Trump vs. Biden Part 2

[kalm]

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

Yeah, those deficits didn't help at all.

FY 2017: $671 billion
FY 2016: $1.42 trillion
FY 2015: $326 billion
FY 2014: $1.09 trillion
FY 2013: $672 billion
FY 2012: $1.28 trillion
FY 2011: $1.23 trillion
FY 2010: $1.65 trillion
FY 2009: $253 billion (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion)

What about 2017, 18, and 19? (We can throw out 2020 due to Covid.)

[Pwns]

Blast from the past in the form of a graphic I've used before. This is a graph showing US Real GDP growth for the years 2009 - 2020:



As I've typed before: There is no way any objective person could look at that and say, if they were looking at that without knowing who was President when, that something happened between 2016 to 2017 to change the pattern that had been in place since 2010. Yes, 2017 was higher than 2016. But 2015 was higher than 2017. The variation is completely consistent with what had been going on. This idea that there was this definite change after Trump took office is just not there. This continued insistence of believing that Trump changed the economy for the better is just not supported by the data.

There's no way any objective person can say if there's a "change point" there that after 2016 works better than after 2015.

[UNI88]

Your rudimentary knowledge of economics is on par with my rudimentary knowledge of scientific field research. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it and then you look for and present data that supports your OPINION.

So what do you disagree with about his post? I’d sincerely like to see a counter to his numbers and assertions.

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

[kalm]

So what do you disagree with about his post? I’d sincerely like to see a counter to his numbers and assertions.

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

When I tell you I’m asking sincerely it’s an honest statement.

And of course economics and supporting data is convoluted. I don’t think anyone here would argue with that.

EG: Obama inherited a horrible economy which typically takes years if not decades to recover from. But he also bought low so his numbers shouldn’t have anywhere to go but up.

Trump inherited a healthier economy and maintained it. Good job. Except…your assertion of keeping it going for a long time seems odd. His economy basically lasted for 3 years until Covid struck which obviously skewed everything.

If not for covid, who knows? Maybe it would have continued to flourish but history suggests the boom and bust cycle would have been equally if not more likely (which I think you agree with.)

And yes, many different factors are on the table one of which is from whose perspective we are viewing it from. Low taxes and deregulation make it wonderful for the investor class…even during down-turns. But they also saddle us with debt which any true fiscal conservative should find problematic.

[kalm]

So what do you disagree with about his post? I’d sincerely like to see a counter to his numbers and assertions.

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

Here’s another overly simplified stat for you.

[UNI88]

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

When I tell you I’m asking sincerely it’s an honest statement.

And of course economics and supporting data is convoluted. I don’t think anyone here would argue with that.

EG: Obama inherited a horrible economy which typically takes years if not decades to recover from. But he also bought low so his numbers shouldn’t have anywhere to go but up.

Trump inherited a healthier economy and maintained it. Good job. Except…your assertion of keeping it going for a long time seems odd. His economy basically lasted for 3 years until Covid struck which obviously skewed everything.

If not for covid, who knows? Maybe it would have continued to flourish but history suggests the boom and bust cycle would have been equally if not more likely (which I think you agree with.)

And yes, many different factors are on the table one of which is from whose perspective we are viewing it from. Low taxes and deregulation make it wonderful for the investor class…even during down-turns. But they also saddle us with debt which any true fiscal conservative should find problematic.

Here’s another overly simplified stat for you.

You asked me so that you could tell me how you thought I was wrong or post shallow tweets with fluff that add nothing to the conversation.

Based on history, Obama's recovery was more likely than trump helping maintain it for 3 more years. Maybe trump was able to help maintain it because Obama's recovery was so tepid that it didn't get too heated. I guess that could be a plus in Obama's favor, he did such a shitty job getting the economy going that the recovery lasted longer under the next POTUS.

[kalm]

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

When I tell you I’m asking sincerely it’s an honest statement.

And of course economics and supporting data is convoluted. I don’t think anyone here would argue with that.

EG: Obama inherited a horrible economy which typically takes years if not decades to recover from. But he also bought low so his numbers shouldn’t have anywhere to go but up.

Trump inherited a healthier economy and maintained it. Good job. Except…your assertion of keeping it going for a long time seems odd. His economy basically lasted for 3 years until Covid struck which obviously skewed everything.

