How can anyone on the left claim Trump has been anything but successful?

[Toro]

By almost any measurable metric the United States is flourishing. And in some areas it isn't just flourishing it is stampeding.
I will grant you that the debt/spending is a huge problem but at least the country as a whole is reaping rewards from it this time. Usually they spend boatloads and we get buptkis out of it (see Obama)
The threat of tariffs and ending trade agreements has even had some positive outcomes so far (Mexico & Canada)

Now I expect you to howl about families split up at the border (while pretending this was new to Trump) and the debt of course but policy wise you got no winning message.

I’ll give you a dry, technocratic answer.

The economy was accelerating before he was elected, particularly in the summer of 2016. Typically, governments tighten fiscal policy when that happens to try to dampen the economy overheating. But Trump did the opposite. He loosened fiscal policy by cutting taxes but not spending. Typically, fiscal policy is loosened when the economy is in recession and trying to recover. What Trump did was pour gasoline on a fire that was already beginning to burn and grow.

That doesn’t mean the tax cuts were a bad thing. I supported them. But what it means is that the economy is experiencing a sugar rush, which will push interest rates higher, and risks the economy landing with a thud, possibly around the next election. The stock prices of the homebuilding companies are telling you that.

The single best thing Trump has done for the economy isn’t tax cuts, however. It’s deregulation.

 

[JoeB131]

The single best thing Trump has done for the economy isn’t tax cuts, however. It’s deregulation.

Because deregulation works out so well for workers and consumers...

No, really. I truly love how my home value fell by half in 2008.

 

[Toro]

AND YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!! NO where near 13 million jobs!
A) Where is your proof?
B) When you compare the number of jobs when Obama took office with the total now, the difference is a net gain of 11.3 million jobs
The workforce participation rate has ranged between 62.5% to 63%. That’s significantly lower than the 66% rate before the Great Recession. Workforce participation hasn’t been as low as it’s been lately since the Jimmy Carter-era economic malaise of the 1970s.
How many people have given up on seeking jobs? In 2014, FiveThirtyEight
estimated that 8 million working-age Americans were not employed but also not counted in the unemployment rate because they’d stopped looking for jobs.
Here's What Really Happened to Jobs During the Obama Years
And these people KNEW with a President making statements and policies like these there WoULD BE NO jobs!
View attachment 221102

The Great Obama faced an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month when he took office
Once he reversed the Great Bush Recession of 2008, he added 13 million jobs

In fact, Obama inherited a financial crisis, not a recession, from the Bush administration and it was his failure to promptly address the contraction of credit the financial crisis caused that led to the recession. It is more accurate to refer to the Bush financial crisis and the Obama recession.

ONCE again you have you bassackwards facts totally UNSUPPORTED and ignorantly displayed!
HERE is reality!
View attachment 221135

NOW TARP Was PAID back during OBAMA and he STILL ran up the highest deficits of any past 5 presidents!
FACTS FACTS FACTS NOT guesses!

I DARE YOU to find anything DIFFERENT from the BELOW FACTS!!!!!
View attachment 221136

If you understood what you posted, you would understand it says the root of the financial crisis began during the Clinton administration and was inherited by Bush from Clinton and later passed on to Obama, but it does not address the fact that it was Obama's failure to address the credit contraction from the financial crisis that caused the recession.

About ten years earlier, Sweden experienced a similar financial crisis when its real estate market crashed and left the nation's banks holding huge amounts of now worthless securities. To prevent this financial crisis from causing a recession, the Swedish government immediately took over the banks and pumped enough money into them to make sure there was no contraction of credit. Mindful of the Swedish experience, her in the US left wing economists urged Obama to do the same thing, but Obama, always a politician but never a political leader, was too afraid of being branded too far left, refused and instead focused on trying to save the banks while letting the economy fall into recession. A careful review of this presidency shows he had no policies, no ideas of his own, just an endless supply of political slogans

So where did I NOT understand what I posted?
A) 1995 Acorn Obama the attorney forced banks to lend money to unqualified people.
B) Clinton in 1999 then allowed Fannie/Freddie greater leeway.
C) Bush with just a few other major issues to contend with TRIED 17 times to control Fannie/Freddie!
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

So tell me where I misunderstood that chronology and events ?

The problem with your argument is that the top 24 of 25 subprime lenders weren’t subject to the CRA. Nobody was forcing subprime lenders to lend to white people in middle class and upscale neighborhoods, which was where most of the bubble was occurring.

