Harvard Yale game

[Empirical Cane]

And there it is. There's the deflection. Anything to provide numbers to the (false claim) that Trump has accelerated the economy. You still haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that shows Trump has accelerated the economy as you (falsely) claimed. Just deflection , emotion, projection, and obfuscation. Just answer the basic question.

What is your evidence that Trump has accelerated the economy?

Two Charts Show Trump's Job Gains Are Just A Continuation From Obama's Presidency

When you look at the numbers (and graphs) the gains in employment under President Trump are essentially a continuation from President Obama‘s last six years in office.

www.forbes.com

Trump boasts the US economy is the best it's ever been under his watch. Here are 9 charts showing how it compares to the Obama and Bush presidencies.

Trump touts his handling of the economy as the strongest indicator of his success, but a closer look reveals a mixed picture.

www.businessinsider.com

Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama's. That's not what happened

Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, Trump and the GOP have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth. New government data show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land – or even match Obama's strongest year.

www.cnbc.com

Trump Is Falling Almost 1 Million Jobs Short Vs. Obama

Trump’s economy is not the best ever. In fact Obama added almost one million more jobs than Trump over the same timeframe.

www.forbes.com

Federal deficit increases 26% to $984 billion for fiscal 2019, highest in 7 years

The gap between revenues and spending was the widest in seven years. Defense, Medicare and interest payments ballooned the shortfall.

www.cnbc.com

My dude -- without sounding sanctimonious -- I follow the markets. Religiously. Probably more than sports and movies/film. I can assure you I am as politically unbiased as they come when it comes to my wallet. I only care about the numbers. Trump has done a good job on the (inherited) economy, but he absolutely has not accelerated it, nor is he doing a better job than Obama (not considerably much worse to be fair to him). No metric will tell that he is which is why I suspect you haven't provided any. Now, you might personally be doing better, and that's cool, and I actually hope you are, but that is a micro example when we're talking macro.

I'm going to ask that you do me a favor, and don't respond to me if you're not going to provide any evidence that Trump accelerated the economy. I don't need the backhanded slights or assumptions or change of topic which you've already done. Just keep it simple my bro:

How has Trump accelerated the economy? Show me the numbers.

But just know, I won't be responding and you'll be talking to yourself. I'm done with this thread. I already know how this is going to end (with you not answering the question). I'll take Dooger's advice.

Hold dude.

Your complete and UTTER lack of how federal.financing works is glaring. I'm not motivated enough to respond to your complete google drivel on a smart phone.

But answer my previous questions: CDFM, CGFM, DW, and RR.

Should be simple. If you can't...my goodness you aren't serious and can only regurgitate CNN/FOX/ pick a news talking point. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Okay. First off Obama wasn't even president in 2007 to 2008. So there goes that talking point. Secondly, cool. You speak as if the numbers would automatically return to normal and therefore the president should get no credit. What a ridiculous notion. This is the conservative talking point being used to dismiss what Obama did with the economy (but at least it recognizes that the recession he inherited was caused by a Republican)? But sure, Let's use 2010 and beyond. The numbers are even more on Obama's side in a direct +/- comparison.

I’ll dissect your stupidity block by block. I’m actually losing IQ points explaining this to you.

Correct on 2007-2008. However it was the height of the real estate and mortgage backed securities craziness. This is important to note and part of my original point that you were unable to grasp. If memory serves, US major indices declined ~50%+ from early Fall 07 peaks to Spring 09 low points. President Obama took 100% completely undeserved criticism for inheriting the “Great Recession”, HOWEVER, he gets undue credit for the normative healing processes in the market returning to steady state. Economic activity AND unemployment had nowhere to go but up. Unemployment rate highs of 10% are borderline Armageddon in today’s modern US economy—it is VERY easy, given a functioning market (that US enjoys), to drop from 10% (Great Depression top’d at ~24%) to 6% than to drop even further from 6% to today’s 3.6% (approaching almost WWII levels of full economic deployment). At 10% (or higher) unemployment, the market is filled with quality applicants waiting in reserve at all levels. Start dipping below 5%, let alone reaching the 3% range, and all you have left are mouth breathers--people who only have jobs because the market is so desperate for ANYONE.

