Trump's GDP Growth as bad as Obama's

[The Derp]

How can an economy grow if the President wants higher gas prices

You know who wants higher gas prices? OIL COMPANIES. That's why they support KXL, because KXL is going to increase oil prices. How you ask? Simple; Tar Sands sludge from Alberta is already piped into the United States. So much of it is piped into the US from Canada that it's oversupplied, which means we get it at a discount. KXL will remove that oversupply by directing the sludge that previously went to the US PADD II region (IL refineries) to the Gulf Coast, where it can be sold on the global markets for a higher price. Removing the oversupply will end the price discount IL refineries enjoy, which means higher oil prices, which means higher gas prices. We know this because TransCanada said so themselves in their permit application.

Anyone who supports KXL supports increasing the price of oil and gas in the United States. Full stop.

 

[The Derp]

The economy is like an oil tanker.You don't turn an oil tanker around within 10 feet. 20 feet... it takes Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to sto

So then that means it wasn't Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gaining control of Congress and the Senate in January 2007 that caused the recession to begin that year!

Which means the actions that caused the economic collapse and recession were in the works before they took over. And who was in charge of Congress completely from 2003-2007? CONSERVATIVES.

 

[healthmyths]

You and NYCARBINEER are comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about GDP growth by year, and he is talking about GDP growth by quarter. Changing the subject without you knowing about it is a way snowflakes lie.

Oh, so you want to talk GDP growth by quarter? Well, Obama had plenty of quarters above 3%:

I count at least 6 quarters with at least 4% GDP GROWTH, and another 5 or so with at least 3% GDP GROWTH

FACTS: US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter
Trump Out of 3 quarters: Average was 3.64% Billion dollar events in 2017 16 disasters cost: $306.2 billion and 362 deaths
Obama Out of 32 quarters: Average was 3.01% Billion dollar events in 2009-2016 81 disasters cost $344.0 billion and 1,672 deaths
Bush Out of 32 quarters: Average was 4.60% Billion dollar events in 2001-2008 45 disasters cost $460.2 billion and 2,865 deaths.
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

FACT is Trump in one year had weather disasters that cost almost as much as Obama had in 8 years!

 

[healthmyths]

The economy is like an oil tanker.You don't turn an oil tanker around within 10 feet. 20 feet... it takes Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to sto

So then that means it wasn't Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gaining control of Congress and the Senate in January 2007 that caused the recession to begin that year!

Which means the actions that caused the economic collapse and recession were in the works before they took over. And who was in charge of Congress completely from 2003-2007? CONSERVATIVES.

Let's see...
First Barney Franks admits:

Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
"I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

And the beginning was in 1995.......
in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
-------------------------
In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers.
------------------------------------
Rham Emmanuel, NOW OBAMA CHIEF OF STAFF and Jamie Gorelick were employees and directors of Fannie and freddie took between the two took out over $20 million. Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal. Gorelick took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn’t there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog

Obama was part of the lawsuit. Fact. Acorn was going to make massive protests if the suit had not been settled out of court which included Obama!
Unqualified loans backed by Fannie/Freddie were supported by investors buying these loans KNOWING that this is what would happen:
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk

So we had linkage between "flipping-homes-bad-loans" backed by Fannie/Freddie and coupled with the effort Bush tried to get the Democrat Congress to rein in Fannie/Freddie... Bush was laughed at and admonished by Franks/Dodd... facts:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms
of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called
on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
Eric Dash,"Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," NYT, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

So over the years these subprime loans came to a head on 9/18/2008 again NOT mentioned widely by the biased MSM and I'm sure YOU've NEVER heard about this!

 

[flacaltenn]

NO President's GDP Growth was EVER as bad as Obama's. He is the 1st President NEVER to get to 3% GDP Growth.

Except for the 8 times he had quarterly GDP growth of 3% or greater, including one over 5%. Tramp has never had even one quarter even near 5%.

Ummm, NO:

ONLY US President SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION not to hit 3% GDP Growth...

Obama First President Since Great Depression Not to See 3% GDP Growth

Learn to read!!!

He never reached a yearly GDP growth of 3%, nimrod. You're spewing quarterly figures.

Neither has Tramp! Tramp is spewing quarterly figures.

Funny... GDP IS a quarterly number.. Nobody gives a shit about "average" or "yearly" GDP.

 

[easyt65]

Funny... GDP IS a quarterly number.. Nobody gives a shit about "average" or "yearly" GDP.

...at least, it seems, not those who support the only President since the Great Depression that never achieved 3% GDP ...

 

[healthmyths]

No question you are right. And NO president in history to my knowledge EVER had greater than 3% in their first Quarter!

