GDP for Second quarter expected to top 4%
This is great news. In the Obama years, we were told 3% GDP is what we can expect for years to come...as it turned out, that is no the case.
With every 1% rise in GDP, it translate to 1 trillion dollars of wealth...Without healthy international trading partners. US will not reach 4℅. to begin paying the national debt. Many countries will stop trading the US and Petrol dollar. Since it's clear 193 countries are for clean green energy. They won't trade for the US dirty oil or Fossil energy as Trump plans to be world number 1 king of.
The world wants working alternative products and many are ready to go, just need decent political will power.It's no news. Only Fox News and Trump are saying 4%, and it hasn't even been released by the Fed yet. The Fed estimate is 3.4%.
Besides, if it's above 3%, the number is a lie. Remember every time the Obama administration had a positive number? The right wing fanatics shrieked they were lies.
The shoe is now on the other foot.
That may be truth but jobs are real, trade deals and tariff are real. When company open a manufacturing plant, that is real. When energy production of oil and gas, all real.
You can’t manupulate those numbers could you?
For you and the rest of the media except Fox, to deny there is real economic progress under this president just make you out to be in denial.
That is fine by me. I prefer to live in the real world where people are working...making a living and paying taxes.4.1% is the released number. Paul Krugman - eat your heart out. Boy did you get Trump wrong on the economy.
He and Obama said 2% is the new norm.Jacklee , I believe You and I both know where they are going to take issue with that # ! Fake ! Made Up !
Trump invented and is now controlling the people who put that # out ...........:-]They can delude themselves all they want. The economy is on the mend after 8 years of anemic growth, artificially created by the Obama policies.
Yes there will be ups and downs over the next decade but not like the way it has been in the 0% interest rate environment. Janet Yellen has a lot to answer for...IMHO. MAGA.The only issue I'll take is with "anemic growth ", Where was the growth part of that Jack.
WAMAGA.
"We Are "..............;-]Trump announced 4.1 GDP
US in the 1950s GDP was 3.1. When 50℅ of Americans were in manufacturing and today only 10℅ .
Then US dollars in the 50s was 90℅ of world trade currency, today down to 50℅ and about to crash. Now US has more trade and tariffs wars greater since the 30s great depression.
Trump World is flawed by measure GDP in what is cool, not counting well the service sectors. People are getting tired of being lied to in this Trump era. This constant and obvious lies and exaggerations, will have a backlash against the bullsh*t, the lying, the posturing.I TOOOOOLD YOOOOU ALLLL SOOOOOO!
4.1 is a lie .From where I stand, the only people doing the lying is the democrats and the media. They say we are stuck with 2% gdp and coal is never coming back and the pipeline is not good for our environment...
All false narratives. Oh yes, that global warming is the greatest threat to our survival...Democrats are even as we speak looking for impeachment reason #183 .........all previous numbers are "water under the bridge " and they stand around scratching their heads wondering why they're voting base is actually abandoning their voting party , Blacks , minorities , women , immigrants are all flocking away from a Democratic history of flagrantly corrupted scandals one after another .
THe utter incompetence of that party is wide blooming , Turns out they can't even obstruct another party without falling on their face lately , But Hey ! Community huh , At least they all got together and bought Hillary a Life Alert Button and a new blue house coat !Trump strongly moves towards coal, dirty oil and a series of other tonic products when the world is moving away from it.
China there a few whole cities are running on solar bio fuel and thermal energy. They close down any new coal projects. Then give China in a few years to be the new superpower of the 21st century.
Being a green party reporter, the deaths and illness related to locals in China coal and the Tar sand in Alberta. A coal miner in Virginia life expectancy is age 50, Trump just cut their live by 30 years again. This makes Hiroshima look dangerously tiny . Trump wants to champion these toxic products and give tax cut to the glorious wealthy, What a match made in hell.
Got any other postive actions from Trump we can debunk.You have been brain washed by the UN and the IPCC to think fissil fuel is our enemy. It is just the opposite. Fossil fuel will be around a long time and more reliable than renewable sources. The environment had nothing to do with clean energy. We have been doen this road before. We had terrible air pollution in the 1970s here in NY and LA but they were solved with catalytic converters in exhaust. Gas is still under $3 a gallon here in the US. What is it in green countries?
Trump is not intelligent enough to do anything with decency for America. He would need GDP to be over 4℅ to begin to pay back the national debt, which adverage out to $65,200 per person.
Donald Trump promised to eliminate the United States' $19 trillion in debt in eight years. This should coincide with his lie of GDP 4.1 now.
So far Federal Debt is about $21,265,465,085,278.12. when include State and local debt over 24 trillion. much faster than Obama.
When the old in the shoe had so many children she did not know what to do. So, she kicked the old man out. America should do the same with Trump
There is no amount of cars, murders or wars will kill you faster than Trump plans for dirty oil and fracking for America. If That Gold is more important than your health, I say it's a lousy, low down, and con trade off moving in the wrong direction. I will ask my American family to move faster to a safer country.
By the way, it didn’t make sense to me during the oil crisis in the 1980s when we were under the thumbs of the Arab OPEC cartel and yet were prevented to drill for oil in our own land and waters. Now we are a leading producer of oil and natural gas under Trump.
No, it's a lie just like the 8 years that Obama lied about every one of his numbers.
You guys still fail to see my point about propaganda.In this new environment of fake news and spin and bias... I expected nothing more. That is why the media is in such disarray and one of the least trusted profession.
Numbers don’t lie. If you do the work, you can get past the hype and the spin and get at the source of the data.
There are real numbers on revenue and taxes and spending...there are real numbers on goods and services produced. There are real numbers on jobs and employment...
You can perpetuate the lie or you can be part of the solution. Just take my advice for what its worth and get off the TDS wagon. It will crash and burn in the mid term election. Mark my words.That Trump would lie? The estimate yesterday on the Fed's own website was exactly 3.37%.
