When Did This Become Trump's Economy?

[22lcidw]

According to the left, it’s Trump’s economy every time there’s bad news and it’s 0bama’s economy every time there’s good news.

Nah, that's utterly, bipartisanly american. Just take the spinfest of the Lincoln Memorial Reality America Show episode.

An all boys Catholic School, one like the one that socialized Bart O’Kavanagh, loads up busloads of teenage boys - it’s a tradition - for the purpose of protesting women’s reproductive rights in Washington DC. They have non-physical verbal altercations 1) with four “Black Israelites”, 2) with two female women’s reproductive rights supporters, 3) and with a handful of members of the Indigenous Peoples March fronted by a much older man and vet, whom they surrounded in number, pretty much nose to nose. All 3 of those were captured on video. There may be other videos, if there are more than these three, then what follows may not stand. But of those 3 videos, no adult chaperone/supervision presence is evident either visibly or verbally. Furthermore reports of any parent suggesting any child of theirs involved might have been in error of judgment is nonexistent media wise, and wouldn’t they love to, to stir the pot. We all know what that was. We all know what that look was. And america used to crank out better parents and church leaders. Additionally, really now, this is a “faith” that called for the extermination of the indigenous peoples of the Americas in Papal Bulls of the 1500s. This is a “faith” of chronic church leader pedophilia unpunished to completion; allowed. This is a “faith” that honors a male dominator God; women’s bodies are not their own, a male dominator God owns the body of the female upon behalf of the male. It is a “faith” long connected to Eurocentric male dominator god predatory capitalist domination across mother earth, our life support system.

Blame the kids? For being socialized in a private american madrasa? Whudja think they’d do? They looked pretty at ease with it all really. So yeah, well behaved in that kinda way.

Tell us what the Afrocentric all gender dominator and the Central and South Americancentric all gender dominators are going to do to keep us all competitive. for they do nothing wrong. Any failing is not their fault. You should be worried about the Asian all gender dominators when you get rid of those no good Eurocentric white guys.

 

[danielpalos]

According to the left, it’s Trump’s economy every time there’s bad news and it’s 0bama’s economy every time there’s good news.

Nah, that's utterly, bipartisanly american. Just take the spinfest of the Lincoln Memorial Reality America Show episode.

An all boys Catholic School, one like the one that socialized Bart O’Kavanagh, loads up busloads of teenage boys - it’s a tradition - for the purpose of protesting women’s reproductive rights in Washington DC. They have non-physical verbal altercations 1) with four “Black Israelites”, 2) with two female women’s reproductive rights supporters, 3) and with a handful of members of the Indigenous Peoples March fronted by a much older man and vet, whom they surrounded in number, pretty much nose to nose. All 3 of those were captured on video. There may be other videos, if there are more than these three, then what follows may not stand. But of those 3 videos, no adult chaperone/supervision presence is evident either visibly or verbally. Furthermore reports of any parent suggesting any child of theirs involved might have been in error of judgment is nonexistent media wise, and wouldn’t they love to, to stir the pot. We all know what that was. We all know what that look was. And america used to crank out better parents and church leaders. Additionally, really now, this is a “faith” that called for the extermination of the indigenous peoples of the Americas in Papal Bulls of the 1500s. This is a “faith” of chronic church leader pedophilia unpunished to completion; allowed. This is a “faith” that honors a male dominator God; women’s bodies are not their own, a male dominator God owns the body of the female upon behalf of the male. It is a “faith” long connected to Eurocentric male dominator god predatory capitalist domination across mother earth, our life support system.

Blame the kids? For being socialized in a private american madrasa? Whudja think they’d do? They looked pretty at ease with it all really. So yeah, well behaved in that kinda way.

Tell us what the Afrocentric all gender dominator and the Central and South Americancentric all gender dominators are going to do to keep us all competitive. for they do nothing wrong. Any failing is not their fault. You should be worried about the Asian all gender dominators when you get rid of those no good Eurocentric white guys.

what are you talking about? some on the left are advocating for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure to generate revenue from foreign nationals.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

American businessmen were scarred to put a nickel into their company or expand while Obama was in office. Because they knew he was an enemy of capitalism and hell bent on turning the country into a socialist 3rd world crap hole with crippling taxes.

When Pres.Trump was elected and took the helm. Businessmen started pouring money into their companies, upgrading the equipment, and expanding the work force. They now had confidence in a growing economy because we now had a pro-business capitalist president who believed in Ameica. ...

And yet, through all that claptrap, the economy grew under Barack Obama.

Explain how Obama is solely responsible for any growth of the Economy?