If not for covid, who knows? Maybe it would have continued to flourish but history suggests the boom and bust cycle would have been equally if not more likely (which I think you agree with.)

And yes, many different factors are on the table one of which is from whose perspective we are viewing it from. Low taxes and deregulation make it wonderful for the investor class…even during down-turns. But they also saddle us with debt which any true fiscal conservative should find problematic.

Here’s another overly simplified stat for you.

You asked me so that you could tell me how you thought I was wrong or post shallow tweets with fluff that add nothing to the conversation.

Based on history, Obama's recovery was more likely than trump helping maintain it for 3 more years. Maybe trump was able to help maintain it because Obama's recovery was so tepid that it didn't get too heated. I guess that could be a plus in Obama's favor, he did such a shitty job getting the economy going that the recovery lasted longer under the next POTUS.

I suppose I deserve your doubt but my question was sincere. Economics fascinates me and this board has helped me question my reasoning.

I agree with your points here.

[houndawg]

No, you don't so please stop blowing smoke up my azz. AZ, I and others have countered his numbers and assertions and he doesn't understand economics or social science statistical analysis well enough to know that his certainty that he's correct is wrong and his conclusions the result of bias.

Social sciences like economics do not allow for completely controlled experiments where you can isolate variables and be certain of impacts and results. You have to attempt to account for other variables/indicators. GDP is but one indicator. The market, wages, poverty rates, unemployment, etc. should also be considered.

As AZ argued you also can't look at a 10-12 year window and be sure of your conclusions. A social science researcher with a functioning brainstem looks at a longer period of time to look for trends. If you do that you will see that Obama's recovery was tepid compared to past recoveries and the gains/improvements were more consistent under trump and he kept it going for a long time.

Here’s another overly simplified stat for you.

You think they'd learn - the last two times they pulled this bullshit it blew up in their faces. I think one of them cost Speaker Gingrich his job

[BDKJMU]

Here’s another overly simplified stat for you.

You think they'd learn - the last two times they pulled this bullshit it blew up in their faces. I think one of them cost Speaker Gingrich his job

Wrong. It wasn‘t a debt ceiling crisis when Gingrich was Speaker (Jan 95-Jan 99‘). There was a Mexican standoff between a conk Congress and the donks & Clinton over the FY 1996 budget. This led to 2 relatively short govt so called ‘shutdowns‘ (except the govt didn‘t really shutdown, it never does) in Nov 1995 (5 days) and Jan 1996 (21 days). This was followed in Nov 1996 by the first re-election of a conk majority since 1928, and also the re-election of Clinton. Then you had the balanced budget deal of 1997 and the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s. While Gingrich stepped down from Speaker in Jan 1999 due to other factors, the donks wouldn‘t take Congress until the 2006 elections, after 12 years of conk rule.

History lesson over.

[JohnStOnge]

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

Your rudimentary knowledge of economics is on par with my rudimentary knowledge of scientific field research. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it and then you look for and present data that supports your OPINION.

I don't do that at all. I look at the data for patterns just like I look at environmental data while doing my job. The idea is that you look at the data and ask yourself if you would see anything to suggest a change if you didn't already have some idea as to why there might have been a change. And when you look at numbers like GDP, job creation, unemployment rate, etc., you just don't see that kind of evidence of a change around the time Trump took office. The one pattern I have seen change is in variability of quarterly GDP growth.

In that regard, below is a graph showing another example. It's the annual percent growth in the S&P 500 during the Obama and Trump years (2009 - 2020). Again: No objective person would look at those data and say there was something that happened between 2016 and 2017 to change the up and down variation in the growth. The highest annual growth rate was in 2013, when Obama was President. The only loss in value was in 2018, during the Trump administration. This thing where people believe Trump changed the basic nature of what the stock market was doing is another Trumpist myth.

[UNI88]

Your rudimentary knowledge of economics is on par with my rudimentary knowledge of scientific field research. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it and then you look for and present data that supports your OPINION.

I don't do that at all. I look at the data for patterns just like I look at environmental data while doing my job. The idea is that you look at the data and ask yourself if you would see anything to suggest a change if you didn't already have some idea as to why there might have been a change. And when you look at numbers like GDP, job creation, unemployment rate, etc., you just don't see that kind of evidence of a change around the time Trump took office. The one pattern I have seen change is in variability of quarterly GDP growth.

