Liberals want a recession

[Luther]

Yes, some Dems want a recession if it will help defeat President Trump.


In fact, a FEW Dems want certain recent bad incidents to happen again in order to achieve the goal of overthrowing the President, their hatred for him being so irrational.

Kinda like if Obama had tried to make better relations with North Korea he would have been called an "Appeaser" by the Trump crowed today

Funny how it works?

 

[LibDave]

Republicans did not want a recovery during Obama. That is settled history, through their actions in Congress and their words on right-wing media.

It wasn't necessary to do anything in regard to Obama's economy. His policies alone ensured economic malaise.

 

[LibDave]

Obama did not do badly with the economy. He was handed a huge advantage by starting at the very bottom, but he did not squander it in eight years. That alone is impressive.There was reason to expect a recession in 2014-2015 but one never materialized.

That said, I count the recovery from the down quarter in 2014, rather than 2009 as most do. By that standard, the recovery is not that old in 2019. Obama's slow and steady approach avoided a recession, but Trump promptly doubled his per quarter growth rates. Which do you choose for the long term? I see arguments both ways.

You are absolutely clueless in regards to your assessment of Obamanomics. Obama had the worst economic record of ANY president in history including Jimmy Carter. Obamanomic policy was guaranteed to be an abysmal failure and it was entirely predictable.

 

[LibDave]

Or Republicans ignore that one is coming?

There is no recession on the horizon. Keep wishing. You'd be better served to actually study the science of economics. No need to hope for change. Economics is a science and the outcomes of both Obamanomics and Trumpanomics is entirely predictable. If you understood how and why both policies created the results obtained you wouldn't make such statements.

 

[LibDave]

Kinda like if Obama had tried to make better relations with North Korea he would have been called an "Appeaser" by the Trump crowed today

Funny how it works?

Not so. I believe it would and did depend on the method and results obtained from the negotiation. In the case of Iran there was no need to do anything. The UN sanctions were working and Iran was on the verge of collapse. In fact that is exactly why Obama stepped in. He had no interest in undermining the Iranian regime (Obama was an anti-colonialist). Obama in fact rescued Iran from the sanctions and inevitable collapse despite pleas from the UN. He sent Kerry and the results of the negotiation were more than apparent. The Iranian negotiations were indeed the dumbest negotiations in history and entirely counter to the interests of the US. And we needn't have negotiated at all. It was paramount to having subversives in the White House.

 

[Mr Person]

Allright. I have heard every single one of the Usual Suspects say liberals want a recession so Trump fails. They all said it within 30ish hours. Maybe 40ish. What right wing talking head said this within that period?

 

[JasperL]

Obama did not do badly with the economy. He was handed a huge advantage by starting at the very bottom, but he did not squander it in eight years. That alone is impressive.There was reason to expect a recession in 2014-2015 but one never materialized.

That said, I count the recovery from the down quarter in 2014, rather than 2009 as most do. By that standard, the recovery is not that old in 2019. Obama's slow and steady approach avoided a recession, but Trump promptly doubled his per quarter growth rates. Which do you choose for the long term? I see arguments both ways.

That's not true.

 

[JasperL]

You are absolutely clueless in regards to your assessment of Obamanomics. Obama had the worst economic record of ANY president in history including Jimmy Carter. Obamanomic policy was guaranteed to be an abysmal failure and it was entirely predictable.

You're not talking to the Infowars crew here. That kind of nonsense just gets laughed at. Poor effort. D-

 

[JasperL]

There is no recession on the horizon. Keep wishing. You'd be better served to actually study the science of economics. No need to hope for change. Economics is a science and the outcomes of both Obamanomics and Trumpanomics is entirely predictable. If you understood how and why both policies created the results obtained you wouldn't make such statements.

If it's a science, and you're a scientist, you can show us the data to prove your point. So do it. Thanks. eace

 

[Jay59]

That's not true.

Just for the Dow. It was a specific point.

You are absolutely clueless in regards to your assessment of Obamanomics. Obama had the worst economic record of ANY president in history including Jimmy Carter. Obamanomic policy was guaranteed to be an abysmal failure and it was entirely predictable.