 

[Andylusion]

Thanks again for posting your stupid for all to see. It is an indicator stupid, it is not a cause. And the budget, as I have stated and you have totally filed to prove otherwise, has little to do with the economy. Keep posting, lets see how stupid you really are.

LOLOL

You must be a fucking retard.

20% of GDP comes from government spending. When GDP rose in FY2017, that showed the economy was growing. And as much as 20% of that GDP growth is attributable to Obama’s budget.

That is true, but it only shows that GDP is a flawed metric. It might be the best metric, but it isn't a perfect metric.

Government spending, being treated the same as production from a car plant, is a joke. Just think about it....

An automobile factory produces thousands of jobs. Not just the jobs in the plant itself, but jobs for suppliers, and their suppliers, jobs in transportation, and more. Not only this, but it produces billions in wealth for the country. Every product created, is a tangible example of wealth created.

And we know that this is wealth created, because people are willing to pay money for those products and services.

For example, research grants, such as this one from the ignobel awards

REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE PRIZE [USA, JAPAN, SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT, INDIA, BANGLADESH] — John Barry, Bruce Blank, and Michel Boileau, for using postage stamps to test whether the male sexual organ is functioning properly—as described in their study "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps."

REFERENCE: "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps," John M. Barry, Bruce Blank, Michael Boileau, Urology, vol. 15, 1980, pp. 171-172.
​

Do tell... how many jobs, and how much wealth benefiting the country, was produced from the research grants spend on this?

Or a more obvious example, the money given to Sylondra?

A less obvious example, paying a billion dollars every 5 years, to advertise dairy products overseas. Pretty sure if a company needs to advertise, they can pay for it. Last I looked on TV, a lack of advertising, wasn't a problem. So what benefit do we get from that spending?

None.

So what real "Gross.... Domestic.... Product....." do we get from these examples of government spending? None. And these are the tip of the budget. There are billions on billions of dollars spent, that produce no GDP at all. They produce no jobs, no wealth, and benefit no one.

So yes, GDP does include government spending.... and it's a flawed inclusion.

Nonsense. Much of government sending goes directly to domestic production. Much of it goes to individuals who spend it into the economy. No matter how you try and spin it, government spending is s big factor in the economy and Obama’s budget contributed to the economy until September 30th, 2017.

Government

Governments at the federal, state, and local levels contribute to the nation's economy when they provide services to the public and when they invest in capital. They also provide social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, to households.

Data about governments' receipts, spending, and assets are used to assess the fiscal health of different levels of government, see trends over time, and analyze the effects of government activities on the economy.

Government consumption expenditures include spending by governments to produce and provide services to the public, such as national defense and education. Government gross investment consists of spending on fixed assets that directly benefit the public, such as highway construction, or that assist government agencies in doing their jobs, such as military hardware. Consumption expenditures and gross investment are the measures of government spending included in calculations of gross domestic product, or GDP.

Government current expenditures include consumption expenditures, plus spending on social benefits and other transfers, interest payments, and subsidies to businesses.

Government current receipts include revenues from taxes, employer and employee contributions to government social insurance; transfers, such as fines; and various types of income, such as rent or royalties.

Additional government data are found in BEA's fixed asset statistics. Governments' fixed assets include buildings, roads, vehicles, computers and software, and other assets that they use for at least a year. In addition to investment, the data include governments' net stock of fixed assets, depreciation, and average age.​

You are crazy. If a bureaucrat in an office, counting how many gnatcatcher there are, buys a computer, how does that benefit the public?

$283,500 on Department of Defense bird-watching

In the sage scrub of the California coast lives a small grey bird known as the California gnatcatcher. Its biggest enemy? Cowbirds, which like to hijack the gnatcatcher’s nest and lay eggs. The poor gnatcatchers never quite realize they’re raising someone else’s kin.

The federal government designated the gnatcatcher a threatened species more than two decades ago, and the Department of Defense has not-so-bravely rallied to its rescue. This year, DOD approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers.​

Fixed assets are not a benefit to the country, unless they are used in wealth making, or the benefit of the public. This is a waste of resources, and makes us poorer, not more wealthy.

Additionally, if they are taking tax money, and applying it directly to corporate production income, that's what we call "Corporate Welfare" that you claim to be against. You can't tell me that they are subsidizing the top 1%, and say that is bad, and turn right around and say you support government spending because it produces GDP.

It is either us subsidizing the wealthy and bad, or it isn't, and counting government spending is a flaw in the GDP calculations.

Lastly, roads and bridges are not automatically a plus. The famed 'bridge to nowhere' is a perfect example of a pork project that will cost half a trillion dollars, to replace a ferry ride that costs $6.

