Market politics

[Bobfitz1]

You have to ask Obama how the $20 Trillion Debt got there from about $10T before he took office. Maybe its Sean Hannity's fault.

National Debt is not Sean Hannity's fault. More the fault of those stupid enough to listen to Sean Hannity and the politicians they vote for.

Google is a really simple and fast way to fact check yourself before writing something that's objectively nonsense.
Here is an example from a well known leftist rag..... Forbes magazine.
Don't Blame Obama For Doubling The Federal Deficit
Since you don't tend to follow links to facts you wish to ignore, here is a small bit of what Forbes explains:

"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.

• Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
• Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
• Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
• Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
• Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
• Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
• Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
• Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
• Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
• Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)

It is clear that the almost $1 trillion jump between fiscal 2008 and 2009 was due to the Great Recession. Tax receipts fell, expenditures rose and Obama and Congress passed the American Economy and Reinvestment Act to combat the recession. "

If you'd like to clear your mind of the many lies put out by the usual gang about Michael Steele, here is link to a long and detailed piece of journalism just published by the New Yorker.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The Gang of Six plan waaasy the hell back in 2011 would've had us in a massive surplus by 2015/16. Very rational and balanced plan......no one seemed interested.

 

[Bobfitz1]

The Gang of Six plan waaasy the hell back in 2011 would've had us in a massive surplus by 2015/16. Very rational and balanced plan......no one seemed interested.

Looking into this it appears the budget compromise proposed never gelled in the Senate and Republican controlled House was not willing to bend on revenue increases if legislation was sent to them. I show the timeline below.
Two points to note. Despite failure to arrive at a grand compromise to reduce annual deficits and growth rate of the national debt,
as the U.S. economy very slowly recovered from the severe 2008 recession at end of GWB's presidency, the annual deficit went from over 1.3 trillion annually in 2010 - 2012, to less than half that during 2013 - 2016. It began rising again during Trump's first year in office.
Now after the Trump/GOP tax plan passed, the 2018 budget deficit is expected to increase drastically.
Deficit could hit $1 trillion in 2018, and that's before the full impact of tax cuts
"Now budget experts outside government say the 2018 total could exceed $1 trillion because of series of bills being passed in quick succession, and decisions to scrap what were already weak limits on spending."

Timeline:
Gang of Six in Senate began proposing a grand revenue and spending compromise in March 2011.
Can the Gang of Six’s plan pass?
"The Obama administration offered Republicans a $4 trillion grand bargain that, if anything, included less in new taxes, but otherwise would have looked quite similar to the Gang of Six's proposal. They rejected it."

By Nov. 2011 the Gang (having grown to 8 during the summer) had not come to Senate agreement yet and decided to leave debt ceiling and budget negotiations to the White House and Congressional leaders to work out.
‘Gang of Eight’ Says Deficit Solution Should Come From the Top
"Another fruitless meeting this week of the Senate group has only raised the pressure ahead of the White House session between the president and Congressional leaders. On Friday Mr. Obama will meet with Mr. Boehner; Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader; Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to begin deficit negotiations formally."

FISCAL CLIFF NEGOTIATIONS
December 2012
"During the lame duck session after President Obama's reelection, Congress confronts the looming imposition of sequestration, the expiration of the (2010 extended) Bush tax cuts, the ballooning of the alternative minimum tax, and the annual need for a doc fix. The contractionary effects of all these changes on the still-fragile economy is widely feared. The debt ceiling is also expected to be hit (forcing use of extraordinary measures) on December 31."

AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012 ENACTED
January 3, 2013
"The culmination of the December "fiscal cliff" negotiations, ATRA permanently extended a set of tax cuts and credits originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and, as a result, prevented large tax increases for most Americans. Legislation also reduces initial set of across-the-board military and domestic spending cuts required by BCA from $109 billion to $85 billion and postpones them from January 1 to March 1."

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The Gang of Six plan was a done deal in July of 2011 and simply needed a very tenuous House approval to hold. They were talking a 4/1 spending cut to new tax ratio and it certainly would have gotten us to a surplus by 2016.

In the end Obama didn't quite portray the negotiations right and it all fell apart at the last minute as fragile House leaders balked at the premature celebration press conference. That's how close these things are. If that had gone through, a lot of this bullshit never happens.

 

[Asymmetry]

Will be more lot more expensive for international buyers.