Today it's suddenly 4.1%. Proof of a lie.Numbers don't lie? Ha! In your world, President Obama was a failed President even though the stock market more than doubled under his presidency while Trump is a huge success, though the stock market hasn't advanced anywhere near that percentage.
Tell me again how numbers don't lie?
All I see is pure hypocrisy.It is amazing to me to read some of the postings here...
When the economy is having such a great news, some are arguing for the fakeness of the number? Or how it was great under Obama?
Or how bad it is under Trump???
What they should be celebrating is the economic recovery of America which will bring jobs and commerce and vitality and positive outlook for our fellow Americans...
And thank Trump and his policies for bringing this about...
Why must everything be politicized?I said below that it's great news. It's just that it's not a recovery. And when Obama pulled us out of the recession, were you celebrating the recovery or were you just mocking Obama?
You expect everyone to jump up and down because of the improved economics, but when Obama was in office, saving us from recession, were you doing the same? No, you were just whining how it wasn't recovering fast enough.
And again, deregulatory behavior resulted in the last recession, so let's see how it goes.
Bottom line though, the economy looks great right now.I criticized both Bush and Obama for the stimlus bill of 1 trillion which was an increased to our debt. The recession was saved under Obama and I gave him credit however, what I criticized him was to promote a slow growrh scenario where we had 6 years of near zero growth. It was the weakest economic recovery of a recession in the past 60 years. These are numbers anyone can lookup. There is no spin or lie. Obama was at the helm with little growth. And one more thing, he blamed Bush for the lack of economic progress into his 2nd term. Now, he claims credit for the recovery under Trump....
So are you criticizing Trump for increasing the debt another 1 trillion? And your interpretation of slow growth is spin. You don't know what growth should look like nor does anyone else. Anyone can claim anything should be bigger or better than it is. I'm really pissed at Obama for not tripling the stock market.
Presidents really don't change the economy, no one person can. Although they sure can F*ck it up, as usual.
Yes I did in another forum. When Trump signed the last budget that added more debt, I was against it. At some point, the President has to say no to the spineless Congress.
They say baby African elephants are born weighing around two hundred and fifty pounds. Except for the democrats, they are the biggest babies on earth.
Does that mean Republicans are the biggest hypocrites on earth?
I said, quite clearly, that the economy is doing great. The point I'm making, which is similar to the one promisem was making, though it all seems to be going over your head, is do you expect liberals to jump up and down the same way you were jumping up and down when Obama pulled us out of the recession?
You want me to give Trump credit? I have said the economy is doing great. Did you give Obama the same credit? If not, why do you expect liberals to behave any differently than conservatives?
One might argue that Trump's economic improvement has something to do with a giant tax gift that's pushed the debt from one trillion to two trillion dollars. He's a very good Keynesian.
You know what else I'm happy to admit? I liked Trump's big tax giveaway. I saw a nice bump in my paycheck. I like money. I like having more of it.
I also liked that Trump criticized the Fed recently for raising interest rates. He knows that if they keep going up, it'll slow the economy.
Because Fox News, Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh made it so starting with Obama.
You can't have it both ways.Is it Fox news or is the main stream media being so biased that created the need for “Fox news”...? Like the chicken or the egg dilemma.
Your again letting your TDS get the best of you. It's been reported by other media outlets. Even liberal ones.
NPR
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/63264071 … mber-today
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/busi … y-gdp.htmlSee above. You can't have it both ways unless you have your own version of TDS.
"Only Fox News and Trump are saying 4%"...my point...it's being reported by many news outlets.
How did the number magically leap overnight from 3.4% to the 4.1% that Trump somehow predicted days ago?
The numbers change and will change a month from now... it is often revised a month later when more accurate data is collected.
The way it works, they estimate the number based on set of financial data which are in turn estimates...Hi jackclee, I think the numbers are great too. And with no intention to dismiss your points, I have one to ask you to consider. I have only heard it, I have not checked into it, but ...
A couple CNN contributors made an effort to emphasize that the number may be artificially inflated, (not falsely or purposely), by the staggering increase in sales of soy beans and other agricultural product purchases that were made to beat the coming tariffs. Numbers like, 3000 to 9000% increases above previous quarter purchases were cited.
I think that is a valid consideration. Maybe not enough to deflate the meaning and symbolism of the high GDP number, but certainly enough to affect it.
What do you think?
GAI heard the same argument but the GDP is not just based on trade in futures...it is a measure of real productivity and consumer spending and all kinds of data... I would expect some revision next month or quarter as more real data come in but the trend and actual productivity and consumer confidence is more at play.
I can agree with your points jackclee. Particularly the consumer spending one. Which I think bears on the pre-tariff purchase issue. It wasn't my understanding those were "futures" trading, but actual purchases. I think that even "futures" contracts will be affected by the tariffs if they are executed post-tariff.
Still, I am not arguing this as a point to counter the good news of the GDP number, or your points. I also understand that there will probably be an adjustment when the hard data - that is now only projected data that they are using for this estimate, arrives.
However, I do think those pre-tariff purchases that possibly inflated this quarter's number, will certainly have an impact on next quarter's number - if the now-proposed tariffs are firmly in place next quarter.
It was just a thought. Even if that thought is valid, this quarter's numbers are still a thing to be happy about.
GA.I agree. Let’s hope the new EU trade deal will help this along and improve on this quarter. So far, Trump seems to know how to make deals that benefit the US which is his primary duty as President of the US and to keep us safe.
I can't figure how Trumps fans don't see him as lying most of time, it really blows me away.
The national debt is moving at a historical record pace of deeper debt. If the debt machine is not moving in reverse, like it's being paid off from the GDP over 4.0 growth.
Then you should know your being lied to and scammed. Or Trump and his mafia lawyers are stealing it.That is your problem. Most others can’t understand why Trump haters goes overboard with TDS that they seem to loose all common sense.
If Trump is able to improve the lives of all Americans by improving our economy, why is that not acknowledged?
He can be both a egotist and a good executive. There is not just one dimension.Don't confess hate with great disagreement. I'm unattached to politics and take no personal stake in the game. In order to base my life on good sense. Some with common sense maybe hypnotized and deeply programed from birth.