It also doesn’t explain why there was a bubble in commercial real estate either, since the CRA obviously has nothing to do with office buildings in midtown Manhattan.

Blaming Clinton for what happened 20 years later is like blaming the creator of the match for forest fires.

 

[Toro]

The single best thing Trump has done for the economy isn’t tax cuts, however. It’s deregulation.

Because deregulation works out so well for workers and consumers...

No, really. I truly love how my home value fell by half in 2008.

Fair enough. But the problem today is that there is a housing shortage for starter homes because regulation in response to the financial crisis has made it too expensive to build enough homes for young families in many parts of the country.

 

[JoeB131]

Fair enough. But the problem today is that there is a housing shortage for starter homes because regulation in response to the financial crisis has made it too expensive to build enough homes for young families in many parts of the country.

Maybe... but then you rewrite the regulation to allow for that, you don't scrap it altogether.

Human nature being what it is, the reason why we have a bubble last ime was the McMansions were such easy profits.

 

[Mac1958]

The Great Obama faced an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month when he took office
Once he reversed the Great Bush Recession of 2008, he added 13 million jobs

In fact, Obama inherited a financial crisis, not a recession, from the Bush administration and it was his failure to promptly address the contraction of credit the financial crisis caused that led to the recession. It is more accurate to refer to the Bush financial crisis and the Obama recession.

ONCE again you have you bassackwards facts totally UNSUPPORTED and ignorantly displayed!
HERE is reality!
View attachment 221135

NOW TARP Was PAID back during OBAMA and he STILL ran up the highest deficits of any past 5 presidents!
FACTS FACTS FACTS NOT guesses!

I DARE YOU to find anything DIFFERENT from the BELOW FACTS!!!!!
View attachment 221136

If you understood what you posted, you would understand it says the root of the financial crisis began during the Clinton administration and was inherited by Bush from Clinton and later passed on to Obama, but it does not address the fact that it was Obama's failure to address the credit contraction from the financial crisis that caused the recession.

About ten years earlier, Sweden experienced a similar financial crisis when its real estate market crashed and left the nation's banks holding huge amounts of now worthless securities. To prevent this financial crisis from causing a recession, the Swedish government immediately took over the banks and pumped enough money into them to make sure there was no contraction of credit. Mindful of the Swedish experience, her in the US left wing economists urged Obama to do the same thing, but Obama, always a politician but never a political leader, was too afraid of being branded too far left, refused and instead focused on trying to save the banks while letting the economy fall into recession. A careful review of this presidency shows he had no policies, no ideas of his own, just an endless supply of political slogans

So where did I NOT understand what I posted?
A) 1995 Acorn Obama the attorney forced banks to lend money to unqualified people.
B) Clinton in 1999 then allowed Fannie/Freddie greater leeway.
C) Bush with just a few other major issues to contend with TRIED 17 times to control Fannie/Freddie!
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

So tell me where I misunderstood that chronology and events ?

The problem with your argument is that the top 24 of 25 subprime lenders weren’t subject to the CRA. Nobody was forcing subprime lenders to lend to white people in middle class and upscale neighborhoods, which was where most of the bubble was occurring.

It also doesn’t explain why there was a bubble in commercial real estate either, since the CRA obviously has nothing to do with office buildings in midtown Manhattan.

Blaming Clinton for what happened 20 years later is like blaming the creator of the match for forest fires.

The CRA had very, very little to do with what happened.

This was the result of a financial/mortgage industry run amok, regulators refusing to regulate (such as Greenspan refusing to regulate derivatives as CLTC Chairperson Brooksley Born begged), ratings agencies free to give Treasury-level ratings to steaming piles of shit securities, and pretty much everyone ignoring everything because the steaming piles of shit securities were selling so well.

The CRA is the handy right wing excuse, but that's it.
..

 

[Toro]

Fair enough. But the problem today is that there is a housing shortage for starter homes because regulation in response to the financial crisis has made it too expensive to build enough homes for young families in many parts of the country.

Maybe... but then you rewrite the regulation to allow for that, you don't scrap it altogether.

Human nature being what it is, the reason why we have a bubble last ime was the McMansions were such easy profits.

The problem is that much of the regulation imposed at both the local and national level goes way way overboard, and does way more damage than it does good. We’ve seen the amount of regulation and paperwork explode, and I can’t figure out what most of it is useful for.

