• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • NFL Prediction Prices
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
      • Politics
        • Back
        • Politics
        • Politics Home
        • Presidential Election Odds
        • Midterm Election Odds
        • House Midterm Odds
        • Senate Midterm Odds
        • Texas Midterm Odds
        • Michigan Midterm Odds
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Kalshi Referral Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • Polymarket Referral Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • Betr Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
      • Gemini Predictions Promo Code
    • NFL Week 7
      NFL Week 7
      • NFL Odds
      • NFL Picks
      • NFL Prediction Markets
      • NFL Betting Sites
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | Politics

    MAGA.........

    «First Previous 1234 Next Last»
    wallstreetcappers
    SarasotaSlim
    Raiders22
    sundance
    Crusher13
    ...
    Participants:
    Search
    Views: 1918
    Posts: 88
    «First Previous 1234 Next Last»
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 21, 2017 - 11:20 AM ET #51

    Quote Originally Posted by dimeplayer68:



    Here is your   IT


    https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/investing/mark-cuban-stocks-tank-donald-trump/index.html

    https://fortune.com/2016/09/07/mark-cuban-criticizes-trump/

    Mark Cuban: "If the polls look like there’s a decent chance that Donald could win, I’ll put a huge hedge on that’s over 100% of my equity positions… that protects me just in case he wins.”

    Well lookie lookie someone answers.

    But what does that mean, Mark Cuban spouts off about Trump, we know he does not like Trump and I would wager pretty large he did not hedge 100% of his holdings. See Mark likes being in the limelight and he does not like Trump, so what does it cost him to throw some crap prediction onto the wall? Nothing! Mark does not work for the markets, he is not a licensed broker or have any connection to an exchange. So what Mark thinks is about as valid as what I think...speculation is all and biased speculation at that.

    Mark is right though, Trump is a major putz and I agree with him on that. 
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by dimeplayer68:



    Here is your   IT


    https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/investing/mark-cuban-stocks-tank-donald-trump/index.html

    https://fortune.com/2016/09/07/mark-cuban-criticizes-trump/

    Mark Cuban: "If the polls look like there’s a decent chance that Donald could win, I’ll put a huge hedge on that’s over 100% of my equity positions… that protects me just in case he wins.”

    Well lookie lookie someone answers.

    But what does that mean, Mark Cuban spouts off about Trump, we know he does not like Trump and I would wager pretty large he did not hedge 100% of his holdings. See Mark likes being in the limelight and he does not like Trump, so what does it cost him to throw some crap prediction onto the wall? Nothing! Mark does not work for the markets, he is not a licensed broker or have any connection to an exchange. So what Mark thinks is about as valid as what I think...speculation is all and biased speculation at that.

    Mark is right though, Trump is a major putz and I agree with him on that. 
     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 2:29 AM ET #52

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    SS,

    You really said nothing and did not answer the question.

    Intangibles are extremely subjective and mean nothing especially in the long term when it comes to policy. Perception of the business community to boost profits is not making America great, it is giving more freebies and profits to large corps who are already maximizing profits. Is this your idea of making America great?

    What regulatory reform has Trump actually completed and how is the manufacturing sector better because of policies and reform that TRUMP has accomplished?

    Please do more than twitter blabbering and generalizing. You created the thread with the absurd claims, please back them up with more than intangible, unquantifiable wandering.


    WSC, you asked me "What specifically related only to Trump and his actions can you attribute to what you claim?"

    ..and I told you........... President Trumps intangible leadership has produced tangible results...he is creating a culture and atmosphere that is conducive specifically to winning.

    Now. if you don't want to believe that ..don't.  Candidate Trump shocked the world when he beat Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States..Many people did not want to except it and like yourself still don't..but it is what it is..

    President Trumps leadership instills confidence in Americans ..that's why small business owner confidence has surged under President Trump ..not for any specific policy changes from the President ,,but because they feel great optimism,, that their businesses will improve in the near future ..call it a sudden awakening of the business animal spirits. ( emotional and intangible dynamics)

    They can see President Trump begin to lift at least some of the $1.9 trillion burden regulation imposes on the economy every year..

    Now ,you have been asking a lot of questions from people in this thread ..so I know you are acking for someone to ask you why the  Debt to GDP ratio has decreased by more than 1%,,if not for Trump being president..

    So, I ask you why ? .... .

    ...and please save us your snarky comments,that you have been posting to members in this thread and calling President Trump every despicable name you can think of.....just post the answer to the question..we know you can do it.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    SS,

    You really said nothing and did not answer the question.