There are therapists who treat people suffering with "Trump Anxiety Disorder" I believe this is a treatable mental health issue. Those who suffer with this must realize there is help available.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/29/u … y-disorder
This is good news. How can anyone argue with that kind of growth rate? Donald Trump deserves credit as does President Obama, who saved us from the economy of the previous Republican president who drove it into the recession ditch.
The thing is, you either acknowledge the successes of both or neither.
My sincere hope is that Trump's deregulatory environment doesn't create the same kind of condition that Bush's created because, as you may remember, everyone was very excited about Bush's economic growth pattern for a time.Don't believe one word of over 4.0.
Until the Nation debt digital starts moving in reverse of more than 21 trillion $, by each American debt cleared of $65,200 as Trump promises. I'll wait for hell to freeze over.Yes in 2014 Obama in the 3rd quarter he a had GDP of 5%. In the following quarter, it fell to a dismal 2% and was dismal until he left office. I am tired of every conversation becoming an "Obama did this". I simply stated a nice stat on our economy's growth pattern. I for one am happy to see the ecconomy doing well. You should be too...
Did you praise Obama when he hit 5.1%?
And no, he didn't do only 2% for the rest of his presidency.
And no, I'm not happy with a fake temporary boost that relied on a one time transfer of money from the tax cuts.Actually, I think my statement was clear? "Yes in 2014 Obama in the 3rd quarter he a had GDP of 5%. In the following quarter, it fell to a dismal 2% and was dismal until he left office." The remainder of his tenure it was dismal or perhaps I should have said flat? So, you are predicting this latest GDP is a flash in the pan? Not sure I would predict the next quarter, it might be even better. Actually, I was pleased when the GDP jumped in mid-2014 but was soon disgusted when it bottomed out.
Not sure how my posting a message meant for Jack in regards to celebrating the latest GDP turned into once again a comparison of the Obama Tenure? It is clear we disagree in regards to the president and his job performance. It's almost embarrassing to point out the differences in job performance between the two. I have added a link to a good chart in regards to GDP histories. There were only a few presidents that stuck out with very bleak stats, and Obama was one of them and Truman. Although, Truman even did better with a post-war economy than Obama. Not sure it's constructive to keep comparing Trump and Obama? Plus it's early in Trump's tenure.
https://www.hudson.org/research/12714-e … -president
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 … in-the-us/This chart below proves quite clearly that the Obama economy was not "dismal" in his final years.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLENI
Your link from Hudson is irrelevant for the obvious reason that Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Of course his average number will be lower.
I asked if you praised Obama the way you did Trump. You simply acknowledged Obama had a quarter with a 5.1% increase.
The obvious point about bringing up Obama is the multiple double standards that far right conservatives keep posting on here ad nauseum:
1. All conservatives good, all liberals bad.
2. All Republicans great, all Democrats bad.
3. Trump all good, Obama all bad.
4. Trump economy great, Obama economy terrible.
Etcetera.
I think most people agree the economy is growing.
But there seems to be some disagreement about what the Trump administration's policies have contributed to that growth. E.g:
GDP has risen yearly for the last nine years. The increase was greater than 4% on four occasions between 2009 and 2017 (the highest was 5.3%)(1)(2)
So the most you can reasonably say is that Trump's administration hasn't stopped the continuing growth of GDP (so far).
The rate of unemployment was 7.8% in 2009, reduced to 4.8% by 2017, and has continued to fall (3.9% this month)(3). Since the election (19 months) the economy has added 3.7 million jobs(4). In the 19 months before the election, the economy added 4.3 million jobs.
So the most you can reasonably say is that the Trump administration hasn't reversed the existing downward trend in unemployment rate, or the existing upward trend in number of jobs created (so far).
Trump said: "More than 10 million additional Americans had been added to food stamps, past years. But we've turned it all around."(5)
The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has reduced every year since 2013(6).
So the most you can reasonably say is that the Trump administration has not stopped the existing downward trend for the number of people in SNAP since 2013.
So I agree, this continuation of existing trends is definitely great news, but it is a continuation of existing trends. Trump's claim that "We have accomplished an economic turnaround of HISTORIC proportions!"(7) is not borne out by the facts (unless by "we" he is also referring to the previous administration).
(1) https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
(2) https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2542 … 2009-2017/
(3) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
(4) ibid
(5) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st … p-economy/
(6) https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplementa … ogram-snap
(7) https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta … 1767288834I disagree totally with your analysis. The bottom line is what would have happened if Hillary was elected president?
Would we have these dramatic changes in our economic prospects or a continuation of Obama’s anemic recovery?
Would we have a tax reform package passed that is substantial last 30 years? No.
Will we have roll bsck of regulations, 2 removed for every one added?
No.
Would companies move their offshore cash back to the US and build new plants and added jobs? No.
Would the XL pipeline be build? No.
For these and many other actions and policies, it is Trump who has done it. Not a trend that was started by Obama.
I would go even further.
If Obama had done the same things, we would have gotten the results much earlier and not waited 8 years to reach a GDP of 4.1%. After every past recession over the last 50 years, the recovery was strong except in 2008. How come?Previous performance of the economy is one area we don't need to speculate about. So I'll refrain from guessing what Hilary Clinton might or might not have done as president. It isn't factual and adds nothing to the discussion.
Your opening comment and the title of the thread refer to GDP. Trump referred to the unemployment rate, number of jobs created, number of people on food stamps as key performance indicators for the economy. If you want to bring in other KPIs to demonstrate what the Trump administration has contributed, I'd be happy to look at them.
In the meantime, the facts show that the Trump administration has merely continued trends that started during a different administration. Which of those facts do you dispute?
As I said, that continuation is good news, but it is, at best, a continuation.I disagree it is a continuation. That is what Obama defenders want to portray that the current good news on the economic front was going to happen anyway. Am I right?
As a student of history and science, we all know things don’t happen in trends. The stock market crash of 1929 was not a trend.
