Jump to content
JustBecause

The Trump Economy: 3.2% GDP 1st Qtr 2019

Recommended Posts

It’s all because Trump focused all his time and energy on our economy.  Thanks to his tremendous sacrifice and trade war we can all buy more overpriced gasoline, healthcare, education, internet service, and durable goods.

God bless emperor Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

highly similar domestic and economic policy directions...similar levels of embracing deficit spending...

annual gdp growth rates:

2004 - 3.8%

2005 - 3.5%

2006 - 2.9%

hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey honey, 

I maxed out our credit cards.  Look at all this cool stuff!  We rich bitch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, wasn't Trump promising 4 and 5% growth? 3.2 seems less than both of those numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Imagine being so miserable that a great economy is bad news. 

It's a normal economy... for the last 70+ years.  It's not bad news, but it's not "greatest economy of all time" news either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

take the loss, pussy.

The American economy grew at least 3.2% in nine quarters during Obama's presidency. I somehow doubt you were crediting him with responsibility for such sterling growth then.

Edited by wildcat09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I have a soul.  And a brain.  And am rich enough.

Oh, I have a big dick too.

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ousuxndallas said:

So, tax cuts DO cause economic growth? Huh. Never would've guessed.

If we keep government spending going up and taxes reduced to nothing, we'll all get rich! It makes so much sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as great as the Trump supports would have us believe.  However, it's not the shitshow the media has painted it out to be.

One thing I know is I used to temper the excitement of any President's ardent supporters whenever they would point to their guy as being the reason the economy was humming along (Clinton in '99, Bush in '04, Obama in '14, et. al.).  And I'd remind them it wasn't because of the then President, it was in spite of him, "Show me where in the constitution the President draws his ability to directly impact the economy of a multitude of states" I'd shout.  And they'd acquiesce.  What worries me is that most Trump supporters would absolutely believe there was a part of the Constitution that not only discussed the Executive's direct power to materially alter the economy as he saw fit, but that that section mentions Trump by name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

It's not as great as the Trump supports would have us believe.  However, it's not the shitshow the media has painted it out to be.

One thing I know is I used to temper the excitement of any President's ardent supporters whenever they would point to their guy as being the reason the economy was humming along (Clinton in '99, Bush in '04, Obama in '14, et. al.).  And I'd remind them it wasn't because of the then President, it was in spite of him, "Show me where in the constitution the President draws his ability to directly impact the economy of a multitude of states" I'd shout.  And they'd acquiesce.  What worries me is that most Trump supporters would absolutely believe there was a part of the Constitution that not only discussed the Executive's direct power to materially alter the economy as he saw fit, but that that section mentions Trump by name.  

According to the MSM we were supposed to be damn near a recession about now especially with the GB'MENT shutdown in Jan.

Edited by JustBecause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp%2Bcqo

from Fudge Nugget's link.

Its sad, but not surprising,  that we have a president that constantly brags about shit that everyone with a brain and a modicum of historical knowledge knows is patently untrue ("greatest economy in the history of the US"). Its worse that the University of Texas apparently grants degrees to fucking rubes like Icono and Johnny Sack that cant figure out how to read a basic chart. 

Perhaps, they aren't referring to GDP and instead are only concerned with the stock market? uh. no.....

- S&P 500 when Obama took office (1/20/09) ~ 805 , S&P 500 on 4/26/2011 ~1347. =67.3% gain

- S&P 500 when Trump took Office (1/20/17) ~2271, S&P 500 on 4/26/2019 ~ 2940 = 29.4% gain

yes the economy is humming right along, Im glad. Trump had fuck all to do with it. And for god's sake Icono,  stop making an  ass out of yourself by repeating Trumps ignorant bullshit. 

Edited by Blotto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy is doing pretty well overall in most general metrics.  The fact that Trump is still barely consistently clearing the low 40s with these types of economic numbers speaks to how his character and personality are driving away some people that might otherwise support this kind of performance in their enthusiasm for a sitting President.  I really believe the majority of Presidents showing this kind of performance so far would be clearing 50% absent other compelling variables driving it back down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidents are overrated. Trump has little to do with the economy doing well, and if it was sucking it wouldn't be his fault either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Helobious said:

Presidents are overrated. Trump has little to do with the economy doing well, and if it was sucking it wouldn't be his fault either. 

Agreed.

I believe the official GOP party line is: Trump has everything to do with the economy doing well, and if it was sucking it would be Obama's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of you would have made great Van Buren Boys in your younger years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Helobious said:

Presidents are overrated. Trump has little to do with the economy doing well, and if it was sucking it wouldn't be his fault either. 

Of course but they are always going to get an abundance of praise or blame for the economy as it has generally always been for the office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Helobious said:

Presidents are overrated. Trump has little to do with the economy doing well, and if it was sucking it wouldn't be his fault either. 

well first of all, nothing bad has ever been his fault.  you could pretty much fill in the mad-libs again.  anything good that's happening is all some secret genius project of his, but anything sucking is always someone else's fault.  probably an evil democrat or a pretend disloyal republican that he just fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp%2Bcqo

from Fudge Nugget's link.

Unrelated to any commentary here, but is it really so hard to at least make some attempt at labeling your charts and graphs? Yeah, we can figure out what it is, but we could probably also figure out what you are trying to say if you spelled everything phonetically pr never used any sort of punctuation. Have some respect for yourself and other human beings. And I'm not trying to just attack you specifically, even though I'm quoting you. I see this trend all over the place. Rant over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Unrelated to any commentary here, but is it really so hard to at least make some attempt at labeling your charts and graphs? Yeah, we can figure out what it is, but we could probably also figure out what you are trying to say if you spelled everything phonetically pr never used any sort of punctuation. Have some respect for yourself and other human beings. And I'm not trying to just attack you specifically, even though I'm quoting you. I see this trend all over the place. Rant over.

qadtAABAMMDNIX4b7CnaFDczA-uVjN8qvPLFj0f6

 

Better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

qadtAABAMMDNIX4b7CnaFDczA-uVjN8qvPLFj0f6

 

Better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a gotdam masterpiece that needs to be placed in the Surly Hall of Funny, Ephemera, and Air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also anyone want to claim the OP as their sock? I mean msg boarding is “bad enough” but putting in the energy to make multiple sock accts? Pathetic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blotto said:

Its sad, but not surprising,  that we have a president that constantly brags about shit that everyone with a brain and a modicum of historical knowledge knows is patently untrue ("greatest economy in the history of the US"). Its worse that the University of Texas apparently grants degrees to fucking rubes like Icono and Johnny Sack that cant figure out how to read a basic chart. 

Fairly sure they didn’t go to UT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Also anyone want to claim the OP as their sock? I mean msg boarding is “bad enough” but putting in the energy to make multiple sock accts? Pathetic 

Are you suggesting someone claiming that the "Obama economy on a sugar high" poster might be disingenuous and is a fraudulent sock?

Damn him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

One thing we are not discussing is why is everything so much less volatile now?

IMPO, Access to and speed at which information flows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing we are not discussing is why is everything so much less volatile now?

There are two major factors, in my opinion
1) In the 90s the Fed moved to a monetary policy that attempts to contain productivity growth in a Goldilocks range of enough to sustain employment but not enough to spark inflation, and this effort has been modestly successful. The president does not like this policy, by the way, which is why he’s trying to pack the Fed board.
2) Also in the 90’s large companies began to implement Enterprise Resource Planning suites that radically reduced information float (and routine jobs) within complex industrial businesses. As a result supply chains both within and across interrelated industries became much more efficiently coordinated, which has the macro-effect of flattening the business cycle and reducing seasonality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ousuxndallas said:

So, tax cuts DO cause economic growth? Huh. Never would've guessed.

 

You have a problem with conflating cause and effect, don't you?

 GDP growth reached 5% during the Obama administration.  So, no tax cuts DO cause economic growth?  Huh. Never would have guessed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Thanks for posting this. I never read agricultural news, but I should. I wondered if the bill would affect the huge corporate farming interests.

From Reuters:

Quote

“The plan would trim the USDA budget by $3.6 billion to $20.8 billion, lowering subsidies for crop insurance premiums to 48 percent from 62 percent, and limiting subsidies for growers who make less than $500,000 annually,” the Bloomberg article said.

 

This appears to be down from $900k at present.

From a CNBC story State of the American Farm.

Quote

The U.S. Department of Agriculture census seems to back up Vilsack’s complaint and his stated “need to expand the rural economy from the middle out.” Large farms with over $1 million in sales account for only 4 percent of all farms, but 66 percent of all sales. That’s up considerably from 1 percent of all farms and 50 percent of all sales a decade ago.

From a Forbes Article about farm subsidies and who is getting them:

Forbes_USFarmRecipients-2.jpg

My guess is that they all make more than $900k annually and are unaffected by Trump's proposal. The article is a concise analysis of the misuse of subsidies through government error and having recipients who are not primarily farmers (city slicker millionaires and congressmen). 

Sooooo, who benefits if smaller farmers can't afford to keep farming? The proposal doesn't affect farm corporations that make a lot of money, but may put the squeeze on those not making money in hard times caused by trade policy, over production and now flooding through much of the farm country. 

Who snaps up the small farms?

Also from Forbes:

Quote

During the Great Depression, farm subsidies were created to keep the family farm afloat and ensure a stable national food supply. Today, these subsidies have grown so lucrative that wealthy investors, large corporations, and farm-estate heirs use taxpayer money to maximize their personal return on investment.

We have a stable national food supply, but do we want to increase the control of it by large players? Do we really care about keeping the family farm afloat?

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that we don't intend to subsidize the wealthy which the Forbes article shows that we do.

Another aspect of all of this is the attack on SNAP which applies subsidies to feeding those in need. That both helps farmers and the hungry. Seems like a good idea to me. Who benefits from fucking that up? 

As I said, I haven't looked into farming much. Thanks again, Al, for prompting me to take a look. It's an ugly picture.

Edited by RomaVicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn’t just Trumps trade war that is the problem.

We are in a agricultural commodity bust after an unprecedented boom from 08-14.  As per usual everyone thought the good times would roll forever and piled on debt for new equipment, etc.

shitty weather, new trade policies, and piles of debt are exasperating the cycle.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 1:58 PM, wildcat09 said:

The American economy grew at least 3.2% in nine quarters during Obama's presidency. I somehow doubt you were crediting him with responsibility for such sterling growth then.

Not an apples to apples comparison. Could you tell me what the interest rate policy was during Obama’s presidency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...