Will the Democrats screw up our booming Economy?

[Beco]

16,0000 manufacturing jobs
Mazda and Toyota building plants in the US
Lowest unemployment rate in 20 years
Highest consumer confidence
a booming stock market
1 million jobs since the inauguration
Dare we say, 2-3% GDP Growth???


Time to ditch the bogus Russian narrative....or watch the Middle-Class rise up and riot making Berkley looking like a child's temper tantrum.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

The Republicans have the White House and both branches of Congress.

If the boom stalls, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Lol

Flashback to 2000.

George Dubya was handed the same thing, and look what he did. Remember 2008? Obama had to come in and fix the economy that a R Pres destroyed.

This is how it works. Democrats make things work; Rs step in and fuck it all up, Ds come in and show competence. Rinse and repeat

Trump and the Rs have done ZERO to contribute to where we are now. NADA. ZERO.

You're ass backwards. You credit Rs for an economy they did NOT create, and now that Rs are totally in power, at all levels, you're implying that the entire gov't is in D hands to destroy.

Moron

16,0000 manufacturing jobs
Mazda and Toyota building plants in the US
Lowest unemployment rate in 20 years
Highest consumer confidence
a booming stock market
1 million jobs since the inauguration
Dare we say, 2-3% GDP Growth???


Time to ditch the bogus Russian narrative....or watch the Middle-Class rise up and riot making Berkley looking like a child's temper tantrum.

 

[Beco]

The Republicans have the White House and both branches of Congress.

If the boom stalls, they have no one to blame but themselves.

True, except Democrats have the TV media, the colleges, and the newspapers...CNN can't help themselves. The write in the same paragraph, good economic news, but Trump has the lowest ratings of any President.....

God forbid a good economy is on a Republican Presidents watch....that's just bad news for the opposition.

 

[Adre]

16,0000 manufacturing jobs
Mazda and Toyota building plants in the US
Lowest unemployment rate in 20 years
Highest consumer confidence
a booming stock market
1 million jobs since the inauguration
Dare we say, 2-3% GDP Growth???


Time to ditch the bogus Russian narrative....or watch the Middle-Class rise up and riot making Berkley looking like a child's temper tantrum.

Who will be responsible when this comes crashing down?

 

[Beco]

Who will be responsible when this comes crashing down?

Probably the next Democratic President.....

I don't care... Stock market cant go up forever, housing is way over priced, and wages are not going higher, something has to give.

 

[Vanadorn]

Until October - it's still Obama's budget - in fact it's been Obama's budget since 2009.

Let's see what it looks like next year at this time. Assuming they can get a tax package together that everyone on all sides of the aisle like.

-V

 

[Hypoxia]

Entropy: everything put together, sooner or later falls apart

We're doomed.
Doomed politically, and financially, and socially.
Cash will soon be worthless; you won't need it any more.
So send me all your money.
I'll take care of it.

 

[phrodeau]

True, except Democrats have the TV media, the colleges, and the newspapers...CNN can't help themselves. The write in the same paragraph, good economic news, but Trump has the lowest ratings of any President.....

God forbid a good economy is on a Republican Presidents watch....that's just bad news for the opposition.

Uh huh. And the ratings spike for Fox News doesn't mean anything at all.

 

[phrodeau]

We're doomed.
Doomed politically, and financially, and socially.
Cash will soon be worthless; you won't need it any more.
So send me all your money.
I'll take care of it.

I bit a coin. Do you want it?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Until October - it's still Obama's budget - in fact it's been Obama's budget since 2009.

Let's see what it looks like next year at this time. Assuming they can get a tax package together that everyone on all sides of the aisle like.

-V

Not really. The USA has been operating without a full budget throughout that period. When the Democrats had Congress, they never passed a budget. Obama refused to sign anything the Republicans sent them. Federal spending has been based on expired budgetary proportions under "continuing resolutions."

More importantly, the current boom has little to do with any governmental policies. It is about the perception that Trump will roll back Federal over-regulation (which he has been quietly doing while everyone who would moan about it has been fixated on Russia), and lower taxes (which he had better do if he or the Republicans want to stay in office). Stock market and other investment booms, including business's capital investment, are about future expectations, not current policies and "budgets."

 

[Adre]

Consulting the GB for economic analysis is like getting advice on food trends in the kitchen of a Cracker Barrel.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Perhaps that explains the 8 solid years of continuing growth under Obama.

Obama refused to sign anything the Republicans sent them.

