The First 100 days

“CNBC: The Dow's 31% gain during Trump's first year is the best since FDR”

Do the haters pause for even a moment when they look at their 401ks?

• The 30-stock index has surged more than 31 percent since Trump's inauguration.

• That marks the index's best performance during the first year of a president since Franklin Roosevelt.

• "You've got lower taxes, less regulation and confidence in the economy is high," said one investor.

• The S&P 500 has surged 23 percent during Trump's first year in office.

​

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/the...-trumps-first-year-is-the-best-since-fdr.html

 

Apology accepted.

Consistent hyperbole is the new norm, I guess. You still say "2%" as if the difference between 1%, 2% and 3% isn't hundreds of billions in aggregate wealth.

Can I assume you won't challenge me when I claim Trump's GDP growth rate is 1.4% when it comes in at 2.8% for year 1? We'll agree in advance to that, right? Supporting evidence doesn't matter when making a claim. The claim itself is the most important.

Putting our mutual snide comments aside...

So, your real point is simply that Jack Lew said it was unrealistic to expect GDP growth to reach historical norms. Their comments were analogous to expecting Blue Chip companies to achieve revenue growth like they did when they were growth companies. Early in my career I worked for a software company with $750M in annual revenue. My CFO told me that the market expects 30% annual revenue growth. He relayed that that's much easier to get to when you are a $100M revenue company than $1B company.

The US GDP in 2016 $18.57T. For comparison sake, that GDP in 1990 and 2000 was $5.98T and $10.28T respectively.

To achieve 3.5% growth here is the wealth that would need to be created respectively in 1991, 2001 and 2017: $209.3B, $359.8B, $649.95B

When does the US economy become a Blue Chip stock? Clearly Lew was saying we have reached that point. I'm sure he never imagined torching any environmental protections and banking regulations though.

 

You're gonna go down swinging, aren't you?

Do you really not see the difference between making a specific claim about the numbers of a specific time period, and a general remark made based on multiple comments which all were - in themselves - generalizations?

There is no specific number that ANYONE said would be the "new normal." Considering it was being thrown around when the growth rate was somewhere at or below 2 percent, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that was the range that they were considering normal. They certainly weren't considering 2.8 percent "normal" since Obama barely ever hit it, and I don't think he ever got there until toward the end of his term.

So you implying that I was spinning a 2.8 percent (or comparable number) down to a 1.4 percent number is just wrong.

The difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that 2 percent and 1 percent are both BAD. You spinning 2.8 percent down to 1.4 percent would be ridiculous because 2.8 percent would be at least marginal, as opposed to 1.4 which would be horrendous.

I'm done with this.

 

It's the generalizations I took issue with because they were grossly incorrect. Then when that was clearly shown the specific numbers were tied to a general statement by Jack Lew which seems to be what you are complaining about happened to you.

Here are some facts. Tell me if you can see a pattern in this trendline of US GDP growth rate since 1947:

Now project that trendline out and tell me where you end up? BTW- This supports my analogy above that as the numbers get bigger the % increase may not be the best way to measure growth.

I was pointing out the hyperbole of numbers. You keep implying that 1, 2 or 3 isn't a big difference which I vehemently disagree with, obviously.

Let's assume the Labor Dept. (BLS) and Treasury Dept (Lew) were sharing information given the report you cited was published the same year Lew made the comments. Essentially, Lew is inferring that expecting >3% growth is on an annual basis is not the right benchmark. You disagree with that. Trump will likely barely surpass that mark in 2018. What will our economy (society?) have sacrificed to achieve that mark? Conversion of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Pollution Agency? A tax plan stimulus that is projected to add $1.5T to the debt?

 

Did it really shut down? Funny I haven't noticed.

 

It did shutdown, but it's weird. There's less panic than there has been in recent years. Mrs. Deez's supervisors didn't even bring up the possibility until yesterday. It's like they expected that the shutdown wouldn't actually happen and seem to think it'll get resolved by the end of the weekend. If it doesn't, we don't mind. It's a paid vacation.

 

Yeah, I get that. I'm just mocking those people who see the federal government as an indispensable part of daily life.

 

We have reached an interesting point in US political history, where Democrats now call Americans “deplorables” and illegal immigrants “dreamers.”

 

Here is Schumer in 2013 on shutdown and immigration
Kinda awkward

 

February 2017 to February 2018

 

That just shows that shutdowns are political theater first and foremost. The parts of the federal government that truly are indispensable (the military, air traffic controllers, etc.) are exempt. Some agencies that support the military get shutdown and that does suck for them, but they can do without most of it on a short-term basis.

 

Obama, of course, handled it differently -- he ordered certain monuments and parks to close, which did not need to be shut. Today, those same parks and monuments are open. Obama just did it to be an ***

 

Because people have lived through a couple and now realize it's overblown. Except for the DC people, and when the Obama admin decided to politicize it by refusing to let people view national monuments because... well, it costs money for us to let you stand there and look at something, apparently.

A liberal friend of mine hates them, but it's because he's progressive and he lives in the DC area, and I'm sure it's harder there what with all the government people not having to go in and do whatever they're doing that day.

 

Parts of the world are literal shiteholes

 

Well, my co-workers and I are being affected. I fly for an airline whose pilots are in mediation. We had a meeting with the Board last week to see if we may be released to arbitration. The National Mediation Board is one of the furlough groups, so now we wait....

At least we can all go to a National Park with some illegal immigrants while we wait for the Gubment to reopen.

 

Not a big deal until the shutdown crosses a payday. Not a surprise that the dates Congress chose avoid the 15th and the end of the month.

Since we now choose to find the government in 3 1-3 month increments people are already tired of the political game.

 

Sorry, Seattle, but some of us have been tired of continuing resolutions to fund the government for a hell of a lot longer than that.

I long for the day when congress actually has to go through a true budgeting process to fund the government, if only because they will be so busy it will keep them out of all kinds of other trouble.

 

When they're doing it right, they're supposed to be passing a budget resolution plus 12 individual appropriation bills before the start of the fiscal year. They've actually done that successfully only 4 times since 1977. Frankly, I don't think that process is possible in the current political climate. The parties are too polarized, and there are too many opportunities for it to get screwed up.

 

Chuckles Schumer in 2009:

"People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally."​

What changed?

 

Nothing has changed other than who democrats pander to for votes.

 

Yep, there's no pretense anymore. If you oppose open borders, the Democratic Party isn't for you.

 

If it were me, I would find shutting down government services for citizens on behalf of non-citizens a politically risky strategy.

 

Written in the sky during the recent Woman's March in Sydney

 

CNN is actually doing real journalism! https://www.dailywire.com/news/26155/watch-cnn-shuts-down-multiple-democrat-lawmakers-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

 

Chuckles says Dems have "agreed" to to end their shutdown
Which is weird
Because they have been swearing that it was a Trump/Rep shutdown


Maybe Schumer should have read Art of the Deal?

 

Polls about the shutdown must have been pretty bad for Dems.

 

Heading in wrong direction - pulled plug before too late