Yeah, it produced something of little real value.

Even if we assumed that all roads and bridges were of value, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of government spending.

The Federal government spent $3.8 Trillion, and $26 Billion was the transportation budget.
Equally the Ohio budget is mostly crap. Only 2.6% of the Ohio budget is roads and bridges.

Now at the local level, would be correct. Most of your local budget, is for stuff we actually need.

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You must be a fucking retard.

20% of GDP comes from government spending. When GDP rose in FY2017, that showed the economy was growing. And as much as 20% of that GDP growth is attributable to Obama’s budget.

That is true, but it only shows that GDP is a flawed metric. It might be the best metric, but it isn't a perfect metric.

Government spending, being treated the same as production from a car plant, is a joke. Just think about it....

An automobile factory produces thousands of jobs. Not just the jobs in the plant itself, but jobs for suppliers, and their suppliers, jobs in transportation, and more. Not only this, but it produces billions in wealth for the country. Every product created, is a tangible example of wealth created.

And we know that this is wealth created, because people are willing to pay money for those products and services.

For example, research grants, such as this one from the ignobel awards

REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE PRIZE [USA, JAPAN, SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT, INDIA, BANGLADESH] — John Barry, Bruce Blank, and Michel Boileau, for using postage stamps to test whether the male sexual organ is functioning properly—as described in their study "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps."

REFERENCE: "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps," John M. Barry, Bruce Blank, Michael Boileau, Urology, vol. 15, 1980, pp. 171-172.
​

Do tell... how many jobs, and how much wealth benefiting the country, was produced from the research grants spend on this?

Or a more obvious example, the money given to Sylondra?

A less obvious example, paying a billion dollars every 5 years, to advertise dairy products overseas. Pretty sure if a company needs to advertise, they can pay for it. Last I looked on TV, a lack of advertising, wasn't a problem. So what benefit do we get from that spending?

None.

So what real "Gross.... Domestic.... Product....." do we get from these examples of government spending? None. And these are the tip of the budget. There are billions on billions of dollars spent, that produce no GDP at all. They produce no jobs, no wealth, and benefit no one.

So yes, GDP does include government spending.... and it's a flawed inclusion.

Nonsense. Much of government sending goes directly to domestic production. Much of it goes to individuals who spend it into the economy. No matter how you try and spin it, government spending is s big factor in the economy and Obama’s budget contributed to the economy until September 30th, 2017.

Government

Governments at the federal, state, and local levels contribute to the nation's economy when they provide services to the public and when they invest in capital. They also provide social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, to households.

Data about governments' receipts, spending, and assets are used to assess the fiscal health of different levels of government, see trends over time, and analyze the effects of government activities on the economy.

Government consumption expenditures include spending by governments to produce and provide services to the public, such as national defense and education. Government gross investment consists of spending on fixed assets that directly benefit the public, such as highway construction, or that assist government agencies in doing their jobs, such as military hardware. Consumption expenditures and gross investment are the measures of government spending included in calculations of gross domestic product, or GDP.

Government current expenditures include consumption expenditures, plus spending on social benefits and other transfers, interest payments, and subsidies to businesses.

Government current receipts include revenues from taxes, employer and employee contributions to government social insurance; transfers, such as fines; and various types of income, such as rent or royalties.

Additional government data are found in BEA's fixed asset statistics. Governments' fixed assets include buildings, roads, vehicles, computers and software, and other assets that they use for at least a year. In addition to investment, the data include governments' net stock of fixed assets, depreciation, and average age.​

You are crazy. If a bureaucrat in an office, counting how many gnatcatcher there are, buys a computer, how does that benefit the public?

$283,500 on Department of Defense bird-watching

In the sage scrub of the California coast lives a small grey bird known as the California gnatcatcher. Its biggest enemy? Cowbirds, which like to hijack the gnatcatcher’s nest and lay eggs. The poor gnatcatchers never quite realize they’re raising someone else’s kin.

The federal government designated the gnatcatcher a threatened species more than two decades ago, and the Department of Defense has not-so-bravely rallied to its rescue. This year, DOD approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers.​

Fixed assets are not a benefit to the country, unless they are used in wealth making, or the benefit of the public. This is a waste of resources, and makes us poorer, not more wealthy.

Additionally, if they are taking tax money, and applying it directly to corporate production income, that's what we call "Corporate Welfare" that you claim to be against. You can't tell me that they are subsidizing the top 1%, and say that is bad, and turn right around and say you support government spending because it produces GDP.

It is either us subsidizing the wealthy and bad, or it isn't, and counting government spending is a flaw in the GDP calculations.