You say that like it wasn't an advantage. It was a huge advantage because he cannot go down. No matter what he does, things will improve. It even survived the Stimulus plan, which was mostly payoffs.

 

[JasperL]

Just for the Dow. It was a specific point.

That makes no sense at all. You said, "Obama's slow and steady approach avoided a recession, but Trump promptly doubled his per quarter growth rates." You weren't talking stock market... :roll:

Whatever. You're one of several overstating the Trump economic record on threads today.

You say that like it wasn't an advantage. It was a huge advantage because he cannot go down. No matter what he does, things will improve. It even survived the Stimulus plan, which was mostly payoffs.

That's nonsense too.

 

[Jay59]

That makes no sense at all. You said, "Obama's slow and steady approach avoided a recession, but Trump promptly doubled his per quarter growth rates." You weren't talking stock market...Whatever. You're one of several overstating the Trump economic record on threads today.

It's consistent. The economy is large scale. The Dow is small scale and, in a narrow range, predictive. Changes take months to impact the economy, but the stock market reacts in anticipation. It's not exactly micro vs macro, but there is a difference in scale.

Obama did have a huge advantage. He got to buy in at the bottom. Live with it.

 

[Luther]

There is no recession on the horizon. Keep wishing. You'd be better served to actually study the science of economics. No need to hope for change. Economics is a science and the outcomes of both Obamanomics and Trumpanomics is entirely predictable. If you understood how and why both policies created the results obtained you wouldn't make such statements.

There is no recession on the horizon.

There is always recession on the horizon .

History has taught me so

 

[JasperL]

It's consistent. The economy is large scale. The Dow is small scale and, in a narrow range, predictive. Changes take months to impact the economy, but the stock market reacts in anticipation. It's not exactly micro vs macro, but there is a difference in scale.

Obama did have a huge advantage. He got to buy in at the bottom. Live with it.

But the Dow wasn't what you were talking about...:roll:

Also, no, inheriting the worst recession in generations, that required the slow process of unwinding a debt bubble that dampened consumption for years, isn't a "huge advantage" for President. Trump took over a growing economy, did nothing, and you claim he doubled growth rates from the previous guy when all that happened is we stayed on the same trend line.

 

[Jay59]

But the Dow wasn't what you were talking about...:roll:

Also, no, inheriting the worst recession in generations, that required the slow process of unwinding a debt bubble that dampened consumption for years, isn't a "huge advantage" for President. Trump took over a growing economy, did nothing, and you claim he doubled growth rates from the previous guy when all that happened is we stayed on the same trend line.

It is a huge advantage to be in a no lose situation, such as when measuring growth rates.

I am glad you acknowledge the burden of debt on Trump's economy. Not just more debt, also higher interest rates. Trump has about $75 Billion a year more interest on debt than Obama did at the same point in his term. It's not a huge difference, but it is something.

 

[JasperL]

It is a huge advantage to be in a no lose situation, such as when measuring growth rates.

LOL

I am glad you acknowledge the burden of debt on Trump's economy. Not just more debt, also higher interest rates. Trump has about $75 Billion a year more interest on debt than Obama did at the same point in his term. It's not a huge difference, but it is something.

And if you're going to willfully misrepresent my points, no reason to continue. You'll just tell us again how Trump doubled Obama quarterly growth rates which you've yet to acknowledge was a made up lie.

 

[Rickeroo]

Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.

I don't find too much problem in it. If I considered Obama the devil, I'd hope for a recession so people wouldn't vote for him again.

A "recession" is more of a political tool than actual hardship. Didn't we all die starving in the streets with the recession in 2008? No biggie.

 

[Jay59]

LOLAnd if you're going to willfully misrepresent my points, no reason to continue. You'll just tell us again how Trump doubled Obama quarterly growth rates which you've yet to acknowledge was a made up lie.

Fine. We'll go back to a simple fact. Obama inherited an economy already bottomed out. In any situation, you get the greatest growth when you start at the bottom of the curve.

 

[JasperL]

Fine. We'll go back to a simple fact. Obama inherited an economy already bottomed out. In any situation, you get the greatest growth when you start at the bottom of the curve.

As an aside, it's brilliant to start off with a "simple fact" that's false, not a fact at all. Kudos!