I'm not talking quarterly, I'm talking annual.

Annually, Trump will not break 3% GDP growth for 2017.

Quarterly, he broke 3% in Q2 and Q3. Obama broke 3% quarterly growth about 11 times in 32 quarters. So about 1/3 of the time, Obama achieved quarterly growth above 3%.

But the annual growth for Q1-Q3 2017 was 2.5%.

According to the below Trump broke 3% 3 qtrs.
Obama: broke 3% 22 times of 32 quarters or 2/3rds.
GWB beat broke 3% 26 times of 32 quarters or 81%
In fact GWB had the last quarter that there was over 7% was in 2nd qtr 2004 ...right after tax cuts kicked in!
GWB had 14 quarters over 5%!
And that is a fact.
We've been accustomed to low expectations from the likes of Obama so anything Trump does will be excellerating!
Think what the economy would have done if Obama hadn't been so anti-business as the following anti-business statements attest!

 

[flacaltenn]

You and NYCARBINEER are comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about GDP growth by year, and he is talking about GDP growth by quarter. Changing the subject without you knowing about it is a way snowflakes lie.

Oh, so you want to talk GDP growth by quarter? Well, Obama had plenty of quarters above 3%:

I count at least 6 quarters with at least 4% GDP GROWTH, and another 5 or so with at least 3% GDP GROWTH

See -- ANOTHER math/econ illiterate Leftist.. This is a MAJOR teaching moment.

What is the TITLE of that graph? Does it say US GDP? Or does it say US GDP GROWTH RATE? But what it DOESN'T say is whether that growth rate is quarter to quarter -- or year to year. Economists use BOTH.

The quarter to quarter rate is not very useful. Because if the previous quarter was phenomenally BAD -- the succeeding quarter will be abnormally good. THAT is what you showed.

The year to year rate is NOT A YEARLY AVERAGE. It's a snapshot of the change ONLY between adjacent years and LESS prone to influence from short term fluctuations. Thus it's PREFERRED for measuring the rate of growth for GDP. And HERE you'll find the year to year numbers for a period similar to the graph you belched out.

On these two links -- you'll SEE the diff between Q to Q and Y to Y. And the Q to Q graph is the same as what you posted. Obama did NOT have ANY 4% or 5% Y to Y rates. BARELY ALMOST made a couple 3% years. There wont BE a Y to Y data for the new Admin for another year. So all we HAVE is Q to Q to fight over until then..

You're Q to Q numbers showing 4 and 5% changes. Note the GOOD numbers precede poor performing Quarters.

Real GDP growth in the United States, by quarter 2011-2017 | Statistic

And the Y to Y numbers where the Obama Admin ALMOST made 3% a couple times..

U.S. - GDP growth by year 1990-2016 | Statista

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny... GDP IS a quarterly number.. Nobody gives a shit about "average" or "yearly" GDP.

...at least, it seems, not those who support the only President since the Great Depression that never achieved 3% GDP ...

He ALMOST made it a couple times. In fact, with "revisions" that came out at one time or another, he might have BARELY made a time or two..

 

[The Derp]

What is the TITLE of that graph? Does it say US GDP? Or does it say US GDP GROWTH RATE? But what it DOESN'T say is whether that growth rate is quarter to quarter -- or year to year. Economists use BOTH.

OMG, you stupid fucking idiot. IT'S US QUARTERLY GDP GROWTH RATE. <-There's the link for ya since you're too fat, entitled, and lazy to do the work yourself.

32 bars = 32 quarters = 8 years

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to conflate and obfuscate by jumping between measurements, which you did twice in this thread so far. Not clever. #ConservaFAIL

Why is it that Conservatives can never be honest about anything? It's because lying is inherent in the beleif system. If you can successfully lie to yourself as you have, then lying to everyone else is no problem.

You're a sociopath.

 

[The Derp]

Real GDP growth in the United States, by quarter 2011-2017 | Statistic

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

THIS CHART SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT MY CHART SHOWED.

Did you even fucking look at the link you posted?!?

My God...the Conservative bench seems pretty fucking thin these days.

 

[The Derp]

He ALMOST made it a couple times. In fact, with "revisions" that came out at one time or another, he might have BARELY made a time or two..

Trump hasn't made it and won't for 2017.

Trump also created the fewest jobs since 2010.

But I guess slowing the rate of job growth is a win for Conservatives because at least they didn't lose jobs for once. The last Conservative President did, though. Net 400,000 private sector jobs lost in 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts.

