NO GDP above 3% entire TERM OF PRESIDENT OBAMA...FIRST TIME IN HISTORY!

[Never3ndr]

Who's the driving force behind those changes? Did the failed stimulus plan NOT spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure? Why here in Tallahassee we were "blessed" with a $3.2 MILLION TURTLE TUNNEL under US 27 North.

Has the GDP reached a 3% increase during the term of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Even though BO has double the national debt, doofusses like Mattieboy decry spending on infrastructure, science, and r&d. He has not learned that government spending on just about anything is wasteful, ineffective, and operates much like racketeering aka Cosa Nostra.

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

 

[gipper]

We're spending the least on infrastructure, science and r&d at anytime of the past 80 years. Of course, I wouldn't expect a retarded like you to look up these facts.

Who's the driving force behind those changes? Did the failed stimulus plan NOT spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure? Why here in Tallahassee we were "blessed" with a $3.2 MILLION TURTLE TUNNEL under US 27 North.

Has the GDP reached a 3% increase during the term of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Even though BO has double the national debt, doofusses like Mattieboy decry spending on infrastructure, science, and r&d. He has not learned that government spending on just about anything is wasteful, ineffective, and operates much like racketeering aka Cosa Nostra.

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

No. Just cut the size of government significantly, and bingo you have economic growth.

Big Government kills technology too. So there is that.

 

[gipper]

Even though BO has double the national debt, doofusses like Mattieboy decry spending on infrastructure, science, and r&d. He has not learned that government spending on just about anything is wasteful, ineffective, and operates much like racketeering aka Cosa Nostra.

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

 

[sealybobo]

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Stimulant money is only a temporary thing. But if you wanted Obama to have better growth you should have done infrastructure on his watch instead of waiting for Trump.

And you forget your party loved illegals. You liked the cheap service they provided and as corporations you loved the cheap labor, so get over yourselves.

 

[sealybobo]

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Huh?

Were More People Deported Under the Obama Administration Than Any Other?

You are wrong. Obama deported more people than any other president. And the illegal immigrant problem we have now started on Reagan's watch.

Your party is torn on this and you don't even know it.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

The people, or I should say CORPORATIONS that run the GOP love illegals. Cheap labor good. And remember in 2007 USMB republicans were loving the cheap services they provided. They said they were just doing jobs Americans wouldn't do. Need I provide a video of McCain, YOUR FUCKING NOMINEE, saying that?

 

[sealybobo]

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

You check the numbers. Immigrants are essential to growth. Either that or we need to start breeding more babies. That's why we love immigrants. American companies don't want to pay middle class people enough that we breed 5 kids. We'd love nothing more than to have 10 kids. Kids are great. But they are expensive. So the United States of Corporations invites lots of poor immigrants in who think being poor in America is great and they have all the kids. They are already poor. Middle class people don't want to be poor so we don't have a lot of kids.

I can't believe we have to explain this shit to conservatives. They just don't have all the information so they say stupid shit. Yes, if Trump's going to have growth he's going to have to spend a lot of your fucking tax dollars and he's going to have to import a bunch of immigrants. Now he may try to get them from Australia, Canada or Europe but guess what? THey don't want to come here. The only ones who want to come are Arabs and Mexicans. You fucking stupid Republicans make me sick!

 

[sealybobo]

Funny you said that. The only way trump has better growth is infrastructure spending and a lot of immigrants. Is that the plan?

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Gipper meet reality:

Donald J. Trump wants us to dream bigger about the economic future. We shouldn’t be content with the roughly 2 percent annual growth that has been the norm this century, he has said. And he thinks he can bring about the kind of robust growth of 4 percent or more that was commonplace in decades past.

But the closer you look at the math of economic growth, the more you see the inherent contradictions in trying to make that happen. The two strategies that would most directly help achieve that goal clash with other planks of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda.

Economic growth can happen two ways: More hours are worked, or more economic output is generated from each hour of labor.

But if the economy quickly became more productive, it would, at least in the short run, also risk the livelihoods of some of the very working-class people whom Mr. Trump pledges to help. And the surest way to increase the number of hours worked is to allow more immigration, which would be directly at odds with Mr. Trump’s get-tough stance on that topic.

In other words, if an era of faster growth is really going to arrive, it will probably involve some changes that Mr. Trump’s supporters very much don’t want to happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...o-things-trump-supporters-wont-like.html?_r=0

 

[sealybobo]

some of the very innovations that have helped improve workers’ productivity are also the main culprit behind the decline of well-paying manufacturing jobs.