To say that things will continue in a straight line either up or down or sideways may be true for short durations. Not for 8-10 years. What is happening today is no short of a miracle.
When Apple anniunce it was investing billions in the USA to build iPhones, that is no trend, it is a revolution. You can continue to live in that dream world of Obama’s hope and change. I rather live in the real world where a good job beats welfare anyday of the week.The Federal Reserve disagrees with you.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLENI
By the way, the graph on the link above still shows 3.37% in the second quarter of this year. Not the 4.1% that Trump predicted weeks ago and that magically came true.The federal reserve was part of the problem over the last 8 years. They artificially kept the fund rate near 0% in order to help increase our borrowing and our debt. It was like getting free money...
Did you look at the chart? It shows no sudden recovery when Trump took office.
The Federal Reserve did what all Feds do during a recession, which is cut the funds rate to re-stimulate the economy. It's standard practice.
In this case, they had to cut it a lot because of the depth of the recession.A picture is worth 1000 words. Here is a plot of the Federal Reserve fund rate since 2001.
The recession of 2008 ended in 2009.
Again, did you look at the chart I linked?
Your chart isn't helpful. The end of a recession is simply the end of a decline. It doesn't mean everything is good again.
The Fed said for years they were keeping rates low until the economy was fully healed.That is a cop out. I remember those days. Everytime they hint at a rise of a quarter point in interest rate, the stock market drop. That is how the federal reserve make fiscal and monetary policy based on the DOW? Give me a break.
The chart is as plain as day and night. It shows how the interest rate was manipulated artificially to stay at zero percent for 8 long years. The purpose is so the deferal govenment can continue to borrow and print money which they can pay back with zero interest, another word free money. This was happening while the American savers and people with bank savings were getting screwed with very low interest return.
Do you deny that?How about this chart that is even more telling? Can you spot what iis wrong with this picture? Put on your thinking cap....
We had several recessions during that period followed by a striong recovery until 2008...
Here is my personal assessment based on years of living and working and studying...
1. Obama inherited a bad recession.
2. He did what was needed to help recover...though some might say he did too much. The economy has a natural cycle of up and down. We can’t control this any more than you can force water to flow up strwam.
3. By spending and borrowing with quantitative easing at the federal level and driving up the debt rapidly, he needed to pay for it by keeping the interest rate low.
If the interest rate was allowed to flow freely, it would have gone back to 4% which is historically the proper rate.
It would have blown our budget and our interest payment on just the debt would have bankrupted us. Just di the math 20 trillion at 4% interest per year.???
4. In a way, what Obama did was to delay the economic cycle of recovery and it took the election of Trump to unleash the boom. As you can see, the interest rate is rising and will reach 4% by the end of Trump’s term.Again, meaningless. Interest rates worldwide have steadily declined over the last few decades.
The chart has nothing to do with the point I keep making. Please answer my question.
Asking you if you look at the chart on the link is not a copout. It's a very simple question.
You still didn't answer my question or admit the obvious fact on the chart that the economy didn't magically zoom skyward after Trump took over.
Economy does not work that way. Here is another free lesson. There is a lag between the time a policy or law is passed and the time it makes an effect. That is true of spending and budget and tax lreform. The first year of Trump, the budget and spnding at the federal level was already baked in.
It's a fairly good prediction that Trump's economic policies will far outshadow in success any leading positives he inherited from that socialist guy Obama .
Look at the repatriation alone , Let's face it Obama drove away every economically under -confident corporation that Trump is luring back , Apple* is looking at a huge US investment . Trump's economy one year into the post Obama - is blisteringly successful and will overshadow even Obama's AHCA
legacy . In five years no one will even remember Obama ................."Who was that guy "?You still didn't answer my question. How many times do I have to ask?
A picture is worth a 1000 words. Any one seeing this plot of the Dow over the last 5 years and still call it a continuing trend?
LOL. I'll just copy and paste the sentence:
You still didn't answer my question. How many times do I have to ask?I have said all I need to say. You can take it or leave it.
One more thing, why don’t we just give Obama the Nobel prize for economics since he is so great in recovering from the great recession that 10 years after, we are still reaping the benefit of his wisdom.
Hi jackclee, Sorry, but I just had to jump in. (you know how the forums are lately, it's hard to find a "discussion" to join ;-) )
I don't mean to pile on you, and I am not intending to reinforce Don's points, (even though I must), but as the rational thinker and student of history and science that you say you are, I just don't understand your refusal to accept the presented facts - as facts.
Of the points Don presented, every one can be graphically represented to be true. All the areas mentioned, (except maybe the 4% GDP one), really do qualify for the description of a continuation of a trend.
The point wasn't that these things would have happened anyway -- I didn't read anything that implied that was the point -- because there is no way to tell that. Things could have tanked immediately, or, rather than numbers that fit the "continuation" description they could have been double or triple stellar numbers. (Don did make the point of crediting Pres. Trump for continuing the continuation)
And what would have happened if Hillary was president wasn't a point in the discussion either.
I am making no reference to your counter points of Pres. Trump's accomplishments, but I don't see how you can make the claims you do and then deny factual proof that counters your disagreement.
GADon, That is perfectly fine. I have no problem defending my claim. I guess it is a matter of perception rather than hard data.
I hear this all the time while Obama was president and the economy was slow in recovery and the blame was placed on the Bush administration...even after 4 years out of office... If you recall, the logic was, the recession was so deep that it took years to recover...
Now, that Trump reversed a slow economy, it is again the Obama recovery that is just continuing a trend...
That is what I am against. The colorization of what happened from 2008-2016. As a student of history, it is said, if a falsehood is told enough times, it became the truth.
That is the falsehood I am against. Let me put it another way, if things were as good as what these people say they were under Obama, why did the Democrats retain power instead of losing their power all these 8 years?
After all, under Reagan’s 8 years, things were really good and they elected Bush 41 didn’t they?
You have to ask yourself? What is going on here.
