Will our democracy survive Trump?

[Guy Chamberlin]

22 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

You are delusional. The economic results and positive outcomes being set now are a direct result of Trumps pro-growth policies. Stop pretending that this is a result of Obamas actions as he did not cut the corporate tax rate and he added to regulations and did not reduce them.  You can continue to make up stories to make yourself feel good...you certainly have a right to do that!

 

You do realize that some of these record-setting and fast-acting economic benefits are the complete fabrication of the President, making un-vetted statements on Twitter, at rallies, on Fox & Friends and pretty much anywhere that people who know better can't challenge him with clear contradictory facts. 

 

You can continue to pass along Donald Trump's made up stories to make yourself feel good....you certainly have the right to do that. 

[HuskerNation1]

29 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

 

So what you're saying is that without Trumps deregulation and tax cuts, the upward trend of the economy under Obama with higher taxes and more regulation would have stalled?

 

Well as I have pointed out before, GDP growth in Obama's final year was going down, not up.  Real median family income was stuck in neutral.  Unemployment was nearly a full percentage point higher in January 2017 when Trump took over to the 3.9% rate we have recently seen.  Economic growth had stalled and in fact was going down in Obama's final quarters in office.  These are facts.  Annual GDP growth in 2016 was the weakest it had been in 5 years.  This is not an upward trajectory.  

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-boom-trump-obama-policies/

27 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Seriously. When you see a chart that shows six years of consistent economic growth, followed by 18 months of the same results, what goes through your brain? 

 

Per the NY Times on Obama's final year in office.

 

In fact, The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016: "For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%."

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

You are delusional. The economic results and positive outcomes being set now are a direct result of Trumps pro-growth policies. Stop pretending that this is a result of Obamas actions as he did not cut the corporate tax rate and he added to regulations and did not reduce them.  You can continue to make up stories to make yourself feel good...you certainly have a right to do that!

 

Maybe....just maybe......there are times in our economy when there are other actions that need to be taken other than cutting taxes and regulations that start a long bull market and reduction in unemployment.

 

I know....it's a novel idea.

[HuskerNation1]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Maybe....just maybe......there are times in our economy when there are other actions that need to be taken other than cutting taxes and regulations that start a long bull market and reduction in unemployment.

 

I know....it's a novel idea.

 

What other actions are you referring to?  Also, it's not just GDP growth and unemployment that have set records, we have also seen consumer and business confidence at all time highs.  He unleashed the potential many companies had but were held back by the anti-growth policies of Obama.  Anytime you add more red tape and regulations for businesses (small or large) they will respond accordingly.  Now the stock market is influenced by GDP growth but it also has many other factors at play and is often triggered more by future expectations than current data figures.  

[StPaulHusker]

10 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Well as I have pointed out before, GDP growth in Obama's final year was going down, not up.  Real median family income was stuck in neutral.  Unemployment was nearly a full percentage point higher in January 2017 when Trump took over to the 3.9% rate we have recently seen.  Economic growth had stalled and in fact was going down in Obama's final quarters in office.  These are facts.  Annual GDP growth in 2016 was the weakest it had been in 5 years.  This is not an upward trajectory.  

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-boom-trump-obama-policies/

You linked 2 editorials (opinion pieces) that have no authors name attached to them.

 

Edit:  Now I see what you're doing....

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

What other actions are you referring to?  Also, it's not just GDP growth and unemployment that have set records, we have also seen consumer and business confidence at all time highs.  He unleashed the potential many companies had but were held back by the anti-growth policies of Obama.  Anytime you add more red tape and regulations for businesses (small or large) they will respond accordingly.  Now the stock market is influenced by GDP growth but it also has many other factors at play and is often triggered more by future expectations than current data figures.  

 

A little quirk of mine is that I absolutely love watching people do something that they are really good at.  And....it doesn't need to be something spectacular.  I once sat in my booth at a trade show in amazement at the salesman next to me and his ability to sell to the public and garner people's attention.  It truly was impressive.

 

You have an absolute amazing ability to completely forget anything good that happened in the economy prior to January 2017.  It really is an impressive trait of yours.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

Also-I think we have discovered Ric's sock account.....

 

 

Thus far Vegas is far more cordial and conversational than Ric ever was. No need to lump him in like that just because he's obviously on the more conservative side of things.

[StPaulHusker]

Just now, Landlord said:

 

 

Thus far Vegas is far more cordial and conversational than Ric ever was. No need to lump him in like that just because he's obviously on the more conservative side of things.