In that regard, below is a graph showing another example. It's the annual percent growth in the S&P 500 during the Obama and Trump years (2009 - 2020). Again: No objective person would look at those data and say there was something that happened between 2016 and 2017 to change the up and down variation in the growth. The highest annual growth rate was in 2013, when Obama was President. The only loss in value was in 2018, during the Trump administration. This thing where people believe Trump changed the basic nature of what the stock market was doing is another Trumpist myth.

1) You posted an unsourced screenshot of a chart. Why should I believe that? It's less credible than SG's links to the Conservative Pillow Fort which at least reference their sources. If you want me to take your arguments (and your scientific credentials) seriously then back your sh!t up with links to the study or sources of the data.

2) You continue to focus on a 12 year window because it suits your purpose/bias. You ignore what we can learn from the previous 100 years because it might not jive with your OPINION.

3) You focus on the economic indicators that support your OPINION.

Your hatred for trump is clouding your judgement just like others' adulation for trump clouds their judgement.

[houndawg]

I don't do that at all. I look at the data for patterns just like I look at environmental data while doing my job. The idea is that you look at the data and ask yourself if you would see anything to suggest a change if you didn't already have some idea as to why there might have been a change. And when you look at numbers like GDP, job creation, unemployment rate, etc., you just don't see that kind of evidence of a change around the time Trump took office. The one pattern I have seen change is in variability of quarterly GDP growth.

In that regard, below is a graph showing another example. It's the annual percent growth in the S&P 500 during the Obama and Trump years (2009 - 2020). Again: No objective person would look at those data and say there was something that happened between 2016 and 2017 to change the up and down variation in the growth. The highest annual growth rate was in 2013, when Obama was President. The only loss in value was in 2018, during the Trump administration. This thing where people believe Trump changed the basic nature of what the stock market was doing is another Trumpist myth.

1) You posted an unsourced screenshot of a chart. Why should I believe that? It's less credible than SG's links to the Conservative Pillow Fort which at least reference their sources. If you want me to take your arguments (and your scientific credentials) seriously then back your sh!t up with links to the study or sources of the data.

2) You continue to focus on a 12 year window because it suits your purpose/bias. You ignore what we can learn from the previous 100 years because it might not jive with your OPINION.

3) You focus on the economic indicators that support your OPINION.

Your hatred for trump is clouding your judgement just like others' adulation for trump clouds their judgement.

You know this because you looked up 100 years of S&P performance?

[BDKJMU]

IF it is Trump vs Biden
New Harvard Harris poll has Trump +7 over Brandon..
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... chup-poll/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -7383.html
Yeah, I know national polls don’t matter. All that does is basically 4 to 7 states…

[kalm]

1) You posted an unsourced screenshot of a chart. Why should I believe that? It's less credible than SG's links to the Conservative Pillow Fort which at least reference their sources. If you want me to take your arguments (and your scientific credentials) seriously then back your sh!t up with links to the study or sources of the data.

2) You continue to focus on a 12 year window because it suits your purpose/bias. You ignore what we can learn from the previous 100 years because it might not jive with your OPINION.

3) You focus on the economic indicators that support your OPINION.

Your hatred for trump is clouding your judgement just like others' adulation for trump clouds their judgement.

You know this because you looked up 100 years of S&P performance?

Not to mention…Gannonfan will not be pleased with the histrionics here. Not one bit!

[houndawg]

You know this because you looked up 100 years of S&P performance?

Not to mention…Gannonfan will not be pleased with the histrionics here. Not one bit!

He will offer stern admonition.

[GannonFan]

Not to mention…Gannonfan will not be pleased with the histrionics here. Not one bit!

He will offer stern admonition.

Eh, I tried reading through this once I saw my name mentioned. Anytime you get houndy and JSO teaming up in a thread it gets interminably boring and often way too many things to correct to even bother with. For folks who don't like Trump, they sure do seem to like his playbook of overwhelming people with crap and they follow it pretty well.

[houndawg]

IF it is Trump vs Biden
New Harvard Harris poll has Trump +7 over Brandon..
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... chup-poll/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -7383.html
Yeah, I know national polls don’t matter. All that does is basically 4 to 7 states…

Only way that can happen is if Trump breaks pro-choice.