Lastly, roads and bridges are not automatically a plus. The famed 'bridge to nowhere' is a perfect example of a pork project that will cost half a trillion dollars, to replace a ferry ride that costs $6.

Yeah, it produced something of little real value.

Even if we assumed that all roads and bridges were of value, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of government spending.

The Federal government spent $3.8 Trillion, and $26 Billion was the transportation budget.
Equally the Ohio budget is mostly crap. Only 2.6% of the Ohio budget is roads and bridges.

Now at the local level, would be correct. Most of your local budget, is for stuff we actually need.

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

I get what you’re saying but what you’re talking about is something else. You’re talking about long term economic value. I am not. I’m taking about GDP growth during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter’s of 2017. Roughly $3 trillion of government spending went into the economy during those periods. Aside from all other economic sources, that alone bumped up GDP.

That was due to Obama’s FY2017 budget. It had an impact on the economy.

 

[Andylusion]

That is true, but it only shows that GDP is a flawed metric. It might be the best metric, but it isn't a perfect metric.

Government spending, being treated the same as production from a car plant, is a joke. Just think about it....

An automobile factory produces thousands of jobs. Not just the jobs in the plant itself, but jobs for suppliers, and their suppliers, jobs in transportation, and more. Not only this, but it produces billions in wealth for the country. Every product created, is a tangible example of wealth created.

And we know that this is wealth created, because people are willing to pay money for those products and services.

For example, research grants, such as this one from the ignobel awards

REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE PRIZE [USA, JAPAN, SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT, INDIA, BANGLADESH] — John Barry, Bruce Blank, and Michel Boileau, for using postage stamps to test whether the male sexual organ is functioning properly—as described in their study "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps."

REFERENCE: "Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Monitoring With Stamps," John M. Barry, Bruce Blank, Michael Boileau, Urology, vol. 15, 1980, pp. 171-172.
​

Do tell... how many jobs, and how much wealth benefiting the country, was produced from the research grants spend on this?

Or a more obvious example, the money given to Sylondra?

A less obvious example, paying a billion dollars every 5 years, to advertise dairy products overseas. Pretty sure if a company needs to advertise, they can pay for it. Last I looked on TV, a lack of advertising, wasn't a problem. So what benefit do we get from that spending?

None.

So what real "Gross.... Domestic.... Product....." do we get from these examples of government spending? None. And these are the tip of the budget. There are billions on billions of dollars spent, that produce no GDP at all. They produce no jobs, no wealth, and benefit no one.

So yes, GDP does include government spending.... and it's a flawed inclusion.

Nonsense. Much of government sending goes directly to domestic production. Much of it goes to individuals who spend it into the economy. No matter how you try and spin it, government spending is s big factor in the economy and Obama’s budget contributed to the economy until September 30th, 2017.

Government

Governments at the federal, state, and local levels contribute to the nation's economy when they provide services to the public and when they invest in capital. They also provide social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, to households.

Data about governments' receipts, spending, and assets are used to assess the fiscal health of different levels of government, see trends over time, and analyze the effects of government activities on the economy.

Government consumption expenditures include spending by governments to produce and provide services to the public, such as national defense and education. Government gross investment consists of spending on fixed assets that directly benefit the public, such as highway construction, or that assist government agencies in doing their jobs, such as military hardware. Consumption expenditures and gross investment are the measures of government spending included in calculations of gross domestic product, or GDP.

Government current expenditures include consumption expenditures, plus spending on social benefits and other transfers, interest payments, and subsidies to businesses.

Government current receipts include revenues from taxes, employer and employee contributions to government social insurance; transfers, such as fines; and various types of income, such as rent or royalties.

Additional government data are found in BEA's fixed asset statistics. Governments' fixed assets include buildings, roads, vehicles, computers and software, and other assets that they use for at least a year. In addition to investment, the data include governments' net stock of fixed assets, depreciation, and average age.​

You are crazy. If a bureaucrat in an office, counting how many gnatcatcher there are, buys a computer, how does that benefit the public?

$283,500 on Department of Defense bird-watching

In the sage scrub of the California coast lives a small grey bird known as the California gnatcatcher. Its biggest enemy? Cowbirds, which like to hijack the gnatcatcher’s nest and lay eggs. The poor gnatcatchers never quite realize they’re raising someone else’s kin.

The federal government designated the gnatcatcher a threatened species more than two decades ago, and the Department of Defense has not-so-bravely rallied to its rescue. This year, DOD approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers.​

Fixed assets are not a benefit to the country, unless they are used in wealth making, or the benefit of the public. This is a waste of resources, and makes us poorer, not more wealthy.