Human nature is to try to squeeze all the risk out of things to try to make everything safe. But what it winds up doing is strangling things. That’s what we are seeing in residential development.

Personally, I’m building a house right now. One of the builders I talked to said the real shortage in my city are for homes priced under $300k. But builders can’t make money on those homes so they aren’t getting built.

 

[danielpalos]

By almost any measurable metric the United States is flourishing. And in some areas it isn't just flourishing it is stampeding.
I will grant you that the debt/spending is a huge problem but at least the country as a whole is reaping rewards from it this time. Usually they spend boatloads and we get buptkis out of it (see Obama)
The threat of tariffs and ending trade agreements has even had some positive outcomes so far (Mexico & Canada)

Now I expect you to howl about families split up at the border (while pretending this was new to Trump) and the debt of course but policy wise you got no winning message.

I’ll give you a dry, technocratic answer.

The economy was accelerating before he was elected, particularly in the summer of 2016. Typically, governments tighten fiscal policy when that happens to try to dampen the economy overheating. But Trump did the opposite. He loosened fiscal policy by cutting taxes but not spending. Typically, fiscal policy is loosened when the economy is in recession and trying to recover. What Trump did was pour gasoline on a fire that was already beginning to burn and grow.

That doesn’t mean the tax cuts were a bad thing. I supported them. But what it means is that the economy is experiencing a sugar rush, which will push interest rates higher, and risks the economy landing with a thud, possibly around the next election. The stock prices of the homebuilding companies are telling you that.

The single best thing Trump has done for the economy isn’t tax cuts, however. It’s deregulation.

deregulation tends to increase social costs; most major disasters resulted from capitalists trying to save money.

 

[danielpalos]

The single best thing Trump has done for the economy isn’t tax cuts, however. It’s deregulation.

Because deregulation works out so well for workers and consumers...

No, really. I truly love how my home value fell by half in 2008.

Fair enough. But the problem today is that there is a housing shortage for starter homes because regulation in response to the financial crisis has made it too expensive to build enough homes for young families in many parts of the country.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would stabilize this capital cycle.

 

[beagle9]

You are very confused. Dodd/Frank opened to doors for allowing unqualified people to get loans for people to qualify for more than they were capable of paying.

I think you are really confused. Dodd-Frank wasn't instituted until after the crash.

Dodd Frank was created in result of the crisis afterwards right ?? However it wasn't the proper answer for the crisis was it ?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I will grant you that the debt/spending is a huge problem but at least the country as a whole is reaping rewards from it this time.

So, spending like Democrats is good when the Orange Virus & Co. is doing it. Got it. Great fucking job.

Usually they spend boatloads and we get buptkis out of it (see Obama) The threat of tariffs and ending trade agreements has even had some positive outcomes so far (Mexico & Canada)

The paint hasn't even dried yet, and you're already touting a new trade agreement as a benefit. Thin at best. Great fucking job.

Now I expect you to howl about families split up at the border (while pretending this was new to Trump) and the debt of course but policy wise you got no winning message.

There is no winning message there, partisan fool. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[JoeB131]

Dodd Frank was created in result of the crisis afterwards right ?? However it wasn't the proper answer for the crisis was it ?

We haven't had a similar crash since, so it did just fine. I personally think it didn't go far enough, they needed to break up "Too big to fail" banks.

 

[Brain357]

Hard to believe we are winning this trade war

China’s trade surplus with US hit a record high. That’s bad news for Trump.

 

[danielpalos]

Hard to believe we are winning this trade war

China’s trade surplus with US hit a record high. That’s bad news for Trump.

All on the Public dime not the Private dime:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[kyzr]

Dodd Frank was created in result of the crisis afterwards right ?? However it wasn't the proper answer for the crisis was it ?

We haven't had a similar crash since, so it did just fine. I personally think it didn't go far enough, they needed to break up "Too big to fail" banks.

One of my favorite movies is "Too Big to Fail". Saw it 100x.

Not sure how they could fix the crash when the US runs out of money when the Debt interest crowds out all other spending.
As the interest rate goes up, government will be getting smaller.

Breaking up the big banks leaves the field to the international big banks. Better regulation based on common sense is what's needed.

 

[Tax Man]

This is really for anyone on my friends list who support the current President. I definitely do not want to offend you. Please read this; this is my sentiment.

Have a great Sunday!

