Trump's right: The economy is doing well and he deserves some credit - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

I'll give him credit, but at what cost?

Steep tax cuts while the economy was already on an upswing was bound to throttle the economy even more. But blowing an additional trillion dollars in the debt during an economic boom is just myopic and irresponsible.

Responsible government when the economy is doing well should be accompanied by cuts in government spending and paying down the debt. When the economy is in the gutter is when you cut taxes and increase spending to offset recessionary pressures.

I hold our political system that incentivizes politicians to be focused on immediate benefits over long term fiscal responsibility to be partially to blame to behavior like Trump's. But we still need to hold politicians to account for fiscal recklessness.

And to be totally fair to Trump, his ripping down of regulations has had a supercharging affect on Wall Street. But that also carries hidden costs that we're yet to be aware of. Like the watering down of Dodd-Frank might have provided a great short term jolt to the economy, but if we see another bubble from the 500 trillion unregulated derivatives market because banks are now less regulated and can take far greater risks taking bets or hedging in those markets then that's going to carry a huge price tag.

Nor are we factoring in the costs to the environment from the ripping down of EPA regulations and the potentially catastrophic affects of exacerbating climate change.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

Curious, what's the point of paying down any debt? We (you) literally print infinite amount of money or can from the federal reserves. China also holds most of our debt if I recall yet we're doing trade wars with them.

As for climate change, the other half don't give a shit. I think once it reaches 122F/50C will people start caring, maybe. Right now it's mostly in the 100's and has occurred in the past before.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

You keep printing money you don't have to finance spending during a boom economy and you risk feeding runaway inflation. Investors will dump our treasuries which will drive rates higher and make the debt even worse.

China would dump our treasury notes in an instant if inflation started eating away at the principal of their investments. Market movers park their money in the dollar because of the non-volatility and stability provided by our t-notes. Take that away and they'll park their money elsewhere. And as debt grows, it limits the tools the government has to respond to downturns with spending and tax cuts and the Fed's ability to cut rates and print money because it's precisely those stimulus measures that provoke runaway inflation.

And if the US slips into recession, with limited flexibility to respond to economic crises, that would make America a riskier place to do business and spur capital flight out of US markets.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

Hah, while we were talking about debt and such, looks like Russia/China are finding weak points in the US economy.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9wc4B_1532845349

The expenses are growing. According to the IMG, US budget deficit will exceed $1 Trillion in the years to come. It means they'll become more dependent on the creditors. The irony of it is that the US is waging economic war against not only Russia but China as well which are the largest holders of US debt securities. Americans will need loads, foreign ones most likely as China is one of the favorite buyers of US national debt.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

As for climate change the temperature itself doesn't matter so much. The critical issue is how fast it's moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

You're right that the rate of change we're undergoing right now has happened in our planet's history. What we also know from that geologic history is that dramatic climate change causes mass extinction events including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago in which 90% of all life went extinct. Turning to history for reassurance isn't very reassuring.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Global warming is the end game of climate change, but the real danger is extreme weather events, clusters of superstorms, etc.

The last 7 years I have seen more sudden wind-related events than ever. That fire in Greece was fueled by a rising phenomenon of wind that's caused by higher turbulence in the atmosphere, more extreme changes in pressure.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

The last 7 years I have seen more sudden wind-related events than ever.

Well between that and “consesnsus” which is anti-science, that settles it. Man made global cooling, ice age, warming, ozone hole, climate change, climate disruption, is confirmed. Now if only the damn climate would do what they predicted just once they could just settle on a name for more than a week.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Curious, what's the point of paying down any debt? We (you) literally print infinite amount of money or can from the federal reserves. China also holds most of our debt if I recall yet we're doing trade wars with them.

That's the same line of thinking that caused the recession a decade ago. Yeah, we can just keep doing what we're doing. What could go wrong? lmao

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

But blowing an additional trillion dollars in the debt during an economic boom is just myopic and irresponsible.

Yes, he is "fixing a recession" during a boom, and the budget office only forecasts this going up. It's basically a permanent change to compensate for the slashing of taxes (instead of, say, slashing spending).

