The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Now, see, when you quote that one wonders why one thinks that means things are better now under Trump. It's saying that it's the best 1st quarter growth rate since the one that happened during Obama's second to last year. And if you look it up you find that the 1st quarter growth rate during Obama's second to last year was slightly higher than 3.2% at 3.3%.

So...like...the fact that it was the highest first quarter rate since it happened under Obama is supposed to make everybody thing "OH WOW! THINGS ARE REALLY A LOT BETTER NOW!"

You’re right, John. Because economic conditions in 2015 were EXACTLY like they are today. Obama achieved 3.3% in a zero rate environment after THREE massive QE’s. Trump achieved 3.2% in the face of NINE rate increases and the Fed unwinding their balance sheet, but you already knew that. You seriously need to just STFU when it comes to economic discussions.

You are really, really reaching now. Sure, there are all kinds of differences between what was going on during Obama and what has been going on during Trump. One of them is that Obama took over when an economic crisis was going on. We were in the midst of a severe recession. Trump took over when we were already in a well established economic recovery.

It's not to say either Obama or Trump caused anything. It's just that if you are just looking at what the economy has done over time it's not a situation where the economy was "bad" then Trump took over and now it's "good." It's just not. With respect to GDP the only change is that variation in quarterly GDP growth has decreased. Annual GDP growth, so far, has been consistent with what it's been during the now 10 year long expansion.

[AZGrizFan]

You’re right, John. Because economic conditions in 2015 were EXACTLY like they are today. Obama achieved 3.3% in a zero rate environment after THREE massive QE’s. Trump achieved 3.2% in the face of NINE rate increases and the Fed unwinding their balance sheet, but you already knew that. You seriously need to just STFU when it comes to economic discussions.

You are really, really reaching now. Sure, there are all kinds of differences between what was going on during Obama and what has been going on during Trump. One of them is that Obama took over when an economic crisis was going on. We were in the midst of a severe recession. Trump took over when we were already in a well established economic recovery.

It's not to say either Obama or Trump caused anything. It's just that if you are just looking at what the economy has done over time it's not a situation where the economy was "bad" then Trump took over and now it's "good." It's just not. With respect to GDP the only change is that variation in quarterly GDP growth has decreased. Annual GDP growth, so far, has been consistent with what it's been during the now 10 year long expansion.

No, it’s a situation where the economy under Obama was easy, with the skids greased by ZERO percent rates and zero rate increases in 8 years. Now it’s hard, with the Fed unwinding their balance sheet and 9 rate increases in two years. And yes, it’s been a 10-year expansion in which during Obama’s ENTIRE 8 year presidency it was EASY. Now it’s not so easy. Comparing the two and saying Trump hasn’t accomplished anything just completely exposes your TDS.

[AZGrizFan]

In all seriousness about the GDP thing I've thought for a while that what we've seen is a decrease in the variability of quarterly GDP growth. I found a graph that really shows that. It's quarterly GDP growth for the past 10 years. So it's going back to the big recession around 2009 through the present. See below. You can see that during the Obama administration the "swings" were bigger. We had both higher and lower quarterly GDP growth than we've had so far during Trump's administration. You can also see that most of quarterly growth rates during Trump are actually below the trend line. It's not like the quarter to quarter variations tend to break "upward" during Trump to suggest that the overall central trend has gotten "better."

The overall central trend has not changed. There's no perceptable upswing in GDP associated with Trump taking office. Just a decrease in variability. The highs haven't been as high and the lows haven't been as low as they were during the Obama administration. You can generate the graph at https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth.

Do you know what’s harder than coming out of a recession and having all the wind at your back? Continuing an 8-year economic expansion with all the wind now in your face.

[CID1990]

Ugh dude

You wound me when you don’t read me- really

Support for Trump is absolutely consistent with conservative, Old Testament Christianity

Trump is Cyrus. It really IS that simple.

French is right that politics are as transactional for Christians as for any other advocacy group. But that has no relation to people’s faith... if you’re a bible thumping Oral Roberts type you have zero moral conflict with Trump being President. You might even believe he was on his way to hell before he took office.. but not now- he redeemed himself in the eyes of the dude upstairs.

