Q1 2019 watch - if under 3.0% - where is Trump’s economic miracle - can Trump beat O’s 2.9% ever?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Classic Toddster:

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22746356

But nothing Obama did during his 8 years deserves credit for our overperformance.”

Same post!!

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22746356

There was no overperforming in his weakest recovery since WWII.

Let’s pretend for once you were trying to express an opinion based on the facts.

That means you would have to decide whether the facts show that there was overperfomance or not.

As it stands neither one of your expressed opinions are based on facts.

Which must be why you can so easily contradict yourself in the same post.

Facts don’t matter to you.

Our recovery sucked.
The fact that some Euro economies had weaker recoveries isn't a credit to Obama.

Did you ever come up with the 5 things Obama did to help our economy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 2274621

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.

Facts get stronger with age:

NotfooledbyW, post: 22675091

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22669163

Did the payroll tax cuts in the Feb 2009 Recovery Act that TrumpO praised ‘weaken’ the recovery or strengthen it.

What 2009 payroll tax cut?

• Tax incentives for individuals Total: $237 billion $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia

Those payroll tax cuts, moron.

Tax credits aren't payroll tax cuts, idiot.

 

[Faun]

Maybe you should learn what comprises GDP?

Maybe you should learn what comprises GDP?

I've looked at several definitions. None include QE.
Link to one that does...….

QE was about 6% of GDP in 2013.

What was GDP growth that year?

LOL

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately while you're trying your hardest to prove me wrong.

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately

If it did, 2013 should have been 6% higher than without QE.
Do you feel 2013 GDP would have been -4.2% without QE?

Oh? How do you figure -4.2%?

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

 

[Faun]

I posted: “During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.”

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22745082

But nothing Obama did during his 8 years deserves credit for our overperformance.
The Euros fucked up and the recovery was baked in before Obama took office.

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery of his own worst recession since the Great Depression.

Then I guess we must also thank Bush for ‘baking in’ the stock market’s remarkable performance during ty Obama years.

• This graph compares the performance of the S&P500 under President Obama with the average.

View attachment 269990

• The stock market performed remarkably during Obama's presidency and more than tripled in value. ........ President Obama has the best record of any president in modern history. Economic Record: President Obama

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in” with the recession of 2008.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

Was the ACA that Republicans could not kill, ‘baked in’ too?

It’s a good thing Bush baked in the payroll tax cuts and the ACA so that while Obama was president the United States' GDP growth wouid handily beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.

Why can’t you see what an idiot you are?

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you should learn what comprises GDP?

I've looked at several definitions. None include QE.
Link to one that does...….

QE was about 6% of GDP in 2013.

What was GDP growth that year?

LOL

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately while you're trying your hardest to prove me wrong.

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately

If it did, 2013 should have been 6% higher than without QE.
Do you feel 2013 GDP would have been -4.2% without QE?

Oh? How do you figure -4.2%?

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

 

[Faun]

LOL

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately while you're trying your hardest to prove me wrong.

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately

If it did, 2013 should have been 6% higher than without QE.
Do you feel 2013 GDP would have been -4.2% without QE?

Oh? How do you figure -4.2%?

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted: “During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.”

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22745082

But nothing Obama did during his 8 years deserves credit for our overperformance.
The Euros fucked up and the recovery was baked in before Obama took office.

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery of his own worst recession since the Great Depression.

Then I guess we must also thank Bush for ‘baking in’ the stock market’s remarkable performance during ty Obama years.

• This graph compares the performance of the S&P500 under President Obama with the average.

View attachment 269990

• The stock market performed remarkably during Obama's presidency and more than tripled in value. ........ President Obama has the best record of any president in modern history. Economic Record: President Obama

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in” with the recession of 2008.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

Was the ACA that Republicans could not kill, ‘baked in’ too?

It’s a good thing Bush baked in the payroll tax cuts and the ACA so that while Obama was president the United States' GDP growth wouid handily beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.

Why can’t you see what an idiot you are?

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

There is absolutely no evidence of that

Feel free to post the evidence that Obama's actions from January 20th until June 2009
was the difference between the end of the recession and the recession continuing.