I don’t need the data to tell me what happened over those 8 years of Obama. I can list a whole bunch of things that he did, including the passing of the ACA which directly affected business in our country. It lead to the conversion of many fulltime jobs to part time jobs to avoid the healthcare mandate...If the economic indicators Trump referred to which were previously going down, were now going up and vice versa, then you could reasonably say those economic trends had been reversed.
That's not the case. Indicators Trumped referred to continue to show the same trend they previously did, which means they are continuing.
Trump wants to tell the story of ". . . an economic turnaround of HISTORIC proportions!" but the indicators he has referred to tell the story of a continuation of economic trends.
I don't care whether you love/hate Obama or love/hate Trump. This is not a matter of perception. It is a matter of fact. Facts don't stop being facts because they don't fit the story you want to tell.It is not just my story but millions of others. Those miners who were told by Obama their jobs are never coming back... or those constuction workers building the XL pipeline, or just retiree who has a better pension prospect...
You are the one telling a story as if things are just fine before Trump and just getting better day by day. I am not buying it and many of hard working tax paying people are not buying it either.
Consumer confidence, and economic activity have improved dramatically under Trump.
That's all well and good - for your perspective jackclee, but how does that square with the provable data facts that support Don's contention of continuation, that you declare to be wrong?
I wasn't addressing your opinion of Pres. Obama's tenure, nor your opinion of Press. Trump's accomplishments. And I certainly wasn't addressing Bush or Reagan, or the "colorization" of any time period.
I was simply asking about your disagreement with provable statistical facts. Even if the truth of those facts wouldn't change your opinion, how do justify denying their truth?
GAGA, I will refer you to the famous quote by Mark Twain -
Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure...That's it? That is the explanation of a rational thinking student of history and science?
Okay, have at it. You set your bar and I will set mine.
ps. I hope I was too naive in giving you the benefit of the doubt that the "liar" reference wasn't specifically directed at me
GAObviously it was not directed at you. However, you fall into the category of being deceived by figures. You don’t see the big picture and focus of the details where it matters little. There are people who frequents this forum and write articles and use data to justify their own bias. A prime example is one that claim Reagan was the worst President and cite fact after fact which are all true... but yet to claim Reagan was the worst President just doesn’t jive. Another example is one who worked his whole career in the federal government in some stats department. He can go into excrutiating details and charts and tables to explain why the government is efficient and accomplishing the most to help people. It is all a lie. The government is the least efficient. In every category and department, we see waste and fraud and yet this guy believes otherwise and try to justify his believe with “data”.
The bottom line is -is Trump a consequential president or not? Did he accomplish what he set out to do as he promised the American people?
And what were the results so far?After that, ... you fall into the category of being deceived by figures" crack, you don't get a free pass on this one jackclee.
Relative to the context of my comments which were discussing specific provable points, there was no "big picture" involved. There were no generalizations, and there were no ideological perspectives.
There were no conclusions -- relative to Pres. Trump -- drawn. There was simply a questioning of your claim to credentials in the face of your denial of hard facts.
Your claims of Conservative - but party-neutral, perspectives, of being a student of history and science, and of being a rational thinker, lack substance when your response to a challenge of provable facts is stuff like:
"I disagree totally with your analysis. The bottom line is what would have happened if Hillary was elected president? " - No jackclee, the "bottom line would have been to address the presented points you declared you disagreed with - Hillary was never part of the conversation.
"I disagree it is a continuation. That is what Obama defenders want to portray that the current good news on the economic front was going to happen anyway. Am I right? " No jackclee, you are not right. You state disagreement with the presented points, (which factually show you are wrong), but refuse to address those points, and then deflect with an "Obama defenders" rationalization.
"I hear this all the time while Obama was president and the economy was slow in recovery and the blame was placed on the Bush administration...even after 4 years out of office...
"... I don’t need the data to tell me what happened over those 8 years of Obama."
So as a holder of the credentials you claim, you still don't address the specific points of the exchange you are having, and boastfully declare that you "don't need data?" Geesh.
I thought the clincher was this one:
"... Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure..." Do you really want to own that one as an authoritative response to a data set?
But, you topped even that with your unsupported claim, (see all above), claim that I was being "deceived by the figures," (well, why didn't you use those three attempts to explain how the figures were deceiving me, instead of deflecting to generalities? I wasn't speaking of generalities), and then claiming that I wasn't seeing the big picture, when the big picture was never a part of this exchange.
Hang in there jackclee, generalities and perspectives are easier to defend than factual statements. I think you should consider the things you choose to refute, and your claims of expertise a little more carefully.
GAGA, I guess you forced me to repond and I will just to indicate how the data does not indicate everything.
Let’s take unemployment rate.
The claim is that unemployment rate has steadily decreased under Obama and Trump just continued that trend...
We are talking about the U3 number that is often quoted.
However, as any real person knows, rhat number is not telling the whole picture. The better measure is the U6 number which os often double of the U3 number. The reason is some that have been laid off and have collected unemployment checks for 26 weeks are no longer counted. So, there are millions of people who stopped trying to find work after their benefits ran out. Also, there are many people forced into P/T work due to the ACA which again is not counted.
Here is the kicker. Under President Obama, the labor participation rate has declined steadily so that the unemployment number U3, is not an accurate measure. Under Trump, the labor participation rate went up, due to the more positive labor environment and more jobs available. Therefore, the U3 rate going down is expected but does not account for the increased labor force. So the current 3.9% is a percentage of a higher labor pool.
That my friend is an education on economics that you will never learn in school.Here is the labor participation rate over the last 10 years...
If that is the case, the baby boomer will be retiring in bigger numbers in the next few years...so it should decine more. I am willing to bet, this number starting to go up despite the retiring baby boomers. There are millions of able bodied people out of the work force. Once the jobs starts to come back, and they are, and illegal immigrants are stopped from coming to take the low paying jobs, the american people will start back to work again. It is that simple.
Here is link to who are out of the labor force...
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/p … orking.htm
GA, by the way, it may be obvious to me but not to most people.
