You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

I clearly DO understand th graph, which clearly shows 2015/2016 (Obama's last 2 years) with GDPs SINKING like a lead ball, and 2017/2018 with RISING GDPs in Trump's rescue of us from Obama's cluelessness.

View attachment 1002255

Maybe you thought USMB posters can't read graphs, huh ? Sorry puppy. They can.

Not a single negative quarter on your chart, let alone two in a row.

 

[jc456]

You're a coward who can't defend his position with a rational, evidence-supported argument in a political debate forum. All you can do is condescendingly claim the other person is too stupid to debate you, avoiding having to defend your claims. If what I said is fake news or incorrect as you've claimed, then present your evidence. You refuse to do that because you're a coward who is unable to defend his position. You're the one who is clearly dishonest and stupid.

I respond to your posts not for your sake but for the sake of others who are genuinely interested in the truth. The fact that you're a shithead doesn't stop me from responding to your posts, because my time and effort isn't for you, but for others.

I try not wasting my time on people who have no desire to rationally discuss a topic. It's quite obvious you believe in bullshit and not the intended position of a policy. I get it, you are willfully locked to the demofk party and nothing they do is ever a lie. I get it. Trickle down is a demofk phrase designed to fool the sheep at successes of conservative policies. Let me know when you want to be serious about a discussion.

 

[protectionist]

Obama was dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The fact that we even had a recovery, and one that ultimately led to over 75 consecutive months of job growth, is a testament to the effectiveness of the policies you’re so quick to dismiss.

Obama's first 6 years were essentially postrecession BOUNCE, which would have been good no matter who was president.
After the bounce wore off, and Obama was on his own (2015), we got 2 consecutive recessions, (3.6....2.5....1.6....0.7)
and 2016 wasn't much better.

United States GDP Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2.80 percent in the second quarter of 2024 over the previous quarter. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and...

tradingeconomics.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me begin by saying that I truly do not want to continue this debate, given that it means absolutely nothing as far as the situation now. My focus is on the future and what will happen and not on the past and what happened then.

Having said that, I did find this article from Forbes that does says it all:


End of story for me on this conversation.

Let me begin by saying that I truly do not want to continue this debate,

Obviously. I highlight your idiocy in every response.

Forbes got part of it right.

While there is no question that Reagan’s economy rebounded with a greater fury and in a far shorter time frame than what Obama has been able to accomplish,

Forbes really highlights the idiocy of your claim.

What I said though, is that Reagan's recovery was small (compared to Obama's)

DURR

 

[jc456]

LOL

So the answer to my question is, "no," you can't read English...

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...​

yep, look at the third and fourth word, 'is authorized'. Meaning congress gave him permission. wow. Rational isn't your thing at all girl.

 

[jc456]

Usurping their duties.

well he posted the letter of authorization. Meaning congress approved of the effort!!! She doesn't know what the words, 'is authorized' means exactly.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I clearly DO understand th graph, which clearly shows 2015/2016 (Obama's last 2 years) with GDPs SINKING like a lead ball, and 2017/2018 with RISING GDPs in Trump's rescue of us from Obama's cluelessness.

View attachment 1002255

Maybe you thought USMB posters can't read graphs, huh ? Sorry puppy. They can.

Protectionist, your interpretation of the graph is way off base. The graph you're showing reflects annual GDP growth rates, not absolute GDP levels, and it's clear that the economy under Obama didn't "tank" as you're suggesting. In fact, the U.S. economy experienced steady growth throughout Obama’s presidency following the Great Recession. The dip from 3.5% in 2015 to 1.6% in 2016 doesn't represent some catastrophic economic failure , it's a typical fluctuation within a larger trend of post-recession recovery. GDP growth rates naturally fluctuate year to year due to various factors, including global economic conditions, domestic demand, and fiscal policies.

Now, let’s talk about the so-called "rescue" you’re crediting to Trump. The uptick in GDP growth in 2017 and 2018 that you’re pointing to isn’t the result of some miraculous turnaround, it’s a continuation of the recovery momentum that began long before Trump took office. The economy was already on a stable growth path, and the slight boost can largely be attributed to the short-term effects of Trump’s tax cuts, which pumped temporary stimulus into the economy. However, those tax cuts also ballooned the deficit and primarily benefited corporations and the wealthy, making their long-term effectiveness highly questionable.

In reality, the graph shows the natural ebb and flow of an economy in recovery, not a dramatic collapse followed by a heroic rescue. Trying to spin this as Obama tanking the economy and Trump saving it is not just misleading—it’s flat-out wrong. The growth you see post-2016 is part of the same trend that started years earlier, under Obama's policies.

