YES, the Economy IS BOOMING under Trump
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
You need and will be getting a new President soon. He will either walk out or get pushed out. Without a conviction of any crimes, your President lacks the moral authority, competency, and skills. His own party doesn't believe in him nor two-thirds of Americans. Sad man, sad situation. America can't be great or made great again with this sick scenario. CM
If your not American then shut up and mind your own business.
Watch yourself, young man! Don't bring heaven's displeasure upon you and your family. Remember where you are and to whom you're speaking. I want to believe someone taught you better.
Now, let's return to the OP -- the "Economy", under Mr. Trump. CM
Seriously, if you aren't American mind your own business. If you are American, own up and give YOUR president the respect he deserves.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
If your not American then shut up and mind your own business.Had the Trump campaign said this to the Russians during the 2016 campaign, Bob Mueller would be out of job today.
He shouldn't have a job anyway. Waste of time money. Need to close it down. Haven't found anything in almost two years of these Russia investigations.
-
@reformed said:
Had the Trump campaign said this to the Russians during the 2016 campaign, Bob Mueller would be out of job today.
He shouldn't have a job anyway. Waste of time money. Need to close it down. Haven't found anything in almost two years of these Russia investigations.
Since you didn't say, I'll ask: Do you believe the Trump campaign should have said "If you're not American then shut up and mind your own business" to the Russians during the 2016 campaign? say, at the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting with four Russians that Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took because of a June 3, 2016, email Don Jr had received which reported the availability of Russian government-provided dirt on Hillary Clinton and support for the Don Sr's presidential campaign?
He shouldn't have a job anyway. Waste of time money. Need to close it down. Haven't found anything in almost two years of these Russia investigations.
I follow the news quite closely, as do you. Aside from the one conviction (Manafort, 8 felonies), the six plea/cooperation agreements (Cohen, Flynn, Gates, van der Swaan, Papadopolous, and Pinedo), and the indictments against 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, 12 members of the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and Konstantin Kilimnik (a Russian national with ties to Russian intelligence), I am not aware of ANY information as to what the Mueller probe has found. I am aware of political partisans who have voiced their assessments and predictions about the status of the investigation, but I know of no authoritative source that has reported that Mueller "(hasn't) found anything." You must have seen reports from Mueller that I haven't seen. Please provide links.
-
@reformed:
That brought 'em both out of the woodwork and made 'em make a big snort! -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Had the Trump campaign said this to the Russians during the 2016 campaign, Bob Mueller would be out of job today.
He shouldn't have a job anyway. Waste of time money. Need to close it down. Haven't found anything in almost two years of these Russia investigations.
Since you didn't say, I'll ask: Do you believe the Trump campaign should have said "If you're not American then shut up and mind your own business" to the Russians during the 2016 campaign? say, at the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting with four Russians that Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took because of a June 3, 2016, email Don Jr had received which reported the availability of Russian government-provided dirt on Hillary Clinton and support for the Don Sr's presidential campaign?
He shouldn't have a job anyway. Waste of time money. Need to close it down. Haven't found anything in almost two years of these Russia investigations.
I follow the news quite closely, as do you. Aside from the one conviction (Manafort, 8 felonies), the six plea/cooperation agreements (Cohen, Flynn, Gates, van der Swaan, Papadopolous, and Pinedo), and the indictments against 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, 12 members of the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and Konstantin Kilimnik (a Russian national with ties to Russian intelligence), I am not aware of ANY information as to what the Mueller probe has found. I am aware of political partisans who have voiced their assessments and predictions about the status of the investigation, but I know of no authoritative source that has reported that Mueller "(hasn't) found anything." You must have seen reports from Mueller that I haven't seen. Please provide links.
Manafort's conviction - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION
Plea/Cooperation agreements - Nothing to do with collusion at all.
Russian Nationals - Nothing to do with collusion.The point is, if they haven't found anything by now there is nothing to find. Not to mention the investigation shouldn't be happening in the first place under DOJ regulations. There was no crime being investigated.
-
@reformed said:
Manafort's conviction - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATIONNot true. Mueller's authorization specifically permitted him to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from (his) investigation," and "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)." That section of the code provides special counsel with the following expanded authority: (emphasis added)
"If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere."
Clearly, Mueller had the authority to prosecute (Manafort) or to direct to other prosecutors (Cohen) any potential crimes his team uncovered.
Plea/Cooperation agreements - Nothing to do with collusion at all.
How do you know what those defendants have told Mueller's team about possible collusion?
Russian Nationals - Nothing to do with collusion.
How do you know Mueller has found no evidence that Trump campaign people coordinated/conspired/colluded with the indicted Russians?
The point is, if they haven't found anything by now there is nothing to find. Not to mention the investigation shouldn't be happening in the first place under DOJ regulations. There was no crime being investigated.
How do you know they haven't found anything yet?
Since you chose not to address them, I'll ask my question and provide my request again:
1) Do you believe the Trump campaign should have said "If you're not American then shut up and mind your own business" to the Russians during the 2016 campaign? say, at the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting with four Russians that Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took because of a June 3, 2016, email Don Jr had received which reported the availability of Russian government-provided dirt on Hillary Clinton and support for the Don Sr's presidential campaign?
2) You contend that the Mueller team hasn't found "anything" yet, apparently as to the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I'm not aware of any reports from them - other than the court filings associated with the actions identified in my previous post - that indicate what they have or have not found... about "collusion" or any other issue. Please provide links to the reports you have seen that lead you to conclude the Mueller team hasn't found "anything" yet.
-
But that wasn't what the investigation was FOR that wasn't its PURPOSE.
-
@reformed said:
But that wasn't what the investigation was FOR that wasn't its PURPOSE.According to its authorizing document, Mueller's investigation was to probe possible Trump campaign collusion with Russians AND "any matters that arose or may arise directly from (his) investigation," as well as "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)." (see previous post for links and quoted section) Please explain how Manafort's prosecution does not fit those guidelines. (I understand how you might disapprove of the authorization document, but you and don't get to decide Mueller's authorization; the document does.)
And as a result of our exchange, reformed, we have a backlog of questions that I've asked but you've not answered. As Gao Lu would say, "just answer (them) if you are real enough and man enough to do so:"
1) How do you know what (the) defendants have told Mueller's team about possible collusion?
2) How do you know Mueller has found no evidence that Trump campaign people coordinated/conspired/colluded with the indicted Russians?
3) Do you believe the Trump campaign should have said "If you're not American then shut up and mind your own business" to the Russians during the 2016 campaign? say, at the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting with four Russians that Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took because of a June 3, 2016, email Don Jr had received which reported the availability of Russian government-provided dirt on Hillary Clinton and support for the Don Sr's presidential campaign? You've said it to CM, a fellow CD poster. Do you believe a presidential candidate's campaign should have said it to an adversary nation?
4) You contend that the Mueller team hasn't found "anything" yet, apparently as to the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I'm not aware of any reports from them - other than the court filings associated with the actions identified in one of my previous posts - that indicate what they have or have not found... about "collusion" or any other issue. Please provide links to the reports you have seen that lead you to conclude the Mueller team hasn't found "anything" yet.
-
I got stopped once for having a tail light out. Mueller hasn't found me out yet, so obviously, his job isn't done.
Same kind of logic.
-
Paul Manafort is in talks with Mueller team about his deal. I hope things work out for him because he has a lot of time before him as is.
To the OP, if the economy is doing so well, why is America's infrastructure continues to crumble? Just thinking out. CM
-
Economy and infrastructure are not the same. The economy is booming. Infrastructure is stabilizing after decades of shockwaves to the foundation. This is God's gift, God's grace. Those with eyes to see it can see.
-
@GaoLu said:
Economy and infrastructure are not the same.Nothing new.
The economy is booming. Infrastructure is stabilizing after decades of shockwaves to the foundation. This is God's gift, God's grace. Those with eyes to see it can see.
Ha, Ha, Ha...
A picture is worth a thousand words. Mr. Trump, keep your promise--Invest in the infrastructure of America. CM -
Nothing new.
Except that you conflated them deceptively.
Indeed a picture is worth 1000 words. The graphs clearly indicates how the economy tanked with Obama and how recovery took an achingly long time...just to get back even again with 2007, without any growth. It took 6 years to get from when he took office back to 2007 levels under his programs.
The graph doesn't show anything about Trump and the stunning unprecedented growth under his new policies. It only shows Obama's failures. Sad, but a good reminder of how we ought to give thanks for God's gift of grace and restoration to America.
Thanks for sharing this informative graph.
-
@GaoLu said:
Indeed a picture is worth 1000 words...The graph doesn't show anything about Trump and the stunning unprecedented growth under his new policies...Thanks for sharing this informative graph.
Mr. Trump, keep your promise--Invest in the infrastructure of America. Share the blessings. CM
PS. Why is Trump begging the Treasury to print more money? CM
-
Pssst. Trump probably doesn't frequent this forum. However, given the popularity of plural personas, he may well soon appear.
Someone here may actually think they are Trump or that someone here is Trump. Seems plausible. (Talk to your neurologist about Prozac or Zoloft and Namenda if you are not yet benefitting).
-
@C_M_ said:
Ha, Ha, Ha...
A picture is worth a thousand words. Mr. Trump, keep your promise--Invest in the infrastructure of America. CMI saw this graph on another website, CM, and had two reactions to it:
1) It reflects the objective truth that the stock market's journey to its current levels began during the Obama administration, WELL before Donald Trump took office.
2) It commits the kind of error sadly common among partisan politicos unbridled from a commitment to objective truth. Examine the graph's Y-axis. Notice the distance between 8,000 and 10,000. Now look at the distance between 10,000 and 12,000 - it's a bit less than the distance between 8,000 and 10,000. Finally, look at each subsequent 2,000 point increment up the graph's Y-axis. Notice that each one is a bit less than the one before it.
The effect of this subtle bit of visual trickery is to exaggerate the stock market's rise during Obama's years, and to reduce the apparent size of its rise since Donald Trump took office. In my view, the creator(s) of the chart HAD to know what they were doing when they implemented that distortion, which to me makes theirs an act of intentional deception... and, of course, obviously wrong.
The stock market DID more than double during Obama's term in office; its journey to where it is today DID begin WELL before Donald Trump took office. I'm frustrated that the chart's creators chose to distort that objective truth in their work.
-
Actually, the graph after-publication additions are fake and iinaccurate. The original graph indicates serious dips toward the end. The red arrows do not point correctly. In fact, after Obama took office the market dove badly. Real badly. Look at teh graph again. American's lost faith. The market did recover but dreadfully slowly. Many years later it was roughly 20% better than the 2007 level. That is the horrible truth of Obama's policy and legacy. it failed. America knew it could do better and chose Trump and is doing vastly better now.
The reason for the apparent upward shift is largely the false sense of rise from the sluggish recovery from the record tank job produced by Obama when he took office.
The graph is sad but is true.
Yes, the market has done nothing but skyrocket with Trump's policies.
-
@GaoLu said:
Indeed a picture is worth 1000 words. The graphs clearly indicates how the economy tanked with Obama and how recovery took an achingly long time...just to get back even again with 2007, without any growth. It took 6 years to get from when he took office back to 2007 levels under his programs.
The objective truth is that Obama took office when the economy was in the throes of the Great Recession, which began in 2008, before he took office. There is no rational economist who blames that recession - or the fact that the economy "tanked" during the first year or so of his presidency - on Mr. Obama (the dimensions of said "tanking" are distorted by the graph, by the way - as noted in my previous post in this thread). Therefore, it is not at all surprising that it took some time for the economy to recover to pre-recession levels. The length of time it took for the stock market to return to its 2007 levels is, more than anything, an expression of the severity of the "Great Recession."
In my view, it is likely an expression of your political partisanship's victory over any commitment to objective truth that you hold Obama responsible for the effects of a recession that began before he took office, but you say nothing about the fact that the stock market dropped by more than one third during the last 18 months or so of the Bush administration - that is, during a Republican, not Democratic, administration.
Are presidents responsible for every move of the market during their terms? Of course not. But in my view, if you're going to hold Obama accountable for the market's movement during the opening month's of his presidency, you should hold Bush accountable for the market's movement during the closing months of his presidency.
-
@GaoLu said:
Pssst. Trump probably doesn't frequent this forum. However, given the popularity of plural personas, he may well soon appear.This is to his defenders who blindly go alone.
Someone here may actually think they are Trump or that someone here is Trump. Seems plausible. (Talk to your neurologist about Prozac or Zoloft and Namenda if you are not yet benefitting).
In your quest to project others or another your meds regiment. I don't know if this is intentional or by design. Regardless, it's not necessary for such disclosure. If it were your attempt to be humorous, the joke is on you. I wouldn't dream of this post coming from a professional or licensed clinician. Given that you have been down this road before, you appear to be upset about something or with someone. This shall pass.
Now, let's get back to Trump's (or your) version of a booming economy. CM
-
In fact, everyone--100% of people--looking at the graph see that the economy tanked badly after Obama took office. Yes, recovery took a long time. Obama's policies failed or were very weak.
I belong to no party so partisanship is of no interest to me. I just look at the graph. Can you give that a try too?
I am not interested in going back to the Bush era. That was too far back to be relevant to me. Tossing in a red herring doesn't alter apples and apples of Obama's failure and Trump's success.
Bill, you are making excuses for Obama's failure. I suppose that feels better than facing the truth. I won't take that away from you. Self-comfort is understandable. But can you admit Trumps's success? If not, then go back to chewing your herring.
-
@GaoLu said:
In fact, everyone--100% of people--looking at the graph see that the economy tanked badly after Obama took office. Yes, recovery took a long time. Obama's policies failed or were very weak.According to Politifact, as of January 8 of this year...
"Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.
"But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.
"In fact, the Dow’s rise was even more impressive under Obama if you start measuring at the market’s low point, on March 9, 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession. That day, the Dow closed at 6,547. Between then and Jan. 5 — a 10-month period — the Dow rose by a stunning 61 percent. That’s more than three times faster than Trump’s rise over the same period in his term."
The stock market more than doubled during Obama's full term in office. We'll see whether the market more than doubles during Trump's term. (Given the gathering legal and political storm clouds around Mr. Trump, however, such a comparison is not likely since there's very little chance he will serve four years in office, let alone eight.)
I belong to no party so partisanship is of no interest to me. I just look at the graph. Can you give that a try too?
I looked at the graph. In fact, I posted a complaint about its partisan distortion of the market's performance during Trump's and Obama's presidencies.
I am not interested in going back to the Bush era. That was too far back to be relevant to me. Tossing in a red herring doesn't alter apples and apples of Obama's failure and Trump's success.
Bill, you are making excuses for Obama's failure. I suppose that feels better than facing the truth. I won't take that away from you. Self-comfort is understandable. But can you admit Trumps's success? If not, then go back to chewing your herring.
Your lack of "(interest) in going back to the Bush era" reminds me of a Bible interpreter who in review of a particular passage says "I'm not interested in going back past v.14. V.13 is too far back to be relevant!"
The problem with your relevance argument is that when assessing what happened to the economy in the first years of the Obama administration - i.e. 2009-2010 - what happened in the closing years of the Bush administration - i.e. 2007-2008 - ISN'T "too far back to be relevant;" it is VERY recent and VERY relevant history. The Bush administration is nearly ten years ago NOW. But when Obama took office, it was yesterday.
Seven years from now, will you contend that what happened to the economy at the end of the Obama presidency is "too far back to be relevant" to understand the economy during the opening years of the Trump presidency? I seriously doubt it. I bet you will say what happened at the end of the Obama administration was the economic context in which Trump took office, and therefore will ALWAYS be relevant to understanding (celebrating?) Trump's achievements in office.
-
Only partisans are afraid to go back to the Bush years. What happened to micro and macro views of the American Economy? This cultic attachment to Trump is forming a whole new Head-in-the-sand Generation. Truth can stand close examination. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
In fact, everyone--100% of people--looking at the graph see that the economy tanked badly after Obama took office. Yes, recovery took a long time. Obama's policies failed or were very weak.According to Politifact, as of January 8 of this year...
"Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.
"But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.
"In fact, the Dow’s rise was even more impressive under Obama if you start measuring at the market’s low point, on March 9, 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession. That day, the Dow closed at 6,547. Between then and Jan. 5 — a 10-month period — the Dow rose by a stunning 61 percent. That’s more than three times faster than Trump’s rise over the same period in his term."
The stock market more than doubled during Obama's full term in office. We'll see whether the market more than doubles during Trump's term. (Given the gathering legal and political storm clouds around Mr. Trump, however, such a comparison is not likely since there's very little chance he will serve four years in office, let alone eight.)I belong to no party so partisanship is of no interest to me. I just look at the graph. Can you give that a try too?
I looked at the graph. In fact, I posted a complaint about its partisan distortion of the market's performance during Trump's and Obama's presidencies.
I am not interested in going back to the Bush era. That was too far back to be relevant to me. Tossing in a red herring doesn't alter apples and apples of Obama's failure and Trump's success.
Bill, you are making excuses for Obama's failure. I suppose that feels better than facing the truth. I won't take that away from you. Self-comfort is understandable. But can you admit Trumps's success? If not, then go back to chewing your herring.
Your lack of "(interest) in going back to the Bush era" reminds me of a Bible interpreter who in review of a particular passage says "I'm not interested in going back past v.14. V.13 is too far back to be relevant!"
The problem with your relevance argument is that when assessing what happened to the economy in the first years of the Obama administration - i.e. 2009-2010 - what happened in the closing years of the Bush administration - i.e. 2007-2008 - ISN'T "too far back to be relevant;" it is VERY recent and VERY relevant history. The Bush administration is nearly ten years ago NOW. But when Obama took office, it was yesterday.
Seven years from now, will you contend that what happened to the economy at the end of the Obama presidency is "too far back to be relevant" to understand the economy during the opening years of the Trump presidency? I seriously doubt it. I bet you will say what happened at the end of the Obama administration was the economic context in which Trump took office, and therefore will ALWAYS be relevant to understanding (celebrating?) Trump's achievements in office.
Anyone with half a brain knows that 26% of 19k is BETTER than 33% of 7k.....
-
@reformed said:
Anyone with half a brain knows that 26% of 19k is BETTER than 33% of 7k.....Somehow I predicted this would be at least part of the response to my post.
Two responses:
- "Anyone with half a brain" knows that percentage changes offer a FAR more fair and accurate way of comparing outcomes.
- A company CEO who's paid $1,000,000 annual salary gets a $50,000 benefit from the company's 5% across-the-board pay hike. Should the employee making $50,000, who therefore stands to receive a $2,500 raise, claim such an outcome is not fair, that to be fair, he/she TOO should get a $50,000 raise? Which outcome represents equal treatment of the two workers: The CEO and the employee each getting 5% raises, or each getting $50,000 raises?
- In Luke 21.1-4, Jesus sure seems to give greater value to the offering of a widow who drops two coins into the temple treasury than he does to the offerings of rich folks. He says her offering is greater because it represents a far greater percentage of her resources ("all she had to live on," ESV) than do the offerings of the wealthy of theirs ("out of their abundance," ESV). By the logic of your post, reformed, the wealthy's offerings were greater because "anyone with half a brain knows," for example, that 10% of a lot of money is "BETTER" than 100% of very little.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Anyone with half a brain knows that 26% of 19k is BETTER than 33% of 7k.....Somehow I predicted this would be at least part of the response to my post.
Two responses:
- "Anyone with half a brain" knows that percentage changes offer a FAR more fair and accurate way of comparing outcomes.
- A company CEO who's paid $1,000,000 annual salary gets a $50,000 benefit from the company's 5% across-the-board pay hike. Should the employee making $50,000, who therefore stands to receive a $2,500 raise, claim such an outcome is not fair, that to be fair, he/she TOO should get a $50,000 raise? Which outcome represents equal treatment of the two workers: The CEO and the employee each getting 5% raises, or each getting $50,000 raises?
- In Luke 21.1-4, Jesus sure seems to give greater value to the offering of a widow who drops two coins into the temple treasury than he does to the offerings of rich folks. He says her offering is greater because it represents a far greater percentage of her resources ("all she had to live on," ESV) than do the offerings of the wealthy of theirs ("out of their abundance," ESV). By the logic of your post, reformed, the wealthy's offerings were greater because "anyone with half a brain knows," for example, that 10% of a lot of money is "BETTER" than 100% of very little.
Love the two unequal and unrelated illustrations.
-
Someone, help me to understand. Why in a booming economy would one redirect funds-$49 million- (FEMA /Coast Guards) in the face of a hurricane? Is it bad management or a bad attitude? CM
-
@reformed said:
Love the two unequal and unrelated illustrations.
Love matters, so I'm glad your love my illustrations. I love how well you explain how my illustrations are "unequal and unrelated."
The point of my previous post was rooted in simple math: A stock market that gains 2,000 points HAVING STARTED at 8,000 (where it was on Obama's first inauguration day) is a bigger accomplishment than a stock market that gains 2,000 points having HAVING STARTED at 20,000 (where it was on Trump's inauguration day). For the former market, it's a 25% increase. For the latter market, it's a 10% increase.
Jesus applauded the widow's offering because she gave more (all) of what she had than did the wealthy. He knew that her giving was a bigger accomplishment than was the wealthy's giving.
A billionaire who receives $100,000 a week in income puts $1,000 in the church offering tray. A minimum wage worker who takes home $400 a week puts in $10. Who put in more? Dollar-wise, of course it's the billionaire. But by that standard, the billionaire will ALWAYS put in more - the minimum wage worker probably doesn't even have $1,000 to his or her name! SO, to be able to compare the billionaire's giving to the minimum wage worker's giving, we have to use a metric other than absolute dollars. We use percentages: 1% of income for the billionaire; 2.5% for the minimum wage worker.
To compare the gains of a stock market that STARTS at 8,000 to the gains of a market that STARTS at 20,000, we also have to use a metric other than absolute points. We use percentages. By such a metric, the market's gain in the first year Obama's first term was higher than the market's gain in Trump's first year. Both gains were great!! So praise God!... but also tell the whole story.
-
Consumer Confidence Index is the HIGHEST IN 18 YEARS. GDP revised upward to 4.2 from 4.1. Our country is doing great.
Bill, here is a graph you can probably understand:
-
@GaoLu said:
Could this be explained by Inertia?
After all, it is "the resistance of any physical object to any change in its position and state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest. ... Thus, an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change". CM
