That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
Yes it was. It just started on the right. Read my post.Unit2Sucks said:
That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.wifeisafurd said:O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).dajo9 said:concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.
These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?dajo9 said:There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.wifeisafurd said:O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).dajo9 said:concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.
These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
sycasey said:mikecohen said:
Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.
I'm completely lost at this point.
You are correct and just to remind you, he's leading this country and the economic policy. WILL.NOT.END.WELL.wifeisafurd said:
Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
wifeisafurd said:sycasey said:mikecohen said:
Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.
I'm completely lost at this point.
The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:
1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.
One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.
But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency
I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.
Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.
Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.
Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."
But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?
So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.
You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.mikecohen said:Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
Let's end this with the last paragraph. Just so we are clear on distortions. Dayo was the one who left the impression he was talking about actual numbers, so those not digging into the schedule would not otherwise know. His next distortion is to say that even if when called on it, and though his table doesn't use actual numbers, the difference in investment (which is primarily the change in inventory levels) is caused by inflation. Since I think we all know inflation is not going to be an impact over a 1quarter number for inventories, what has he forgot to tell us [again]? Oh yes, there also is an adjustment for seasonality that Dayo's forgot to mention (but you should have known that by the note on the table). In fact, to cite the BEA's guidelines verbatim:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:sycasey said:mikecohen said:
Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.
I'm completely lost at this point.
The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:
1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.
One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.
But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency
I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.
Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.
Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.
Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."
But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?
So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.
This is a really long lie. It could have come straight from Trump, except this whole discourse is over Trumps head.
Just look at how wiaf distorts #6, about me. My point being this economy is like Obama's 2nd term - Not the additional commentary gibberish wiaf adds. This distortion has previously been said by wiaf upthread and a different poster already called him out on this distortion upthread. Nevertheless he continues, Trumpian style, with the same distortion. And the distortions just go on and on.
I'll just add this - anybody who looks at economic data and dismisses real (i.e. inflation chained) data as "adjusted" and "non-actual numbers" is not to be trusted either because of bad faith or ignorance. 1) The BEA website recommends using inflation chained data when comparing multiple time periods. 2) The 4.1% number in the thread title itself is inflation chained. And I don't think wiaf is ignorant.
In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
Well I voted for Obama the first time as well. Ump moved me back to second.Yogi Bear said:In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
There is no two sides to the story for people who cast aside any sense of values or morality to try and justify why they voted for Trump. It was patently obvious that he was a charlatan who had nothing to offer. Your excuses for why you voted for him anyway are laughable. You are someone who passes himself off as a very smart person, but in actuality, you are someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and in reality, a stupid stupid person.
Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.mikecohen said:Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
It's cute how you try to make her seem as bad as Trump. Good for a laugh.wifeisafurd said:Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.mikecohen said:Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.
Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.
The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).
The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
Not funny. Frightening that he would go to such lengths (including lengths of exaggeration) - and, of course, he is right about the fact that, as exaggerated as he is, that is nothing compared to the extraordinary, truly devil-incarnate stories about her which still permeate the net (e.g., child-sex rings, and anything else sexual that these writers think that some readers will actually take to heart, murder, murder hit lists . . . whatever incarnate evil anyone can imagine).Yogi Bear said:It's cute how you try to make her seem as bad as Trump. Good for a laugh.wifeisafurd said:Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.mikecohen said:Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.
Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.
The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).
The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
Yes, I agree with Dajo9 here and I recall that commentary.wifeisafurd said:O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).dajo9 said:concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.
These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
Any and every day that Trump is up on stage is a bad day.wifeisafurd said:Bad day?concordtom said:
Trump would do just about anything to make sure he wins in people's eyes, which means winning in his eyes.
He'd probably even shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue.
Thank you, Unit.Unit2Sucks said:
That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
Correct. It's as if...correct me if wrong here.... because some fault may be found in my post, a very serious question about the nature of our President doesn't have to be responded to. So just keep going ahead with the lies, the slander, the spewing of hate speech (like Maxine Waters is low IQ).dajo9 said:There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.wifeisafurd said:O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).dajo9 said:concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.
These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
Only repeating Trump's own theory about the nature of his following. Come on, now!wifeisafurd said:blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?dajo9 said:There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.wifeisafurd said:O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).dajo9 said:concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.
These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
See, wife, some of us remember. How could you not?Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
Wait. Are you seriously indicating here that you had never heard this? Omg, it was playing over and over on the (fake news?) channels. All of them: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS.... I bet Fox has even played it a million times. Wait, they have, haven't they? If you've missed this, then you need to expand your exposure to the "Fake News" (aka Mainstream Media) side of the world.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
Hey, 4.1% is fantastic!wifeisafurd said:yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.mikecohen said:Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
You put in a lot of effort to discredit the very numbers that are used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate that everybody in the world is talking about. You are starting to sound like Trump questioning Obama's numbers.wifeisafurd said:Let's end this with the last paragraph. Just so we are clear on distortions. Dayo was the one who left the impression he was talking about actual numbers, so those not digging into the schedule would not otherwise know. His next distortion is to say that even if when called on it, and though his table doesn't use actual numbers, the difference in investment (which is primarily the change in inventory levels) is caused by inflation. Since I think we all know inflation is not going to be an impact over a 1quarter number for inventories, what has he forgot to tell us [again]? Oh yes, there also is an adjustment for seasonality that Dayo's forgot to mention (but you should have known that by the note on the table). In fact, to cite the BEA's guidelines verbatim:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:sycasey said:mikecohen said:
Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.
