Donald Trump's US President Odds Improving!!

[Hareeba!]

Tommy CampbellVerified account @MrTommyCampbell 3h3 hours ago




I considered 'thoughts and prayers' to be the most useless thing until I saw Donald Trump in Houston waving a flag and talking crowd sizes.

[brooks85]

^two whiny little girls

[Hareeba!]

Unlike the trumpturds in this thread, I am always willing to put my arguments forward and defend them.
They however post lies, dumb statements and false accusations and when called upon to justify them simply back off in cowardly fashion.
As the resident troll would say: "trends".

[Hareeba!]

US Second Quarter GDP Revised Sharply Higher To 3.0%… Best In Two Years!


The second quarter GDP was revised sharply higher to 3.0%
The initial estimate was 2.6%.


From a previous TGP report:

One of the main economic indicators of a robust economy is GDP (Gross Domestic Product). According the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA):

GDP is one of the most comprehensive and closely watched economic statistics: It is used by the White House and Congress to prepare the Federal budget, by the Federal Reserve to formulate monetary policy, by Wall Street as an indicator of economic activity, and by the business community to prepare forecasts of economic performance that provide the basis for production, investment, and employment planning.

Yesterday the BEA released its analysis of second quarter 2017 GDP:

Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2017 (table 1), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.2 percent, (revised up from the original 0.7 percent growth.)

Under President Trump the second quarter annual GDP growth rate nearly doubled the rate from the President’s first quarter. Also, according the BEA, the US GDP surpassed $19 Trillion for the first time in US history under President Trump.

More…

Barack Obama was the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.

Obama averaged less than 2% growth in his years in office.

According to Louis Woodhill, President Barack Obama left office with the fourth worst economic record in US history.

Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)

But all of that is changing under the leadership of President Trump. Employment numbers are improving, the stock market is at a record high and the GDP is climbing.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta forecast a 3.7 percent rate for the third quarter of 2017.

Thanks Obama

And now for a little relevant context:

Americans are so accustomed to having a powerful economy; they have been dismayed by a rebound that hasn't been stronger. But the OECD says that compared with our chief competitors, the United States is leading the pack — by miles.

From the first quarter of 2008 until the same period this year (2016), U.S. gross domestic product expanded by 10.85 percent. That compares with growth of just 0.64 percent in the Euro area and 0.06 percent in Japan.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/17/482328208/u-s-economic-recovery-looks-good-compared-with-sluggish-europe-asia

[jt315]

And now for a little relevant context:

Americans are so accustomed to having a powerful economy; they have been dismayed by a rebound that hasn't been stronger. But the OECD says that compared with our chief competitors, the United States is leading the pack — by miles.

From the first quarter of 2008 until the same period this year (2016), U.S. gross domestic product expanded by 10.85 percent. That compares with growth of just 0.64 percent in the Euro area and 0.06 percent in Japan.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...sh-europe-asia

Sure




Barack Obama was the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.

[Hareeba!]

Sure




Barack Obama was the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.

source of that?
this would appear to suggest it's "fake news"


Regardless, despite what the buffoon seems to think is possible, the US isn't immune to global financial effects.

Pretty tough to be critical when the US clearly outperformed the rest of the world.

[jt315]

source of that?
this would appear to suggest it's "fake news"


Regardless, despite what the buffoon seems to think is possible, the US isn't immune to global financial effects.

Pretty tough to be critical when the US clearly outperformed the rest of the world.

Farewell Community Agitator

The Obama recovery had a record number of quarters where economic growth has been two percent or lower
Overall, the real GDP growth rate for the Obama economy has been right at two percent–the worst economic recovery since World War II.

[DwightShrute]

[PAULYPOKER]

"Natural" disasters always seem to occur at the perfect time for them.

Not really...
Anytime is a the perfect time for distractions that relieve us away from his "talk out loud" mind...........

[brooks85]

Unlike the trumpturds in this thread, I am always willing to put my arguments forward and defend them.
They however post lies, dumb statements and false accusations and when called upon to justify them simply back off in cowardly fashion.
As the resident troll would say: "trends".

[DwightShrute]

[Hareeba!]

Farewell Community Agitator

The Obama recovery had a record number of quarters where economic growth has been two percent or lower
Overall, the real GDP growth rate for the Obama economy has been right at two percent–the worst economic recovery since World War II.

Well I debunked your earlier quote which I managed to track down to that discredited purveyor of "fake news", thegatewaypundit

Now you've come up with another one from a source I'm not familiar with and am unable to verify.

Meanwhile however I managed to find this from Bloomberg which also appears to refute your material.

Here’s how the 12 postwar presidents rate:
Economic Influence

Performance during each administration, based on 17 indicators.
Source: Richard J. Carroll


Obama comes in eighth out of the 12, but still records a positive score, indicating a roughly average performance. That is based on six full years of his record, from 2010 to 2016. (This analysis leaves two years to go, because I allowed one year for the effects from the previous administration to subside -- more on that later.)