It's a cheat. What happened to the Republicans so concerned with mounting national debt? Trump has accelerated the increase of debt while cutting back the ability to pay it, which means the interest will balloon even further out of control.

But this is how Trump runs businesses: He gets too many loans, and then declares bankruptcy. Then he goes to the Russians when no one else will loan him money. Then when he can't pay the Russians back, he hands them the United States, which will be bankrupt and probably in need of Russian loans too.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Yeah but Republicans have proven over and over again they only care about debt when there's a Dem president. With a GOP president, they have no problem driving reckless expansionary fiscal policy spending on pretty much whatever they want.

Trump is following in Bush Jr's footsteps reducing government revenue with tax cuts while increasing spending in a healthy economy. This is exactly the sort of shit that creates bubbles made even riskier by the relaxed regulations.

But it will be a sad day in hell before the US has to stoop to getting handouts from Russia. That would mean somehow Putinland's corrupt oligarchy was flourishing under a diversified bull economy, which I can't see happening with their oligarchs owning everything, and the dollar would have to lose its reserve currency status. That I could see happening eventually if our political leaders continue to skyrocket our debt and we suffer the fallout of hyperinflation. But only when China lets their currency float to provide a sustainable alternative. Their gradual decoupling from the dollar won't make that a possibility for a couple decades.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Then like usual they'll just hand off the recession to a Democrat they can demonize, wait for responsible policies to fix the recession they caused, then take credit for the healthy economy the day the next Republican gets sworn into office. Exactly what Trump's supporters did for him.

One day the illusion may shatter fully. The "family values" illusion is gone now, and we can see fully that the ones who shout the most about morals and values are usually doing it just to divert attention away from their own dirty secrets.

Likewise on the economy: The ones who shout the most about national debt are the ones trying to divert attention from their debt practices.

The Republican Party has gradually gotten taken over by the socially aggressive shouters, the accusers, the attention-diversion goon squads... And of course others like Tea Party types.

This is exactly why socially aggressive people support them so strongly. The tribalists, the racists, the anti-immigrants, the misogynists, the greedy tycoons, the ones who want to suppress any sexuality that's not straight, the ones who want to control what people do with their own bodies, the highly religious (who tend to be control freaks), on and on and on.

Pretty basic psychology, when looked at as simply "social aggression" finding its own kind.

It's why trolls on political message boards find it so easy to pretend to be a Republican, and attack everyone, while leaving you unable to tell if they are sincere or just trolling.

reply

[–] PresidentJoffrey (396) 7 years ago

"Then like usual they'll just hand off the recession to a Democrat they can demonize, wait for responsible policies to fix the recession they caused, then take credit for the healthy economy the day the next Republican gets sworn into office."

Kind of like Dubya turning the largest surplus in history, handed to him by good ole' Billy Clinton, into the largest deficit in history and then handing that off to Obama. Who the republicants demonized and blamed. And of course his economic recovery was just because it was so bad there was only up to go *facepalm*

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

The economy is doing well thanks to what Obama gave him. I would be more impressed if he inherited the mess Bush and Cheney left America in when they took flight after 8 years, and then T-rump improved the economy. But now he's slowly eroding it.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

Sadly history doesn't work like that. When one party fails the people hard, they look elsewhere aka the opposite dominant party so we'll never see what could happen under a different president of the same party. Well, not that I have seen anyway. So if it did happen in the past, let me know.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Bush 41 after eight years of Reagan.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

William McKinley (4) to Theodore Roosevelt (8) to William Howard Taft (4)
Warren G. Harding (2) to Calvin Coolidge (6) to Herbert Hoover (4)
Richard Nixon (5) to Gerald Ford (3)
Ronald Reagan (8) to George H. W. Bush (4)

Since Bill Clinton, all presidents thereafter have served 2 full terms so it'll be interesting to see if Trump will keep that trend going.

My question though is, did Reagan leave the country in the shits for Bush to fix or what? I'm talking about when the country fell hard, recession and such that they'll vote the other party.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

"Reaganomics" (aka "Voo doo economics" by his VP) was the beginning of eliminating the middle class. Under Reagan, the wealthy got much wealthier and the poor got poorer. The bottom fell out when Bush 41 took over and were in a recession by the 1992 election. He suffered the 'fallout' from Reaganomics.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

The economy was already doing well when he was sworn in.