    Intangibles are extremely subjective and mean nothing especially in the long term when it comes to policy. Perception of the business community to boost profits is not making America great, it is giving more freebies and profits to large corps who are already maximizing profits. Is this your idea of making America great?

    What regulatory reform has Trump actually completed and how is the manufacturing sector better because of policies and reform that TRUMP has accomplished?

    Please do more than twitter blabbering and generalizing. You created the thread with the absurd claims, please back them up with more than intangible, unquantifiable wandering.


    WSC, you asked me "What specifically related only to Trump and his actions can you attribute to what you claim?"

    ..and I told you........... President Trumps intangible leadership has produced tangible results...he is creating a culture and atmosphere that is conducive specifically to winning.

    Now. if you don't want to believe that ..don't.  Candidate Trump shocked the world when he beat Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States..Many people did not want to except it and like yourself still don't..but it is what it is..

    President Trumps leadership instills confidence in Americans ..that's why small business owner confidence has surged under President Trump ..not for any specific policy changes from the President ,,but because they feel great optimism,, that their businesses will improve in the near future ..call it a sudden awakening of the business animal spirits. ( emotional and intangible dynamics)

    They can see President Trump begin to lift at least some of the $1.9 trillion burden regulation imposes on the economy every year..

    Now ,you have been asking a lot of questions from people in this thread ..so I know you are acking for someone to ask you why the  Debt to GDP ratio has decreased by more than 1%,,if not for Trump being president..

    So, I ask you why ? .... .

    ...and please save us your snarky comments,that you have been posting to members in this thread and calling President Trump every despicable name you can think of.....just post the answer to the question..we know you can do it.
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 8:28 AM ET #53

    Oh I can call the loser much worse names, believe me...those are nothing at all, but they are all earned and deserved.

    The problem SS is you are not saying anything specific...intangibles are garbage, they are subjective nonsense that cannot be proven. Alleged confidence, beginning to do something, feeling happier, those are not tangible, specific policies..those are subjective partisan soundbites which are useless crap.

    If someone said things like this during Obama's time you shot them down faster than I have and you wouldnt accept junk subjective carp comments and neither do I.

    What leadership does Trump have that "instills" anything? Please tell me what about his leadership actually does something for the country? I know you are clap happy about SCOTUS picks and I know you will go to your grave to protect your republican positions even when it comes at a disgusting cost, but that isnt the point.

    What leadership decisions has Trump made, what POLICY changes, what legislation, what actual ACTIONS has Trump done on his own that are TANGIBLE?

    Intangible feel good blah blah does not translate to tangible results, and the results you claim to credit him with are impossible. The only time results are turned around this fast are during times of MASSIVE systemic shock...times of immediate war, times of global financial collapse, times of extreme peril and then the immediate shocking actions either from those events or in response to those events can cause the results you are giving him credit for.

    The US and global economies turn slowly, very slowly...funds spent this year will not flow through the economy for a solid 12-18 months and will not be visible in economic activity or tax receipts for another 6-12 months past that, and those numbers are optimistic! What you are claiming is without merit and absurd.

    So try again please and spare me the intangible, feel good leadership lacking specifics nonsense.
    Reply
    Oh I can call the loser much worse names, believe me...those are nothing at all, but they are all earned and deserved.

    The problem SS is you are not saying anything specific...intangibles are garbage, they are subjective nonsense that cannot be proven. Alleged confidence, beginning to do something, feeling happier, those are not tangible, specific policies..those are subjective partisan soundbites which are useless crap.

    If someone said things like this during Obama's time you shot them down faster than I have and you wouldnt accept junk subjective carp comments and neither do I.

    What leadership does Trump have that "instills" anything? Please tell me what about his leadership actually does something for the country? I know you are clap happy about SCOTUS picks and I know you will go to your grave to protect your republican positions even when it comes at a disgusting cost, but that isnt the point.

    What leadership decisions has Trump made, what POLICY changes, what legislation, what actual ACTIONS has Trump done on his own that are TANGIBLE?

    Intangible feel good blah blah does not translate to tangible results, and the results you claim to credit him with are impossible. The only time results are turned around this fast are during times of MASSIVE systemic shock...times of immediate war, times of global financial collapse, times of extreme peril and then the immediate shocking actions either from those events or in response to those events can cause the results you are giving him credit for.

    The US and global economies turn slowly, very slowly...funds spent this year will not flow through the economy for a solid 12-18 months and will not be visible in economic activity or tax receipts for another 6-12 months past that, and those numbers are optimistic! What you are claiming is without merit and absurd.