Additionally, if they are taking tax money, and applying it directly to corporate production income, that's what we call "Corporate Welfare" that you claim to be against. You can't tell me that they are subsidizing the top 1%, and say that is bad, and turn right around and say you support government spending because it produces GDP.

It is either us subsidizing the wealthy and bad, or it isn't, and counting government spending is a flaw in the GDP calculations.

Lastly, roads and bridges are not automatically a plus. The famed 'bridge to nowhere' is a perfect example of a pork project that will cost half a trillion dollars, to replace a ferry ride that costs $6.

Yeah, it produced something of little real value.

Even if we assumed that all roads and bridges were of value, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of government spending.

The Federal government spent $3.8 Trillion, and $26 Billion was the transportation budget.
Equally the Ohio budget is mostly crap. Only 2.6% of the Ohio budget is roads and bridges.

Now at the local level, would be correct. Most of your local budget, is for stuff we actually need.

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

I get what you’re saying but what you’re talking about is something else. You’re talking about long term economic value. I am not. I’m taking about GDP growth during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter’s of 2017. Roughly $3 trillion of government spending went into the economy during those periods. Aside from all other economic sources, that alone bumped up GDP.

That was due to Obama’s FY2017 budget. It had an impact on the economy.

And my point to you is that a short term bump is irrelevant. In the short term, government blowing money on crap, can result in higher numbers on a spread sheet.

I'm telling you the spread sheet itself is bad. Whether you want to blame Obama, or blame Trump, I don't care. The idea of using government spending to boost GDP, is a flawed idea. Chinese ghost cities are perfect example.

 

[Faun]

Nonsense. Much of government sending goes directly to domestic production. Much of it goes to individuals who spend it into the economy. No matter how you try and spin it, government spending is s big factor in the economy and Obama’s budget contributed to the economy until September 30th, 2017.

Government

Governments at the federal, state, and local levels contribute to the nation's economy when they provide services to the public and when they invest in capital. They also provide social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, to households.

Data about governments' receipts, spending, and assets are used to assess the fiscal health of different levels of government, see trends over time, and analyze the effects of government activities on the economy.

Government consumption expenditures include spending by governments to produce and provide services to the public, such as national defense and education. Government gross investment consists of spending on fixed assets that directly benefit the public, such as highway construction, or that assist government agencies in doing their jobs, such as military hardware. Consumption expenditures and gross investment are the measures of government spending included in calculations of gross domestic product, or GDP.

Government current expenditures include consumption expenditures, plus spending on social benefits and other transfers, interest payments, and subsidies to businesses.

Government current receipts include revenues from taxes, employer and employee contributions to government social insurance; transfers, such as fines; and various types of income, such as rent or royalties.

Additional government data are found in BEA's fixed asset statistics. Governments' fixed assets include buildings, roads, vehicles, computers and software, and other assets that they use for at least a year. In addition to investment, the data include governments' net stock of fixed assets, depreciation, and average age.​

You are crazy. If a bureaucrat in an office, counting how many gnatcatcher there are, buys a computer, how does that benefit the public?

$283,500 on Department of Defense bird-watching

In the sage scrub of the California coast lives a small grey bird known as the California gnatcatcher. Its biggest enemy? Cowbirds, which like to hijack the gnatcatcher’s nest and lay eggs. The poor gnatcatchers never quite realize they’re raising someone else’s kin.

The federal government designated the gnatcatcher a threatened species more than two decades ago, and the Department of Defense has not-so-bravely rallied to its rescue. This year, DOD approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers.​

Fixed assets are not a benefit to the country, unless they are used in wealth making, or the benefit of the public. This is a waste of resources, and makes us poorer, not more wealthy.

Additionally, if they are taking tax money, and applying it directly to corporate production income, that's what we call "Corporate Welfare" that you claim to be against. You can't tell me that they are subsidizing the top 1%, and say that is bad, and turn right around and say you support government spending because it produces GDP.

It is either us subsidizing the wealthy and bad, or it isn't, and counting government spending is a flaw in the GDP calculations.

Lastly, roads and bridges are not automatically a plus. The famed 'bridge to nowhere' is a perfect example of a pork project that will cost half a trillion dollars, to replace a ferry ride that costs $6.

Yeah, it produced something of little real value.

Even if we assumed that all roads and bridges were of value, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of government spending.

The Federal government spent $3.8 Trillion, and $26 Billion was the transportation budget.
Equally the Ohio budget is mostly crap. Only 2.6% of the Ohio budget is roads and bridges.

Now at the local level, would be correct. Most of your local budget, is for stuff we actually need.