1. More expensive to build.
2. more expensive to by due to idiotic tariffs.

Your president is a complete idiot, sooner he out of office the better off the everyone will be.

 

[RedMS]

Will be more lot more expensive for international buyers.

1. More expensive to build.
2. more expensive to by due to idiotic tariffs.

Your president is a complete idiot, sooner he out of office the better off the everyone will be.

In case you missed it, Trump prioritizes America and what’s good for us. I like my president, have fun in Australia

 

[bambam4171]

I think the idea is that they won't retaliate because it would plunge the world into the next great depression. But instead, they would come to the table and offer fair trade and get rid of tariffs against America in exchange for America doing the same. This is only possible because Trump is clearly crazy enough to do it. So it's really the obligation if the rest of the world to be sane for their own citizens sake. This could have all been avoided by those foreign leaders, but they refuse to right what is clearly wrong. And don't get it twisted, if the US catches a cold, the rest of world dies from flu.

The US indeed was once important to the rest of the world and the saying of the flu might have been true. However things have changed. China itself is now just as important as the US. The EU probably to a lesser extend but still much more self reliant that it ever was. With the US no longer being an active bridging force in the world, former partners have had to become much more self reliant and had to negotiate their own place in the world. Big daddy was busy with himself so the kids had to grow up (finally I have to say).

If Obama would have threatened this might actually have had a bigger impact than the orange child* in the white house because people and leaders trusted Obama. With Trump they very well know that he changes his opinion faster that we change our underwear. So no, if Trump does follow through then there will be retaliation which of course will lead to more retaliation from the US which then will lead to...

The * is a reference to Fire and Fury:
Wolff said that White House staff described the president as childlike because "he has the need for immediate gratification. It's all about him... This man does not read, does not listen. He's like a pinball just shooting off the sides."

 

[Reciprocity]

The US indeed was once important to the rest of the world and the saying of the flu might have been true. However things have changed. China itself is now just as important as the US. The EU probably to a lesser extend but still much more self reliant that it ever was. With the US no longer being an active bridging force in the world, former partners have had to become much more self reliant and had to negotiate their own place in the world. Big daddy was busy with himself so the kids had to grow up (finally I have to say).

If Obama would have threatened this might actually have had a bigger impact than the orange child* in the white house because people and leaders trusted Obama. With Trump they very well know that he changes his opinion faster that we change our underwear. So no, if Trump does follow through then there will be retaliation which of course will lead to more retaliation from the US which then will lead to...

The * is a reference to Fire and Fury:
Wolff said that White House staff described the president as childlike because "he has the need for immediate gratification. It's all about him... This man does not read, does not listen. He's like a pinball just shooting off the sides."

So what your saying is that if the grand Cheeto in Chief raises tariffs it's bad for the US and is others retaliate it's good for them but still bad for the US? But the US doesn't matter much because China. You really lost all credibility quoting Michael Wolfe who basically admitted to making most of it up. But that is really besides the point because the question is, is the Cheeto in Chief crazy enough to do it? I think the answer is simple. Will that action cause harm to the world economy? Will retaliation cause more harm or actually help? Because I thought tariffs where bad no matter who does them?

Think of it this way. Let's say all you conspiracy guys are right and the Cheeto in Chief on command of the Putin wants to plunge the world into chaos because he is a big man baby and a tool of Russia. Then wouldn't it be prudent for the way more rational government's of the world to react in a way to stop the Cheeto stained Putin puppet instead of falling for this clear attempt to destroy world economies for the benefit of mother Russia? I mean, in the interest of the globalists out there who care so very much for global community that we all live in together as one borderless world with no evil tariffs to enslave us.

 

[JRP3]

Has he shown any sign that he knows what's good for "us"? Certainly his approval ratings don't suggest that "we" think so.

 

[Xenius]

National Debt is not Sean Hannity's fault. More the fault of those stupid enough to listen to Sean Hannity and the politicians they vote for.

Gotta love it when someone makes an illogical and heavily biased statement and it gets quoted and carried from page to page. Had to go look to see who you were replying to in order to see if the original post was in jest, or just ignorant. Pretty sure you can guess which conclusion I eventually made.

 

[RedMS]

Has he shown any sign that he knows what's good for "us"? Certainly his approval ratings don't suggest that "we" think so.