No story could be MORE Christian

I get that part... nothing could be more Christian than selling your soul for power
as long as it's like a fabled version of the same dishonorable trait
It's also an incredible flaw in the Cosmic Santa Claus Club

Again: Understood (Check)
it's super Christian to be hypocritical and smarmy as long as you get something back

My point still stands
It's a goat herding iron age train wreck of a religion due for a serious upgrade
and just because American moms and dads indoctrinated their kids into it doesn't mean I need to respect it

I’m not refuting your point

You just seem to be confused - that somehow people who follow organized religions are somehow supposed to be principled and consistent in the application of their iron age superstitions




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

I get that part... nothing could be more Christian than selling your soul for power
as long as it's like a fabled version of the same dishonorable trait
It's also an incredible flaw in the Cosmic Santa Claus Club

Again: Understood (Check)
it's super Christian to be hypocritical and smarmy as long as you get something back

My point still stands
It's a goat herding iron age train wreck of a religion due for a serious upgrade
and just because American moms and dads indoctrinated their kids into it doesn't mean I need to respect it

I’m not refuting your point

You just seem to be confused - that somehow people who follow organized religions are somehow supposed to be principled and consistent in the application of their iron age superstitions

I would actually argue that faithful Christians are more likely to be less principled
precisely because of their poorly constructed book and poorly rendered fables
fraught with exceptions and excuses

[kalm]

I get that part... nothing could be more Christian than selling your soul for power
as long as it's like a fabled version of the same dishonorable trait
It's also an incredible flaw in the Cosmic Santa Claus Club

Again: Understood (Check)
it's super Christian to be hypocritical and smarmy as long as you get something back

My point still stands
It's a goat herding iron age train wreck of a religion due for a serious upgrade
and just because American moms and dads indoctrinated their kids into it doesn't mean I need to respect it

I’m not refuting your point

You just seem to be confused - that somehow people who follow organized religions are somehow supposed to be principled and consistent in the application of their iron age superstitions




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They aren’t supposed to be?

I’ll admit to be confused as well.

[UNI88]

I’m not refuting your point

You just seem to be confused - that somehow people who follow organized religions are somehow supposed to be principled and consistent in the application of their iron age superstitions




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They aren’t supposed to be?

I’ll admit to be confused as well.

It's pretty simple. Christians don't like to be called hypocrites for supporting lying, philandering scumbags and socialists don't like to be called hypocrites for being millionaires. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

They aren’t supposed to be?

I’ll admit to be confused as well.

It's pretty simple. Christians don't like to be called hypocrites for supporting lying, philandering scumbags and socialists don't like to be called hypocrites for being millionaires. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

How many American socialists are opposed to millionaires?

[JohnStOnge]

You are really, really reaching now. Sure, there are all kinds of differences between what was going on during Obama and what has been going on during Trump. One of them is that Obama took over when an economic crisis was going on. We were in the midst of a severe recession. Trump took over when we were already in a well established economic recovery.

It's not to say either Obama or Trump caused anything. It's just that if you are just looking at what the economy has done over time it's not a situation where the economy was "bad" then Trump took over and now it's "good." It's just not. With respect to GDP the only change is that variation in quarterly GDP growth has decreased. Annual GDP growth, so far, has been consistent with what it's been during the now 10 year long expansion.

No, it’s a situation where the economy under Obama was easy, with the skids greased by ZERO percent rates and zero rate increases in 8 years. Now it’s hard, with the Fed unwinding their balance sheet and 9 rate increases in two years. And yes, it’s been a 10-year expansion in which during Obama’s ENTIRE 8 year presidency it was EASY. Now it’s not so easy. Comparing the two and saying Trump hasn’t accomplished anything just completely exposes your TDS.

What's being exposed is you trying to find SOME way to say things have significantly changed under Trump. Data are data. There are always things going on. But your thing is to try to find SOME way to say that, even though there been any "significant" changes in measures such as the trend in unemployment and real GDP there is evidence that Trump REALLY improved things. No way. The quantitative evidence just isn't there.