It's not like he inherited a disaster as Obama did, and had to turn it around.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

The economy was actually going up at the end of 2008. Obama just there for the ride. Plus Obama was printing money like crazy to fudge the numbers.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No, the economy was not taking off when he was sworn in. We were right in the middle of the housing crisis.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

My bad, I guess the economy was doing well when he was sworn in but then it was not taking off when he was sworn in. Got it, thanks.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Obviously the he in my first post refers to Trump.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

my bad...

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Funny how you're so into using the internet to link to Obama's record when you want to use it against him and make it too obvious you're lying about his record when you don't.

The economy was still in free fall when Obama inherited Bush's economy bub. Real GDP shrunk by 2.8% in 2009. He got it turned around in 2010.

Not that you forgot, but here's a reminder:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Oh, and Obama had no control over "printing money" kid. That was the Federal Reserve chairman's decision, Bush's pick Ben Bernanke, and the Fed operates independently from the White House.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

I think its funny son when you say one thing but then you say something else that isn't real. So you are saying Obama (Nobel Peace Prize Winner) turned around the economy in 2010. If you, a novice to life, are stating that as a fact then why did the USA receive its first ever credit downgrade in April 2011. By my calculations that would be one year.

The 2011 S&P downgrade was the first time the government was given a rating below AAA. S&P had announced a negative outlook on the AAA rating in April 2011.

But wait theres more!

The downgrade to AA+ occurred four days after the 112th United States Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling of the federal government by means of the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 2, 2011.

But wait theres more!

Egan-Jones cut its rating a second time on April 5, 2012 from AA+ to AA "because of the lack of any tangible progress on addressing the problems and the continued rise in debt to GDP.

But wait theres more!

On October 15, 2013 the credit agency Fitch warned that it may cut the U.S. credit rating, citing the political brinkmanship over raising the federal debt ceiling.[34]

On October 17, 2013 Dagong Global Credit Rating downgraded the United States from A to A-, and maintained a negative outlook on the country's credit.

Now I assume you are going to tell me kid that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with this cause like you said earlier, Obama all by himself turned the economy around in 2010.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

lulz. Kid, your post was so filled with cosmic ignorance that reading it I was struck by how little you know about anything while pretending you have any idea what you're talking about. That was some funny shit.

So really? I cited Real GDP and you bring up US credit downgrades?!?!? LOOOOOOOOOOL!

Those US credit downgrades were entirely the product of congressional politics from a recalcitrant Republican congress holding the budgetary process hostage by threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which would have forced a government shutdown.

You couldn't have picked a more irrelevant thing to criticize Obama about because that was ENTIRELY the fault of lame Republicans thinking they'd use their newfound congressional majorities to force Obama into repealing obamacare and threatening to shut down government if they didn't get their way.

The ratings agencies saw the GOP playing politics with threat of default and downgraded US credit ratings.

Anyway, I'd recommend you get some basic macro background if you want to be taken seriously because right now you're gravely embarrassing yourself. US credit ratings are a largely symbolic metric because the world knows the US is good for it. Real GDP measures actual economic growth. You're trying to compare apples with your buttcheeks. Your smelly buttcheeks have nothing to do with this.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yeah!

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

Ok, let me see if I got this correct young lady. You are saying the Republicans are at fault for the credit downgrade that happened in 2011 because of the government shutdown that happened in 2013. Obama, who was President at the time is in no way responsible for the credit downgrades because he was growing the economy in 2010. I think this is starting to make sense.

If the Real GDP measures actual economic growth and the current GDP is 4.1%, then why doesn't Trump get credit for growing the economy just like Obama got credit for growing the economy. At what point does the current President get kudos for growing the economy? Is it 600, 700 days?