The current stock market boom, maybe, but you don't completely change the economy on expectations alone. And:

a. Everything else is a continuation and effect of the previous 8 years. It's not like we went from total crap to near full employment in the span of 6 months.

b. It's a myth that "over-regulation" is the problem. We've continued to be "regulated" through all of the Obama years, and we were during the Clinton years, periods of growth, stability and job creation.

c. Trickle down is the same crap myth.

d. Let's see where R policies get us in 4 - 8 years. I can't wait

Stock market and other investment booms, including business's capital investment, are about future expectations, not current policies and "budgets.

 

[Beco]

Until October - it's still Obama's budget - in fact it's been Obama's budget since 2009.

Let's see what it looks like next year at this time. Assuming they can get a tax package together that everyone on all sides of the aisle like.

-V

So you expect and credit Obama with our less than 1% growth?

 

[Beco]

Not really. The USA has been operating without a full budget throughout that period. When the Democrats had Congress, they never passed a budget. Obama refused to sign anything the Republicans sent them. Federal spending has been based on expired budgetary proportions under "continuing resolutions."

More importantly, the current boom has little to do with any governmental policies. It is about the perception that Trump will roll back Federal over-regulation (which he has been quietly doing while everyone who would moan about it has been fixated on Russia), and lower taxes (which he had better do if he or the Republicans want to stay in office). Stock market and other investment booms, including business's capital investment, are about future expectations, not current policies and "budgets."

This!

But I am excited about the Democrats " Better Deal"....good message

 

[Hypoxia]

I bit a coin. Do you want it?

If that's all your money, fine. If not, dig deeper. Two bits, at least.

 

[Gregory38]

Not really. The USA has been operating without a full budget throughout that period. When the Democrats had Congress, they never passed a budget. Obama refused to sign anything the Republicans sent them. Federal spending has been based on expired budgetary proportions under "continuing resolutions."

More importantly, the current boom has little to do with any governmental policies. It is about the perception that Trump will roll back Federal over-regulation (which he has been quietly doing while everyone who would moan about it has been fixated on Russia), and lower taxes (which he had better do if he or the Republicans want to stay in office). Stock market and other investment booms, including business's capital investment, are about future expectations, not current policies and "budgets."

Great assessment... people forget the fact that psychology and behavior have a huge impact on the economy. In addition, there is a significant lag between when policy is passed, implemented and can be measured. Most important, as much impact that a president has, there are always external forces that have as much or more of an impact than a president's policies and wishes... the Fed, global economy, lending practices, and the list goes on as to what those factors are.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Perhaps that explains the 8 solid years of continuing growth under Obama.

The nature of the Obama "recovery" is mostly due to over-regulation, increased taxation, unpredictability in policy, and his general anti-capitalist philosophy.

Let's see here:

Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.​

GDP growth under Obama was worst in decades, N.Y. Post (Mar. 30, 2017).

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/peak_level-gdp_growth-chart.jpg​

The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions. ​

R. Sinquefield, Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery, Forbes (Nov. 29, 2016).

The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/steve-moore-graph.jpg​

If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.​

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average, Investor's Business Daily (July 29, 2016).


That last article is really telling in how the Obama "recovery" would have been had it been merely "average." This graph give the same idea:

https://weststringfellow.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/imrs5-php_.png?w=840​

People complained that Reagan's recovery was "bought" with deficit spending. Yet, Obama's increase in debt was almost 5 times that of Reagan, and his supposed recovery was a mere fraction of what Reagan accomplished. If we had as president from 2009-2017 someone who understood and promoted free market economics, imagine how good things would be now!

 

[someoneyouknow]

So you expect and credit Obama with our less than 1% growth?

Less than 1% growth? What kool aid have you been drinking? Everyone knows, because Republicans keep reminding us, it's been under 3% all eighty years of his presidency.

That looks to continue under the con artist regime simply for the fact trickle down has never worked and when one looks at the proposed tax changes, is exactly what will take place if it goes through. Those at the top will get a massive tax cut, those in the middle will either see no change or an increase in taxes, and those at the bottom will stay the same.

If trickle down worked, the soaring corporate profits under Obama would have worked their way down to higher wages for workers. But it hasn't, has it? Every single report which has come out shows the same thing: stagnant wages. And the same excuses for why wages haven't increased: stock holders need a return on their money, technology has increased productivity so no need to pay people more, people are working longer hours, and of course, the CEO and the board need that extra money to finance their third house and yacht.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see why you would worry about the Democratic Party, Beco. Your party of choice is screwing up so badly in every conceivable way that that should be your primary concern. If you wanted to move over to the Democratic Party and help them figure their positions out, that might be a good move now. But, as either a Republican or a Trumpian (the two not being the same thing, which is a large part of the stagnation), you have a lot bigger problem to worry about than the Democrats--and you probably helped perpetuate the problems by voting for a real sleazebag--while probably for several of them.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Interesting.

