Hillary's economy, a preview.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 1458279, Sep 5, 2016.

  1. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Stre...ry-clinton-donald-trump/2016/09/04/id/746609/


     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    A flat economy or slow growth really isn't that bad...
     
  3. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #3
    The argument for a 2~3% growth and controlled costs could be made, however, we're sub 1% and slowing. Costs are going up, unfunded mandates and health care.

    Notice the rise in the deficit rising.
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    That's what a 40% increase in one year?

    There's just no way to paint this as good, just no way.

    Remember, we need 100K jobs just to keep up with population growth.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    a. What does this have to do with Hillary?
    b. Economics and Politics are never in sync
    c. Are you implying Obama is too left? Also trotting out numbers from the 80's seems a little irrelevant 30+ years in the future.
    d. Who controls the federal budget and the deficit? Is Obama solely to blame here?
     
  5. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #5
    Hillary's economy? What happened to your faith in Trump making America great again and winning so much we're going to get tired of it?
     
  6. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #6
    It makes a specific reference to Hillary's economy. She's come out with her plan and the analysis is included. There's a snippet I included in the quotes (#4).

    They might not be completely in sync, but after a number of years, usually 2, the polices of the past start to wear. Not all, like Bill Clinton's housing stuff and ObamaCare, debt spending, etc. However, the red-tape, over regulation and tax rates do have an effect after about 2 years.

    Implying about Obama is not a part of this analysis and would offer no value. The economy is what it is.

    Control is shared, but Obama was hard set in his ways, it was his way or the highway, simple as that. That's why the government is so divided.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    You don't get it do you. Obama = Hillary. Hillary will continue down the same path. Look at her plan, it's more of the same.

    If Hillary wins, we'll see more of this very, very slow economy. We're headed into a recession now and Hillary will have nobody to blame. At least then it'll become so painful that maybe some on the Left will see the truth about their policies.
     
  7. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #7
    No, I get it. I'm just pointing out in order for your premise to be true, you must accept that Trump will be defeated. :D
     
  8. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #8
    In order for Hillary to own the failing economy and make it worse, yes. It would be fun to watch her fail. She'll either fail as president or fail to become president. Either way, Hillary will fail, and that's a good thing.
     
  9. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    Alternatively he would have to assume Trumps economic plan is better than Clinton.

    Idk what Trumps current plan is but a few weeks ago they ran the numbers and said Trumps plan would lead to a soft and potentially full recession. Source: NPR news, I'm sure you can find an article on the Google.
     
  10. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #10
    Yes, you're are a true patriot. Hoping for the failure of a president which ultimately impacts the country as a whole.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    It is well-known that a Trump presidency would tank the economy. Only clueless ideologues believe in the hot air coming out of his mouth. The guy is in way over his head.
     
  11. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    a. Probably a theoretical projection, if not hyperbole.

    b. True, "cause and effect" prevailing it can take time for a decision to snowball. Which means trickle down should start benefiting American workers fairly soon?

    c. Political Compass shows him being very much to the right-of-center, so how come he's called "Left"? Is their analysis technique biased or warped? https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

    d. Congress (and lobbyists who influence Congress), the Federal Reserve (hybrid public/private entity),the president who signs (or vetoes?) what congress gives him/her, etc

    Do I get a gold, silver or bronze star? :D
     
  12. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Can't put too much faith into NPR, they're not known for being objective. Trump's infrastructure plan should be shelved and he should hit very hard on corp tax reform to make us competitive, cut the red-tape and let the businesses go to work. I'd like to see a more in depth analysis, but I doubt they go much beyond static speculation. It's hard to put a number on business innovation.
     
  13. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    Why not tell people to stop reproducing, especially in our grossly overpopulated nation of 300,000,000 (/sarc) , but then John Gibson at Fox News would then whine and cry like a good liberal with his head stuck too much in a box to see so many issues impacting real life - oh, and he loves making cheap shot and shallow racist parallels AND ignores wage issues so nobody afford to raise them properly and he admits prosperity is hurt in having kids (while, noting his age, quickly forgetting that he grew up where his parents had both prosperity and dealing with him as a kid): (Well, don't invest in anything where peanut butter might reduce its value, Gibson doesn't see we're in an economy that's only about resale value, but he's not going to care or take responsibility based on the breadth of his blame game he espoused ever so sickeningly...) I've no doubt that if people stopped buying the **** he says not to buy then he'll blame the same people for risking the economy. They will never see the big pictures...

    Maybe that's why he's saying stuff to get people to believe he wants to drop out??
     
  14. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #14
    How exactly is it well known? Was it well known that Obama would have a great recovery? How well known was the housing bubble when we were in it?

    The hope for failure is because Hillary and socialist always fail, the only way Hillary can win is if she cheats. Selling political power shouldn't be a business model.
     
  15. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    Even after all the years they started espousing conservative viewpoints to the level of biased in the other direction because they all bleated NPR was too democrat/liberal/socialist/commie? They could have it 100% their way and they still wouldn't stop the petty blame game.
     