I'm completely lost at this point.
The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:
1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.
One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.
But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency
I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.
Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.
Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.
Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."
But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?
So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.
This is a really long lie. It could have come straight from Trump, except this whole discourse is over Trumps head.
Just look at how wiaf distorts #6, about me. My point being this economy is like Obama's 2nd term - Not the additional commentary gibberish wiaf adds. This distortion has previously been said by wiaf upthread and a different poster already called him out on this distortion upthread. Nevertheless he continues, Trumpian style, with the same distortion. And the distortions just go on and on.
I'll just add this - anybody who looks at economic data and dismisses real (i.e. inflation chained) data as "adjusted" and "non-actual numbers" is not to be trusted either because of bad faith or ignorance. 1) The BEA website recommends using inflation chained data when comparing multiple time periods. 2) The 4.1% number in the thread title itself is inflation chained. And I don't think wiaf is ignorant.
"Much of the data used by BEA to estimate detailed components of GDP are seasonally adjusted by the source data agencies. For example, BEA uses seasonally adjusted inventory and retail sales datafrom the U.S. Census Bureau and seasonally adjusted consumer price indexes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." [Emphasis added].
It gets even better, this is the first quarter they used new seasonal adjustment data, so the other quarters are not comparable from the results of the 2018 comprehensive update of the National Income and Product (NIPA)Accounts released on July 27, 2018, to reflect the outcome of a multiyear initiative to improve BEA's approach to seasonal adjustment and address residual seasonality observed in previous estimates. I guess that little change mention was inadvertent.
But it gets better: unlike the actual numbers, under NIPA guidelines, this schedule excludes imports and foreign income from American companies and people. That negates the impact of exchange rates on inflation.
In other news today, Commissioner Rob Manfield today announced that Bobby Bonds name was no longer considered the official MLB leader in home runs in a separate table now produced by the MLB to accompany the schedule that contains the actual number of home runs hit by players. Said one outraged Giants fan: "and I thought the record books will be forever accompanied by an asterisk, an exclamation mark, or something like that, because Bonds's alledged used of Performance Enhancing Drugs." But no, instead Bonds watched his record fall because of adjustments made for inflation in the number of home runs hit during the era he performed, the deletion of home runs yielded by foreign raised pitchers, and the baseball season adjusted seasonality of trending to far into summers impacted by global warming which meant adjustments were neccessary for balls traveling longer in the hot sun.
The decision, which Manford characterized as the only way to accurately convey that Barry Bonds hit his 714-plus home runs under "some pretty special circumstances that under government standards we can actually use to screw (or a word of similar import] Mr. Bonds." The Commissioner continued: "When my children's grandchildren open up their Baseball Almanac a hundred years from now, they'll see this enduring, universally understood two sets of tables right next to Barry's name. And when they do, they'll immediately know that this second table reflects history's attitude toward not only the conditions under which he was able to hit his home runs, but also the general atmosphere and weather of baseball in an era he will come to embody.
Name calling serves no good purpose. While I agree with your logic about the election, poking people in the eye only causes them to react instinctively in a defensive manner to prop up and support their prior position. Much better than pushing would be to invite someone with hand extended and lead them to the direction you want them to go.Yogi Bear said:In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
There is no two sides to the story for people who cast aside any sense of values or morality to try and justify why they voted for Trump. It was patently obvious that he was a charlatan who had nothing to offer. Your excuses for why you voted for him anyway are laughable. You are someone who passes himself off as a very smart person, but in actuality, you are someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and in reality, a stupid stupid person.
You got it wrong concordtom - wiaf now believes the 4.1% number is adjusted, bogus, and not the real numbers. Go ahead and read his post about how the numbers behind the 4.1% GDP growth that the BEA has on its website are adjusted to oblivion.concordtom said:Hey, 4.1% is fantastic!wifeisafurd said:yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.mikecohen said:Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.concordtom said:
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?
The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.
And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.
Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.
With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
.
.
.
Thank you for posting the question, Wife. It's a good one!
Thank you for the detailed explanation of what you felt was so horrible about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.mikecohen said:Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.wifeisafurd said:You forget my choices.Yogi Bear said:Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.wifeisafurd said:Jesus, Trump really is dumb.Another Bear said:wifeisafurd said:
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.
From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.
Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.
The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).
The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.