These advances have made the United States richer, but that’s not much solace for former manufacturing workers, a group that is at the core of Mr. Trump’s campaign appeals.

It’s not just manufacturing. Consider one innovation that could plausibly become a reality in the years ahead: trucks that drive themselves. Over time, that will make the United States economy more productive and raise incomes. But if you are one of the 1.7 million long-haul truck drivers in the USA making an average of $42,500 for a job that doesn’t require advanced education, it should be concerning. It’s plausible to imagine a majority of those jobs going away over the next decade, which will be a boon for the countless industries that rely on trucks to bring in supplies and distribute finished goods. That will raise G.D.P., the broad measure of economic growth.

But it would be daunting for any of those drivers who can’t find a job with similar pay, especially during some lag period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're spending the least on infrastructure, science and r&d at anytime of the past 80 years. Of course, I wouldn't expect a retarded like you to look up these facts.

Trump's Wall will be the biggest infrastructure project ever

 

[gipper]

We're spending the least on infrastructure, science and r&d at anytime of the past 80 years. Of course, I wouldn't expect a retarded like you to look up these facts.

Trump's Wall will be the biggest infrastructure project ever

Proving once again that MattieBoy is either a hypocrite or dumb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you are claiming the only way to grow the economy is government spending and adding lots of immigrants. LMFAO.

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Gipper meet reality:

Donald J. Trump wants us to dream bigger about the economic future. We shouldn’t be content with the roughly 2 percent annual growth that has been the norm this century, he has said. And he thinks he can bring about the kind of robust growth of 4 percent or more that was commonplace in decades past.

But the closer you look at the math of economic growth, the more you see the inherent contradictions in trying to make that happen. The two strategies that would most directly help achieve that goal clash with other planks of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda.

Economic growth can happen two ways: More hours are worked, or more economic output is generated from each hour of labor.

But if the economy quickly became more productive, it would, at least in the short run, also risk the livelihoods of some of the very working-class people whom Mr. Trump pledges to help. And the surest way to increase the number of hours worked is to allow more immigration, which would be directly at odds with Mr. Trump’s get-tough stance on that topic.

In other words, if an era of faster growth is really going to arrive, it will probably involve some changes that Mr. Trump’s supporters very much don’t want to happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...o-things-trump-supporters-wont-like.html?_r=0

The NYTimes is a failing newspaper dispensing the ramblings of economic illiterates to the pathologically uneducated

 

[gipper]

Our economic growth (or the fact that it has tapered off) is a concern...and there are a lot of reasons posited for this.

To sum most of them up, unless circumstances change, we are not capable of growing as fast as we had in the past. We are going to need a large expansion in population, a major technological breakthrough, a large increase in our labor productivity, etc. to grow faster.

While this is somewhat of a concern, it isn't too concerning. Comparatively we are still seen as the strongest economy, by far, in the world. Unless something drastic changes (and here a change is more likely due to Trump's destabilizing trade stances), we are likely to remain on top for the near, foreseeable future.

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Gipper meet reality:

Donald J. Trump wants us to dream bigger about the economic future. We shouldn’t be content with the roughly 2 percent annual growth that has been the norm this century, he has said. And he thinks he can bring about the kind of robust growth of 4 percent or more that was commonplace in decades past.

But the closer you look at the math of economic growth, the more you see the inherent contradictions in trying to make that happen. The two strategies that would most directly help achieve that goal clash with other planks of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda.

Economic growth can happen two ways: More hours are worked, or more economic output is generated from each hour of labor.

But if the economy quickly became more productive, it would, at least in the short run, also risk the livelihoods of some of the very working-class people whom Mr. Trump pledges to help. And the surest way to increase the number of hours worked is to allow more immigration, which would be directly at odds with Mr. Trump’s get-tough stance on that topic.

In other words, if an era of faster growth is really going to arrive, it will probably involve some changes that Mr. Trump’s supporters very much don’t want to happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...o-things-trump-supporters-wont-like.html?_r=0

The NYTimes is a failing newspaper dispensing the ramblings of economic illiterates to the pathologically uneducated

Which is why he likes it so much.

 

[there4eyeM]

The American economy is so gigantic that 3% growth is an unimaginable volume. In any case, at 3% per year the economy would double in around 20 years. Does anyone seriously believe the American economy can double? Perhaps if the rest of the world's population and countries disappear...

 

[sealybobo]

We're spending the least on infrastructure, science and r&d at anytime of the past 80 years. Of course, I wouldn't expect a retarded like you to look up these facts.

