New study shows income growth slowed under tRump.

[kaz]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

Candidate Donald Trump recognized a huge opening here to, at least rhetorically, side with the workers against the global forces that are “ripping them off” thanks to “horrible trade deals.” To this day, even as he enacts tariffs (which invite retaliatory tariffs) that hurt them, his constituents remain loyal. Apparently, if people feel you’ve got their back, they’ll put up with a lot.

The "global forces" are ripping us off. Trump is the only one that offered to have our backs. The rest were clear in that they thought the battle already lost and had written US off.

Though Trump hasn’t said what winning looks like (he just assures us it’s easy), I suspect it’s a lower trade deficit and import substitution through expanded domestic capacity. But his agenda is likely to boost the value of the dollar and worsen the trade deficit, and, even considering his new $12 billion payoff to farmers, I doubt he’s willing to sustain this war to the point where producers build domestic plants to replace foreign ones, doubts that are amplified by the deep integration of global supply chains into American production. As I’ve recently written, tariffs can’t unscramble the globalization omelet.

When he was elected, and it was feared he would just come in and slam down tariffs, local manufactures were flooded with requests for information from foreign producers who were prepared to move production here, to maintain access to the world's largest single market.


Your assumption of our utter weakness, is not convincing to me. And indeed, considering what assholes our "allies" have been, I'd burn it all down out of spite, if the alternative is letting people fuck us.

The Chinese are too deeply committed to capturing market share in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced computing, next-generation vehicles and high tech in general to change their plans for U.S. soybeans (especially when they can get them from Brazil).

I agree. They will never negotiate in good faith. They will never be even decent trading partners. Time to stop playing with them.

But if the tariffs won’t work, what will?

Instead of applying an outdated tool — tariffs — to unscramble the globalization omelet and move backward, we should be looking around the next corner and investing in people, research and technology that will give us the economic edge we’re rapidly losing.

But you just said that China is going to have those markets. We are playing a rigged game and as long as we allow our enemies to set the rules, we will lose.

Bottom line. You believe Trump. I don't.

Indirectly. But the bottom line is you believe whatever the Democrats say. You believe ANYTHING they say. That you don't believe Trump is just a byproduct of that blind faith

 

[Correll]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

Candidate Donald Trump recognized a huge opening here to, at least rhetorically, side with the workers against the global forces that are “ripping them off” thanks to “horrible trade deals.” To this day, even as he enacts tariffs (which invite retaliatory tariffs) that hurt them, his constituents remain loyal. Apparently, if people feel you’ve got their back, they’ll put up with a lot.

The "global forces" are ripping us off. Trump is the only one that offered to have our backs. The rest were clear in that they thought the battle already lost and had written US off.

Though Trump hasn’t said what winning looks like (he just assures us it’s easy), I suspect it’s a lower trade deficit and import substitution through expanded domestic capacity. But his agenda is likely to boost the value of the dollar and worsen the trade deficit, and, even considering his new $12 billion payoff to farmers, I doubt he’s willing to sustain this war to the point where producers build domestic plants to replace foreign ones, doubts that are amplified by the deep integration of global supply chains into American production. As I’ve recently written, tariffs can’t unscramble the globalization omelet.

When he was elected, and it was feared he would just come in and slam down tariffs, local manufactures were flooded with requests for information from foreign producers who were prepared to move production here, to maintain access to the world's largest single market.


Your assumption of our utter weakness, is not convincing to me. And indeed, considering what assholes our "allies" have been, I'd burn it all down out of spite, if the alternative is letting people fuck us.

The Chinese are too deeply committed to capturing market share in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced computing, next-generation vehicles and high tech in general to change their plans for U.S. soybeans (especially when they can get them from Brazil).

I agree. They will never negotiate in good faith. They will never be even decent trading partners. Time to stop playing with them.

But if the tariffs won’t work, what will?

Instead of applying an outdated tool — tariffs — to unscramble the globalization omelet and move backward, we should be looking around the next corner and investing in people, research and technology that will give us the economic edge we’re rapidly losing.

But you just said that China is going to have those markets. We are playing a rigged game and as long as we allow our enemies to set the rules, we will lose.

Bottom line. You believe Trump. I don't.

"Believe" is not the point. THe point is we could vote for the man that said he would try for us, or the woman that said she had given up on us.


If you decide before the fight, to not even try, you have zero chance of winning.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

Not really but who on earth cares about such utter trivia when the alternative is: reparations, the treasonous Green New Deal Depression, defund the police, defund ice, open the borders to all, provide free healthcare and education to all, raise taxes on business to drive more jobs off shore, empty the prisons, riot/loot, pamper blacks when they are killed by police less often than whites, support Marxist BLM, Hispanic nationalism, 16 year olds and prisoners voting, continued attack on family, schools, and religion, packing SCOTUS and Senate, more support for deaths of despair, support for MMT( magic money tree economics).