You can find detailed GDP growth data, including historical fluctuations, from several reliable sources:

1. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
   
   • The FRED website, maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, provides a wealth of economic data, including GDP growth rates. You can access and download the data from their website here: FRED GDP Data
   • Once on the site, you can customize the data range and download it in various formats for further analysis.
2. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
   
   • The BEA is the primary source for U.S. GDP data. Their website offers detailed reports and datasets on GDP, including quarterly and annual growth rates. Visit their website here: BEA GDP Data
   • You can explore interactive data tables and access historical GDP figures directly from their platform.
3. World Bank
   
   • The World Bank offers global economic data, including GDP growth rates for many countries, including the United States. You can find the data here: World Bank GDP Data
   • This site provides data in a user-friendly format, and you can download it in various formats for analysis.
4. International Monetary Fund (IMF)
   
   • The IMF also provides detailed GDP growth data through its World Economic Outlook database. Visit the IMF's data portal here: IMF World Economic Outlook
   • The IMF offers data on GDP growth along with projections and historical data.

By visiting these resources, you can access historical GDP growth data, visualize trends, and better understand the patterns of economic expansion and contraction over time.

 

[Luckyone]

Common sense, you’re obviously not very bright…

See above, you’re still weak…

The kind you can’t handle

WOW, I am impressed. You came up with those answers (not bright, weak, and unable to handle) all on your own?

You got no help from this guy?

You have reached a new high (oops, sorry.....new low) with your comment. I am impressed at your ability to find and provide the garbage needed. I am impressed.

 

[Faun]

Obama's first 6 years were essentially postrecession BOUNCE, which would have been good no matter who was president.
After the bounce wore off, and Obama was on his own (2015), we got 2 consecutive recessions, (3.6....2.5....1.6....0.7)
and 2016 wasn't much better.

United States GDP Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2.80 percent in the second quarter of 2024 over the previous quarter. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and...

tradingeconomics.com

Nope, no such recession...

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

www.nber.org

 

[Luckyone]

Let me begin by saying that I truly do not want to continue this debate,

Obviously. I highlight your idiocy in every response.

Forbes got part of it right.

While there is no question that Reagan’s economy rebounded with a greater fury and in a far shorter time frame than what Obama has been able to accomplish,

Forbes really highlights the idiocy of your claim.

What I said though, is that Reagan's recovery was small (compared to Obama's)

DURR

Fantastic, you won a battle. Unfortunately, your leader is losing the war..............to a Black Woman. Hahaha.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Obama's first 6 years were essentially postrecession BOUNCE, which would have been good no matter who was president.
After the bounce wore off, and Obama was on his own (2015), we got 2 consecutive recessions, (3.6....2.5....1.6....0.7)
and 2016 wasn't much better.

United States GDP Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2.80 percent in the second quarter of 2024 over the previous quarter. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and...

tradingeconomics.com

Protectionist, your claim that Obama’s first six years were just a "post-recession bounce" completely ignores the reality of what it took to pull the country out of the Great Recession. The recovery was anything but automatic, Obama’s administration implemented critical policies like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which helped stabilize the economy, create jobs, and prevent a deeper crisis. The notion that the recovery would have been "good no matter who was president" is wishful thinking that overlooks the complex economic challenges at play.

Furthermore, your assertion of "two consecutive recessions" after 2015 is simply incorrect. A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and that didn’t happen under Obama after 2015. The fluctuations in GDP growth you’re referencing (from 3.6% down to 0.7%) are normal variations within a growing economy and don’t indicate a recession. In fact, the economy continued to grow during Obama’s final years in office, albeit at a slower pace, which is typical as an economy moves from recovery to expansion. Your argument distorts the facts and misrepresents the actual economic conditions during Obama’s presidency.

 

[Faun]

yep, look at the third and fourth word, 'is authorized'. Meaning congress gave him permission. wow. Rational isn't your thing at all girl.

As he determined necessary. They didn't vote for war unless Bush thought it was necessary. He was the decider. He even said that authorization didn't mean there would be a war...

”Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” ~ George Bush​

 

[TruthNotBS]

I try not wasting my time on people who have no desire to rationally discuss a topic. It's quite obvious you believe in bullshit and not the intended position of a policy. I get it, you are willfully locked to the demofk party and nothing they do is ever a lie. I get it. Trickle down is a demofk phrase designed to fool the sheep at successes of conservative policies. Let me know when you want to be serious about a discussion.