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

I get what you’re saying but what you’re talking about is something else. You’re talking about long term economic value. I am not. I’m taking about GDP growth during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter’s of 2017. Roughly $3 trillion of government spending went into the economy during those periods. Aside from all other economic sources, that alone bumped up GDP.

That was due to Obama’s FY2017 budget. It had an impact on the economy.

And my point to you is that a short term bump is irrelevant. In the short term, government blowing money on crap, can result in higher numbers on a spread sheet.

I'm telling you the spread sheet itself is bad. Whether you want to blame Obama, or blame Trump, I don't care. The idea of using government spending to boost GDP, is a flawed idea. Chinese ghost cities are perfect example.

It’s not irrelevant in terms of whether or not injecting $3 trillion into the economy has an effect on it or not. You’re having a different debate.

Obama’s budget helped bump up GDP. That indicates economic growth during that period.

 

[Esmeralda]

The US economy advanced an annualized 3.4 percent on quarter in the third quarter of 2018, slightly below earlier estimates of a 3.5 percent growth, final figures showed. It follows a 4.2 percent expansion in the previous period which was the highest since the third quarter of 2014. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and exports were revised down, and private inventory investment was revised up. However, the general picture of economic growth remains the same. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.22 percent from 1947 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 16.70 percent in the first quarter of 1950 and a record low of -10 percent in the first quarter of 1958.
United States GDP Growth Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

If Oblama was so bad why did the GDP have the same numbers in 2014 and 2018?
Why did business demand a (bribe)tax cut before the economy would do the same as during Oblama's?

Exactly!

 

[Andylusion]

You are crazy. If a bureaucrat in an office, counting how many gnatcatcher there are, buys a computer, how does that benefit the public?

$283,500 on Department of Defense bird-watching

In the sage scrub of the California coast lives a small grey bird known as the California gnatcatcher. Its biggest enemy? Cowbirds, which like to hijack the gnatcatcher’s nest and lay eggs. The poor gnatcatchers never quite realize they’re raising someone else’s kin.

The federal government designated the gnatcatcher a threatened species more than two decades ago, and the Department of Defense has not-so-bravely rallied to its rescue. This year, DOD approved a $283,500 grant to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers.​

Fixed assets are not a benefit to the country, unless they are used in wealth making, or the benefit of the public. This is a waste of resources, and makes us poorer, not more wealthy.

Additionally, if they are taking tax money, and applying it directly to corporate production income, that's what we call "Corporate Welfare" that you claim to be against. You can't tell me that they are subsidizing the top 1%, and say that is bad, and turn right around and say you support government spending because it produces GDP.

It is either us subsidizing the wealthy and bad, or it isn't, and counting government spending is a flaw in the GDP calculations.

Lastly, roads and bridges are not automatically a plus. The famed 'bridge to nowhere' is a perfect example of a pork project that will cost half a trillion dollars, to replace a ferry ride that costs $6.

Yeah, it produced something of little real value.

Even if we assumed that all roads and bridges were of value, you are still talking about a tiny fraction of government spending.

The Federal government spent $3.8 Trillion, and $26 Billion was the transportation budget.
Equally the Ohio budget is mostly crap. Only 2.6% of the Ohio budget is roads and bridges.

Now at the local level, would be correct. Most of your local budget, is for stuff we actually need.

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

I get what you’re saying but what you’re talking about is something else. You’re talking about long term economic value. I am not. I’m taking about GDP growth during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter’s of 2017. Roughly $3 trillion of government spending went into the economy during those periods. Aside from all other economic sources, that alone bumped up GDP.

That was due to Obama’s FY2017 budget. It had an impact on the economy.

And my point to you is that a short term bump is irrelevant. In the short term, government blowing money on crap, can result in higher numbers on a spread sheet.

I'm telling you the spread sheet itself is bad. Whether you want to blame Obama, or blame Trump, I don't care. The idea of using government spending to boost GDP, is a flawed idea. Chinese ghost cities are perfect example.

It’s not irrelevant in terms of whether or not injecting $3 trillion into the economy has an effect on it or not. You’re having a different debate.

Obama’s budget helped bump up GDP. That indicates economic growth during that period.

But I'm saying it isn't real.
What is the point of economic growth, if it doesn't benefit the people?

Real growth, verse numbers on a page, matter. Yes, Obama can increase the GDP of the country, by simply blowing $1 trillion dollars on crap. The numbers on the page increase by $1 Trillion, because government spending is added to GDP.

But just like China's ghost cities... do those numbers on GDP actually translate into real economic growth that benefits the people, and the wealth of the country.