 

I stand by it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If A

3 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Well as I have pointed out before, GDP growth in Obama's final year was going down, not up.  Real median family income was stuck in neutral.  Unemployment was nearly a full percentage point higher in January 2017 when Trump took over to the 3.9% rate we have recently seen.  Economic growth had stalled and in fact was going down in Obama's final quarters in office.  These are facts.  Annual GDP growth in 2016 was the weakest it had been in 5 years.  This is not an upward trajectory.  

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-boom-trump-obama-policies/

 

Per the NY Times on Obama's final year in office.

 

In fact, The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016: "For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%."

 

Okay. I got it. When you see an 8 year growth chart that contradicts your argument, you look for fiscal quarters that were relatively disappointing. 

 

If you want to subject the gloss of Trump's numbers to the same scrutiny of median income, buying power, and sustainable growth, I'm all ears. 

 

If you want to acknowledge what Obama inherited,  and any lessons from the hot mess of financial deregulation both parties enabled.......I will be very surprised. 

[HuskerNation1]

11 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

You linked 2 editorials (opinion pieces) that have no authors name attached to them.

 

Edit:  Now I see what you're doing....

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/

 

So you are disagreeing that GDP growth was going down in 2016?  Are you going to say CBS skews to the right too?

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-economic-growth-slowed-in-2016-to-1-9/

[Guy Chamberlin]

American corporations are using the tax breaks given them by their Reality Show President to invest in the robots that will replace the President's loyal supporters.

 

It's incredible to me that the above statement is true. 

 

We're living in a bad 1975 sci-fi movie. 

 

 

[HuskerNation1]

9 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If A

 

Okay. I got it. When you see an 8 year growth chart that contradicts your argument, you look for fiscal quarters that were relatively disappointing. 

 

If you want to subject the gloss of Trump's numbers to the same scrutiny of median income, buying power, and sustainable growth, I'm all ears. 

 

If you want to acknowledge what Obama inherited,  and any lessons from the hot mess of financial deregulation both parties enabled.......I will be very surprised. 

 

Hey both Obama and Bush 43 inherited recessions and bad situations.  Bush had a recession, stock market collapse and 9/11 to deal with, and from 2004 to 2007 the economy was improving and growing overall.  Then the WORLD economy collapsed...not just a US thing, and all countries were scrambling.  I have never said that Bush or Obama do not deserve credit for improving the horrible situations they inherited.  But so far Trump has taken any positive years Bush or Obama had an improved upon them significantly.  I think looking at Clemson football history would be a good example. Does Dabo Swinney deserve credit for Clemson's recent run as an elite college football program, or should that go to Tommy Bowden who did make some improvements to the program relative to his predecessor?

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/clemson/index.html

[StPaulHusker]

6 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

So you are disagreeing that GDP growth was going down in 2016?  Are you going to say CBS skews to the right too?

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-economic-growth-slowed-in-2016-to-1-9/

 

I wouldn't say CBS skews to the right but I will say they have a reasonable view on why it went down in Q4 in 2016.  And it had zero to do with taxes and regulations.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

6 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Hey both Obama and Bush 43 inherited recessions and bad situations.  Bush had a recession, stock market collapse and 9/11 to deal with, and from 2004 to 2007 the economy was improving and growing overall.  Then the WORLD economy collapsed...not just a US thing, and all countries were scrambling.  I have never said that Bush or Obama do not deserve credit for improving the horrible situations they inherited.  But so far Trump has taken any positive years Bush or Obama had an improved upon them significantly.  I think looking at Clemson football history would be a good example. Does Dabo Swinney deserve credit for Clemson's recent run as an elite college football program, or should that go to Tommy Bowden who did make some improvements to the program relative to his predecessor?

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/clemson/index.html

 

The world economy collapsed because a deregulated U.S. financial industry was blinded by profit motives.

 

So you'd prefer people who aren't categorically against regulation, and don't hold profit as the singular reward in life. 

[HuskerNation1]

1 minute ago, StPaulHusker said:

 

I wouldn't say CBS skews to the right but I will say they have a reasonable view on why it went down in Q4 in 2016.  And it had zero to do with taxes and regulations.  

 

Well the regulations that were enacted by Obama in prior years WOULD have an effect in later quarters.  Moreover, I was an Econ major, and it's true that there are natural economic/business cycles where economies expand and contract.  Fiscal and monetary policy along with the regulatory environment are a few things that the government/Fed can do to influence those natural economic cycles.  Raising taxes and regulations or the Federal Funds rate are all things that will SLOW economic growth and cause an economy to collapse.  Lowering taxes and regulations are things that would stimulate the economy and alter the normal economic cycle to bring about economic growth and other facets that can result from GDP growth.