We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

ARRA was signed on February 17, 2009. How much spending happened from that moment until June?
Less than $100 billion? Less than $50 billion? What percentage of GDP was that?

The US economy isn't like a speedboat, it's like an oil tanker.
There is a lag between stimulus and GDP impact.
Even if you're magic enough to slow the rise of the oceans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're literally agreeing with me that QE affects GDP immediately

If it did, 2013 should have been 6% higher than without QE.
Do you feel 2013 GDP would have been -4.2% without QE?

Oh? How do you figure -4.2%?

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

$16.785 trillion - $1.114 trillion = $15.671 trillion.
15.671/16.875 = 93.4%

Yup, that's about 6% less, not 0.108% less.

Exhausting.​

 

[Faun]

I posted: “During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.”

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22745082

But nothing Obama did during his 8 years deserves credit for our overperformance.
The Euros fucked up and the recovery was baked in before Obama took office.

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery of his own worst recession since the Great Depression.

Then I guess we must also thank Bush for ‘baking in’ the stock market’s remarkable performance during ty Obama years.

• This graph compares the performance of the S&P500 under President Obama with the average.

View attachment 269990

• The stock market performed remarkably during Obama's presidency and more than tripled in value. ........ President Obama has the best record of any president in modern history. Economic Record: President Obama

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in” with the recession of 2008.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

Was the ACA that Republicans could not kill, ‘baked in’ too?

It’s a good thing Bush baked in the payroll tax cuts and the ACA so that while Obama was president the United States' GDP growth wouid handily beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.

Why can’t you see what an idiot you are?

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

There is absolutely no evidence of that

Feel free to post the evidence that Obama's actions from January 20th until June 2009
was the difference between the end of the recession and the recession continuing.

We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

ARRA was signed on February 17, 2009. How much spending happened from that moment until June?
Less than $100 billion? Less than $50 billion? What percentage of GDP was that?

The US economy isn't like a speedboat, it's like an oil tanker.
There is a lag between stimulus and GDP impact.
Even if you're magic enough to slow the rise of the oceans.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP. It also stimulated spending by showing the country the government was going to do what was necessary to save the economy from slipping deeper into recession. Then there were tax savings. Credit markets began relaxing. And there were other factors. QE was helping. People began investing again. And again, as already mentioned, we'll never know how ARRA contributed, but it's absurd to claim the recession would have ended anyway since there's nothing to back that statement up.

 

[Faun]

Oh? How do you figure -4.2%?

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

$16.785 trillion - $1.114 trillion = $15.671 trillion.
15.671/16.875 = 93.4%

Yup, that's about 6% less, not 0.108% less.

Exhausting.​

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... 6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. Try this on for size.... 50% of 1.8% is 0.9%.

Is any of this getting through to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted: “During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.”

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22745082

But nothing Obama did during his 8 years deserves credit for our overperformance.
The Euros fucked up and the recovery was baked in before Obama took office.

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery of his own worst recession since the Great Depression.

Then I guess we must also thank Bush for ‘baking in’ the stock market’s remarkable performance during ty Obama years.

• This graph compares the performance of the S&P500 under President Obama with the average.

View attachment 269990

• The stock market performed remarkably during Obama's presidency and more than tripled in value. ........ President Obama has the best record of any president in modern history. Economic Record: President Obama

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in” with the recession of 2008.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

Was the ACA that Republicans could not kill, ‘baked in’ too?

It’s a good thing Bush baked in the payroll tax cuts and the ACA so that while Obama was president the United States' GDP growth wouid handily beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.

Why can’t you see what an idiot you are?

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

There is absolutely no evidence of that

Feel free to post the evidence that Obama's actions from January 20th until June 2009
was the difference between the end of the recession and the recession continuing.

We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

ARRA was signed on February 17, 2009. How much spending happened from that moment until June?
Less than $100 billion? Less than $50 billion? What percentage of GDP was that?

The US economy isn't like a speedboat, it's like an oil tanker.
There is a lag between stimulus and GDP impact.
Even if you're magic enough to slow the rise of the oceans.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP. It also stimulated spending by showing the country the government was going to do what was necessary to save the economy from slipping deeper into recession. Then there were tax savings. Credit markets began relaxing. And there were other factors. QE was helping. People began investing again. And again, as already mentioned, we'll never know how ARRA contributed, but it's absurd to claim the recession would have ended anyway since there's nothing to back that statement up.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP.