Trump's Wall will be the biggest infrastructure project ever

Actually, that's true. One way Trump can help old blue collar workers who were doing well before manufacturing went overseas but now aren't doing well. Trump's infrastructure projects will help those people. We aren't telling you not to spend the money. We're just pointing out what hypocrites you are about spending money when Democrats are in charge and then mocking Obama's growth when you gave him no infrastructure spending but now you are going to spend. We want you to do the infrastructure spending. But maybe you should raise taxes on the rich because if you don't you're going to double the debt again. You Repubs talk a good game now lets see you lead.

And every time the federal government spends money should we tell you that you are being unconstitutional and that's not what the founding fathers had in mind? Should we act like stupid little bitches like you constitutionalists did?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The American economy is so gigantic that 3% growth is an unimaginable volume. In any case, at 3% per year the economy would double in around 20 years. Does anyone seriously believe the American economy can double? Perhaps if the rest of the world's population and countries disappear...

Yes we can!

Of course, the Deep State would just start another unwinnable war to soak up the economic growth

 

[sealybobo]

Do you think he understands how population growth would be required? And since that's not going to happen I suspect Republicans are going to bring in lots of Mexicans and muslims

Well, I think he is just looking back at history and seeing that we have had higher growth than we have had recently...and asking, "If this was true then, why is it not true now?" He's pointing the blame at one of the more obvious differences (Obama being in office), rather than understanding the underlying fundamentals that go into economic output. In short, I would say he more believes that policies drive an economy (and fiscal policy does in some regards) rather than other factors largely uncontrolled by the government (like population growth or technological advancement).

..,and besides if doubling the debt and flooding the nation with immigrants worked, as you two dummies believe, your big eared Messiah would have been a great economist.

Gipper meet reality:

Donald J. Trump wants us to dream bigger about the economic future. We shouldn’t be content with the roughly 2 percent annual growth that has been the norm this century, he has said. And he thinks he can bring about the kind of robust growth of 4 percent or more that was commonplace in decades past.

But the closer you look at the math of economic growth, the more you see the inherent contradictions in trying to make that happen. The two strategies that would most directly help achieve that goal clash with other planks of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda.

Economic growth can happen two ways: More hours are worked, or more economic output is generated from each hour of labor.

But if the economy quickly became more productive, it would, at least in the short run, also risk the livelihoods of some of the very working-class people whom Mr. Trump pledges to help. And the surest way to increase the number of hours worked is to allow more immigration, which would be directly at odds with Mr. Trump’s get-tough stance on that topic.

In other words, if an era of faster growth is really going to arrive, it will probably involve some changes that Mr. Trump’s supporters very much don’t want to happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...o-things-trump-supporters-wont-like.html?_r=0

The NYTimes is a failing newspaper dispensing the ramblings of economic illiterates to the pathologically uneducated

Which is why he likes it so much.

Truth hurts huh boys? When you've been busted, just stop trying to pretend to know what you are talking about and just attack the source. Forget the facts in the source. Never mind them.

How about the Washington post?
Analysis | Donald Trump keeps moving the goal post for economic growth

How about Wall Street Journal?

Aging Population, Stagnant Productivity Challenge Donald Trump’s Growth Plan

 

[there4eyeM]

...and some say working for peace is unrealistic!

 

[sealybobo]

The American economy is so gigantic that 3% growth is an unimaginable volume. In any case, at 3% per year the economy would double in around 20 years. Does anyone seriously believe the American economy can double? Perhaps if the rest of the world's population and countries disappear...

Here is an article that says Trump could achieve that growth

Trump's plans could double US GDP growth by 2018, Deutsche Bank says

But he'd have to do massive infrastructure spending. So the myth that Republicans don't believe in government spending is going to disappear very soon. Watch and see.

Again, I don't mind the spending but watch the GOP double the debt in the next 8 years. Even after complaining that Obama did. At least this time instead of spending all the money in Iraq this time it will be on bridges and roads and schools. Hoorrayyy!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I love it when Conservatives spend money.

Donald Trump wants to return the U.S. economy to the good old days of Bill Clinton.
Of course, that's not the way he puts it. In a campaign speech Thursday, Trump said his economic proposals would boost the U.S. economy to grow at a pace of 4% a year. It's been a while since the economy hit that target. Specifically, it was during the Clinton administration.

Donald Trump pledges 4% economic growth. How realistic is that?

 

[gipper]

A

The American economy is so gigantic that 3% growth is an unimaginable volume. In any case, at 3% per year the economy would double in around 20 years. Does anyone seriously believe the American economy can double? Perhaps if the rest of the world's population and countries disappear...

And yet China has grown double digits in recent years.