Go ahead and avoid every question I pose to you though (it’s your thing…we all get it here). Your non-responses only further expose you. Perhaps reply back with some other vague and vapid non-answer? Maybe a sad face emoji?

 

[Empirical Cane]

The numbers are even more on Obama's side in a direct +/- comparison.

I love how you say Trump accelerated the economy and then provide absolutely no source for this (false claim). So here you go:

S&P 500 Has Performed Far Worse Under Trump Than Under Obama | Fortune

Dow Industrials and Nasdaq also saw much higher growth in 2009 to 2012.

fortune.com

Trump Has Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obama

Trump’s economy is not the best ever. In fact Obama added 1.49 million more jobs than Trump over a comparable timeframe, and on a yearly basis Trump has not generated more jobs than any of Obama’s last 3 years even with the tax cut helping 2018’s result.

www.forbes.com

Trump’s job growth falls short of Obama’s last three years (from the above article)

The Labor Department’s revised job count lowered the April 2018 to March 2019 by 501,000. Assuming that the almost 42,000 per month lower number is spread evenly across the 12 months, Trump’s 2018 total of 2.303 million jobs falls short of Obama’s 2014 to 2016 results and essentially matches his 2.302 million for 2013. And 2018 was helped by Trump’s tax cut sugar high.

• 2011 total: 2.075 million
• 2012 total: 2.174 million
• 2013 total: 2.302 million
• 2014 total: 3.006 million
• 2015 total: 2.729 million
• 2016 total: 2.318 million
• 2017 total: 2.153 million
• 2018 total: 2.303 million (first year of tax cut)
• Past 12 months: 1.782 million
• 2019 year to date through August: 1.141 million
• 2019 year to date annualized: 1.711 million

Oh hey look, the article doesn't mention the Obama years you said didn't count. How bout that! You also said his policies are the reason why the economy is what is, but a year after his very unnecessary tax cut, job creation is actually down versus last year. Any other economic metrics you'd like to compare from Obama (post 2010 per you) to Trump's?

Ok, onto the next Mr. “I follow the markets closely”—that gave me a good laugh, because you clearly then aren’t paying attention.

Here your cherry picking is par excellence—congratulations on exposing your 1” deep knowledge on the topics. As I mentioned before, President Obama’s job growth numbers had NOWHERE to go but up—that doesn’t make him better/worse than any other President, it just is a fact. Again, it’s easier for your below average kid to raise their Economics 101 test scores from 50s to 80s, than it is to go from 80s to 95s or 100s.

Now, let me cherry pick. Wage growth has been higher under the Trump Administration than since the early 2000s—and it isn’t even close. In fact, what, 5-6 of 8 President Obama years saw LESS THAN 2%, while since Trump took office, the WORST has been 2.2 and today is approaching almost 3.5%. That is EQUALLY has hard to do as dropping unemployment from 6% to 3.6% because of the compounding effect of wage growth (like inflation or interest). Think I’m wrong, just google CNBC, Washington Post, Ny Times, The Balance, WSJ, etc…to prove my point—these are hardly bastions (ok minus WSJ) of conservative economic thought.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/pay-gains-under-trumps-best-since-the-great-recession.html

So, where does all the above get a President? A bit more on that later (I’m on a ******* roll), but basically it’s this: USC vs CFR (and now I’m not talking about football teams). A President can affect very little on the USC side, but has broad license on the CFR side (essentially the weight of law until challenged in Courts). Quick, you better google what USC and CFR are (not that you can even answer CDFM, CGFM, DW, or RR—well, because, you are a fraud, but most on here know that already. I digress.
A major difference between Ds and Rs is CFRs. Ds love to implement burdensome “rules” while Rs love to implement free-wheeling deregulation of “its ok for kids to play with broken glass”. This is where President Trump doesn’t get near enough credit. His “2 for 1” order to agencies has gone a long way (with much farther to go) in reducing the insane idiotic liberal regulations implemented for no other reason than “we know better than you”. Great examples of these are Dept of Ed “Dear Colleague” letters to colleges regarding how to kangaroo court campus “rape”, EPA’s “Clean Waters” preventing farmers from digging a pond on THEIR land, or California’s CARB. **** sake someone could right 10,000 pages on how each are monuments to stupidity.
With the above said though, like all good things, “2 for 1” will be taken to the unreasonable extreme and blow up in someone’s face in the next 3-5 years most likely, and the pendulum will swing back to CFR **** and then vice versa again. For the present, however, this is the primary driver of President Trump’s acceleration of the economy.