The fact that the unemployment rate kept dropping under Obama and yet the people just didn’t feel the effect is due to a declining labor participation rate. Here is a case where the government official agency reporting on labor statistics tells us the official unemployment rate is going down month by month and yet the total number of people in the work force is declining...
That is why the economy was in the mud and I claim it is directly related to the passage of the ACA by Obama and the Democrats, without a single Republican vote. One of the mandate is for small business with over 50 employees must provide health insurance to its full time employee. The one exception is P/T workers are excluded. Guess what, many businesses converted their full time employees to P/T employee to avoid this mandate.Depending on the timeline used, you could be either right or wrong jackclee.
Bear in mind I am referring to the context of our continuing exchange - the continuation of Pres. Obama's final term numbers ... Using your own BLS chart you can see that the Labor Participation rate, from 2014 onward, was fairly static. Pres. Trump's current, (July), rate is the same as Pres. Obama's ending rate.
That seems too obviously counter to your inference, what am I missing?
GAThe 8 years decline of Obama and the start of a reverse in direction under Trump.. That is what you are missing...
Just go out and talk to people, and small business people. The consumer sentiment and stock market rise... and positive earnings report and effect of tax cut... taken as a whole, the Trump recovery is amazing considering the stagnant 8 years.
I just can’t believe I have to tell you this. Where have you been the last 1.5 years, watching CNN? Just kidding...but realistically, stop watching the media. You are not getting the whole picture. This anti Trump phenomenon is getting old.No jackclee, you are the one that needs to stop - stop changing the point being discussed, stop deflecting to ideological perspectives.
I have not disputed, or agreed with your claims of Pres. Trump's tenure. I have been discussing specific points mentioned.
In this case, you seem to be answering a question about the upward change in the Labor Participation Rate, ( a support you brought into the conversation), from 2014 onward, and the point that Pres. Trump's current rate is the same as Pres. Obama's ending rate, with an ideological description of your perspective of America's progress since Obama left office.
Great, have at it. I wasn't arguing that with you. But, how about taking a shot at one of your supporting planks - the Labor Participation Rate. Do you ignore 2014 onward, (and the fact that Pres. Trump hasn't improved on Pres. Obama's ending number), solely because previous years were terrible? Those first years of economic recovery?
Come on jackclee, stick to the subject of the exchange. None of what I have said in any of my exchanges with you have been anti-Trump. They have only been on the factual numbers behind points mentioned.
Do you consider anything that isn't rah-rah Trump to be anti-Trump? If a statistical number isn't rah-rah Trump then it must be wrong, and the messenger must be anti-Trump?
Why did you bring the U6 and the Labor Participation Rate into the conversation if the numbers, (that you also referred to), don't support what you are saying?
One last time jackclee, I am not bashing Pres. Trump. I am not arguing your declarations of Pres. Trump's accomplishments -- other than the set of mentioned points that started this exchange. And, I am not promoting any Pres. Obama accomplishments. What I am doing is sticking to the original subject, and trying to get you to support your claims of expertise.
I know I am being stubborn jackclee, but you challenged my capabilities, so I am challenging the validity of your expertise to do so.
Of course, we can just let this issue die if that is what you would be most comfortable with. There will always be other opportunities.
GAIt seems useless to carry this discussion forward. GA, why don’t we wait and see what happens next 2 years. You claim it is a trend based on current stats and I claim it is a total reversal. The next 2 years will definitively settle this. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it and apologize, but I don’t think so.
Well, at least we are now talking about the specifics that were the original point of my entrance to the discussion. That's progress.
Sticking with your unemployment rate example, U3 vs. U6, what I could find still indicates a trend. But noting two caveats; 1) that the U3 number is a "hard", facts number, but the U6 is an interpretive number - meaning it is subject to ideological massaging, and 2) although different sources might report different specific numbers,(mine came from Macrotrends.net), it is the trend that matters more than quibbling over one number being a bit different from the other.
Under Obama, and starting from 2012, (looking at his final term), the U6/U3 difference fairly modeled the U3 number:
In 2012 the difference was about 6.9%, in 2013 it was 6.6%. In 2014 it was about 6.1%, and 2015 was about 5.7% In 2016 it was 5% and in 2017 it was 4.6%.
That seems to be an obvious, and gradual downward trend. Just addressing the numbers of the data set, do you disagree?
*Note, all numbers were January numbers
We don't have as much data for Pres. Trump, annually speaking, but his Feb. 2017 U6 number variance was 4.5% and 2018 was 4.1%. This certainly seems to fit a description of a continuation of a the previous trend. Again, just addressing the numbers of the data set, do you disagree?
Now, to your point about the U3 numbers being percentages of a "larger" base group. If true, wouldn't that also mean the U6 numbers were a percentage of a smaller group? And wouldn't that increase in one, matched with a decrease in the other be off-setting and compensating? If not, then shouldn't the U6/U3 variance break the shown data set trend of decreases? The numbers don't show that to be the case.
If the U6 decreases were greater than the already established trend, there might be some substance to your thought, but the evidence of the continuing trend lends support to the original concept of evaluating the trend just by comparing same-source U3 numbers - an apples to apples comparison.
For you to want to deny the numbers because you believe a very subjective U6 number is the true comparative base, it would still be a stretch if the U6 decreases supported you, but they don't.
I do appreciate the attempted economics education jackclee, but unless I misunderstood your point, and using your proffered U6 explanation, the data sets still seem to support a continuation of a trend.
Looking at it from just the U6 numbers, the trend looks like this: (all January numbers)
2012 - 15.2%
2013 - 14.6%
2014 - 12.7%
2015 - 11.3%
2016 - 9.9%
2017 *(Feb.) - 9.2%
2018 - 8.2%
Would you consider those U6 numbers to indicate a gradual downward trend? No major dislocations?
Do you dispute the logical inferences of the numbers provided here?
*ps. the U6 numbers never seemed to be double the U3 numbers
Regarding your Labor Participation Rate point, and again using January numbers for fair comparison, according to BLS.gov - 2018's number was 62.7%, a .2% drop from 2017's 62.9%. It went down not up.