Approval ratings..... kind of like Hillary up by 10, 15, 20 points ? With most MSM outlets bashing everything Trump 98% of the time, I say he’s pretty well off when factors like that are taken into account. I live in a liberal utopia, and I know of many Trump supporters here. Imagine what that number is in moderate and conservative states. Peace

 

[JRP3]

Analysis by the nonprofit group Trade Partnership says Trump’s protective tariffs would boost steel and aluminum employment by about 33,000 jobs. But they’d kill 179,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, because of the higher prices manufacturers of cars, appliances, industrial equipment and many other things would face. That’s a net loss of 146,000 jobs—before accounting for retaliatory measures enacted by other countries that would hurt U.S. exports to other countries and further dent production.

His steel and aluminum tariffs would apply to all countries, and they wouldn’t be based on any finding of unfair trade practices. Instead, they’d be based on an obscure law that allows the president to impose tariffs as needed to protect national security—like, during a war. There is no war, of course. Trade expert Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson institute for International Economics recently told Yahoo Finance that Trump’s national-security pretext is a “complete sham.”

Most economists say there are elements of NAFTA that can be updated and improved. But they also say the 25-year-old trade deal has generally made each of the three trading partners, Canada, Mexico and the United States, better off. Still, Trump wants products purchased in America to be made in America, case closed. He doesn’t seem to care about supply-chain efficiencies, low prices for consumers or the second-, third- and fourth-order effects of telling companies how and where to direct their capital.If Trump really wanted to turbocharge the U.S. economy, he’d focus on the industries of the future and shepherd as many American workers as possible into those. That means improving education and making sure kids get schooling that prepares them for the digital economy.

Trump’s outdated view of the economy

 

[JRP3]

Approval ratings..... kind of like Hillary up by 10, 15, 20 points

Most of the country did actually vote for her. An unfortunate electoral system quirk allowed a minority of the country to elect a president.

 

[Xenius]

Most of the country did actually vote for her. An unfortunate electoral system quirk allowed a minority of the country to elect a president.

I didn't vote for either of them, but you should resist rising to take the bait on the "approval polls don't matter/approval polls are flawed" argument. The guy is arguing opinion, which can't be *proven* wrong.

 

[JRP3]

I didn't vote for either of them

So it's your fault

 

[ggr]

Mod: A request for civil discourse. Back when Obama was president, lots of people got upset when postings were disrespectful of him or his race and/or the office. Now that Trump is president, a completely different set of people get upset about, shall we say, colorful epithets. The pinned general threads shall be kept clear of such language. Either by you guys or by me/us. This thread will become the automatic dumping ground for such postings. --ggr.

 

[RedMS]

Most of the country did actually vote for her. An unfortunate electoral system quirk allowed a minority of the country to elect a president.

That can be argued, but even if it’s true, Hillary never came close to being even 5 points ahead of Trump. Popular vote separated them by ~2% IIRC. So yes, the election polls were flawed, and I’d assume you’re smart enough to figure out why.

 

[JRP3]

a completely different set of people get upset about, shall we say, colorful epithets.

I do hope the completely different history and impact of such comments is acknowledged. It might be considered offensive by some to even equate the two.

 

[Reciprocity]

Mod: A request for civil discourse. Back when Obama was president, lots of people got upset when postings were disrespectful of him or his race and/or the office. Now that Trump is president, a completely different set of people get upset about, shall we say, colorful epithets. The pinned general threads shall be kept clear of such language. Either by you guys or by me/us. This thread will become the automatic dumping ground for such postings. --ggr.

I hope no one thought I was disparaging the President. I was just trying to exaggerate the insults of the post I was responding, to make a point. It was probably to harsh, and for that I apologize. I dont love our president, but I certainly respect him and I dont think he is doing a terrible job. He is making tough choices and I dont agree with everyone and how he goes about it, but I like the results so I want to give him a benefit of the doubt on the tariffs. For one, I really dont have a choice because he has pretty much complete power when it comes to tariffs.

 

[ggr]

Marketplace on NPR yesterday had a neat little segment about balance of trade and tariffs. Spoiler: it started out talking about the balance of trade between the reporter and his sandwich shop. That was in response to President Trump saying (incorrectly, as usual) that the trade imbalance with China cost $500B last year. It didn't cost anything! The US got goods in return for that money! I turned a bit purple (not orange) when I heard him say that, and then really enjoyed hearing someone knowledgeable point it out on a real program.