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

[Harpy Eagle]

And again folks, he tries to spin it to try and derail the debate.

You brought it up pal. It’s up to you to prove it.

And again,

exactly which trade deals are you talking about and where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that to implement these 'trade deals' will radically alter ('crush') the Real GDP Growth?

This is like me sending you a link on the story of Santa Claus because you never heard of it lol
When every one else does haha

Please lay out the ways that the new NAFTA will increase the GDP. Which provisions in it will be a boon to our GDP? In specifics please?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same lay out every serious economist laid out for you to read.. like I said if you know more and don’t want to be embarrassed call cnn they would love to hear the negative side affects of this deal..

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and offering your unconditional surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Jitss617]

This is like me sending you a link on the story of Santa Claus because you never heard of it lol
When every one else does haha

Please lay out the ways that the new NAFTA will increase the GDP. Which provisions in it will be a boon to our GDP? In specifics please?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same lay out every serious economist laid out for you to read.. like I said if you know more and don’t want to be embarrassed call cnn they would love to hear the negative side affects of this deal..

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and offering your unconditional surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Please lay out the ways that the new NAFTA will increase the GDP. Which provisions in it will be a boon to our GDP? In specifics please?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Same lay out every serious economist laid out for you to read.. like I said if you know more and don’t want to be embarrassed call cnn they would love to hear the negative side affects of this deal..

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and offering your unconditional surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

Not at all. I give Trump credit when it is due. I have openly supported and cheered for his two SCOTUS picks, for his changes to the Fed Govt work guidelines, for his desire to pull the troops out of the ME and other areas.

So, are you ready to discuss specific provisions or will you just keep making your own ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[protectionist]

Obama inherited the Great Recession, when he left office the economy was rolling along well. Well, notwithstanding the Ministry of Truth which likes to rewrite history, and claim the Obama Administration actually created the Great Recession which began a year before he took office.

Obama did not create the 2008 recession, but it's also not true that "when he left office the economy was rolling along well." In Obama's last 4 quarters in office, GDP growth SANK from 2.3% to 1.8%. Thankfully, he left, and Trump raised it significantly.

 

[protectionist]

US Trade deficit....the yellow line is when Trump took office...

View attachment 255232

Since when is the Census Bureau a source for facts about trade deficits ? And this chart doesn't even have a title. Who knows what it represents ?

 

[protectionist]

This time I see your facts. But it’s interpreting those facts in a meaningful way that separates the knowledgeable scientific minded persons from the clowns. The main problem with your interpretation of this data is that:

(A) Obama was not President for only one year.

I can give you more but I will wait for your concurrence that (A) is indeed a fact. You may not.

That is why I presented to you this fact:

View attachment 255234

Scientific, facts based minds always look to the maximum relative data that is available.

What took place from July 2016 thru January 2017 does not reflect the much larger reality that TrumpO inherited, what soon will be, the longest record setting expansion in US history.

View attachment 255235

At First you were willing to compare Obama's best year to TrumpO’s best year. But you ran away from that.

Do you care to explain why?

I responded to your comment >> "No sinking economy preceded Trump"

That comment was FALSE. The word sink refers to something that is continually going down. That's exactly what the economy was doing, preceding Trump (from 2.3% GDP to 1.8)

And I did not run away from anything. I compared Obama's best (and only) year (2016) to Trump's best year.

Of course, I concur that Obama was not president for only one year. But only one year (2016) is attributable to his work. The preceding years were natural recoil after a serious recession, whereby steady improvement typically occurs, on its own, regardless of any presidency.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

US Trade deficit....the yellow line is when Trump took office...

View attachment 255232

Since when is the Census Bureau a source for facts about trade deficits ? And this chart doesn't even have a title. Who knows what it represents ?

You people seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of showing your ignorance.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with World, Seasonally Adjusted

United States Balance of Trade | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[protectionist]

You people seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of showing your ignorance.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with World, Seasonally Adjusted

United States Balance of Trade | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

1. There still should be a TITLE to any chart that is posted in a computer forum.

2. The Trump reign (8 years quite likely) is only 2 years into its possible length (1/4 of the time). Trade deals are still in process, and not even at halfway point. Never judge an artists' painting, until it is DONE.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You people seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of showing your ignorance.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with World, Seasonally Adjusted

United States Balance of Trade | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

1. There still should be a TITLE to any chart that is posted in a computer forum.

2. The Trump reign (8 years quite likely) is only 2 years into its possible length (1/4 of the time). Trade deals are still in process, and not even at halfway point. Never judge an artists' painting, until it is DONE.

You asked for information, I gave information. I made no judgements.

Personally I think the bluster about trade deficits is just bullshit to get the faithful riled up. There is nothing wrong with a county running a trade deficit, which is why ours only drops when the economy tanks


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Jitss617]

Same lay out every serious economist laid out for you to read.. like I said if you know more and don’t want to be embarrassed call cnn they would love to hear the negative side affects of this deal..

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and offering your unconditional surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

Not at all. I give Trump credit when it is due. I have openly supported and cheered for his two SCOTUS picks, for his changes to the Fed Govt work guidelines, for his desire to pull the troops out of the ME and other areas.

So, are you ready to discuss specific provisions or will you just keep making your own ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Debate the economist not me

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and offering your unconditional surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

Not at all. I give Trump credit when it is due. I have openly supported and cheered for his two SCOTUS picks, for his changes to the Fed Govt work guidelines, for his desire to pull the troops out of the ME and other areas.