That is not a stunning performance, but it is a major improvement over that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose economic score was significantly lower than even Jimmy Carter’s. Rest assured, in this analysis a president’s score takes into account what he inherited and what he left behind. That’s one reality that both benefited and hampered Ronald Reagan’s and Obama’s scores.


Kennedy had the best record, but it was only for three years. There was no normal business cycle -- that is, a recession -- during his short presidency. Truman is in second place; his performance was impressive because it was recorded over eight years.


It’s also important to look at the margins between the rankings. Compare the scores for Obama and Richard Nixon, for example. Though they follow each other in the rankings, Obama recorded a significantly stronger economic record than Nixon did. So did Bill Clinton, at No. 5, compared with Ronald Reagan, at No. 6. And though Obama is two places below Reagan, his economic score is not that much lower.

[brooks85]

Well I debunked your earlier quote which I managed to track down to that discredited purveyor of "fake news", thegatewaypundit

Now you've come up with another one from a source I'm not familiar with and am unable to verify.

Meanwhile however I managed to find this from Bloomberg which also appears to refute your material.

Here’s how the 12 postwar presidents rate:
Economic Influence

Performance during each administration, based on 17 indicators.
Source: Richard J. Carroll


Obama comes in eighth out of the 12, but still records a positive score, indicating a roughly average performance. That is based on six full years of his record, from 2010 to 2016. (This analysis leaves two years to go, because I allowed one year for the effects from the previous administration to subside -- more on that later.)


That is not a stunning performance, but it is a major improvement over that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose economic score was significantly lower than even Jimmy Carter’s. Rest assured, in this analysis a president’s score takes into account what he inherited and what he left behind. That’s one reality that both benefited and hampered Ronald Reagan’s and Obama’s scores.


Kennedy had the best record, but it was only for three years. There was no normal business cycle -- that is, a recession -- during his short presidency. Truman is in second place; his performance was impressive because it was recorded over eight years.


It’s also important to look at the margins between the rankings. Compare the scores for Obama and Richard Nixon, for example. Though they follow each other in the rankings, Obama recorded a significantly stronger economic record than Nixon did. So did Bill Clinton, at No. 5, compared with Ronald Reagan, at No. 6. And though Obama is two places below Reagan, his economic score is not that much lower.

and we know how that ended up. Worst recovery in history. Fact.

[jt315]

and we know how that ended up. Worst recovery in history. Fact.

Poor guy , he's trying too hard.

[rkelly110]

[brooks85]

^yeah doubling the nations debt, more debt than EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM COMBINED. Amazing job in the eyes of anti-americans like rkelly.

[rkelly110]

[jt315]

Wait what was that ?
The dumb bitch never set foot in Wisconsin ?????

[Hareeba!]

Poor guy , he's trying too hard.

I've found you out for posting lies/"fake news" from dodgy sources

I've provided you with factual data from trustworthy sources which you've not been able to contradict.

But as is the "trend" with you trumptards you'll continue to deride me.

[brooks85]

rkelly having fun making up memes that make no sense because he knows tonight will not be fun. No sniffing.

[brooks85]

I've found you out for posting lies/"fake news" from dodgy sources

I've provided you with factual data from trustworthy sources which you've not been able to contradict.

But as is the "trend" with you trumptards you'll continue to deride me.

lol notice the trend of this idiot copying me. Repeating everything I've said to prove he is a liar, and now he is trying to repeat it against other posters like a child.

[jt315]

I've found you out for posting lies/"fake news" from dodgy sources

I've provided you with factual data from trustworthy sources which you've not been able to contradict.

But as is the "trend" with you trumptards you'll continue to deride me.

Try better than proving an Etcha a Sketch as proof of Obama topping 3% in annual GDP growth.

[Hareeba!]

Trump's corporate tax plan will add trillions to US debt, report finds

Trump has argued that a lower tax burden will help create more jobs. But a new study argues reducing the corporate tax rate is unnecessary and costly






Donald Trump’s plans to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% will result in a revenue loss of $3tn to $7tn for the federal government over a decade and are unlikely to create the promised boom in jobs, according to a new report from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Trump and Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, have been pushing hard for the plan. The president travels to Missouri on Wednesday to promote the plan and Ryan has taken to the road to venues including Boeing's headquaters, where Ryan pledged to make the cuts by the end of the year.





But the Washington thinktank found that the cuts were unnecessary as well as exorbitantly costly. The study looked at 92 publicly-traded corporations that reported consistent profitability between 2008 and 2015, and found that they already benefitted from low effective tax rates, paying less than 20% of that net income to the federal government in tax.


Ryan and Trump have argued that a lower tax burden will help create more jobs, but the study argues that these companies are already paying the lower level of taxes and have not created more jobs. In fact, while the total rate of job creation among the US private sector as a whole was 6%, these 92 companies saw a 1% decline in employment. They are creating jobs at a slower rate than the economy, in spite of having precisely this “Goldilocks” tax rate.