None of these stats about growth correlates with either "over-regulation" or "higher taxes."

Obama is anti-capitalist? I thought he (and Hillary) were corporate whore-mongers?????

The nature of the Obama "recovery" is mostly due to over-regulation, increased taxation, unpredictability in policy, and his general anti-capitalist philosophy.

Let's see here:

Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.​

GDP growth under Obama was worst in decades, N.Y. Post (Mar. 30, 2017).

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/peak_level-gdp_growth-chart.jpg​

The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in postwar American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions. ​

R. Sinquefield, Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery, Forbes (Nov. 29, 2016).

The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/steve-moore-graph.jpg​

If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.​

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average, Investor's Business Daily (July 29, 2016).


That last article is really telling in how the Obama "recovery" would have been had it been merely "average." This graph give the same idea:

https://weststringfellow.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/imrs5-php_.png?w=840​

People complained that Reagan's recovery was "bought" with deficit spending. Yet, Obama's increase in debt was almost 5 times that of Reagan, and his supposed recovery was a mere fraction of what Reagan accomplished. If we had as president from 2009-2017 someone who understood and promoted free market economics, imagine how good things would be now!

 

[HisArpy]

Lol

Flashback to 2000.

George Dubya was handed the same thing, and look what he did. Remember 2008? Obama had to come in and fix the economy that a R Pres destroyed.

This is how it works. Democrats make things work; Rs step in and fuck it all up, Ds come in and show competence. Rinse and repeat

Trump and the Rs have done ZERO to contribute to where we are now. NADA. ZERO.

You're ass backwards. You credit Rs for an economy they did NOT create, and now that Rs are totally in power, at all levels, you're implying that the entire gov't is in D hands to destroy.

Moron

Revise history much? Remember that thing called 9/11? And the major stock market crash that followed it?

None of that was Bush's fault. He was prez but it wasn't something he did that caused it. IIRC, Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL but didn't. You know the DEMOCRAT who fucked up the world because he failed to stop the guy who planned the 9/11 terror attacks... Some wonderful fixing-what's-broken in there I'm sure [/sarcasm]

For the record, I AM NOT A GW BUSH FAN! I think the man was a complete moron and had almost zero personal competence. But, saying that the bad economy was somehow his fault is a lie.

And, of course you don't remember the housing boom (and subsequent collapse because of policies created by DEMOCRATS back in the Reagan years).

Nope, instead you just lie. You must be a Democrat.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh, well now that we're on that topic:

"Obama bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S." Sound familiar?

Remember all the warnings about terrorists planning to use planes as weapons?

Well, I think it's safe to say Gore wouldn't have done something as STUPID as get us into a pointless war that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Dubya took Clinton's economy and pissed it into the desert for no good reason.

If you have 8 years, you own the economy.

What can I say? You nutjubs will find a Clinton to blame for whatever you need.

I predict: Trump will take Obama's economy and trash it, just like Rs always do.

On the subject of "lies"--Ha ha ha ha h ah ha ha ha. Ha.

Trump is universally acknowledged around the globe and everywhere in the U.S. besides his braindead fans as the biggest liar EVER to hold office. Good luck with that.

Revise history much? Remember that thing called 9/11? And the major stock market crash that followed it?

None of that was Bush's fault. He was prez but it wasn't something he did that caused it. IIRC, Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL but didn't. You know the DEMOCRAT who fucked up the world because he failed to stop the guy who planned the 9/11 terror attacks... Some wonderful fixing-what's-broken in there I'm sure [/sarcasm]

For the record, I AM NOT A GW BUSH FAN! I think the man was a complete moron and had almost zero personal competence. But, saying that the bad economy was somehow his fault is a lie.

And, of course you don't remember the housing boom (and subsequent collapse because of policies created by DEMOCRATS back in the Reagan years).

Nope, instead you just lie. You must be a Democrat.

 

[Beco]

Great assessment... people forget the fact that psychology and behavior have a huge impact on the economy. In addition, there is a significant lag between when policy is passed, implemented and can be measured. Most important, as much impact that a president has, there are always external forces that have as much or more of an impact than a president's policies and wishes... the Fed, global economy, lending practices, and the list goes on as to what those factors are.

Psychology is a huge factor.... hammer home one message, even if it is not true, and eventually, people will start to believe it. Such as, Russia, Russia, Russia....

 

[sr71plt]

The essential "fact" is that neither Trump nor the Republican Congress have done a damn thing about the economy one way or the other. They haven't done a damn thing about much of anything.