Why would I want to learn about creating a macro in Excel? That just seems weird and out of place. Maybe you meant to say micro and macro economics. As for apples and buttcheeks, that was actually pretty funny.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

I'm saying US credit rating is totally irrelevant to this discussion because it has no bearing on US economic output and no effect on the US government's ability to borrow money. That's because US economy is the economic engine of the world and the world knows it. Countries and market makers still buy up our debt at treasury auctions and hoard our t-notes in their own treasuries because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world and we're the most powerful nation on earth that stands behind it. It doesn't matter what Moody's or some tosser rating agency says, so long as the dollar remains the reserve currency we have this implicit advantage that no one else enjoys. Lenders have the security of knowing we'll always cash them out when they decide to turn in their chips because we own the presses that print the cash.

That's why you focusing your entire post on your buttcheek rating score was so funny when your buttcheeks have nothing to do with this discussion. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Also I never said Trump doesn't deserve credit for hitting 4% growth, but that's also just for one quarter. Obama hit 4% quarterly growth four times and 3% eight times. Trump's at 4% once and 3% once. The key for Trump is continuing to maintain this high growth but he gets credit for the growth so far and you'll see in the first post of this thread I credit Trump for the current state of the economy, but I also questioned the cost. But if we're asking whether Trump or Obama was more impressive on economy in their first year and a half in office it would have to be Obama because he turned around the worst recession since the Great Depression whereas Trump inherited a healthy and growing economy.

And when I say macro, that's short for macroeconomics. Excel?!?! Dude that's hilarious you thought I was talking about an excel macro. WAHAHA.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

Saying that the credit rating is or isn't tied to the US economy is debatable and we would probably need a Harvard Economics professor to answer that question. I am merely trying to figure out the reason why some Presidents get credit or blamed for certain things. There is no doubt that Obama inherited a shitshow of a economy and that is not debatable.

The GDP hit 4% for the first time again since 2014. Now the question is, does Trump get sole credit for that or does Obama? I like to understand the psychology behind stuff like this. The MSM is eluding that Trump had nothing to do with these numbers and its just actually the carry over from Obama's policies. How can one actually separate and figure out who did what?

From what I have observed from the National news outlets like CBS and NBC is that no matter what Trump does it will always be wrong. The news likes to play Captain Hindsight the next day and say well if I were President I wouldn't have done that or this. I think the main problem is that people hate Trump so much that they can't see through the fake facade of the news. The news only reports what they want you to know.

The new GDP numbers will be released in Nov. and I can already predict whats going to happen. If the numbers go up it will be because of this or that and not Trump, but if the numbers go down it will be because of Trump and his failed agenda and policies.

And yes I knew that you meant macro economics. I am not that stupid. I was just messing with you.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

My academic background is economics and I'm not a Harvard prof but no you really don't need to be a Harvard prof to know whether sovereign credit rating is tied to the US economy. It's just a 3rd party private rating agency giving a grade on how credit worthy they think a government is in meeting debt obligations. The two main reasons to seek a high rating is to access international bond markets for funding and attract foreign direct investment. Obviously, the United States has no problem accessing bond markets when the global bond market itself revolves around US Treasury auctions where major players bid to buy US bonds.

Nor does the US ever have any problem attracting foreign direct investment when we have the most lucrative market in the world in the most business friendly environment that enjoys among the lowest corporate tax rates after deductions and loopholes. These are the kind of factors foreign investors will use to consider whether to make direct investments in the United States. I assure you, their decision is not going to hinge on whether Dagong downgraded US from A to A-. loool. Are you fucking kidding me? Kid, you really need to get real because I speak real world facts. Any foreign direct investor who gives two shits about what Dagong thinks of US credit is too ignorant to be investing in the first place.

Credit rating is useful for developing countries seeking loans. We don't have that problem because we're a first world country sitting atop the global order. But even if we did, it's not going to be because Dagong downgraded us. The very idea is just so silly. So you really can't blame me for thinking you were being serious about an excel macro. LOOOL!

And yes, of course Trump gets credit for 2018 Q2 4% growth. Why wouldn't he? He's over a year into his term already. Ever see Fox News give Obama credit for turning economy around or doing well under his watch? Neither did I. That's politics kid.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18242) 7 years ago

Like I said before, the credit rating being tied to the economy is debatable my fair lady. You are just another anonymous poster on a forum who claims to be an expert. And taking a few classes at a Junior College doesn't make you an expert as well son. You see kid, I am above all that and was merely just asking a legitimate question bub. But you had to take it to another level boba. I don't know why people can't just have a civil debate about something lady. You see maam, I am an expert on life and don't suffer from TDS like yourself latina. Be above it brah and just be yourself. Bubba out...