The report follows on from another by the Institute on Tax and Economic Policy, which studied 258 consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies and found that their effective tax rate was 21.2%. In at least one year, 100 paid paid no tax at all. From 2008 until 2015, 30 companies paid an effective rate of 6.9%, and eight paid almost nothing. Those in specific industries (retailing) fared significantly worse than others (utilities), while some companies (McDonald’s) paid vastly more than their rivals. It’s fair to say that the corporate tax code is a mess.


The studies suggest that the tax rate is not tied to job creation. While researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies didn’t study the fate of tax savings on a dollar-for-dollar basis, “we realized that that these companies had huge sums of money that were going into stock buybacks,” says Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at the institute and the report’s author.
She and her colleagues calculated, based on publicly disclosed data, that the 10 companies that cut the most jobs each spent $45bn over the last nine years to repurchase their stock. That reduces the number of shares outstanding, increasing the earnings per share calculation and thus the value of each individual share. Theoretically, the stock market should recognize this by sending the stock price higher. Clearly, the beneficiaries were shareholders, rather than employees or potential employees.


The report’s authors also discovered that companies with lower-than-average tax rates rewarded their CEOs with higher than average paychecks and raises. The average CEO of these 92 firms saw his or her pay rise 18% between 2008 and 2016, while that of those in all companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index climbed 13%. (The average employee, meanwhile, got a 4% wage hike between 2008 and 2016.) The better they did at cutting jobs, the higher the CEO’s earning power, the Institute for Policy Studies calculated. The 48 CEOs who eliminated the most jobs earned an average of $14.9m, 14% more than the average CEO.


Boeing is the beneficiary of one of the biggest tax breaks ever seen in the country's history, a deal it struck with the state of Washington after threatening to build its new plant outside the state. Meanwhile, its average federal tax rate over the last 10 years has been only 3.2%, and it paid only 23% – by its own calculation – last year.


Shortly after the deal with the state – which failed to insist on employment guarantees – was brokered, Boeing began to announce massive job cuts, arguing it needs to rely more on automation in order to compete with Airbus. More than 15% of its Washington workforce has been laid off since the big state tax deal was announced in 2013.

[DwightShrute]

how can anyone not agree with this?

[Hareeba!]

Try better than proving an Etcha a Sketch as proof of Obama topping 3% in annual GDP growth.

You mean this from the US Department of Commerce?


As has been proven so many times in the past you trumpturds just refuse to believe any facts which don't fit with your warped view of the world!

[jt315]

You mean this from the US Department of Commerce?


As has been proven so many times in the past you trumpturds just refuse to believe any facts which don't fit with your warped view of the world!

Explain how the Etcha A Sketch proves a year of 3% GDP Growth.
Not one quarter.

[DwightShrute]

Explain how the Etcha A Sketch proves a year of 3% GDP Growth.
Not one quarter.

not once in 8 years. First time ever.

[rkelly110]

Explain how the Etcha A Sketch proves a year of 3% GDP Growth.
Not one quarter.

Wow, right there in front of your face and still deny it.

[DwightShrute]

Wow, right there in front of your face and still deny it.

[Hareeba!]

But the fact that the US rate exceeded that of the rest of the world doesn't count and Obama is to blame?

[jt315]

But the fact that the US rate exceeded that of the rest of the world doesn't count and Obama is to blame?

Your Etch A Sketch has been debunked and now you're making excuses ?

But, but ....

[Hareeba!]

Your Etch A Sketch has been debunked and now you're making excuses ?

But, but ....

debunked?
it is a graph produced by a government agency!

excuses?
This discussion started with you putting the blame on Obama for a sub-standard economic performance.
I tried to put that into perspective with a very valid comparison of that performance against the rest of the world.
You still have yet to address that point.

[jt315]

debunked?
it is a graph produced by a government agency!

excuses?
This discussion started with you putting the blame on Obama for a sub-standard economic performance.
I tried to put that into perspective with a very valid comparison of that performance against the rest of the world.
You still have yet to address that point.

A graph which you thought proved a year of 3% GDP growth under Obama and were clearly wrong.
No one cares how we compare to the rest of the world except you when you clearly have lost an argument.
Hurry , go look for a negative tweet you can post about Trump.

[Hareeba!]

A graph which you thought proved a year of 3% GDP growth under Obama and were clearly wrong.
No one cares how we compare to the rest of the world except you when you clearly have lost an argument.
Hurry , go look for a negative tweet you can post about Trump.

The graph showed several spikes above 3%. Somewhat pedantic to make a point of it failing an arbitrary annualisation test.

I most certainly haven't lost the argument. Your post was attempting to blame Obama for a sub-standard economic performance.

By any sane measure I have demolished your point.

I don't need to look too hard to find what you refer to as negative tweets about the buffoon.

All I've ever set out to demonstrate in this thread is a) how unfit for the office is the buffoon who managed to land in the WH and b) how stupid are those who are responsible and those who support him.

I've scored about 500 hits on those points. And the rate of success will only accelerate as his administration implodes.

[DwightShrute]