However, to give Pres. Trump credit for 2018's intervening months' changes, in July 2018 it recovered that .2% drop and equaled Pres. Obama's 62.9 January 2017 number. Trend wise, both yearly and monthly, the labor Participation rate typically varied by only about .1% - even during Pres. Trump's time in office.
Still, you are right that your lesson wasn't something I learned in school, but the Google search that provided the data I used was the product of the lessons I have learned on these forums.
Did I still get it wrong?
[EDIT ADDED] oops, I noticed that in a subsequent reply you also used the BLS chart I referenced. I don't see how you think that supports your contention. As mentioned, Pres. Trump's July 2018 number only matched Pres. Obama's Jan 2017 number.
GA
Every single day there are more and more great stories which prove how lucky we are to have Donald J. Trump as POTUS. The other option would have been disastrous and very embarrassing.
It's still hard for me to believe sometimes how lucky we all got last November.You betcha ! Imagine eight more years of propped up economic servitude , "stimulus "borrowing , $ 5.00 gas and heating oil , A forty trillion dollar national debt , more diplomatic disasters than Hitler had , escalated nuke proliferation , The Clinton Foundation robbing the victims of a dozen more natural disasters like Haiti , ten thousand more embassy marines and civilians killed , no ..........................enough of that mess !
Why not vote at all. Why choose lesser of two evils,?
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago
0Obama's economy , besides the up and down volatility of wall street , was nothing but a stimulus prop job , FOR THE WORKING MAN -higher energy costs for home heating , high gasoline for work travel , exorbitant spending putting the American worker in debt to foreign nations for decades to come , higher unemployment rates %10 , extended welfare programs , unemployment benefits , sloppy economic social programs , Food stamp increases to record levels , "Oh Yea , Great Obama Years "
NOT!
AN OBAMA SUCCESS OF STIMULUS FINANCED LIES . Well, it's obvious those on the left can't be happy with good economic news. I suppose a struggling economy would bring them joy. The United States economy is doing well. Be happy about it. Economics is very complicated. I've had to write stories about it for clients and have had to consult with many economists. With that said, manufacturing jobs are up significantly. President Donald Trump has saved the U.S. coal industry. For the first time in many years it is adding jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows. On the flip side oil prices are up as are mortgage rates and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), is up. This means things are more expensive. Oil prices are also high. The European's blinked and will now lower their tariffs on U.S. goods. This is GREAT news. All things are in place to keep the U.S. economy with steady and sustainable growth. People on the left, be happy for your country. It is what should be important to you.
I always imagined a naked Trump on a wreaking ball knocking down everything that is positive. I
What has he knocked down that was positive? The ACA? -A Disaster. The DACA executive order of Obama - unconstitutional, The Iran nuclear deal?- no verification. Paris Accord? - $billons of US tax dollars to reduce climate warming by 0.1 degrees C - ineffective...
The list of Trumps wreaking ball was so long, I decided to add it to my thread.
Top entertainers, Athlete, & media protest Trump.Nobody cares about Top entertainers , Athletes and media ?
Except them that is .Aren't they the ones who were going to join you in Canada ?
Each of these people are intelligent in their feild with millions of fans who do care.
The vas Majority of People worldwide would not say Trump is an intelligent as a President. Maybe Great at tag team pro wrestling for Megalomanics.
These people already earned their label even before the elections . Problem is Hollywood is suffering just the same losses as the NFL is . I know a lot of people who will never watch the likes of Robert De Niro again .The Trump wreaking ball Strick again, all over the world.
Megalomanic are great at destruction and lack a great deal of ethics. You will not find a greater scammer than Trump.
Megalomanics can't keep an aldult realationship. like his record high 34℅ turn over of staff in one year. Same with every other feildTrump comes in contact with.The world , constantly volatile as it is , doesn't know how to predict Trump and that's a great thing . No longer can people take America for granted , At least they now know it's likely they can't predict Trump for six more years . Can't assume America will pay for everything , can't think we will fold like in the Obama weakness era .
The world want cooperation with partners, not a unpreDictable assh*le. If all America can offer is war, prisons, angels and Paper tigers, who want their money backed by nothing. They can't produce much else.
"Can't produce much else ", it sure did produce an exile living just at the border of America spewing actual America hate constantly , as if in order to escape what you hate the most --,you sure feel obligated to spend a lot of time talking about it?
Exactly, well said. There is something to be said about love - hate relationships...they are one and the same.
I think horse favorite word is hate. I have no interest in hate attitude toward anyone. Even a few Christians girlfriends have dragged me into church to listen to an assumed special pastor keep repeating, : love your enemies:. I don't have any enemies. I would have to get some enemies just to join your group. If both of you two guy want think love and hate are the same thing. You live in a world of continuous conflicts, and I don't. Just reporting the freak show.
You are divorced from reality my friend. Evil does exist in our world despite atheists who deny it.
I don’t hate either. Just trying to help people understand ehat is going on behind the scene. There is a hidden world out there...I would not tell anyone they are divorce from reality unless they can't drool down their right side if their mouth, then the left, then can't drool down the centre.
I have talk alot about the evils of satanic white secret society who selected front men like Trump. If it was not Trump it would be Hilary giving NWO. Because I have put the grand puzzle together, I'm emigrating to south America, because I am a lover, not a fighter.
I'm non religious like 25℅ of the population, not extreme like atheist. who you treat like enemies.I make a distinction between atheists. Some are members of my family who are just not into religion of any sort and I have no problem with them or others who have no religion. The other group of atheists who are activists, are the one I have a problem with. These are the ACLU types and the one who put up ads that offend the rest of Christians and the one that want to ban Christmas from the public square and our schools...
There are extremes of both Christians and atheist. Like Religion is blind and science is lame. I find more solution on the middle grounds of the two extremes, like most great men throughout history.
Who decides what is extreme?
I wrote a hub about this topic ...