  16. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    Don't worry. The up and coming taco truck on every corner industry will provide millions of jobs in the first quarter of 2017.
     
  17. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #17

    How is Hillary socialist? There are accusations of centrist and corporatist, warmonger, and right-wing (e.g. political compass, et al), but how is she socialist? Amnesty? In which case that made Reagan a far bigger socialist... Dealing with China? Reagan was the first go grant MFN status to China (he let Loral Corp sell missile guidance systems sell there as well...)
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    Why not just start up companies since decades of deregulation have made it easier...

    ...for big companies to make monopolies after taking out all the competition then putting in new regulations and prices that make it harder for new companies to start up or maintain...?
     
  18. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #18
    It wasn't an NPR analyzed statistic. They obviously have it in for Hillary but this was a repeated statistics presented in their news brief. The information comes from Moody's Analytics, which of course is one of the most prestigious financial modeling, investment risk/preformance assessment, etc firms in the world. I assume calculating such numbers goes well beyond a few simple equations.

    Here's a Forbes article with the same information, if they're more your taste. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiem...oost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment/#862ee7a23480

    At the end of the day there are however too many variables to quantify. For all we know Trump might lower the taxes of the wealthy and they might invest abroad with their tax savings. Or burn it in a fire pit. Who knows.

    I don't like Clinton. But I don't like taxes. And I don't like Trump. I would be very surprised if he wins short of a legitimate Hillary scandal erupting.
     
  19. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #19
    Your theory on economics is just about as misguided as your belief that the black community will come out in support of Trump. It isn't based on reality but it's awfully entertaining. And you can kept all of your conspiracy theories to yourself.
     
  20. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #20
    Dear KarlJay,

    You do realise that the economy is only influenced by the government rather than being controlled, and the Congress (which is GOP dominated currently) just might have something to do with it in addition to the President? If you want to look at how the government has influenced the economy over the past few years, then you'll have to look at policies, not individuals. You'll also have to look at policies that were blocked and who blocked them.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    Centralization of government controls accelerated under LBJ, with the creation of new agencies and/or expansion of authority of existing agencies. Police state laws increased under Nixon and then Clinton, but jumped dramatically under Bush II (Patriot Act) and Obama (NDAA).

    Ending the high inflation of the Carter era required a high interest rate from the FRB. That led to a severe recession. The pain from that recession resulted in interest rate games by the FRB in later business-cycle downturns--but those low rates set the stage for later bubbles. First came dot-com and then came housing. Now, it's stocks and bonds.

    Since 2008, FRB efforts have failed to "jumpstart" the economy. Obama and his advisors--as well as Congress--either have no clue as to efficacious actions or seem to believe such as Bernanke and Krugman to repeat the same failed experiment.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary will be able to do any sort of 180-degree change in policies and procedures which might make significant improvement. Too many vested interests profiting from business as usual, and it's pretty much a given that Hillary is business as usual. Trump would encounter intense opposition to any idea outside the existing paradigm.

    I've read that Hillary has spoken of forgiving student debt. Okay, taxpayers, enjoy picking up that $1.38 trillion tab.
     
  22. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #22
    We should go back and evaluate those that make these predictions. How many were correct about Obama's economy? How many guessed that Obama would never make 3% growth in any year or quarter? No other president EVER did that poorly.

    Dems (and W) tend to spend more on social programs, this raises the GDP, but doesn't have the same economic effect as when a business hires people and raises the GDP.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    Your response tells me all I need to know about your understanding of economic. What "theory" am I talking about? Tell me about my theory on economics.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    Obama got ZIRP, QE and the largest stim package in US history, the recession was OVER before Obama's polices took hold, yet he NEVER, EVER got 3% growth.

    Blame anyone you want, cry all you want, facts are the facts.
     
  23. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #23
    "Under Ronald Reagan we had growth rates quarterly of 4, 5 and even 6 percent. Economists in the '80s worried about overheating. Too much growth."

    Wait....quarterly GDP growth of 4, 5, 6%? Post some numbers, please. The largest growth quarter under Ronald Reagan was his first quarter, otherwise known as the quarter that he had no control over. It was 4.62%. Outside of that, he hit 3% one time (in 1980s dollars) in 1983. Using adjusted dollars, his biggest quarter was 2.07% (first quarter of his Presidency) and the majority of them were under 1%, with several being negative. Since Obama's policies came into effect, there has never been a drop in GDP.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    The last time their was 3% increase in GDP in a quarter in unadjusted dollars was in 1984, at 3.07%. In adjusted dollars, the only President in the last 60 years to achieve 3% growth in a quarter was Jimmy Carter in 1978. It has been downward-trending percentage wise since, well, ever, for obvious reasons. By the way, as of the end of Obama's 7th year, his GDP had increased 25.6% more than Reagan's in adjusted dollars, and 96% more in unadjusted dollars, at the end of Reagan's 7th year. I'll leave you to ponder.
     
  24. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #24
    That was the source I posted in the 1st post. Those are their numbers, did you see the link?
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    I did. And I dispute their assertion and said why. Ronald Reagan never achieved those growth rates.
     

Share This Page