You obviously don't want to rationally discuss a topic, and resort to cheap, infantile insults. You want me to let you know when I "want to be serious about a discussion". I am, let's have that discussion. How do you figure that supply-side i.e. trickle-down, laissez-faire economics is good for the working class?

 

[Faun]

well he posted the letter of authorization. Meaning congress approved of the effort!!! She doesn't know what the words, 'is authorized' means exactly.

A pity you can't tell the truth. They approved of it if Bush determined it was necessary. It wasn't.

 

[Nostra]

A pity you can't tell the truth. They approved of it if Bush determined it was necessary. It wasn't.

Fawnboi and his semantic dumbassery.

You claim in 2024 is wasn't necessary. Bush was operating in the moment, and he determined it was..................just as Congress authorized.

You lose again, Simp.

 

[jc456]

As he determined necessary. They didn't vote for war unless Bush thought it was necessary. He was the decider. He even said that authorization didn't mean there would be a war...

”Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” ~ George Bush​

well of course, they agreed with doing it, but what I said was congress approved it, they did. Your own email is my evidence.

 

[jc456]

A pity you can't tell the truth. They approved of it if Bush determined it was necessary. It wasn't.

seems you still can't understand they said it!! And, if they said it, gave him permission to do it, they approved the effort. Dudette, you keep flailing.

 

[jc456]

Fawnboi and his semantic dumbassery.

You claim in 2024 is wasn't necessary. Bush was operating in the moment, and he determined it was..................just as Congress authorized.

You lose again, Simp.

the girl can't comprehend the word authorization.

 

[jc456]

You obviously don't want to rationally discuss a topic, and resort to cheap, infantile insults. You want me to let you know when I "want to be serious about a discussion". I am, let's have that discussion. How do you figure that supply-side i.e. trickle-down, laissez-faire economics is good for the working class?

then provide a definition of your demofks trickle down phrase!!!

 

[protectionist]

The claim that the Bidens caused "100-200% inflation in housing rents and gas prices" is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts. While inflation has indeed affected many sectors, including housing and gas, it's important to note that these issues are driven by a complex mix of factors, many of which are beyond the control of any single administration. If our government was more socialist or leftist, it would deal with these issues more effectively, but unfortunately, it's not.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains, leading to higher prices for goods and services, including energy. Additionally, the war in Ukraine significantly impacted global oil prices, contributing to the rise in gas prices. Blaming these increases solely on the Biden administration ignores the broader, global context that has influenced these price changes.

The accusation that the Bidens "caused" inflation by bringing in "millions of illegal aliens" and canceling oil drilling is not supported by evidence. The idea that immigration directly causes inflation, especially on the scale mentioned, is not backed by economic data.

The claim that the administration has done "nothing" to mitigate inflation is also misleading. The Biden administration has taken several measures, including the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help lower gas prices and the passing of legislation aimed at addressing supply chain issues and supporting working families. These actions show a concerted effort to address inflation, contrary to the claim that nothing has been done.

Biden is also pro-labor unions and protecting worker rights, much more so than Trump is.

Could Biden do more? Yes, much more, but he's not a socialist. Trump will simply serve himself and his rich buddies, at the expense of the working class.

HA HA. And you expect that I am not going to shred this pile of talking point jibberish to pieces ? Let's take them one at a time.

1. Since Biden took over, housing rents have jumped 100-200% in only 2 years time. No one has ever seen anything like this.
In 2020, I was paying $600/month for a 1 bdrm apt (typical rent THEN), in Tampa, FL. In 2021, my rent suddenly jumped to $850, soii moved out.
That apt (and the whole complex) is renting for $1200-1600/month (100-167% INCREASE).
A friend of mine in Orlando, FL was paying $750/mo for a 1 bdrm apt. Now, he's paying $2,020/mo.
This is the rule, not the exception.

Using the phrase > "complex mix of factors" is a standard DODGE, used by the left for decades. Ho hum.
No, here is nothing "complex" about it. In cities all over America, Biden has dumped illegal aliens in, in huge numbers. Thus has saturated rental housing markets driving rents WAAAAY up. Not rocket science.

With gas prices, after Biden repeatedly cancelled oil leases/drilling, supply went down, prices went up. Not rocket science. Prices of most everything else went up too, becasue manufacturers fell prey toa Biden thing, caused in large part by his various oil drilling cancellations, which caused oil supply reductions , which in turn caused higher gas & diesel prices, which in turn caused manufacturers of just about everything to raise prices to compensate for a doubling of their transport costs (gas/diesel).