Trump did not boom the economy. Here is the proof.

[MMC]

Once again, no, you have not. As you agreed earlier, there's no logic to your argument, you're just playing a game. If we applied logic, we'd have to apply the Pareto Rule and that devastates your point. We would also have to broaden the view, from links supplied in my first post.

Here are previous recession recoveries since WWII:



Note that each had quick recoveries.

Here's Obama's recovery:



The recovery is slow. And it prolongs past the point the video was made, one could argue we never recovered under Obama.

So all this praise you want to heap on Obama for recovery is BS.

True, Trump continues the trend. But apply the Pareto Rule and...


The only argument you have against this conclusion is the economy includes factors outside the control of any President, and Congress, any government to control, to do anything, in fact, other than to screw things up.

Of course then there is so much more to it that he forgot.


How Deregulation Spurs Growth

www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9560.html
The analysis demonstrates a significantly positive impact of deregulation on investment in the transport, communications, and utility industries; it is robust to various controls for sector or country-specific shocks and for labor market liberalization.

[Chris]

Of course then there is so much more to it that he forgot.


How Deregulation Spurs Growth

www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9560.html
The analysis demonstrates a significantly positive impact of deregulation on investment in the transport, communications, and utility industries; it is robust to various controls for sector or country-specific shocks and for labor market liberalization.

Deregulation can spur investment and that result in growth.

Lower taxes can have the same indirect effect--but, according to Laffer, also raise revenues.

Tariffs can have the opposite effect, discourage investment because you know prices are going to rise.

Etc.

[MMC]

Deregulation can spur investment and that result in growth.

Lower taxes can have the same indirect effect--but, according to Laffer, also raise revenues.

Tariffs can have the opposite effect, discourage investment because you know prices are going to rise.

Etc.

The other point was BO the Peeps excessive regulations. Then Trumps Deregulation which helped small business and its growth. Didn't we have all kinds of threads with all kinds of charts on the Peep vs Trump, Economies?

[Chris]

The other point was BO the Peeps excessive regulations. Then Trumps Deregulation which helped small business and its growth. Didn't we have all kinds of threads with all kinds of charts on the Peep vs Trump, Economies?

We could add the Fed and it's control of interest rates to encourage or discourage borrowing.

Greenspan used to call all these effect "irrational exuberance." They all effect how people take risk.

[MMC]

We could add the Fed and it's control of interest rates to encourage or discourage borrowing.

Greenspan used to call all these effect "irrational exuberance." They all effect how people take risk.

Remember Common's other threads on this issue?


Democrats search for ways to downplay Trump’s great economy

Trump’s boost to economy can’t be denied

[TheLiquidGuy]

I don't think you have. And the Link I just dumped validates you didn't.

Wow. I just saw that. I will get around to looking at that in detail later tonight maybe. But from just skimming through it, it looks to me to be mostly opinion articles, anecdotes and limited scope surveys. Do you have any nation-wide official empirical data?

For now i want to address some of the things you wrote in your latest post...

Yes a vote along party lines. Although 2 Democrats joined with Repubs. The 2018 Election has nothing to do with the impeachment. Other than the fact that the Demos were doing all they can to tank the Trump presidency since he won.
My view is that the representatives who speak for a majority of the country is more important than getting a plurality of votes. Look, both parties will only change their votes if they think their constituents will not support them. Thus, republicans represented their population and dems represented theirs. Therefore this vote was what the majority of Americans wanted as best as we can tell. Plus, the polls. Its not a sham. And a recent court decision also supports this.

If your Democrats were all above board. They wouldn't be denying the executive due process.
I’ve seen this talking points all over Fox news. What due process are they denying the president?
Not one person who is under investigation in the United States is permited to have a lawyer present during the investigation stage or during depositions, unless he, himself is being deposed. Not one. And yet 47 republicans had total access to the deposition stage. The accused gets to have a lawyer during a trial. Thats how the system works. But this president wants special treatment because he thinks he is above the law. What due process Is he being denied? Be specific.


They wouldn't be lying to the Nation about a WBs anonymity is protected by law.
Seriously. This is ridiculous. Do you even understand why whistle blower laws exist? If you do, then you wouldn't be pretending that it is unimportant to keep on protecting the WBs identity. Or would you rather discourage future whistle blowers from exposing corruption in govt. l don't care if the law allows the WB to be exposed. All the cable news networks have the WBs name but they aren't releasing the name for a good reason. Likewise, some R politicians have the name too. But they dont release it for a good reason. They know it is wrong. They just want to keep making a stink about how unfair things are because they have nothing else that they can say.