Government spending doesn't go directly towards GDP but QE does?

Wow, you need a better definition of GDP......

Then there were tax savings.

Yes, Obama's $8 per week tax credit made me run out and stimulate the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GDP was +1.8%.
If QE added +6%, absent QE.....GDP is -4.2%

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

$16.785 trillion - $1.114 trillion = $15.671 trillion.
15.671/16.875 = 93.4%

Yup, that's about 6% less, not 0.108% less.

Exhausting.​

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... 6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. Try this on for size.... 50% of 1.8% is 0.9%.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Moron, 6% (actually 6.6%) of GDP is 6% of GDP.
If you subtract 6% from GDP and then add 1.8% of GDP, you're looking at a drop in GDP.....not a 1.7% increase. DURR

Tell me more about your QE instantly adds to GDP theory.
That one will never get old.

 

[Faun]

I posted: “During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.”

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22745082 So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery of his own worst recession since the Great Depression.

Then I guess we must also thank Bush for ‘baking in’ the stock market’s remarkable performance during ty Obama years.

• This graph compares the performance of the S&P500 under President Obama with the average.

View attachment 269990

• The stock market performed remarkably during Obama's presidency and more than tripled in value. ........ President Obama has the best record of any president in modern history. Economic Record: President Obama

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in” with the recession of 2008.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

Was the ACA that Republicans could not kill, ‘baked in’ too?

It’s a good thing Bush baked in the payroll tax cuts and the ACA so that while Obama was president the United States' GDP growth wouid handily beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries.

Why can’t you see what an idiot you are?

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

There is absolutely no evidence of that

Feel free to post the evidence that Obama's actions from January 20th until June 2009
was the difference between the end of the recession and the recession continuing.

We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

ARRA was signed on February 17, 2009. How much spending happened from that moment until June?
Less than $100 billion? Less than $50 billion? What percentage of GDP was that?

The US economy isn't like a speedboat, it's like an oil tanker.
There is a lag between stimulus and GDP impact.
Even if you're magic enough to slow the rise of the oceans.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP. It also stimulated spending by showing the country the government was going to do what was necessary to save the economy from slipping deeper into recession. Then there were tax savings. Credit markets began relaxing. And there were other factors. QE was helping. People began investing again. And again, as already mentioned, we'll never know how ARRA contributed, but it's absurd to claim the recession would have ended anyway since there's nothing to back that statement up.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP.

Government spending doesn't go directly towards GDP but QE does?

Wow, you need a better definition of GDP......

Then there were tax savings.

Yes, Obama's $8 per week tax credit made me run out and stimulate the economy.

QE was the lowering interest rates to 0.25%. That made borrowing money more attractive which is the money from QE that went into the economy which boosted GDP.

Is any of this getting through to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Bush is getting credit from you for ‘baking in’ the ‘overperforming’ recovery

Overperforming? Hardly.

It’s amazing how every economic good news that occurred between January 2010 and November 2016 was “baked in”

That's not what I said. The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months.
Nothing he did was responsible for the recession ending in June 2009.

I love the idiotic claim that he prevented a new Great Depression.

Were the payroll tax cuts in February 2009, that no Republican voted for, baked in too?

There were no payroll tax cuts in 2009.​

"The recession was going to end, no matter what Obama did in his first 5 months."

There is absolutely no evidence of that. It's possible, but it's also possible had Obama done nothing, the economy could have slid into a depression. We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

There is absolutely no evidence of that

Feel free to post the evidence that Obama's actions from January 20th until June 2009
was the difference between the end of the recession and the recession continuing.

We'll never know what would have happened had he not pushed ARRA through to becoming law but what we do know is that he did, and the Great Recession ended 4 months later.

ARRA was signed on February 17, 2009. How much spending happened from that moment until June?
Less than $100 billion? Less than $50 billion? What percentage of GDP was that?