No one is measuring growth from the end of the recession which bottomed out in the summer of 2009, but from 2015 and 2016. You claimed Trump promptly doubled quarterly growth rates from that level. That is false. So now you're just frantically throwing out red herrings.

This latest is particularly offensive and dumb - paraphrased, "Obama was lucky Bush handed off a crap sandwich! ANYONE can succeed from there!!" Well, no, that's not true, and the DISadvantage of it is illustrated by your original, false, claim. You gave Trump credit for a good economy he did nothing to generate, and you in fact lied about how good it was versus that other guy.

That's what uninformed people do - blame/credit POTUS for things almost entirely a result of actions long before they took office. Do you think the voters didn't blame Obama for the economy in 2010? If they didn't blame him, they didn't listen to a lot of right wing news because they blamed him for 8 years. He handed off a humming economy, and instantly Trump got all the credit! You have to be kidding me telling me it's harder to govern like Trump in that scenario than facing what Obama did.

 

[Luther]

Are the liberals so scared that Trump is going to be re-elected, they want to see the US economy to collapse?
No media bias here, but NBC reporter Richard Engel and idiot Bill Maher want people to loss their jobs and have businesses close if it defeats Trump. They don’t care, they make millions a year.
These two idiots on Friday said they hoped an economic recession would happen in the US so Trump would not be re-elected.
Instead of wishing for a recession try going to the ballet box and vote him out of power if he is so horrible.

Liberals want a recession

Or again, Republicans ignore one could be near?

 

[LibDave]

Just for the Dow. It was a specific point.



You say that like it wasn't an advantage. It was a huge advantage because he cannot go down. No matter what he does, things will improve. It even survived the Stimulus plan, which was mostly payoffs.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if much of it was wasted on graft and corruption. But the more important thing to understand is the stimulus was doomed to failure even if it all went towards exactly what it was intended. The Stimulus had no chance to ever stimulate anything. The stimulus removed $800 Billion of value from the pubic sector which created the wealth (regardless of how the stimulus was funded) and spent it elsewhere than the people who produced the wealth would have spent it. It was nothing more than the transfer of the right to spend 800 Billion in wealth. There was no net increase in stimulus to the economy because every dollar of stimulus spending was offset by 1 less dollar of spending by those it was taken from. It is easy for the politicians to point to the construction worker employed by the stimulus money and say, "Look at those jobs we created", convincing naive voters they have stimulated jobs. That is because it is hard for those same naive voters to visualize the jobs lost because the money is no longer spent by the people who earned it (and had it taken from them). For every dollar in stimulus pay there was 1 less dollar spent on new cars, dinners at a nice restaurant, or whatever the earners would have spent it on. The pay was merely rerouted from automobile factory workers, waitresses, and cooks, and textile workers to stimulus workers.

Being fooled by socialist politicians is bad enough. But it isn't even a zero sum game. Much of the money is wasted on corruption and just plain old mismanagement precisely because they didn't earn it and therefore are much less inclined to spend it wisely. They can't even appreciate it's value because it came without their own brow sweat. So they steal what they can get away with and waste much of the rest. But it goes further.

By taking 800 Billion from the people who earned it, they destroy the incentive for those workers to produced the wealth. The stimulus never had the possibility of stimulating with the best of oversight. In fact it was entirely predictable it would have the impact it did, which was to result in the devastation of the standard of living enjoyed by America's blue collar workers. Obamanomics destroyed the American Dream for millions and millions of Americans and created untold misery and economic malaise for almost a decade.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It wasn't necessary to do anything in regard to Obama's economy. His policies alone ensured economic malaise.

Sure, his on again/off again trade wars played havoc with the economy, right?

 

[Deuce]

Our first priority is to make sure Trump is a one term president.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Liberals want a recession

Read my lips: NO WE DON'T!

No one WANTS a recession. AND, he doesn't have the votes to get reelected.

 

[LibDave]

Sure, his on again/off again trade wars played havoc with the economy, right?

No. His Socialist "Make Work" policies ensured a stagnant economy and a steady decline in the standard of living. Absolutely horrid economic record no matter how you try to slice it. From any angle it just comes up rotten eggs.