Now Conservatives this time just didn't create as many jobs as Obama did, or as fast.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is the TITLE of that graph? Does it say US GDP? Or does it say US GDP GROWTH RATE? But what it DOESN'T say is whether that growth rate is quarter to quarter -- or year to year. Economists use BOTH.

OMG, you stupid fucking idiot. IT'S US QUARTERLY GDP GROWTH RATE. <-There's the link for ya since you're too fat, entitled, and lazy to do the work yourself.

32 bars = 32 quarters = 8 years

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to conflate and obfuscate by jumping between measurements, which you did twice in this thread so far. Not clever. #ConservaFAIL

Why is it that Conservatives can never be honest about anything? It's because lying is inherent in the beleif system. If you can successfully lie to yourself as you have, then lying to everyone else is no problem.

You're a sociopath.

Hell no.. I'm clarifying YOUR confusion about different forms of measuring "growth rates". Just told you that using Q to Q rates is misleading and not really useful. Because it's more a reflection of the PREVIOUS quarter than any real statistical trend for growth. That's why Y to Y measurements are preferred..

Do you get this? Or you just want to bait me and have a juvenile hissy fit?

 

[flacaltenn]

Real GDP growth in the United States, by quarter 2011-2017 | Statistic

THIS CHART SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT MY CHART SHOWED.

Did you even fucking look at the link you posted?!?

My God...the Conservative bench seems pretty fucking thin these days.

You're pretty dense if you didn't see the DIFF between the 2 diff graphs of Q to Q rates and the Y to Y rates that I posted. The only meaningful measure of GDP rate is the Y to Y. That's what historians use. Only policy wonks rant about GDP Q to Q numbers.. Like YOU -- when the numbers fit your agenda. Or like the REPUBS who are touting Trump's Q to Q numbers BEFORE there's sufficient statistical data to even FIND a real trend.

That's why my Y to Y graph is title REAL GDP growth rate. Because historically, THAT is how all performance is measured. The Q to Q numbers are just for wonky types trying to PREDICT where the rate is going on a short term basis.

 

[The Derp]

Hell no.. I'm clarifying YOUR confusion about different forms of measuring "growth rates". Just told you that using Q to Q rates is misleading and not really useful. Because it's more a reflection of the PREVIOUS quarter than any real statistical trend for growth. That's why Y to Y measurements are preferred..Do you get this? Or you just want to bait me and have a juvenile hissy fit?

I wasn't the one confused, you were.

You didn't know what the fuck you were looking at when I posted the chart from Tradingeconomics.com showing Obama's quarterly GDP growth (even though the chart was clearly labeled, you just rushed your way through it because you're a sloppy person). Then you went and posted the exact same chart from a different source, pretending that you knew what you were saying the whole time. What an epic flameout there...all because you rushed your way through a response you just had to get out to protect that shitpile you call an ego.

So what happened? Did you rush your way through a response without fully reading to that which you were responding? Did you read and understand what I posted but you needed to feel better about yourself so you just reiterated the same thing I said to you? Because that's what it fuckin' looks like!

Not sure why you couldn't figure it out; my guess is that you're just a fat, stupid, lazy, entitled Conservative nobody who can't be bothered to read and understand that which appears on your computer screen.

You're exactly what happens when moral bankruptcy and sophistry meets a poor work ethic.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell no.. I'm clarifying YOUR confusion about different forms of measuring "growth rates". Just told you that using Q to Q rates is misleading and not really useful. Because it's more a reflection of the PREVIOUS quarter than any real statistical trend for growth. That's why Y to Y measurements are preferred..Do you get this? Or you just want to bait me and have a juvenile hissy fit?

I wasn't the one confused, you were.

You didn't know what the fuck you were looking at when I posted the chart from Tradingeconomics.com showing Obama's quarterly GDP growth (even though the chart was clearly labeled, you just rushed your way through it because you're a sloppy person). Then you went and posted the exact same chart from a different source, pretending that you knew what you were saying the whole time. What an epic flameout there...all because you rushed your way through a response you just had to get out to protect that shitpile you call an ego.

So what happened? Did you rush your way through a response without fully reading to that which you were responding? Did you read and understand what I posted but you needed to feel better about yourself so you just reiterated the same thing I said to you? Because that's what it fuckin' looks like!

Not sure why you couldn't figure it out; my guess is that you're just a fat, stupid, lazy, entitled Conservative nobody who can't be bothered to read and understand that which appears on your computer screen.

You're exactly what happens when moral bankruptcy and sophistry meets a poor work ethic.