 

[Dana7360]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

I have no idea where anyone got any idea there was a recession in 2000.

There wasn't.

Whoever told you there was a recession in 2000 lied to you or didn't know what they were talking about.

The real definition of recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. That didn't happen in 2000 or 2001.

Alan Greenspan raised interest rates in January 2000 say he wanted to slow spending to prevent recession. It takes about 6 months for our economy to reflect that change. By the end of the year growth had slowed to 2.97%

Growth slowed after 9-11. However that was nearly a year after Clinton left office.

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

US Real GDP Growth Rate table by quarter, historic, and current data. Current US Real GDP Growth Rate is 1.80%.

www.multpl.com

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

The stock market started heading South before Bush was even declared the winner.

You are a total buffoon.

I don't remember worrying about the economy until the 2000's.

Oh, and worse than the 2001 recession was Bush's policies he implemented after 9-11.

9-11 hurt the economy too but not as much as Bush's policies. And you know that's true because you didn't vote for Jeb. If you really liked Bush you wouldn't have voted for Trump.

You're just making that up based on the party involved. Your knowledge of economics and business is just abysmal. W was a terrible President. But he had the same basic policies as slick and Obama Bin Laden. And they were worse than 9/11 on the economy? You're completely full of shit

No no no fuck you trying to put Bush on us or try to deny that you loved him back then. You also loved Romney and McCain until it didn't suit your narrative.

Maybe you were too young to remember but back in 2008 you guys worshiped Bush as much as you worship Trump today. PLEASE don't give me your revisionist history.

Compare Bush's approval rating with Republicans compared to Trump. Same numbers.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

I have no idea where anyone got any idea there was a recession in 2000.

There wasn't.

Whoever told you there was a recession in 2000 lied to you or didn't know what they were talking about.

The real definition of recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. That didn't happen in 2000 or 2001.

Alan Greenspan raised interest rates in January 2000 say he wanted to slow spending to prevent recession. It takes about 6 months for our economy to reflect that change. By the end of the year growth had slowed to 2.97%

Growth slowed after 9-11. However that was nearly a year after Clinton left office.

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

US Real GDP Growth Rate table by quarter, historic, and current data. Current US Real GDP Growth Rate is 1.80%.

www.multpl.com

View attachment 364060

I know I just threw that 2000 number out there. It was in 2001. And I thought it was 3 straight months not two. I learned something new today thanks.

 

[sealybobo]

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

Not really but who on earth cares about such utter trivia when the alternative is: reparations, the treasonous Green New Deal Depression, defund the police, defund ice, open the borders to all, provide free healthcare and education to all, raise taxes on business to drive more jobs off shore, empty the prisons, riot/loot, pamper blacks when they are killed by police less often than whites, support Marxist BLM, Hispanic nationalism, 16 year olds and prisoners voting, continued attack on family, schools, and religion, packing SCOTUS and Senate, more support for deaths of despair, support for MMT( magic money tree economics).

Not really but who cares? First of all, yes, REALLY. Trump's policies just like Bush's overwhelmingly benefit the rich and hurt the poor and middle class.

And the alternative is a stronger middle class. I'll make this short but back in lets say 1980 the rich waged war on the middle class with Reagan breaking unions and Jack Walsh from GE started firing his lowest 10% performing employees every year. They broke the social contract with workers.

I could go on and on but it would go right in one ear and out the other. No we are not looking for socialism. We know Capitalism rules but some things should not be for profit. Public schools, social security, medicare. Is America a socialist country for having these things? Why not? Do you want to kill these things? I say Republicans do.

 

[Dana7360]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

There was no recession anytime in 2000 or 2001.

The honest definition of recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. That didn't happen in 2001.

We did have much slower growth and near zero growth but not negative growth.

 

[Correll]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

The stock market started heading South before Bush was even declared the winner.

You are a total buffoon.

I don't remember worrying about the economy until the 2000's.

Oh, and worse than the 2001 recession was Bush's policies he implemented after 9-11.

9-11 hurt the economy too but not as much as Bush's policies. And you know that's true because you didn't vote for Jeb. If you really liked Bush you wouldn't have voted for Trump.

You're just making that up based on the party involved. Your knowledge of economics and business is just abysmal. W was a terrible President. But he had the same basic policies as slick and Obama Bin Laden. And they were worse than 9/11 on the economy? You're completely full of shit

No no no fuck you trying to put Bush on us or try to deny that you loved him back then. You also loved Romney and McCain until it didn't suit your narrative.

Maybe you were too young to remember but back in 2008 you guys worshiped Bush as much as you worship Trump today. PLEASE don't give me your revisionist history.

Compare Bush's approval rating with Republicans compared to Trump. Same numbers.

We supported Romney until he stood against us. We never like McCain. We respected the fact that he won the primary fair and square, but that was not "loving" him by any margin.


