Trump's 4% GDP growth promise update

[danielpalos]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

should we muster a Corps of mathematical engineers?

 

[caddo kid]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

The goal of NAFTA was to reduce barriers to investments & to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

What a genius you are! And how was the Mexican consumer going to buy our goods?

Because we GAVE them jobs, wake up, or are you being a Pravda Propagandist?

QUESTION——> you are acting smart, so tell us Karnak........ what good is opening up a market area, when the people can’t afford your goods? Please, explain it in economic terms to this board!

And, how well did government interference work trying to accomplish this with their genius?

Are you invading Mexico yet for a job illegally, and sending your cash back here to your family? If not, why not?

You are the quintessential phony-e-baloney of BOTH party’s, pick either one.

You have absolutely NOTHING to show for your stance, but lost American jobs, and a failed policy that you question blue collar people with while attacking them!

Congrats, you have managed to cross the political aisle between HW, GW, and BHO. Aren’t you proud of yourself-)


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Your RANT, which means nothing, is duly noted.

 

[Dragonlady]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That would be Republicans, who added 2 trillion to the national debt last year without paying for their tax cuts. Republicans have been cutting taxes since Reagan and adding social programs, all without paying for them. Obamacare had taxes which paid for the program. W added Medicare Part D without creating any taxes or programs to pay for this program.

Republican have been adding new social programs, wars, and massive deficit spending all while cutting taxes for the wealthy, promising the tax cuts will pay for themselves. It's time to raise wages for working Americans, and tax the crap out of the wealthy, to get some fiscal balance into the economy.

 

[RealDave]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

The goal of NAFTA was to reduce barriers to investments & to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

What a genius you are! And how was the Mexican consumer going to buy our goods?

Because we GAVE them jobs, wake up, or are you being a Pravda Propagandist?

QUESTION——> you are acting smart, so tell us Karnak........ what good is opening up a market area, when the people can’t afford your goods? Please, explain it in economic terms to this board!

And, how well did government interference work trying to accomplish this with their genius?

Are you invading Mexico yet for a job illegally, and sending your cash back here to your family? If not, why not?

You are the quintessential phony-e-baloney of BOTH party’s, pick either one.

You have absolutely NOTHING to show for your stance, but lost American jobs, and a failed policy that you question blue collar people with while attacking them!

Congrats, you have managed to cross the political aisle between HW, GW, and BHO. Aren’t you proud of yourself-)


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

US companies were having manufacturing done in Mexico prior to NAFTA.There were manufacturing zones in Mexico where US companies could manufacture & bring them back duty free.

US manufacturers needed NAFTA to sell big ticket items like construction equipment, airliners, etc. And we import oil.

I export a lot of US made products into Mexico ^ that has been hurt by Trump's stupid tariffs.

 

[RealDave]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party added 1.48 trillion to the debt in a single CY during a booming economy, not talked about it but added it when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Which one.

I mean certainly you aren't talking about when Republicans left the worst recession in 80 years to Obama? You can't be that stupid, can you?

 

[imawhosure]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

The goal of NAFTA was to reduce barriers to investments & to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

What a genius you are! And how was the Mexican consumer going to buy our goods?

Because we GAVE them jobs, wake up, or are you being a Pravda Propagandist?

QUESTION——> you are acting smart, so tell us Karnak........ what good is opening up a market area, when the people can’t afford your goods? Please, explain it in economic terms to this board!

And, how well did government interference work trying to accomplish this with their genius?

Are you invading Mexico yet for a job illegally, and sending your cash back here to your family? If not, why not?

You are the quintessential phony-e-baloney of BOTH party’s, pick either one.

You have absolutely NOTHING to show for your stance, but lost American jobs, and a failed policy that you question blue collar people with while attacking them!

Congrats, you have managed to cross the political aisle between HW, GW, and BHO. Aren’t you proud of yourself-)


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

US companies were having manufacturing done in Mexico prior to NAFTA.There were manufacturing zones in Mexico where US companies could manufacture & bring them back duty free.

US manufacturers needed NAFTA to sell big ticket items like construction equipment, airliners, etc. And we import oil.

I export a lot of US made products into Mexico ^ that has been hurt by Trump's stupid tariffs.

