such manners will always make excuses.

Btw...you didn't debunk the link. You just said, "Nuh-uh".
 
Fishking said:
Sorry, but the economic interventionism by the left, and also some with Bush, was laid bare long ago.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI: tariffs are a form of economic interventionism.

This isn't a matter of opinion now to be litigated by discussion but a matter of recorded facts. It's cause and effect but those who think they can mess with the market in such manners will always make excuses.
Click to expand...

So you didn't read the research article:
only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
Btw...you didn't debunk the link. You just said, "Nuh-uh".
Click to expand...

The poorly researched article claimed the CRA forced banks to make risky loans. But that isn't what the data shows.
To gain further insight into the risks of lending to lower-income borrowers or areas, we also compared the performance of first mortgages originated and held in portfolio under the nationwide affordable lending programs operated by the NeighborWorks® America (NWA) partners to the performance of loans of various types as reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. Many loans originated through NWA programs are done in conjunction with banking institutions subject to the CRA, so the performance of these loans provides another basis to address the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis. Along any measure of the severity of loan delinquency or the incidence of foreclosure, the loans originated under the NWA program have performed better than subprime loans.
Click to expand...

snip

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.
Click to expand...

To be quite frank, you don't know what you're talking about.
 
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...

Just to point out two problems with your post, noted above. They are called "Government Sponsored Entities", not "Agencies". And the purpose of the CRA was not to make loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for a loan. That was never its purpose then or now. That isn't what the CRA does.

I make my living in this space and have for decades. I know the CRA inside and out. I know the CRA exams inside and out. I know how each financial institution subject to the CRA has to manage their CRA activities, and what information on their activities and investments needs to be submitted and when, and what an ISB exam versus a large bank exam looks like, and what an FDIC exam versus and OCC exam versus an FRB exam looks like, and what data is examined, and how they examine performance versus peers, and what points of data are being examined for mortgage data and small business data, and how assessment areas are mapped and managed, and how the I/O ratio is examined, and how the examiners review REMA, and so on. Which is why it annoys me when I see people who know nothing about the CRA post about it.

There is nothing, now, then, or even in the modernization efforts underway today, that requires a bank to make a loan that increases their risk or is outside of their normal lending guidelines. The CRA was intended to make banks loan in underserved areas, with minority and LMI census tracts, rather than only lend to upper middle class white people. There is nothing in the CRA that addresses ability to repay. Shockingly, just because someone is a minority does not mean that he isn't qualified to get a mortgage. Even people who live in low to moderate income tracts work and can afford a low mortgage payment on an inexpensive property.
 
Fishking said:
Because I've had this discussion so many times, and laid the lies bear, so many times.
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
Good article on the issue. It even mentions Bush's contribution but those contributions where just a small part of it and the policies were in place before Bush.
And, again, I'll take the word of someone who predicted the problem ahead of time over people trying to massage the facts to their favor every. single. time.
Click to expand...

FK maybe you’ve had this discussion many times before but not with me. And clearly you’ve not used actual facts in these discussions as evidenced by your previous narratives and this “editorial”. Read this very very slowly, your editorial doesn’t make me a liar. And I see we’re no longer discussing your “Frank and GSEs are to blame” narratives. Why is that? Oh yea, I shredded them. So now you pretend you never posted them to focus on the CRA. FK, your narratives aren’t paper towels to throw away when done. You posted things were demonstrably false and now pretend you didn’t.

There are simply no facts you can post that in any way point to the CRA being responsible. Its why you have to post an “editorial” instead of facts. Check out this silly hyperbole from your “editorial"

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.

Yep, “the CRA dug a pit”. You do realize that is not a fact right? Yea, probably not. Anyhoo, the CRA forced nothing (and dug no pit) but if you want to believe the CRA did anything then be mad at Bush. The regulators who would have done this “forcing” worked for Bush. Kush and Tres have shredded your latest obedient narrative. You can always go the FAQ thread if you want to learn more facts that shred your narrative.

And look, you repeat your “ron paul” narrative as if it’s a fact. I already asked if he did warn us, why aren’t you mad at the republican president, the republican senate and the republican house for not listening? If Ron Paul warned us as you claim, why you don’t hold the people in charge accountable? Oh yea, you’re a conservative. Accountability aint your thing.
 
Vern said:
FK maybe you’ve had this discussion many times before but not with me. And clearly you’ve not used actual facts in these discussions as evidenced by your previous narratives and this “editorial”. Read this very very slowly, your editorial doesn’t make me a liar. And I see we’re no longer discussing your “Frank and GSEs are to blame” narratives. Why is that? Oh yea, I shredded them. So now you pretend you never posted them to focus on the CRA. FK, your narratives aren’t paper towels to throw away when done. You posted things were demonstrably false and now pretend you didn’t.
Click to expand...

I didn't forget about the GSEs. They played their role in the matter, in combination with the changes to the CRA, to create the bubble and unstable housing market. The GSEs gobbled down trillions in bad loans, which encouraged the behavior in tandem with the CRA being used to pressure banks into making loans they wouldn't have made in the first place.

Establishing one fact then allows for others to be established. And, again...you trying to Monday morning QB it after the fact to fit your narrative will always be not as trustworthy as someone who predicted it ahead of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom