ORANGE MAN BAD

[ZiprHead]

Much of this good economy comes from effort of Barak Obama,

Oh, what the actual fuck. You'd gotta believe that we'd would have had this same roaring economy if Hillary Clinton was president. Ain't no one who'd believe that. Oh, man. Your're hilarious Cheerful Charlie.

Your well-reasoned, fact-filled retort is noted.

 

[Trausti]

Much of this good economy comes from effort of Barak Obama,

Oh, what the actual fuck. You'd gotta believe that we'd would have had this same roaring economy if Hillary Clinton was president. Ain't no one who'd believe that. Oh, man. Your're hilarious Cheerful Charlie.

Your well-reasoned, fact-filled retort is noted.

So you think Hillary would also have cut regulations and taxes? I mean, when the business owners themselves point to Trump's policies as the reason they are investing and hiring, it is partisan silliness to ignore that.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Your well-reasoned, fact-filled retort is noted.

So you think Hillary would also have cut regulations and taxes? I mean, when the business owners themselves point to Trump's policies as the reason they are investing and hiring, it is partisan silliness to ignore that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...0be1230/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9f6f586c0fe

Specifically, business investment edged up by a meager 0.8 percent during the three-month period, accounting for just .12 percent of total GDP growth. As the New York Times’s Ben Casselman points out, increased spending on intellectual property accounted for most of that activity. Spending on commercial buildings fell by nearly 8 percent after climbing 14.5 percent in the second quarter:

tl:dr


The promised boom in investment didn't happen as promised.

HRC would not have passed massive tax cuts going mainly to the rich that are being used as excuses to slash SS, Medicare and Medicaid. She would not have slashed regulations that now are endangering the quality of our air, water, food and pharmaceuticals.

 

[Trausti]

Your well-reasoned, fact-filled retort is noted.

So you think Hillary would also have cut regulations and taxes? I mean, when the business owners themselves point to Trump's policies as the reason they are investing and hiring, it is partisan silliness to ignore that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...0be1230/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9f6f586c0fe

Specifically, business investment edged up by a meager 0.8 percent during the three-month period, accounting for just .12 percent of total GDP growth. As the New York Times’s Ben Casselman points out, increased spending on intellectual property accounted for most of that activity. Spending on commercial buildings fell by nearly 8 percent after climbing 14.5 percent in the second quarter:

tl:dr


The promised boom in investment didn't happen as promised.

HRC would not have passed massive tax cuts going mainly to the rich that are being used as excuses to slash SS, Medicare and Medicaid. She would not have slashed regulations that now are endangering the quality of our air, water, food and pharmaceuticals.

Trump Tax Windfall Going to Capex Way Faster Than Stock Buybacks

 

[laughing dog]

The effects of fiscal policy take a number of years to full affect the economy, so some of this is attributable to the previous President. It is simply cra cra to give all the credit to the current President.

Yet, the business community does. That's what happens when regulatory activity declines 74%. Hillary Clinton would not have cut regulations. She would have added thousands and thousands of pages.

More cra cra talk.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your well-reasoned, fact-filled retort is noted.

So you think Hillary would also have cut regulations and taxes? I mean, when the business owners themselves point to Trump's policies as the reason they are investing and hiring, it is partisan silliness to ignore that.

What did corporate America do with that tax break? Buy record amounts of its own stock

"More than 70 percent of this [tax cut] will be returned to workers," said White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a January press conference after the bill came into effect.

However, companies have instead used the extra cash to spend billions of dollars buying back their own stock, boosting the value of shares held by investors. Buybacks reduce the number of shares on the market, immediately increasing the value of the shares that investors already hold.

 

[dismal]

Much of this good economy comes from effort of Barak Obama,

Oh, what the actual fuck. You'd gotta believe that we'd would have had this same roaring economy if Hillary Clinton was president. Ain't no one who'd believe that. Oh, man. Your're hilarious Cheerful Charlie.

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree that the President can’t do much to grow the economy. Mostly he just has to create a stable regulatory environment and get out of the way. Two things Obama was pathologically incapable of.

 

[Minnemooseus]

Much of this good economy comes from effort of Barak Obama,

Oh, what the actual fuck. You'd gotta believe that we'd would have had this same roaring economy if Hillary Clinton was president. Ain't no one who'd believe that. Oh, man. Your're hilarious Cheerful Charlie.

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree with that. I think that the economic forces are much independent of government policy.

I'm no economist, but I suspect that the Bush2 economic crash was much an adjustment to the "good economy" bubble of the Clinton years. Everyone loves a bubble until it pops.

That said, government regulation or lack of regulation of the financial industry can have a big influence. And the lack of regulation of the "too big to fail" banks was a bipartisan effort. And now we are returning to that lack of regulation.

Moose

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As Kansas demonstrated, bad economic policies can do great damage. Thus Trump's adoption of similar policies for the entire nation is worrisome. How long can we get away with huge yearly deficits? We have had Trump wave that away by loudly claiming his economic policies will grow the economy with GDP growth of 8% or 9%. That won't happen.

 

[Horatio Parker]

As Kansas demonstrated, bad economic policies can do great damage. Thus Trump's adoption of similar policies for the entire nation is worrisome. How long can we get away with huge yearly deficits? We have had Trump wave that away by loudly claiming his economic policies will grow the economy with GDP growth of 8% or 9%. That won't happen.

There's a fundamental difference between state and national govts, tho. States are revenue constrained and the Feds aren't.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree that the President can’t do much to grow the economy. Mostly he just has to create a stable regulatory environment and get out of the way. Two things Obama was pathologically incapable of.

The US has had 97 months of job growth and most of that predates Trump, so there is some data that suggests your analysis is incorrect.

 

[Opoponax]

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree with that. I think that the economic forces are much independent of government policy.

I'm no economist, but I suspect that the Bush2 economic crash was much an adjustment to the "good economy" bubble of the Clinton years. Everyone loves a bubble until it pops.

That said, government regulation or lack of regulation of the financial industry can have a big influence. And the lack of regulation of the "too big to fail" banks was a bipartisan effort. And now we are returning to that lack of regulation.

Moose

I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I'm far, far from being an expert on economics, but the macro-picture of what's coming seems pretty easy to predict, at least in terms of generalities. You can't defund the government and wholesale slash so many regulations without a price being paid for it. And the answer to the question of just who is going to pay for it in this case is clear: it's the ones who benefited the most from the tax cut---those who needed it the least.

In this case we're looking at not only an economic price, but also a price with our lives in terms of the ongoing conservative endeavor to prevent universal healthcare, as well as an environmental price, etc.

It's coming.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.businessinsider.com/cha...tent=topbar&utm_term=desktop&referrer=twitter

[h=1]Trump's recent statements about the economy are false or exaggerated — here are 4 charts that prove it[/h]President Trump summoned the television cameras to the South Lawn on Friday to extol the second quarter GDP figures and the overall state of the economy. While no one can dispute that the economy continues to recover and add jobs, a number of Mr. Trump's assertions were false or exaggerated.

---

Obama pulled the US out of the Bush/GOP recession. Trump is merely being a president in a more or less successful economic situation he most certain;y did not start and does not get credit for. For example, Obama had two quarters where economic growth of GDP was 5.1% and 4.9%. Better than the latest quarter Trump is bragging about.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree that the President can’t do much to grow the economy. Mostly he just has to create a stable regulatory environment and get out of the way. Two things Obama was pathologically incapable of.

The US has had 97 months of job growth and most of that predates Trump, so there is some data that suggests your analysis is incorrect.

People act like Obama made the recession worse, when we were still coming out of the recession under him. I don't get it. Oh wait, I do get it. It's just to hate Obama.

 

[RVonse]

I don't think the President, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Trump, has a whole lot of effect on the economy usually. Trump may, with his tariffs.

I agree that the President can’t do much to grow the economy. Mostly he just has to create a stable regulatory environment and get out of the way. Two things Obama was pathologically incapable of.

The US has had 97 months of job growth and most of that predates Trump, so there is some data that suggests your analysis is incorrect.

The big difference I see though is the policies of the fed. During Obama, the fed was blowing monetary stimulus straight into the veins of the economy and with Trump they are actually raising interest again. Another words, the fed acted directly WITH Obama and but are now acting directly AGAINST Trump.

The fed is supposed to be independent of politics. Nor would I necessarily fault what they have and are now doing. But the fact remains that fed actions have far more impact to the economy than most what the POTUS can normally accomplish, especially in such a short time frame.

Therefore, the fact the fed is now braking the economy while unemployment remains so low is clearly something extra ordinary about the Trump presidency (especially in just 2 years) that tell us something we otherwise should not expect. Trump has made a huge difference whether or not voters will give him the due credit.

 

[Ford]

While no one can dispute that the economy continues to recover and add jobs, a number of Mr. Trump's assertions were false or exaggerated.

The thing that's weird (to me, at least) is that for starters, you don't need to lie about the economy, and in the broader sense, what's with all the fear mongering?

To hear the political ads tell it, the country is teetering on a precipice and if you dare to vote for Democrats, America will collapse into a burning heap which will then fall over and sink into the swamp.

Would it be so hard to campaign on "welp, we've been in charge for a couple years, and things are pretty good, so let's not change course"?