It's just amazing to me that you say things were EASY for a President coming in when we were in the midst of a severe recession but it was HARD for a President coming in when we were in the 10th year of an economic expansion. Just step back and contemplate the absurdity of that position. And it IS absurd.

[kalm]

No, it’s a situation where the economy under Obama was easy, with the skids greased by ZERO percent rates and zero rate increases in 8 years. Now it’s hard, with the Fed unwinding their balance sheet and 9 rate increases in two years. And yes, it’s been a 10-year expansion in which during Obama’s ENTIRE 8 year presidency it was EASY. Now it’s not so easy. Comparing the two and saying Trump hasn’t accomplished anything just completely exposes your TDS.

What's being exposed is you trying to find SOME way to say things have significantly changed under Trump. Data are data. There are always things going on. But your thing is to try to find SOME way to say that, even though there been any "significant" changes in measures such as the trend in unemployment and real GDP there is evidence that Trump REALLY improved things. No way. The quantitative evidence just isn't there.

It's just amazing to me that you say things were EASY for a President coming in when we were in the midst of a severe recession but it was HARD for a President coming in when we were in the 10th year of an economic expansion. Just step back and contemplate the absurdity of that position. And it IS absurd.

Not all of it. Nowhere to go but up....Cyclical economics....

The inconsistency lies in the belief that if you just deregulate and cut taxes enough, you will go up in perpetuity and take care of debt.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

It's pretty simple. Christians don't like to be called hypocrites for supporting lying, philandering scumbags and socialists don't like to be called hypocrites for being millionaires. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

How many American socialists are opposed to millionaires?

9?

[UNI88]

It's pretty simple. Christians don't like to be called hypocrites for supporting lying, philandering scumbags and socialists don't like to be called hypocrites for being millionaires. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

How many American socialists are opposed to millionaires?

All of them if you interpret the desire to redistribute income and provide Cadillac social services via high taxes as opposition.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

How many American socialists are opposed to millionaires?

All of them if you interpret the desire to redistribute income and provide Cadillac social services via high taxes as opposition.

I don't know what the answer is...
but I've never heard one billionaire (or millionaire for that matter)
ever make the claim that high taxes kept them from becoming or staying a billionaire



not one..

[kalm]

How many American socialists are opposed to millionaires?

All of them if you interpret the desire to redistribute income and provide Cadillac social services via high taxes as opposition.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Who’s advocating for Cadillac social services? Define Cadillac.

As redistribution, at least some of those pesky middle class deductions were eliminated.

[kalm]

All of them if you interpret the desire to redistribute income and provide Cadillac social services via high taxes as opposition.

I don't know what the answer is...
but I've never heard one billionaire (or millionaire for that matter)
ever make the claim that high taxes kept them from becoming or staying a billionaire



not one..

I know that Northern Europe doesn’t have a single millionaire.

Fact.

[Chizzang]

I don't know what the answer is...
but I've never heard one billionaire (or millionaire for that matter)
ever make the claim that high taxes kept them from becoming or staying a billionaire



not one..

I know that Northern Europe doesn’t have a single millionaire.

Fact.

Look I'm NOT for higher taxes...
But it's not the problem we're led to believe it is

BTW: reducing taxes doesn't deliver anything even close to what we're promised will happen either

[UNI88]

All of them if you interpret the desire to redistribute income and provide Cadillac social services via high taxes as opposition.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Who’s advocating for Cadillac social services? Define Cadillac.

As redistribution, at least some of those pesky middle class deductions were eliminated.

Define socialist. A true socialist (not democratic socialist) is opposed to the accumulation of wealth through private sector initiatives. They would want to tax such wealth to the point where they can redistribute it (after taking out the government's cut and using it to buy themselves a lakeside dacha in Vermont).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Who’s advocating for Cadillac social services? Define Cadillac.

As redistribution, at least some of those pesky middle class deductions were eliminated.

Define socialist. A true socialist (not democratic socialist) is opposed to the accumulation of wealth through private sector initiatives. They would want to tax such wealth to the point where they can redistribute it (after taking out the government's cut and using it to buy themselves a lakeside dacha in Vermont).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Well I’m pretty sure Bernie isn’t a true socialist but that’s the beauty of our system. You can neither be a true socialist or true capitalist where you accept competition and democracy crushing monopolies...waiting for the market to take them down.