I didn't "rush thru" anything. Patiently explained to you that what YOU POSTED was Q to Q data. Then I explained WHY the Y to Y data is the preferred method and the one that makes it into the history books. Educated you on what the Trumpsters are doing wrong by bragging about Q to Q data points because they barely even have their 1st Y to Y data point. Think I was more than patient, fair and helpful. NOW -- you know to look into SPECIFICALLY what you are posting as "fact". Because statistics, math, econ are VERY PRECISE and not for folks who don't WANT to know any details...

 

[The Derp]

ou're pretty dense if you didn't see the DIFF between the 2 diff graphs of Q to Q rates and the Y to Y rates that I posted. .

Here's exactly what happened:

1. You screeched something stupid and incomprehensible about GDP growth during Obama.

2. I posted a chart showing Obama's Quarterly GDP Growth Rate topping 3% 11 times.

3. Frustrated and angered by that unfortunate chart, you tried to pretend that what I posted was the growth rate from quarter to quarter, not the growth rate of each quarter. You did that because a) you're a dishonest lying piece of shit, and b) because you didn't want to admit that Obama had GDP growth above 3% for 33% of the time he was in office.

I don't know why you don't want to admit that, but I have an idea; you have a narrative you need to preserve that Obama's economy was bad and therefore, Trump's economy is somehow better...even though it's the same economy Obama had that was handed to Trump on a silver platter, and Trump's done nothing with it other than slow the rate of job creation.

4. Now you set a new standard about a meaningful GDP measurement of year over year. Why is this a meaningful standard? No one knows because it's something you invented purely on the spot for the purpose of lending your shit argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. And it is a shit argument because corporations and businesses look at quarterly earnings as much as they look at annual earnings. In fact, the share price more reflects quarterly earnings than it does annual earnings. You either know this, and are playing dumb, or you don't and you're an ignoramus.

So which is it? Are you a fucking idiot or a fucking ignoramus? Because you can only be one of those.

 

[flacaltenn]

ou're pretty dense if you didn't see the DIFF between the 2 diff graphs of Q to Q rates and the Y to Y rates that I posted. .

Here's exactly what happened:

1. You screeched something stupid and incomprehensible about GDP growth during Obama.

2. I posted a chart showing Obama's Quarterly GDP Growth Rate topping 3% 11 times.

3. Frustrated and angered by that unfortunate chart, you tried to pretend that what I posted was the growth rate from quarter to quarter, not the growth rate of each quarter. You did that because a) you're a dishonest lying piece of shit, and b) because you didn't want to admit that Obama had GDP growth above 3% for 33% of the time he was in office.

I don't know why you don't want to admit that, but I have an idea; you have a narrative you need to preserve that Obama's economy was bad and therefore, Trump's economy is somehow better...even though it's the same economy Obama had that was handed to Trump on a silver platter, and Trump's done nothing with it other than slow the rate of job creation.

4. Now you set a new standard about a meaningful GDP measurement of year over year. Why is this a meaningful standard? No one knows because it's something you invented purely on the spot for the purpose of lending your shit argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. And it is a shit argument because corporations and businesses look at quarterly earnings as much as they look at annual earnings. In fact, the share price more reflects quarterly earnings than it does annual earnings. You either know this, and are playing dumb, or you don't and you're an ignoramus.

So which is it? Are you a fucking idiot or a fucking ignoramus? Because you can only be one of those.

I'm not a partisan shill for either dying party. Go wrestle with someone who is.. I just educated you that the graph you presented is NOT the same GDP growth measurement that will be historically recorded.

YOU ------------------ don't get any of this. I'm sorry for you.. But I tried..

 

[The Derp]

I didn't "rush thru" anything. Patiently explained to you that what YOU POSTED was Q to Q data.

NO WRONG! What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Has Russia hacked it so much that it's just a pile of jelly now?

It's not measuring the growth quarter to quarter.

It's measuring the growth in the quarter. You and I posted two charts that said the same fucking thing.

You're still fucking wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't "rush thru" anything. Patiently explained to you that what YOU POSTED was Q to Q data.

NO WRONG!

It's not measuring the growth quarter to quarter.

It's measuring the growth in the quarter.

You're still fucking wrong.

It's measuring the growth of the current quarter ONLY with respect to the PREVIOUS quarter. Therefore if there was NEGATIVE or low growth in the previous quarter -- the result will be embarrassingly inaccurate and OVER stated. It's unreliable as statistic for any TREND in GDP.. That's why Y to Y is preferred.

Don't expect you to "get that'. You're only interested in numbers that "look good" for your assertions and political biases. But that childish shit stops when it comes to facts and how historically the GDP rate will be recorded.

The Q to Q data is ONLY really used by folks trying to bet on markets and SHORT TERM trends...