[houndawg]

He will offer stern admonition.

Eh, I tried reading through this once I saw my name mentioned. Anytime you get houndy and JSO teaming up in a thread it gets interminably boring and often way too many things to correct to even bother with. For folks who don't like Trump, they sure do seem to like his playbook of overwhelming people with crap and they follow it pretty well.

we have a secret handshake too

[kalm]

He will offer stern admonition.

Eh, I tried reading through this once I saw my name mentioned. Anytime you get houndy and JSO teaming up in a thread it gets interminably boring and often way too many things to correct to even bother with. For folks who don't like Trump, they sure do seem to like his playbook of overwhelming people with crap and they follow it pretty well.

My work his done here.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't do that at all. I look at the data for patterns just like I look at environmental data while doing my job. The idea is that you look at the data and ask yourself if you would see anything to suggest a change if you didn't already have some idea as to why there might have been a change. And when you look at numbers like GDP, job creation, unemployment rate, etc., you just don't see that kind of evidence of a change around the time Trump took office. The one pattern I have seen change is in variability of quarterly GDP growth.

In that regard, below is a graph showing another example. It's the annual percent growth in the S&P 500 during the Obama and Trump years (2009 - 2020). Again: No objective person would look at those data and say there was something that happened between 2016 and 2017 to change the up and down variation in the growth. The highest annual growth rate was in 2013, when Obama was President. The only loss in value was in 2018, during the Trump administration. This thing where people believe Trump changed the basic nature of what the stock market was doing is another Trumpist myth.

1) You posted an unsourced screenshot of a chart. Why should I believe that? It's less credible than SG's links to the Conservative Pillow Fort which at least reference their sources. If you want me to take your arguments (and your scientific credentials) seriously then back your sh!t up with links to the study or sources of the data.

2) You continue to focus on a 12 year window because it suits your purpose/bias. You ignore what we can learn from the previous 100 years because it might not jive with your OPINION.

3) You focus on the economic indicators that support your OPINION.

Your hatred for trump is clouding your judgement just like others' adulation for trump clouds their judgement.

I don't even remember which page I took the data from but anyone can Google the historical returns of the S&P 500. Here is one page that shows the same thing I graphed: https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns

The 12 year window I picked was simply because it was Obama followed by Trump. The question is whether there appears to be an indication of whether there was a change in the pattern associated with the change in Presidency. I am not seeing how what happened during the previous 100 years prior to either Presidency impacts that question.

What indicators do you suggest? I think things like GDP, job creation, stock market growth, unemployment rate, are things people ordinarily look at. What do you suggest I look at that I haven't looked at?

[BDKJMU]

New Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll out today. Trump leads in every swing state.


https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/01/ ... e-n2169455

[houndawg]

New Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll out today. Trump leads in every swing state.


https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/01/ ... e-n2169455

Mushroomdick 24!

[kalm]

Biden likely needs at least a 5 point spread to win the EC. But his national numbers are improving. And indies are typically the deciders.

Among independents in the five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup, Biden receives 35 percent support, Trump receives 27 percent support, Kennedy receives 24 percent support, West receives 5 percent support, and Stein receives 5 percent support

.

As signs point to the 2024 presidential election being a repeat of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Biden holds a lead over Trump 50 - 44 percent among registered voters in a hypothetical general election matchup, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today.

In Quinnipiac University's December 20, 2023 poll, the same hypothetical 2024 general election matchup was 'too close to call' as President Biden received 47 percent support and former President Trump received 46 percent support.

In today's poll, Democrats (96 - 2 percent) and independents (52 - 40 percent) support Biden, while Republicans (91 - 7 percent) support Trump.

The gender gap is widening.

Women 58 - 36 percent support Biden, up from December when it was 53 - 41 percent.

Men 53 - 42 percent support Trump, largely unchanged from December when it was 51 - 41 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889

[BDKJMU]

Gallup: Support for Biden Re-Election Worst of Any President in 32 Years, Most Voters Want Him Gone
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609602/vot ... -term.aspx

[houndawg]

Gallup: Support for Biden Re-Election Worst of Any President in 32 Years, Most Voters Want Him Gone
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609602/vot ... -term.aspx

Everybody wants him gone - they just don't think its worth replacing him with with a COMSYMP.