Then tell Congress to get off their a** and sign the new agreement. I don't want any business person including you, to suffer because of government intervention.

 

[Mac1958]

Just FOUR percent?

Pffft! That's nothing.

Trump: We're Going To See Economic Growth Of 4, 5 And Maybe 6 Percent


.

 

[RealDave]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

 

[caddo kid]

Just FOUR percent?

Pffft. That's nothing.

Trump: We're Going To See Economic Growth Of 4, 5 And Maybe 6 Percent


.

anyone that believed that pile of horse hooey is a fvcking moron

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party added 1.48 trillion to the debt in a single CY during a booming economy, not talked about it but added it when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Which one.

I mean certainly you aren't talking about when Republicans left the worst recession in 80 years to Obama? You can't be that stupid, can you?

No, I am talking about the Repub party in 2018. Obama did not start off with a booming economy. Do try and pay attention to what is written.

 

[imawhosure]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party added 1.48 trillion to the debt in a single CY during a booming economy, not talked about it but added it when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Which one.

I mean certainly you aren't talking about when Republicans left the worst recession in 80 years to Obama? You can't be that stupid, can you?

Why is it Dave, that you seem to believe that people like myself agree with government intervention in economics as long as it is Republican?

The only reason I supported Trumps tariffs, was because it was not a permanent act, just a temporary one to bring the others to the table. If it would have been akin to Smoot Haley, I would have been right there with you screaming.

Let me tell you Dave, I am also NOT a fan of the steel tariffs. Unless he sunsets them at some point in time, they are long term, counter productive. He should do what I believe it was Reagan did with the auto companys and say--------------->you got this long to get your stuff together, then the protections go away. If he doesn't, it is a bad policy!

 

[imawhosure]

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

 

[imawhosure]

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

Oh come now, at least have a little bit of pride and integrity. What the hell else were you talking about when you said that OPEC and Russia was funding it?

 

[imawhosure]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

Oh come now, at least have a little bit of pride and integrity. What the hell else were you talking about when you said that OPEC and Russia was funding it?

I was implying that they are funding the studies. I never said their conclusions were right or wrong. I leave that to the individual.

 

[imawhosure]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

Oh come now, at least have a little bit of pride and integrity. What the hell else were you talking about when you said that OPEC and Russia was funding it?

Let me rephrase, they are funding MANY of the studies, and the Chinese have a hand in funding them too.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which party wants to ignore AGW & rack up trillions in expenses to combat the effects. You people are so ******* stupid.

Here's How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

Oh come now, at least have a little bit of pride and integrity. What the hell else were you talking about when you said that OPEC and Russia was funding it?

I was implying that they are funding the studies. I never said their conclusions were right or wrong. I leave that to the individual.

You said they were doing it to "scare the hell out of..."

Why would OPEC and Russia be paying for studies that show fossil fuel is bad for the planet when both rely totally on selling said fuel?

You are making little sense here.

 

[imawhosure]

Look, you have your belief about AGW, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on that one.

But we can BOTH agree on one truth----------->at some point in time, alternative energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point in time, everything will change in the world as we know it, and all the funding by OPEC and Russia to scare the hell out of you will stop.

So, now AGW is a hoax by OPEC and Russia?

I thought your boy in the White House said it was a hoax by China.

I guess when one gets their science from FoxNews as you do, the story will often change.

You are putting words in mouth. Show me where I said hoax?

Oh come now, at least have a little bit of pride and integrity. What the hell else were you talking about when you said that OPEC and Russia was funding it?

I was implying that they are funding the studies. I never said their conclusions were right or wrong. I leave that to the individual.

You said they were doing it to "scare the hell out of..."

Why would OPEC and Russia be paying for studies that show fossil fuel is bad for the planet when both rely totally on selling said fuel?

You are making little sense here.

LOL, see, that just shows how narrow minded you are. If you can't figure out a scenario where fossil fuels being bad for America is good for them, then your business sense is not as strong as I thought it was Golf.

 

[danielpalos]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party added 1.48 trillion to the debt in a single CY during a booming economy, not talked about it but added it when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Which one.

I mean certainly you aren't talking about when Republicans left the worst recession in 80 years to Obama? You can't be that stupid, can you?

the right wing barely remembers that recession and only remember the Debt due to the social programs that automatically stabilized our economy.