I'm telling you, the answer is "no". Is China more wealthy today, because they have completely empty unused office complexes? No. The country isn't better off, and the people are not better off. No one is better off.

So simply blowing money, does not automatically benefit the public, or the country. Just like cash for clunkers did far more harm, than good.

Yes, for the specific individuals who got money for an old car... Great. But they completely destroyed usable cars that had market value, poured crap in the engine, and ran it until the engine was utterly destroyed. Obama, by government policy, had things of value, and made them worthless. This is why used cars drastically increased in value, because there were fewer of them available to people to buy.

How is making everyone poorer because they had to pay more money for used cars, and directly destroying wealth, going to make the country more prosperous? It isn't..... but the GDP numbers were in fact higher.

Are you getting the picture? Driving up GDP with government spending, is a false metric of growth. If you are telling me, that the only positive Obama gave the US economy, was through driving up GDP numbers from government spending... then Obama not only did not help this economy, he harmed it.

 

[charwin95]

And why? (As in what did he do?)

This question is directed mostly to self-professed Conservatives, Republicans and other assorted rightwingers.

January 21, 2017. not sure what you're after.

Unemployment rate was criticized, ridiculed and inaccurate numbers before Jan. 21, 2017.


According to Trump. After Jan. 21, 2017 those numbers are 100% accurate.

 

[danielpalos]

When Congress delivered on his signature platform of tax cut economics and ensuring the Rich get richer faster.

 

[jc456]

And why? (As in what did he do?)

This question is directed mostly to self-professed Conservatives, Republicans and other assorted rightwingers.

January 21, 2017. not sure what you're after.

Unemployment rate was criticized, ridiculed and inaccurate numbers before Jan. 21, 2017.


According to Trump. After Jan. 21, 2017 those numbers are 100% accurate.

post that link with that statement.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck, we’re not talking about the societal value of such projects, we’re talking about how much monetarily if fuels the economy. Such research grants pay for salaries and supplies, which do go into the economy. The government spends about $30 billion on such grants annually. The U.S. government spends about $4 trillion.

That means a miniscule ¾ of one percent is spent on such grants. Even if not a single penny from those grants found its way into the economy, as ludicrous as that is, the vast majority of $4 trillion does.

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.

Try as hard as you might, the fact of the matter is Obama gets much of the credit for the economy through the end of September, 2017, as money from his final budget was pumped into the economy.

But the value is the key. The value of the production or service, is what makes the difference between a wealth producing, or a wealth consuming economy.

During the time of the Soviet Union, they had negative equity firms, which is to say a production, that producing less wealth, than what it was consuming.

I could build a company that burns wood. That's all the company does. It takes wood, and burns it. I am producing ash. I'm taking something of higher value, wood that could be used for making homes, or furniture, or even heating a home in the winter, and turning it into something of low value, Ash.

Is the entire country better off, or worse off, after my company goes into operation? Worse. We are consuming wealth. The entire country is poorer from my operations.

This happened in the Soviet Union. They had companies that were producing products and services, that had lower value than the raw materials they used to produce the products and services.

Now you might say this doesn't happen in the US... but it does. A perfect example is Ethanol. Ethanol has a low value. There are alternative fuel additives that produce less emissions, do a better job (and thus need less of it), cause less corrosion, and is cheaper.

So why do people buy Ethanol? Because the government takes money from tax payers, to pay subsidies that offset the price, so people buy something that is of lower value.

But this is actually a better situation, than most government spending, which is the production of.... nothing.

Which produces wealth? You pay me to black top your drive way. I have money now, in exchange for me producing something that has value in society.

You give me $400, and I produce nothing. I have money now, in exchange for me producing nothing.

Now what is the difference between that, and government taxing 1 person, to pay another person in exchange for nothing? Food stamps, welfare, social security? All do the same thing as above.

When you say:

As far as projects like the bridge to nowhere, you say it cost around ½ a trillion dollars. I believe that’s high, but regardless of what it cost, the vast majority of that money made its way into the economy. From supplies to build it, to salaries to those who built it, that’s federal dollars being pumped into the economy.
​

You seem to fail to realize, that all money goes into the economy.

The question isn't "Does money go into the economy?" Because of course the answer is yes. All money goes into the economy.


The question is, was something of value created when it when it was spent? If I give you money to produce a bridge to nowhere, the answer is NO. IF I give you money for food, because you don't want to work, the answer is No. If I give you money, to research the mating habits of the Japanese swallow, the answer is No. If I give you money because you are old, and don't want to work, the Answer is no.

And then you have the other side to this.

When government spends money, you are acting like that money somehow was not in the economy prior.