[CID1990]

I know that Northern Europe doesn’t have a single millionaire.

Fact.

Look I'm NOT for higher taxes...
But it's not the problem we're led to believe it is

BTW: reducing taxes doesn't deliver anything even close to what we're promised will happen either

That’s true

My opposition to raising taxes is rooted mostly in the fact that it simply grows a government which is already a very bad steward of the money to begin with. Feeding it more isn’t going to fix any of our looming problems.

But politicians want to get reelected and fixing healthcare and entitlements will create across the board pain that will make reelection impossible

So here we are, bickering about the rich and how they don’t give the government enough of their money to set on fire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

What's being exposed is you trying to find SOME way to say things have significantly changed under Trump. Data are data. There are always things going on. But your thing is to try to find SOME way to say that, even though there been any "significant" changes in measures such as the trend in unemployment and real GDP there is evidence that Trump REALLY improved things. No way. The quantitative evidence just isn't there.

It's just amazing to me that you say things were EASY for a President coming in when we were in the midst of a severe recession but it was HARD for a President coming in when we were in the 10th year of an economic expansion. Just step back and contemplate the absurdity of that position. And it IS absurd.

Not all of it. Nowhere to go but up....Cyclical economics....

There is something to that. In fact back when Obama won I posted either here or on AGS (I don't remember when I switched to here) that Obama was in good shape because he was taking over when things were bad.

Nevertheless, Trump's schtick is that he took over a mess and turned it around. That is nonsense. He took over when everything was going in the right direction. And, again, the test to me is to look at the data then ask yourself if one would think just based on the data that something changed in recent years to change the basic nature of the current recovery. And the honest answer to that question is "no." Bottom line is that the economy turned around early during the Obama Administration and has been pretty much on the same trajectory ever since. The idea that we had an awful economy then Trump rode in on his white horse and changed things is absurd.

[SDHornet]

All these arguments about the economy, and I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how our economy posted more than a 2% growth, after all we were told those days were over.

Maybe Trump used his magic wand.

[kalm]

Look I'm NOT for higher taxes...
But it's not the problem we're led to believe it is

BTW: reducing taxes doesn't deliver anything even close to what we're promised will happen either

That’s true

My opposition to raising taxes is rooted mostly in the fact that it simply grows a government which is already a very bad steward of the money to begin with. Feeding it more isn’t going to fix any of our looming problems.

But politicians want to get reelected and fixing healthcare and entitlements will create across the board pain that will make reelection impossible

So here we are, bickering about the rich and how they don’t give the government enough of their money to set on fire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid.

Sounds like the Clinton presidency was the best mix for you? A president willing and able to raise taxes coupled with a Republican Congress that put the reigns on spending.

[CID1990]

That’s true

My opposition to raising taxes is rooted mostly in the fact that it simply grows a government which is already a very bad steward of the money to begin with. Feeding it more isn’t going to fix any of our looming problems.

But politicians want to get reelected and fixing healthcare and entitlements will create across the board pain that will make reelection impossible

So here we are, bickering about the rich and how they don’t give the government enough of their money to set on fire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid.

Sounds like the Clinton presidency was the best mix for you? A president willing and able to raise taxes coupled with a Republican Congress that put the reigns on spending.

Clinton’s second term, yes.

Nowhere close to my ideal, but closer than anyone since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Not all of it. Nowhere to go but up....Cyclical economics....

Nevertheless, my schtick is that I argue emphatically that everything positive about Trump is nonsense.

FYP

John you're not completely wrong about Trump but you're not right either. The economy wasn't as bad as it was for Obama but Trump has faced some obstacles (as AZ has pointed out) that Obama didn't and as you implied it's can be easier to go up from the bottom than it is to maintain and improve upon the good times. And I believe the economy has improved in the last 2 years.



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Valid.

Sounds like the Clinton presidency was the best mix for you? A president willing and able to raise taxes coupled with a Republican Congress that put the reigns on spending.

Clinton’s second term, yes.

Nowhere close to my ideal, but closer than anyone since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with CID on this.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk