14% of Economist Say Trump Would Be The Best For The Economy

[daws101]

Yeah norm I've been laughing at your from your 1st post.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well then, as long as economics has been around, we might give more weight to "generally accepted practices and principles" than politically-engineered schemes.

Compare our economic recovery to several economies in Europe. We initiated stimulus. They instituted austerity. We've been trending up ever since while they finally got tired of struggling and have only now commenced stimulus programs.

Ah, Al? An average of 1.5% growth for eight years is hardly a "trend" worth crowing about...especially when we've doubled our debt doing it! If you want to make a case for Keynesian fiscal policy the Obama Presidency is NOT your "go to" example!

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

 

[Al Azar]

Ah, Al? An average of 1.5% growth for eight years is hardly a "trend" worth crowing about...especially when we've doubled our debt doing it! If you want to make a case for Keynesian fiscal policy the Obama Presidency is NOT your "go to" example!

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

Clever. Hit me with another.

 

[daws101]

Ah, Al? An average of 1.5% growth for eight years is hardly a "trend" worth crowing about...especially when we've doubled our debt doing it! If you want to make a case for Keynesian fiscal policy the Obama Presidency is NOT your "go to" example!

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

Did you hear that from the imaginary we you just mentioned?

 

[Wyatt earp]

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

Did you hear that from the imaginary we you just mentioned?

?

I understand a lot of languages , from red neck to Ebonics, polish to Japanese ..


But I don't understand goober...

 

[Al Azar]

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

It's called The Great Recession. A lot has been written about it.

Familiarize yourself with the subject. Judging from your question, you don't know enough to ask about it purposely.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

It's called The Great Recession. A lot has been written about it.

Familiarize yourself with the subject. Judging from your question, you don't know enough to ask about it purposely.

Translation~ you don't want to post anything because you know I am smart enough to rip you a new ass hole.

Just like hillary has refused to do a press conference in over 265 days.

 

[Norman]

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

It's called The Great Recession. A lot has been written about it.

Familiarize yourself with the subject. Judging from your question, you don't know enough to ask about it purposely.

Indeed, and the Clintons (in part) doctored it through many policies. Something everyone familiar with the subject knows.

 

[daws101]

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

Did you hear that from the imaginary we you just mentioned?

?

I understand a lot of languages , from red neck to Ebonics, polish to Japanese ..


But I don't understand goober...

Odd you are fluent in it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

It's called The Great Recession. A lot has been written about it.

Familiarize yourself with the subject. Judging from your question, you don't know enough to ask about it purposely.

Come on dude, let's see how smart you are..post facts that Obama did anything to help the economy..


I will counter it that all obama did, was copy Bush Jr, pay back his donors, hindered the recovery....

So come on let me see what you have.


The Warriors Luther "Come Out To Play":

 

[Wyatt earp]

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

That would be the left you speak of.

Did you hear that from the imaginary we you just mentioned?

?

I understand a lot of languages , from red neck to Ebonics, polish to Japanese ..


But I don't understand goober...

Odd you are fluent in it.

Glad you know it..


Can you translate it into valley girl?
I used to kind of know that language...


For sure kind of Woooooow, I’m like so in. I hope it’s going to be soooraaad

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

How did democrats fix it? Be specific so I can tear you apart.

It's called The Great Recession. A lot has been written about it.

Familiarize yourself with the subject. Judging from your question, you don't know enough to ask about it purposely.

Come on dude, let's see how smart you are..post facts that Obama did anything to help the economy..


I will counter it that all obama did, was copy Bush Jr, pay back his donors, hindered the recovery....

So come on let me see what you have.


The Warriors Luther "Come Out To Play":

Jesus Christ you low information liberals want to come on political forums and just post your opinions and beliefs in so called experts like junk science AGW cult and in this case rewritten history

You don't even have the balls to try to tell me obama saved GM?

What are you affraid of?

Oh I don't know...maybe bear513 knows the GM union pension fund is still way in trouble?

 

[Al Azar]

"Daddy, what causes war?"

"Daddy, what's the Bible mean?"

'Daddy, what's a 'rabbit hole'?"

 

[Oldstyle]

changing the subject to avoid having to post proof of claims made is also a pussy poster problem and irrelevant to the conversation.

With the Clintons, it always takes a few years to get the truth fully out....

Whitewater took forever, with all sorts of lies, hate, and murder by the Clintons to shut it down. In the end, 12 of 14 Whitewater partners went to prison. Guess who the 2 who didn't were???

idiota, white water cost us 70 million dollars and got you nothing except for a blue dress. THAT is what you loons do. investigate them repeatedly and get nothing. but the investigations are used by you loons to run their numbers down.

The Clinton's long history of stonewalling investigations for years is what drives up the cost of investigations! The evidence Congressional investigators were looking for in the Whitewater case went missing from the Rose law firm only to mysteriously reappear in Hillary Clinton's White House office years later! Think that was done by "loons" trying to run the Clinton's down or by the Clinton's doing what they do best...lying and covering up?

again, maybe they're tired of the rightwingnut brigade investigating them over made up garbage.

again....the loons spent 70 million dollars and got a blue dress....no obstruction

countless wasted millions investigating benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzziiiiiiii!

and nada

countless BS hours investigating emails....... nada.

to put it into perspective ....70 million spent on ken starr's witch hunt which was intended to get him to the supreme court (in a major fail)

7 million spent on investigating 9/11

maybe if you stopped trying to use your investigations to run down their numbers....which the rest of us know is all you do.

What is this nonsense about "running down their numbers"? You think the investigations are why three quarters of the country doesn't trust Hillary Clinton? That's nonsense. The reason that so many people don't trust Hillary or her husband is they have a thirty year history of telling lies. It's what they DO!