The US economy isn't like a speedboat, it's like an oil tanker.
There is a lag between stimulus and GDP impact.
Even if you're magic enough to slow the rise of the oceans.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP. It also stimulated spending by showing the country the government was going to do what was necessary to save the economy from slipping deeper into recession. Then there were tax savings. Credit markets began relaxing. And there were other factors. QE was helping. People began investing again. And again, as already mentioned, we'll never know how ARRA contributed, but it's absurd to claim the recession would have ended anyway since there's nothing to back that statement up.

The money from ARRA does not directly go towards GDP.

Government spending doesn't go directly towards GDP but QE does?

Wow, you need a better definition of GDP......

Then there were tax savings.

Yes, Obama's $8 per week tax credit made me run out and stimulate the economy.

QE was the lowering interest rates to 0.25%. That made borrowing money more attractive which is the money from QE that went into the economy which boosted GDP.

Is any of this getting through to you?

QE was the lowering interest rates to 0.25%

That's hilarious!!!

FRB: Central Banking Before, During and After the Crisis Conference - QE 1 vs. 2 vs. 3... A Framework for Analyzing Large Scale Asset Purchases as a Monetary Policy Tool

Is any of this getting through to you?

Your ignorance got through to me a long time ago.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Dayum, are you ever stupid. This sure does go a long way in explaining your posts though.

No, dumbfuck, 1.8% minus 6% is NOT -4.2%.

Using your conservative fuzzy math "skills," if we were to subtract the other 94% from GDP instead of the 6% you say was due to QE, then that would have meant GDP for that year was -92.2%. You subtracted points, not a percent. Do you see now why you're an idiot??

6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. GDP that year minus 6% is 1.7%, not -4.2%.

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

$16.785 trillion - $1.114 trillion = $15.671 trillion.
15.671/16.875 = 93.4%

Yup, that's about 6% less, not 0.108% less.

Exhausting.​

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... 6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. Try this on for size.... 50% of 1.8% is 0.9%.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Moron, 6% (actually 6.6%) of GDP is 6% of GDP.
If you subtract 6% from GDP and then add 1.8% of GDP, you're looking at a drop in GDP.....not a 1.7% increase. DURR

Tell me more about your QE instantly adds to GDP theory.
That one will never get old.

Holyfuckingshit

Your ignorance is growing.

GDP was 1.8%. You said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%.

Let's check the math ....

1.8% = 0.018
6% = 0.06

0.018 x 0.06 = 0.00108 (or 0.108%)

0.018 - 0.00108 = 0.01692 (or 1.692% ... rounded to 1.7%)

Is any of this getting through to you??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idiocy is exhausting.
2013 GDP was $16.785 trillion.
The Fed added $1.114 trillion to their spreadsheet in 2013.

According to your moronic "QE instantly adds to GDP" theory,
QE added about 6.6% to 2013 GDP growth.

View attachment 270022

Real Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed​

2013 real GDP grew 1.8%.
Was 2013 GDP going to shrink 4.8% if QE had been $0 instead of $1.114 trillion?

"Your idiocy is exhausting."

Spits the moron who actually said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%

$16.785 trillion - $1.114 trillion = $15.671 trillion.
15.671/16.875 = 93.4%

Yup, that's about 6% less, not 0.108% less.

Exhausting.​

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... 6% of 1.8% is 0.108%. Try this on for size.... 50% of 1.8% is 0.9%.

Is any of this getting through to you?

Moron, 6% (actually 6.6%) of GDP is 6% of GDP.
If you subtract 6% from GDP and then add 1.8% of GDP, you're looking at a drop in GDP.....not a 1.7% increase. DURR

Tell me more about your QE instantly adds to GDP theory.
That one will never get old.

Holyfuckingshit

Your ignorance is growing.

GDP was 1.8%. You said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%.

Let's check the math ....

1.8% = 0.018
6% = 0.06

0.018 x 0.06 = 0.00108 (or 0.108%)

0.018 - 0.00108 = 0.01692 (or 1.692% ... rounded to 1.7%)

Is any of this getting through to you??

GDP was 1.8%. You said 1.8% minus 6% is -4.2%.

Yup. If you subtract 6% of GDP, Obama's got a serious recession in 2013......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22747060

Tax credits aren't payroll tax cuts, idiot.