So, are you ready to discuss specific provisions or will you just keep making your own ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Debate the economist not me

There are no economist saying what you claim they are. You are lying and are too stupid to even do a good job of it

But I must commend you on knowing your limits and not attempting to discus specifics with me

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Jitss617]

No ad hominem please.. if you can’t hang I totally understand

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

Not at all. I give Trump credit when it is due. I have openly supported and cheered for his two SCOTUS picks, for his changes to the Fed Govt work guidelines, for his desire to pull the troops out of the ME and other areas.

So, are you ready to discuss specific provisions or will you just keep making your own ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Debate the economist not me

There are no economist saying what you claim they are. You are lying and are too stupid to even do a good job of it

But I must commend you on knowing your limits and not attempting to discus specifics with me

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again why are you attacking me, attack all the amazing economist that love it

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There was no ad hominem. Your plea to authority fails in two areas.

One as a logical fallacy and two in the fact that nobody outside of the White House claiming the new NAFTA will have an impact in the GDP.

None of the minor tweaks will do a thing.

I would be happy to discuss each provision with you if you need to be educated on the new deal.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome

Not at all. I give Trump credit when it is due. I have openly supported and cheered for his two SCOTUS picks, for his changes to the Fed Govt work guidelines, for his desire to pull the troops out of the ME and other areas.

So, are you ready to discuss specific provisions or will you just keep making your own ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Debate the economist not me

There are no economist saying what you claim they are. You are lying and are too stupid to even do a good job of it

But I must commend you on knowing your limits and not attempting to discus specifics with me

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again why are you attacking me, attack all the amazing economist that love it

I am not attacking you, quit whining like a baby.

I am stating he facts, nothing more.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[g5000]

Here’s the record thru 2018:
View attachment 254781

U.S. - GDP growth by year 1990-2017 | Statista

Trump and Obama are tied a 2.9 Best full year of GDP growth.

Do you think Trump’s Q1 this year will break the tie and boost Trump to 3.0 or more?

Do you believe Trump will ever get a full year of GDP growth this high?

View attachment 254787

Some experts - The liberal fake news WSJ is forecasting 1.4% for Q1.

• Economic Forecasting Survey - The Wall Street Journal. Economist Q&A. Forecast Edition: March 2019 ..... Projected: Q1 2019. 1.4%. Projected: Q2 2019. 2.6%. Projected: Q3 2019. 2.2%. Projected: ...

Trump supporters tell us your forecast?

What happens if Trump’s third year ends (GDP-wise) anywhere below Obama’s 2.9% in 2015?

According to Trump 2.9 is anemic and weak.

"Obama is the first president in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth," Trump said during an Oct. 28 campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

Trump's claim about Obama's weak economic growth is limited

Do you think Trump will be the second president in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth,"

What does an “anemic” Trump do for Obama’s legacy?

• Moving forward, there are reasons to believe that growth will continue to be slower than was originally hoped. Annual U.S. GDP growth exceeding 3.0 percent, as experienced in the mid- to late 1990s and mid-2000s, is not expected to be attainable over the coming decade.

The U.S. economy to 2022: settling into a new normal : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Are we settling into a new normal that is not so horrible without 3% sustained GDP growth?

You fricken loons are, if nothing else, quite entertaining. You piss and moan month after month for the last couple of years, resisting everything and anything possible. Then you want to whine about GDP numbers not reaching a certain level. Why the hell don't ya try contributing for once in your stinkin life.

How ironic. All you pseudocon fuckwits did for eight years was whine about how laggard Obama's economy was.

Trump himself whined about it.

Karma's a BITCH!

 

[g5000]

Even though Trump has been trying to juice the GDP with the largest big government spending budgets in the history of the Universe, running up trillion dollar deficits in the process, he still hasn't been able to hit the magic 4.0 percent GDP he promised.

Sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, post: 22164598,

Can Trump beat Obama's 1.6%?

He would still have to beat Obama’s 2.9 and he has not?

He doesn't need to break 2.9% to beat Obama's 1.6% average.

Wow you are a total partisan asshole.

Why the hell else would you compare 2009 middle of recession economy Obama was handed off to what Trump was given?

Middle of recession? The recession ended in June 2009.
Feel free to subtract Q1 2009 and Q2 2009 and get back to me with Obama's performance.

are you so dishonest as to claim that the second a recession is over we are back to prerecession numbers?

Do you know what the term recession means? Maybe you ought to quote a definition so we can see if you are lying or just stupid

are you so dishonest as to claim that the second a recession is over we are back to prerecession numbers?

I'd never claim that. I'll just continue to laugh at jokers who claim Obama's weak 8 year economic performance had nothing to do with Obama.

Do you know what the term recession means?

A recession is two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product (GDP)

Definition of RECESSION

Now you realize that the recession ended in Jun 2009, right?

 

[Lesh]

Now you realize that the recession ended in Jun 2009, right?

So the third and fourth quarters would not be expected to be anything other than declining...

They could be zero GDP growth and still not be technically part of the Recession...right? Right,

In fact including those quarters would actually be dishonest in evaluating Obama's performance...wouldn't it...

Yea

 

[Lesh]

And then there's the fact that in trying to make Obama a one term President that Republicans fought the kind of spending that would have given us a robust Recovery (sequester, government shut down, battling the Stimulus)...

So there's that

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you realize that the recession ended in Jun 2009, right?

So the third and fourth quarters would not be expected to be anything other than declining...

They could be zero GDP growth and still not be technically part of the Recession...right? Right,

In fact including those quarters would actually be dishonest in evaluating Obama's performance...wouldn't it...

Yea

So the third and fourth quarters would not be expected to be anything other than declining...

If they were declining, the recession would have ended later than June 2009.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And then there's the fact that in trying to make Obama a one term President that Republicans fought the kind of spending that would have given us a robust Recovery (sequester, government shut down, battling the Stimulus)...

So there's that

Poor Obama, he only added $9.3 trillion to the debt. How much should he have added?