An anguished question from a Trump supporter: "Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?"

The serious answer: Here’s what we really think about Trump supporters - the rich, the poor, the malignant and the innocently well-meaning, the ones who think and the ones who don't...

That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought "Fine."

That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, "Okay."

That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, "No problem."

That when he made up stories about seeing muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, "Not an issue."

That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn't care, you chirped, "He sure knows me."

That when you heard him illustrate his own character by telling that cute story about the elderly guest bleeding on the floor at his country club, the story about how he turned his back and how it was all an imposition on him, you said, "That's cool!"

That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw.

That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said, "Well, who has time?"

That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense."

That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!"

That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!"

That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, "Thumbs up!"

That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be."

That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a genius!"

That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, "That's smart!"

That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was the middle of water and you have said, "That makes sense."

That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!"

That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids. has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they’re just “animals” - and you say, “well, ok then.”

That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise.

What you don't get, Trump supporters in 2018, is that succumbing to frustration and thinking of you as stupid may be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable.

Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are *less* flattering.

***

Original post by Adam-Troy Castro.

 

[rightwinger]

AND YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!! NO where near 13 million jobs!
A) Where is your proof?
B) When you compare the number of jobs when Obama took office with the total now, the difference is a net gain of 11.3 million jobs
The workforce participation rate has ranged between 62.5% to 63%. That’s significantly lower than the 66% rate before the Great Recession. Workforce participation hasn’t been as low as it’s been lately since the Jimmy Carter-era economic malaise of the 1970s.
How many people have given up on seeking jobs? In 2014, FiveThirtyEight
estimated that 8 million working-age Americans were not employed but also not counted in the unemployment rate because they’d stopped looking for jobs.
Here's What Really Happened to Jobs During the Obama Years
And these people KNEW with a President making statements and policies like these there WoULD BE NO jobs!
View attachment 221102

The Great Obama faced an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month when he took office
Once he reversed the Great Bush Recession of 2008, he added 13 million jobs

In fact, Obama inherited a financial crisis, not a recession, from the Bush administration and it was his failure to promptly address the contraction of credit the financial crisis caused that led to the recession. It is more accurate to refer to the Bush financial crisis and the Obama recession.

Obama did an amazing job with Republicans fighting him every step of the way.
Republicans would see the country fall before they would help Obama.

One of the finest accomplishments of the Great Obama

Rescuing an economy that Republicans were doing their best to destroy

Well jUST think what Obama could have done if he hadn't been encouraging part time workers (ACA - 50 employees have to have group health) or encourage bankruptcies, or
wanted to bankrupt 1,400 companies or wanted HIGHER gas prices and your utility rates to "skyrocket"... or worse yet if he hadn't been so anti-environmentalist to encourage
1 million barrels of oil to be spilled in the open ocean which would have happened according to experts... Yea think what the economy would have been!
View attachment 221325

Part time workers?

You must be thinking of Crooked Donnie and all his burger flipping jobs

 

[rightwinger]

Yes
trump has been successful at destroying decades old global alliances and trade deals
He has been successful at making the US the laughing stock of the world
He has been successful at selling the environment to the highest bidder
He has been successful at giving tax cuts to himself and billionaire buddies

 

[Muhammed]

By almost any measurable metric the United States is flourishing. And in some areas it isn't just flourishing it is stampeding.

Okay, if you need to tell yourself that.

I'm sure the rich are doing very well... the rest of us.. meh, not so much.

How wealthy and how much income does somebody need to have in order to be "the rich" that are making you so jealous and hateful?

Is it a person with one more penny or dollar than you have? Is it a thousand dollars? $10,000 dollars more per annum than you?

Can you tell us exactly who you are talking about when you say "the rich"?

 

[healthmyths]

Dodd Frank was created in result of the crisis afterwards right ?? However it wasn't the proper answer for the crisis was it ?

We haven't had a similar crash since, so it did just fine. I personally think it didn't go far enough, they needed to break up "Too big to fail" banks.

One of my favorite movies is "Too Big to Fail". Saw it 100x.

Not sure how they could fix the crash when the US runs out of money when the Debt interest crowds out all other spending.
As the interest rate goes up, government will be getting smaller.

Breaking up the big banks leaves the field to the international big banks. Better regulation based on common sense is what's needed.

Question for you that evidently you are an expert having seen the move 100 times...

What percent of the current federal budget goes to pay interest on the national debt?