 

[laughing dog]

The US has had 97 months of job growth and most of that predates Trump, so there is some data that suggests your analysis is incorrect.

The big difference I see though is the policies of the fed. During Obama, the fed was blowing monetary stimulus straight into the veins of the economy and with Trump they are actually raising interest again. Another words, the fed acted directly WITH Obama and but are now acting directly AGAINST Trump.

The fed is supposed to be independent of politics. Nor would I necessarily fault what they have and are now doing. But the fact remains that fed actions have far more impact to the economy than most what the POTUS can normally accomplish, especially in such a short time frame.

Therefore, the fact the fed is now braking the economy while unemployment remains so low is clearly something extra ordinary about the Trump presidency (especially in just 2 years) that tell us something we otherwise should not expect. Trump has made a huge difference whether or not voters will give him the due credit.

The Fed is now putting on the brakes, but it takes months for changes in interest rates to affect the economy, so the actions of the Fed are not reflected in current economic statistics. So your conclusion that Trump has made a huge difference is simply unfounded.

 

[Axulus]

While no one can dispute that the economy continues to recover and add jobs, a number of Mr. Trump's assertions were false or exaggerated.

The thing that's weird (to me, at least) is that for starters, you don't need to lie about the economy, and in the broader sense, what's with all the fear mongering?

To hear the political ads tell it, the country is teetering on a precipice and if you dare to vote for Democrats, America will collapse into a burning heap which will then fall over and sink into the swamp.

Would it be so hard to campaign on "welp, we've been in charge for a couple years, and things are pretty good, so let's not change course"?

The Fed is preventing us from becoming like Argentina. The populist economic playbook should be as much in the dustbin of history as communism. The standard playbook is to increase tariffs, increase government spending, and easy money, and high government debt which destroys the economy through high inflation. There are a few good years from the sugar high which ends in a terrible bust.

The Fed reacts to inflation, not the demands from populists whose stupid policies destroy the economy. Have you seen Argentina's economy? It is essentially Trump's populist ideas taken to the full extent. It is shit. Their inflation rate is now over 100% and their economy has been in long term stagnation.

This is a situation where the population's mistrust of "elites" is not only misguided, but dangerous. The evidence is clear, letting inflation get out of control is bad economic policy, and the central bank's primary goal should always be to stabilize the buying power of the currency with a low, steady rate of annual inflation. Something which the US and most developed countries have done really well for over 30 years now by allowing the central bank to remain strongly independent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wages Rise at Fastest Rate in Nearly a Decade as Hiring Jumps

WASHINGTON—Strong hiring and low unemployment are delivering U.S. workers their best pay raises in nearly a decade.

Employers shook off a September slowdown to add 250,000 jobs to their payrolls in October, above monthly averages in recent years, the Labor Department said Friday. With unemployment holding at 3.7%, a 49-year low, and employers competing for scarce workers, wages increased 3.1% from a year earlier, the biggest year-over-year gain for average hourly earnings since 2009.

How can we convince people to vote for new taxes and more government dependency if the Trump economy keeps doing this shit?

Today's economic policy takes 30-50 years before it pays off. Sweden's current strong economy is because of policies in the 1990'ies.

Anybody who thinks that Trump is responsible for the current US economy is a moron, so to convince them tell them they'll get bigger tits or cocks if they vote democrat. They might fall for it.

 

[Axulus]

Wages Rise at Fastest Rate in Nearly a Decade as Hiring Jumps

WASHINGTON—Strong hiring and low unemployment are delivering U.S. workers their best pay raises in nearly a decade.

Employers shook off a September slowdown to add 250,000 jobs to their payrolls in October, above monthly averages in recent years, the Labor Department said Friday. With unemployment holding at 3.7%, a 49-year low, and employers competing for scarce workers, wages increased 3.1% from a year earlier, the biggest year-over-year gain for average hourly earnings since 2009.

How can we convince people to vote for new taxes and more government dependency if the Trump economy keeps doing this shit?

Today's economic policy takes 30-50 years before it pays off. Sweden's current strong economy is because of policies in the 1990'ies.

Anybody who thinks that Trump is responsible for the current US economy is a moron, so to convince them tell them they'll get bigger tits or cocks if they vote democrat. They might fall for it.

It is possible for the government to implement a short-term stimulus which will have an effect on the real economy (within the time frame of a year or two). Tax cuts combined with increased government spending are stimulative, which will tend to push unemployment down and real wages up. If the economy is already at or near full capacity it will also tend to stoke higher inflation down the road (and potentially reverse some of the wage gains).

You are correct, however, that the supply side effects of deregulation and tax cuts will not really impact the economy for many years. It is possible that such policies increase business optimism, which may have a short term positive economic effect on business investment and hiring, but the link is not well understood.