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

LOLZ. If that were true, you'd be able to explain why I was wrong, not just issue blanket denials because you know you're deathly afraid of getting schooled by me again.

I mean Jesus, just up thread you were making neophyte claims about Obama printing money. And now you think you know enough to tell me that the credit rating is tied to the economy when you can't even explain why? LOOOOL!

Bubba, you could avoid the existential crises in the future by just avoiding debates about topics you know you have no knowledge of. I mean, what did you seriously expect? But now you're acting like such sour grapes. I wanna see you accomplish something instead of getting so down on yourself for your failures. Keep your triple chin up kid and pull yourself up by your booties instead of being such a killjoy. Accept your lot in life and move on.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

Well he hasn't worsened it either. For now he's being a good custodian in keeping it at the same levels if not slightly a bit better and not worse so far.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 7 years ago

The key will be maintaining this level of economic growth. Won’t be easy as the Fed continuously tries to slow the economy with talks of interest rate increases. All year they’ve been talking about doing 4 this year which is highly risky.

Then you have the demokkkrat media/party that will do anything in their power to sabatoge the economy. They have no ideas or solutions to continue the tremendous economic success the country has been experiencing since the election of President Trump.

The beauty of a booming economy is it doesn’t discriminate based on race, religion, or political beliefs. Without the ability to discriminate the demokkkrat party is powerless.

#CantWaitForBrovember

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

What do you mean it's highly risky? It's part of the Fed's fiduciary responsibility to monitor asset prices for potential bubbles during rapid expansion. The point of increasing rates is to REDUCE risk by applying the brakes on an economy expanding faster than its potential in order to prevent the kind of meltdown we saw in 2008-09.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Why are you trying to educate the Russianbot? He has his propaganda to spread quickly before November. He doesn't have time to be educated.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Yeah futile, I'm sure you're right.

I think to reinforce the fact that even the sliver of his post that doesn't involve repetitive wish projection is pure bullshit. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about but is pretending like he does.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

LOL! He is rather transparent. His posts are usually long-winded, with not one purpose at all except to spread Russian propaganda. He used to be good for a laugh, but that has waned over the past few months, too.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

While he may not want to be educated or look at different ideas or facts to research for his own, I do, so don't stop explaining just because one person might not want to read it. There are many others that read the forums as well.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

Yes, he does.

I mean, we apparently know the price of integrity and dignity but hey....imaginary things like money mean more than real things like people.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Here's a blurb for ya:
"This marks the fastest pace of growth for the U.S. economy in any quarter since the third quarter of 2014."

That was just a few years off the recession caused by the debt-bubble burst of 2008/2009, and yet Republicans will still say that Obama held back the economy. They don't care that Obama started his tenure right off a recession and that Trump started his tenure with a strong economy.

Trump claims it as a "turnaround" and he is hiding his recession-era fiscal policies that he's using to fuel it.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Yeah Fox is touting this as just the 10th quarter (out of 74) since 2000 with growth that topped 4%.

But of course they don't mention that FOUR of them came under that commie Barrack Hussein Obama.

reply

[–] Retromogul (1082) 7 years ago

What's he supposed to have done? The economy was improving before he became President and the economy is much more complex and often goes beyond one President. So he's initiated more trickle down and deregulation. Oh wow...because history has always shown that ends with success...Meanwhile, trade wars don't help with jobs and how's the Rust Belt doing? As well as the poor and marginalized? I see Sanders is still one of the most popular politcians in the country...

reply

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 7 years ago

i agree

reply

[–] Rorikon (18389) 7 years ago

This is why it's so interesting to see if Trump will keep the Republican trend going with every one of their presidents having had a recession in their first term since Teddy Roosevelt.

Right now my interests on Trump is to see if he'll break the tradition/trend/coincidence outlook for having a recession in his first term (as a republican president) and if he gets re-elected, being impeached/forced resignation on his second term (for the last 2 presidents under investigation not the 3rd one which I can't remember his name as it's too far back).