“Extreme Conservative Beliefs?”
The problem is - what is considered extreme and by whom?
If 40% of the population believe in one idea or principle, does it make it extreme?For an sxample, there are 72 million Catholics in the US, while only 1.2 million ACLU members.
There are more non religious American than there are American Catholics. Congress is 99℅judeo/ Christians and only one in a 1000 non religious is in high public office.
I call that extreme, onesided or stacking the deck.
There are therapists who specialize in Trump Fantasy Disorder.
If I was inclined to engaged in such antics I'd call it Trumpophilllia, but I'm not, so I won't.
I like your version better.
I normally don't like silly word games either, but this time I merely repeated a variation of what was said to me above.
Some uncivil people only start to behave themselves when they get a dose of their own medicine.
Is this the opposite of TDS?
I’ll take this any day.
The recovery and boom is real. You can deny it all you want but the truth is, it would have never happened if Hillary was president, or Obama in a third term.
That is what is wrong with those afflicted TDS. They let their hatred of Trump affect their judgement.Jack , it's so typical of liberal intelligence to FOLLOW our designation for their TDS with TFS no ? I remember many a fourth grader at the back of the class that could come up with a better term than copying their fellow students homework .
And we all know why they were at the back of the class .It's not hatred. Just contempt.
And contempt for the political bigots who think one side is all good and the other all evil.Who are you referring to?
As a conservative, I am not an ideolog. I see good and bad on all sides and I make determination with eash individual case.
The problem today is people want to use shortcut and soundbites...
Life is complex, politics is complex and grey, and never black and white.
Wow, when I provided an article about Trump Anxiety Disorder, this is what I got.
"Cheap shot and beneath you.
Try to address the facts and the logic without acting like Sean Hannity."I hope the Therapist follows up with a Trump horror movie.
TDS takes all forms. Trump is reality. He is the President. Deal with it.
There is reality...
than there are...
American who desire the American Dream. But you have to be a sleep to experiencing it.Really? I experienced the American dream as did my parents as did their parents as did my two children... As did my husband. And so many of my acquaintances followed dreams and achieved them. The American dream is there for the taking, for those that are smart enough to seek it, and work to achieve it. Yes, we have plenty in America that are weak-spirited, and would rather have a bit handed to them. And that;s OK, we can care for those that don't achieve their dreams. America did not become what it is by weak spirited... The people that made my country were workers, not dreamers. Oh, you might be talking about the weak-spirited, you know the ones that talk a good game but end up looking foolish much of the time.
I must ask - Are you an American?For a non America, how would you know? The American dream is alive and well and especially under Trump. How do I know, the answer is easy. There are millions of people around rhe world who wants to immigrate here.
Per capita people want to immigrate to Canada more so than to the US. Also for many other countries too.
Nothing that special.
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Contrary to liberal beliefs ,There is no comparison to Trump and Obama as presidents , Obama being a socialist by definition is quite frankly unAmerican in his ideology , like it or not .
Trump ,face it or not , is a game changer BACK to true Americanism .
Stop trying to compare presidential leaderships like one was , is better than the other or just different , it ain't working. - ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
I think that some here are conveniently ignoring how quickly and how positively corporate America started moving right after Trump was elected and began serving his presidency , THAT is a boost in corporate confidence pure and simple . AND that confidence jump at that particular timing continues , It sure as hell wasn't the obstruction news media stating positive Trumpisms ,what ? Because they love him so much !
I didn't see anyone ignoring that ahorseback. Hell, that might even be one of the reasons the points that were mentioned are continuing to continue.
Remember, specific items were being discussed - not a general ideology.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Isn't it really just about who knows best how to spend or to save what we take in ? We're arguing who created the success' but ignoring who'll spend it first ?Here is story of Obama blaming Bush after 6 years in office...
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/ … ush-107885And try to claim credit for Trump’s success -
https://bluntforcetruth.com/news/obama- … cked-down/
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
So your saying Obama used that good "old come on " a o % credit card like so many Americans did !
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
I think that the most disappointed guy in the Obama terms is Obama himself , He has to wake up everyday thinking and watching , " These libbers are STILL out there defending my non-legacy , I'm watching that Trump guy KILL my entire legacy and they are saying such nice things about me "
"I feel for them though "..................Not . I think I'll fly to Hawaii "
Related Discussions
- 16
Trump pulling out of the Paris COP21 Accord
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Forget the Russian collusion..there was nothing there.It seems to me, if the claims of climate scientists are correct, why not go after Trump for crime against humanity...If the whole world is in agreement that climate change is the biggest threat to the world even worse than ISIS...Let's get to...
- 158
When will liberals give up?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Trump latest poll is 48% approval. His highest since election.At what point will liberals give up their protests and obstruction and enjoy the rise?The economy is finally kicking into high gear.I noticed gas prices rose by 10 cents in one day near my neighborhood...A clear sign of increased...
- 31
Trump's Economy Is Amazing - Why Would Anyone Vote Against It?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The U.S. economy added 250,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate held steady at 3.7 percent, according to Labor Department figures released Friday. Once again the numbers are stronger than estimates; Economists had predicted the economy would add 190,000 jobs and the unemployment rate...
- 417
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Repub
by savvydating 7 years ago
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Republican Party?Trump has been a Democrat most of his life. He brags that he can buy politicians, having given millions to Hillary's campaign and well as her Foundation. He scammed thousands of people out of millions of...
- 51
Which President Should Obama Replace on Mt. Rushmore?
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
Now that President Obama is wrapping up his second term and is widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the United States, a movement is afoot to have him added to Mt. Rushmore. Who's face do you think Obama's should replace? I'm voting for Thomas Jefferson since Jefferson owned slaves.
- 27
How many SS#'s does Obama Have??
by Arthur Fontes 14 years ago
Let me ask you this question:“How many social security numbers do you have?”Unless you’re in the FBI’s witness protection program and have assumed a second new identity, your answer — like mine — is: “Just one!”But Obama is not like you or me.In a recent article for the Western Center for...