Oh, and this too…hmmmm…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...mer-sentiment-index-tells-us-vote/4052357002/

If someone would just break President Trump’s thumbs and duct tape his mouth, he would win 2020 in every single state except CA and NY by landslides not seen since Ronnie Reagan.

Of course, you know all this Mr. “I follow the markets closely”. You maybe should get a tutor to explain some 101 concepts and see the bigger picture than your soda straw viewpoints.

 

[Empirical Cane]

At least we agree, though. Math doesn't lie.

Now, let's compare the deficit increase under Obama to Trump?

And this is where I laughed the most. You don’t even have a basic grasp of what constitutes the Federal deficit or you wouldn’t have even mentioned it.

And AGAIN, you can’t even answer CDFM, CGFM, DW, or RR. Ever heard of OMB? NEOB? Oh **** sakes this is exhausting.

Federal Budget 101: There are only THREE components: Mandatory Spending, Discretionary Spending, and Interest on Debt (essentially is and driven by MANDATORY SPENDING).

As percentages of TOTAL Federal Spending, Mandatory + Interest is now ~70% of budget. Discretionary side consistently hovers in the ~30% range. So, even if a President proposed to eliminate Discretionary Budget’s biggest player (HINT: it’s defense at ~30% (actually closer to ~50%) of the Disc Budget 30%), it wouldn’t even dent the burden Mandatory + Interest places on “the deficit”. With that said of course, every Federal Revenue and Outlay must be reviewed ruthlessly or we are ****ed. Like Greece/Cyprus ****ed—only without lube. The canary in that coal mine will be when California and Illinois declare insolvency at some point (who runs those states again?).

EVERY SINGLE President inherits the deficit inducing decisions of their predecessor’s Budget Proposals and Congressional Appropriations. The worst are the Permanent Indefinite Approps because the cowardly Congress doesn’t even have to VOTE on them annually (thanks 98th Congress).

In short, NO President is responsible for “deficits” because ONLY CONGRESS has Appropriations Authority. Now, Presidents’ can ASK for spending authority in the annual PB (look that up too), but at the end of the day, ALL Presidents since the Impoundment Act of 1974 are merely along for the ride.

Circling back to Rs “blaming Clinton” for the 2007-2009 Great Recession, they are partially correct. Clinton’s proposals, then with Congress PASSING, and again Clinton SIGNING into law the Commodity Futures and Community Reinvestment Acts provided the easy to hide in landscape for the banking industry to create the monster that became known as the “Great Recession”. Another example of taking CFRs (and in those cases USCs) way too far in one direction.

I will say this for Billy, his greatest fiscal achievement for the nation was BEA of 90 where once borderline reasonable policy was made via PAYGO rules. For any President to “get deficits under control”, it starts there IN CONGRESS ONLY with PAYGO. And that will have to happen at some point, because as I said, when looked at in total, math doesn’t lie.

 

[Empirical Cane]

I'm done.

 

[Empirical Cane]

The gold standard for "conservative" news...

America is now the world’s top oil producer, but cracks are emerging | CNN Business

By any measure, America’s rapid expansion to a record 12 million barrels of oil output a day has been a global game-changer.

amp.cnn.com

Again, "2 for 1" policy played a big part in accelerating what previous administration tried to tamp down...

now of course, like all good drunken parties, this will at some point go bust...

 

[Empirical Cane]

Goodness Super...

Does it hurt to always be this thoroughly wrong?

Maybe a vacay?