All that money that government spends.... came from the economy. Money has to be taken from one person, in order to give it to another.

There are only three places government gets money to spend on all these things you want.
1. From taxing working people. So you remove their ability to buy stuff, thus harming the country. You take money from productive people, which hinders them from being productive.
2. From borrowing money from people. So you borrow money that would have been invested or spent in the economy elsewhere, and likely used for more productive purposes.
3. From printing cash. So you effectively devalue the money, which harms absolutely everyone collectively, to benefit a few.

All three do the same thing. It takes money out of the economy (or devalues the money in the economy), in order to produce less value, or no value.

All of these are bad.

And if that was not the case, then explain Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Greece, and numerous other countries that have all tried it. If your idea that government spending was the answer, then why did it routinely result in economic decline? Why was 2010 and on, the slowest economic recovery in the history of the US? The US debt increased by a little less than $4 Trillion, in four years. Presumably that would have "federal dollars being pumped into the economy" So, why didn't it result in massive economic growth?

Because those dollars, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere naturally had to invest less into that same economy.

I get what you’re saying but what you’re talking about is something else. You’re talking about long term economic value. I am not. I’m taking about GDP growth during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter’s of 2017. Roughly $3 trillion of government spending went into the economy during those periods. Aside from all other economic sources, that alone bumped up GDP.

That was due to Obama’s FY2017 budget. It had an impact on the economy.

And my point to you is that a short term bump is irrelevant. In the short term, government blowing money on crap, can result in higher numbers on a spread sheet.

I'm telling you the spread sheet itself is bad. Whether you want to blame Obama, or blame Trump, I don't care. The idea of using government spending to boost GDP, is a flawed idea. Chinese ghost cities are perfect example.

It’s not irrelevant in terms of whether or not injecting $3 trillion into the economy has an effect on it or not. You’re having a different debate.

Obama’s budget helped bump up GDP. That indicates economic growth during that period.

But I'm saying it isn't real.
What is the point of economic growth, if it doesn't benefit the people?

Real growth, verse numbers on a page, matter. Yes, Obama can increase the GDP of the country, by simply blowing $1 trillion dollars on crap. The numbers on the page increase by $1 Trillion, because government spending is added to GDP.

But just like China's ghost cities... do those numbers on GDP actually translate into real economic growth that benefits the people, and the wealth of the country.

I'm telling you, the answer is "no". Is China more wealthy today, because they have completely empty unused office complexes? No. The country isn't better off, and the people are not better off. No one is better off.

So simply blowing money, does not automatically benefit the public, or the country. Just like cash for clunkers did far more harm, than good.

Yes, for the specific individuals who got money for an old car... Great. But they completely destroyed usable cars that had market value, poured crap in the engine, and ran it until the engine was utterly destroyed. Obama, by government policy, had things of value, and made them worthless. This is why used cars drastically increased in value, because there were fewer of them available to people to buy.

How is making everyone poorer because they had to pay more money for used cars, and directly destroying wealth, going to make the country more prosperous? It isn't..... but the GDP numbers were in fact higher.

Are you getting the picture? Driving up GDP with government spending, is a false metric of growth. If you are telling me, that the only positive Obama gave the US economy, was through driving up GDP numbers from government spending... then Obama not only did not help this economy, he harmed it.

It benefits the people, even if it’s short term.

 

[Staidhup]

As for the Dim mindset, if it’s a bad tough economy blame it on baby bush for eight, yep 8 years! and don’t mention laws passed by Dim’s forcing lenders to dump affordability qualifications and providing the ability to monetize worthless debt, don’t forget to omit efforts to audit Fanny it all! If it’s a great economy as a result of repub efforts or prior repub administration then of course it’s the result of the Dim’s.
Whrn the sovereign debt crisis hits it will be the repubs fault, regardless of the facts. Then again Dim’s are great at spending and leveraging the future and raising taxes so they can justify spending more!

 

[charwin95]

And why? (As in what did he do?)

This question is directed mostly to self-professed Conservatives, Republicans and other assorted rightwingers.

January 21, 2017. not sure what you're after.

Unemployment rate was criticized, ridiculed and inaccurate numbers before Jan. 21, 2017.


According to Trump. After Jan. 21, 2017 those numbers are 100% accurate.

post that link with that statement.

Sure no problem. Here’s your link. You would think a veteran like you here should know this kind of crap.


Donald Trump Calls Unemployment Rate One of the "Biggest Hoaxes in Politics"

 

[KissMy]

Retail sales drop the most in 10 years. Repubtards keep growing DEBT!!!!

 

[KissMy]

Trump & Repubtards GDP growth rate is slower than Obama's