The ARRA reduced 2009 income taxes for individuals by $400 and $800 for families.

Now you may be too stupid to comprehend that reduce and cut when referring to payroll taxes means that all people earning income and paying payroll taxes during the recovery from the Great Bush Recession paid about $400 less in taxes than they would have but for the ARRA.

Overall the ARRA cut $288 billion in taxes with payroll tax credits being effective immediately in 2009.

• In February 2009, Congress approved Obama’s economic stimulus package. It restored confidence and ended the Great Recession in July 2009. It cut $288 billion in taxes. It reduced that year's income taxes for individuals by $400 each and $800 for families. Instead of stimulus checks, workers received a lower withholding in their paychecks.

• ARRA also reduced income taxes by the amount equal to the sales tax on a new car purchase. It provided $17 billion in tax cuts for households who invested in renewable energy. It included $54 billion in small business tax cuts.

• The Congressional Budget Office estimated ARRA would save between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs. In addition to tax cuts, it spent $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care. It also spent $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants, and loans. Why Did Obama Extend the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010?

So Obama acted immediately to reduce, cut, lower, taxes and it had a significant beneficial impact on the recovery.

Now you can’t admit it because of the obvious obsessive hatred you have for Obama. It really disturbed you that Obama was President for seven years of positive economic growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22747060

Tax credits aren't payroll tax cuts, idiot.

The ARRA reduced 2009 income taxes for individuals by $400 and $800 for families.

Now you may be too stupid to comprehend that reduce and cut when referring to payroll taxes means that all people earning income and paying payroll taxes during the recovery from the Great Bush Recession paid about $400 less in taxes than they would have but for the ARRA.

Overall the ARRA cut $288 billion in taxes with payroll tax credits being effective immediately in 2009.

• In February 2009, Congress approved Obama’s economic stimulus package. It restored confidence and ended the Great Recession in July 2009. It cut $288 billion in taxes. It reduced that year's income taxes for individuals by $400 each and $800 for families. Instead of stimulus checks, workers received a lower withholding in their paychecks.

• ARRA also reduced income taxes by the amount equal to the sales tax on a new car purchase. It provided $17 billion in tax cuts for households who invested in renewable energy. It included $54 billion in small business tax cuts.

• The Congressional Budget Office estimated ARRA would save between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs. In addition to tax cuts, it spent $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care. It also spent $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants, and loans. Why Did Obama Extend the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010?

So Obama acted immediately to reduce, cut, lower, taxes and it had a significant beneficial impact on the recovery.

Now you can’t admit it because of the obvious obsessive hatred you have for Obama. It really disturbed you that Obama was President for seven years of positive economic growth.

paid about $400 less in taxes than they would have but for the ARRA.

Yes, a $400 tax credit, not a cut in payroll taxes.

In February 2009, Congress approved Obama’s economic stimulus package. It restored confidence and ended the Great Recession in July 2009. It cut $288 billion in taxes.

Yes, $8 a week in reduced withholding is just the thing to "restore confidence".
March, April and May.....that'd be about $112. Wow!
That should have given us 4% GDP growth, at least.....DURR

So Obama acted immediately to reduce, cut, lower, taxes and it had a significant beneficial impact on the recovery.

Tax cuts help the economy? Weird.

It really disturbed you that Obama was President for seven years of positive economic growth.

I've already made my feelings known about his weak economic performance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22752207

Yes, a $400 tax credit, not a cut in payroll taxes.

Did the deathbed Bush economy know or care how the billions of dollars in Obama’s tax cuts were delivered into the economy to revive it.

Tax credits received through reduced payroll taxes are tax cuts.

You said Obama did nothing to stimulate the recovery and at least we know you are lying because you know about the tax credits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22752207

Yes, a $400 tax credit, not a cut in payroll taxes.

Did the deathbed Bush economy know or care how the billions of dollars in Obama’s tax cuts were delivered into the economy to revive it.

Tax credits received through reduced payroll taxes are tax cuts.

You said Obama did nothing to stimulate the recovery and at least we know you are lying because you know about the tax credits.

You said Obama did nothing to stimulate the recovery

You think $8 a week caused the recession to end?