She lied about Benghazi...she lied about the emails...she lied about her foray into cattle futures...she lied about getting shot at landing at the airport...she lied about how she got her name...they both lied about Bill's affairs and they both lied about Whitewater. I'm sorry, Jillian but it's OBVIOUS at this point that Hillary Clinton fits the definition of a pathological liar to a Tee!

 

[jillian]

changing the subject to avoid having to post proof of claims made is also a pussy poster problem and irrelevant to the conversation.

With the Clintons, it always takes a few years to get the truth fully out....

Whitewater took forever, with all sorts of lies, hate, and murder by the Clintons to shut it down. In the end, 12 of 14 Whitewater partners went to prison. Guess who the 2 who didn't were???

idiota, white water cost us 70 million dollars and got you nothing except for a blue dress. THAT is what you loons do. investigate them repeatedly and get nothing. but the investigations are used by you loons to run their numbers down.

The Clinton's long history of stonewalling investigations for years is what drives up the cost of investigations! The evidence Congressional investigators were looking for in the Whitewater case went missing from the Rose law firm only to mysteriously reappear in Hillary Clinton's White House office years later! Think that was done by "loons" trying to run the Clinton's down or by the Clinton's doing what they do best...lying and covering up?

again, maybe they're tired of the rightwingnut brigade investigating them over made up garbage.

again....the loons spent 70 million dollars and got a blue dress....no obstruction

countless wasted millions investigating benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzziiiiiiii!

and nada

countless BS hours investigating emails....... nada.

to put it into perspective ....70 million spent on ken starr's witch hunt which was intended to get him to the supreme court (in a major fail)

7 million spent on investigating 9/11

maybe if you stopped trying to use your investigations to run down their numbers....which the rest of us know is all you do.

What is this nonsense about "running down their numbers"? You think the investigations are why three quarters of the country doesn't trust Hillary Clinton? That's nonsense. The reason that so many people don't trust Hillary or her husband is they have a thirty year history of telling lies. It's what they DO!

She lied about Benghazi...she lied about the emails...she lied about her foray into cattle futures...she lied about getting shot at landing at the airport...she lied about how she got her name...they both lied about Bill's affairs and they both lied about Whitewater. I'm sorry, Jillian but it's OBVIOUS at this point that Hillary Clinton fits the definition of a pathological liar to a Tee!

you must e taking her for donald the bigoted fascist.

and if she's lied, your paid hacks must be really stupid because they haven't "gotten" her yet.

now let's try a bit of actual reality....

Boehner’s likely successor credits Benghazi committee for lowering Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers

now, mostly i'm trying to figure out how a thread pointing out that dumb donald's economic "plan" (no doubt constructed after much consultation with himself) is a major fail....turned into yet another rightwingut rant about our next president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Wall St. Journal interviewed every living past and present member of the president's council of economic advisors,

and could not find ONE who would endorse Trump.

Economists Who’ve Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

 

[Oldstyle]

With the Clintons, it always takes a few years to get the truth fully out....

Whitewater took forever, with all sorts of lies, hate, and murder by the Clintons to shut it down. In the end, 12 of 14 Whitewater partners went to prison. Guess who the 2 who didn't were???

idiota, white water cost us 70 million dollars and got you nothing except for a blue dress. THAT is what you loons do. investigate them repeatedly and get nothing. but the investigations are used by you loons to run their numbers down.

The Clinton's long history of stonewalling investigations for years is what drives up the cost of investigations! The evidence Congressional investigators were looking for in the Whitewater case went missing from the Rose law firm only to mysteriously reappear in Hillary Clinton's White House office years later! Think that was done by "loons" trying to run the Clinton's down or by the Clinton's doing what they do best...lying and covering up?

again, maybe they're tired of the rightwingnut brigade investigating them over made up garbage.

again....the loons spent 70 million dollars and got a blue dress....no obstruction

countless wasted millions investigating benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzziiiiiiii!

and nada

countless BS hours investigating emails....... nada.

to put it into perspective ....70 million spent on ken starr's witch hunt which was intended to get him to the supreme court (in a major fail)

7 million spent on investigating 9/11

maybe if you stopped trying to use your investigations to run down their numbers....which the rest of us know is all you do.

What is this nonsense about "running down their numbers"? You think the investigations are why three quarters of the country doesn't trust Hillary Clinton? That's nonsense. The reason that so many people don't trust Hillary or her husband is they have a thirty year history of telling lies. It's what they DO!

She lied about Benghazi...she lied about the emails...she lied about her foray into cattle futures...she lied about getting shot at landing at the airport...she lied about how she got her name...they both lied about Bill's affairs and they both lied about Whitewater. I'm sorry, Jillian but it's OBVIOUS at this point that Hillary Clinton fits the definition of a pathological liar to a Tee!

you must e taking her for donald the bigoted fascist.

and if she's lied, your paid hacks must be really stupid because they haven't "gotten" her yet.

now let's try a bit of actual reality....

Boehner’s likely successor credits Benghazi committee for lowering Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers

now, mostly i'm trying to figure out how a thread pointing out that dumb donald's economic "plan" (no doubt constructed after much consultation with himself) is a major fail....turned into yet another rightwingut rant about our next president.

Hillary Clinton's poll numbers are down because nobody believes a word that comes out of her mouth! She's not an honest person.

 

[daws101]

Watching the right drowning in it's own desperation is quickly becoming a national pastime.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Wall St. Journal interviewed every living past and present member of the president's council of economic advisors,

and could not find ONE who would endorse Trump.

Economists Who’ve Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

So the people that got us into the economic mess we're in aren't fans of Donald Trump? That's bad for him how?