I still hold a grudge against that idiot Hucklebe for splitting the conservatives vote long after he was a real contender, letting McCain rack up the primary victories.


Romney might have defeated Obama. We could have avoided a lot of stupid shit.

 

[sealybobo]

There was no recession anytime in 2000 or 2001.

The honest definition of recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. That didn't happen in 2001.

We did have much slower growth and near zero growth but not negative growth.

View attachment 364087View attachment 364087

I don't want to say you are wrong but I'm pretty sure you are. Let me go look.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1990s once were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[72] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.

Mar 2001–Nov 2001

If WIKI is wrong you should go fix it.

Then the Great Recession

Dec 2007–June 2009[

Yes Bush had 2 recessions on his watch.

 

[sealybobo]

We supported Romney until he stood against us. We never like McCain. We respected the fact that he won the primary fair and square, but that was not "loving" him by any margin.


I still hold a grudge against that idiot Hucklebe for splitting the conservatives vote long after he was a real contender, letting McCain rack up the primary victories.


Romney might have defeated Obama. We could have avoided a lot of stupid shit.

Yea he would have let GM go bankrupt and that would have really helped middle class workers NOT

 

[kaz]

I don't want to say you are wrong but I'm pretty sure you are. Let me go look.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1990s once were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[72] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.

Mar 2001–Nov 2001

If WIKI is wrong you should go fix it.

Then the Great Recession

Dec 2007–June 2009[

Yes Bush had 2 recessions on his watch.

The second one was W for sure. But saying that W caused a recession that started as he became President is just flat out retarded. How would he cause a recession in two months? Your lack of basic knowledge of economics is just abysmal. You're a Marxist Democrat propagandist sheep

 

[sealybobo]

The second one was W for sure. But saying that W caused a recession that started as he became President is just flat out retarded. How would he cause a recession in two months? Your lack of basic knowledge of economics is just abysmal. You're a Marxist Democrat propagandist sheep

He got hit on 9-11 even though he was warned. 9-11 played a big role in causing that recession.

And yes, the second one for sure was W's fault. Thanks for admitting that. Most Republicans won't admit that W cause the Greatest recession since the Great Depression. You get a gold star.

 

[sealybobo]

We supported Romney until he stood against us. We never like McCain. We respected the fact that he won the primary fair and square, but that was not "loving" him by any margin.


I still hold a grudge against that idiot Hucklebe for splitting the conservatives vote long after he was a real contender, letting McCain rack up the primary victories.


Romney might have defeated Obama. We could have avoided a lot of stupid shit.

You loved Bush also. Don't say you didn't now because I remember you guys loved him. So how does GW rank?

The average ranking for presidents who win a second term is 14th. That's well above average given we've had 44 presidents. None ranked lower than 32nd (George W. Bush).

Now you guys are willing to admit he sucked, caused the Great Recession and lied us into Iraq. NOW? A bit too late huh?

 

[kaz]

He got hit on 9-11 even though he was warned. 9-11 played a big role in causing that recession.

And yes, the second one for sure was W's fault. Thanks for admitting that. Most Republicans won't admit that W cause the Greatest recession since the Great Depression. You get a gold star.

You get a strike, I'm not a Republican. I'm not part of the world you see only in black and white.

And that you blame a recession that started in March, 2001 on an event that happened in September, 2001 is you just delving deeper into retarded.

Did W cause WWII too? What about the Crusades?

 

[Correll]

Yea he would have let GM go bankrupt and that would have really helped middle class workers NOT

Romney would not have been perfect, but at least normal partisan criticism of him, would not have gotten you labeled "wacist" by wace baiting assholes.

 

[kaz]

You loved Bush also. Don't say you didn't now because I remember you guys loved him. So how does GW rank?

The average ranking for presidents who win a second term is 14th. That's well above average given we've had 44 presidents. None ranked lower than 32nd (George W. Bush).

Now you guys are willing to admit he sucked, caused the Great Recession and lied us into Iraq. NOW? A bit too late huh?

W did suck. What's funny is that he had almost the identical policies of Slick and Hussein who you think were great Presidents.

And the guy who blamed the March recession on an event six months later is just classic

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A study paid for by the Biden campaign.

 

[kaz]

I have no idea where anyone got any idea there was a recession in 2000.

There wasn't.

Whoever told you there was a recession in 2000 lied to you or didn't know what they were talking about

FYI, you don't know what you are talking about.

The third quarter was slightly negative originally. It was later revised to a tiny fraction of a gain. Had that not happened, the recession would have officially started in 2000.

So when you say you "have no idea where anyone got any idea there was a recession in 2002," that's you admitting you're not very knowledgeable about this

 

[kaz]

A study paid for by the Biden campaign.

Clearly true.

Two cherry picked years of Obama, two cherry picked years of Trump and an undefined "middle class" was all that was counted. Clearly Biden propaganda