Trump betrayed our trust. Republicans are in self preservation mode so they only go on Fox news where they will never have to answer hard questions like “Is it ok the withhold military aid to another country in exchange for smearing a political rival?” Its called extortion AKA bribery.

Calling for the WBs identity is just another distraction. This is just republicans pounding the table, because they cannot pound the law or the facts.

Its not. Oh and then your Democrats would not be selectively leaking to the Lame Stream Media.
Both parties leak things that play to their advantage. Its a time honoured tradition in govt committees. Don't pretend its a dem thing only. You know, its strange though. The republicans didnt leak at all during the depositions. Not one little bit. Hmmm. I wonder why that might be. Can you guess? If you can’t, ask me and I’ll tell you.

BTW, all those so called leaks you are talking about weren't leaks. Those were the complete opening statements released by the witnesses themselves. Completely legal and above board.

[Bo-4]

That's not true. Obama's wage growth was anything but flat.

You've been lied to. Is it that hard to imagine that Trump (or some of his media supporters) would lie?

Take a look at this chart from the Bureau of Labour Statistics.

It shows that the average weekly earnings in 1982-84 dollars since the 60s to present.

You can see --yet again-- that Trump did not do anything special. He just continued the trend that was there during his predecessor's reign. Again not saying that Obama > Trump. I am saying Obama = Trump (as far as wage growth goes).
Attachment 27410
I showed you a chart showing real wage growth a few posts back. It showed that RWG is erratic for both Obama and Trump.
Take a look at that too.

The jobs created were low skilled jobs which only supplemented a primary income. Millions of people just tuned out of the jobs market.
Do you have evidence? Or is this just someone's speculation?

Those people are now returning because they can.
Again, do you have any data to show this? Please post it if you can.

You are correct sir. Earnings, the DJIA, black unemployment and a whole bunch of other things have continued on precisely the same trajectory under Donald as they were going under Obama.

Obama was handed a crap sandwich and fixed it - Donald was handed a golden goose and is doing his damnedest to F it up. About all he has done is spend recklessly and added mightily to the national debt with a 1.5 trillion tax cut for people and corporations who didn't need it.

Truth be told, Gomer Pyle or anyone else would have had the same numbers, and probably not kowtowed to Putin and other murderous autocrats whilst pissing off every last ally that we used to have.

[Chris]

You are correct sir. Earnings, the DJIA, black unemployment and a whole bunch of other things have continued on precisely the same trajectory under Donald as they were going under Obama.

Obama was handed a crap sandwich and fixed it - Donald was handed a golden goose and is doing his damnedest to F it up. About all he has done is spend recklessly and added mightily to the national debt with a 1.5 trillion tax cut for people and corporations who didn't need it.

Truth be told, Gomer Pyle or anyone else would have had the same numbers, and probably not kowtowed to Putin and other murderous autocrats whilst pissing off every last ally that we used to have.

Except Obama fixed nothing and laid no golden goose egg, he in fact prolonged the recovery, but in the end the economy itself won out, as even Gomer Pyle would have accomplished.

The chronological fact that Obama came before Trump does not entail a causative effect. That's mere political poppy$#@!.

[Bo-4]

I think I have done a pretty good job in this thread of showing that Trump is not really responsible for this good economy. Have you read through it?

Hence the sham impeachment due to knowing none of their Clowns can beat Trump.
“Sham”. nice word. It means “fake”. But it’s clear that the inquiry is not fake: There was a vote by the House of representatives. Try to remember that the house was elected so that they could perform a check on this president —something that the previous representatives refused to do. The American people do want this inquiry as is shown in the polls and by virtue of the 2018 elections.

Republicans attack the process of impeachment because they know (and you know) they cannot win this case on its substance. He ever so clearly did do the things that he is being accused of. Lawyers know this axiom: If the facts are not on your side, pound the law. If the law is not on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table. Republicans are pounding the table into the ground. The evidence and witness testimony is overwhelming. The only thing left to debate is whether or not it’s serious enough to remove Trump from office. I would argue yes, but another time.

Rest assured, Jim Jordan will be pounding the table and tossing stupid bombshells to distract starting tomorrow.

They can't argue facts, they can't argue process so pounding the table is all that's left.

Say what you will - Trumpublicans put on one helluva clown show ;-)

[DGUtley]

Rest assured, Jim Jordan will be pounding the table and tossing stupid bombshells to distract starting tomorrow. They can't argue facts, they can't argue process so pounding the table is all that's left. Say what you will - Trumpublicans put on one helluva clown show ;-)

I haven't followed this (yet) but don't underestimate the talent of any politician to argue process.....