    So try again please and spare me the intangible, feel good leadership lacking specifics nonsense.
     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 10:48 AM ET #54

    Absolutely some things turn on intangibles. Like the stock market, for example.  Businesses and other institutions that think a president will implement policies that help them will anticipate this and began to act.  If those policies don't materialize, the movement is short-lived. 
    By the lagging theory, which for sure is true, you have to ask what exactly did Obama do 6-12-18 months ago that caused one of the largest period drops in a good while?  That is the dicey part --- extrapolating what is lagging and what is anticipation.  
    It is also true that if things go bad the current president will get the blame; so, if things go well, he has to get some credit as well. It is just the nature of the job.
    This is the same with good times under say Clinton --- does Reagan get credit for a lagging effect?  Does Clinton get blame for lagging effect under Bush?  Does next Bush get blame for Obama situations.  You have to also ask if Obama gets credit for lagging effect at start of Trump term. 
    The other tricky part -- if you give good credit to this --- is that a new president (especially a different political party-affiliated one) has a tricky task.  He had to turn things around very, very quickly if he feels the previous guy's policies are gonna have a bad effect; he also has to decide whether to continue with previous policies if things seem to be going well.  But has to be very willing to take the blame if a bad lagging effect kicks in. 
    Another very crucial point in the current reduction that has to be looked at is the debt ceiling having not been raised. Once it is raised the debt will go right on up. 
    So it is way more complicated than just crediting someone that is currently in the office --- even though that is usually a great factor. 
    Reply
    Absolutely some things turn on intangibles. Like the stock market, for example.  Businesses and other institutions that think a president will implement policies that help them will anticipate this and began to act.  If those policies don't materialize, the movement is short-lived. 
    By the lagging theory, which for sure is true, you have to ask what exactly did Obama do 6-12-18 months ago that caused one of the largest period drops in a good while?  That is the dicey part --- extrapolating what is lagging and what is anticipation.  
    It is also true that if things go bad the current president will get the blame; so, if things go well, he has to get some credit as well. It is just the nature of the job.
    This is the same with good times under say Clinton --- does Reagan get credit for a lagging effect?  Does Clinton get blame for lagging effect under Bush?  Does next Bush get blame for Obama situations.  You have to also ask if Obama gets credit for lagging effect at start of Trump term. 
    The other tricky part -- if you give good credit to this --- is that a new president (especially a different political party-affiliated one) has a tricky task.  He had to turn things around very, very quickly if he feels the previous guy's policies are gonna have a bad effect; he also has to decide whether to continue with previous policies if things seem to be going well.  But has to be very willing to take the blame if a bad lagging effect kicks in. 
    Another very crucial point in the current reduction that has to be looked at is the debt ceiling having not been raised. Once it is raised the debt will go right on up. 
    So it is way more complicated than just crediting someone that is currently in the office --- even though that is usually a great factor. 
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 12:59 PM ET #55

    Raiders,

    The stock market is turning on expectation of corporate friendly tax benefit and freebies, that is not an intangible, that is for sure a solid expectation...but so far almost a year in it has not materialized but we will see. I am not in support of this as corps are very healthy and do not hire or give raises based on tax benefit or more cash in the bank, but that discussion has been had many times.

    The reason for the stagnation in the economy for the last almost ten years is due to the actions which mute growth, but protected corporations especially banks and financial firms. So at the cost of stunted, flatline growth we saved the banks and financial firms and quieted the implosion that Obama inherited. I do not agree with these decisions either but they are not Obama centric as central banks everywhere are doing this and Japan has done this for what like twenty years. 

    When these central banks decided to crush interest rates so banks and corps and governments can get cheap debt, this did not boost economic growth for the same reason any of this bogus tax changes will. Corps will use freebies to give themselves raises, to reduce their float and shore up their balance sheets, to maximize that free cash in the safest way possible. Corps are not going to hire and expand unless demand dictates and even NEGATIVE rates will not stimulate demand unless those rates and benefit are given to the buyer of goods and services, the end user. And in the case of the consumer, the trickle down theory has not panned as of yet...mortgage rates have benefitted and that has boosted the real estate market, but that is limited as to its impact and with tighter lending rules and banks being a little less moronic the multiplier effect of low rates has not caused heavy inflation like it did in 2005-2007. 

    Bush does get blame for what Obama inherited, there is no way around it..the drop started prior to the election and it is considered as I mentioned above, a systemic shock...it was one of the largest shocks we have experienced that I can recall. And the decisions made after by central banks are sucking out future growth because they are wrong in thinking low rates stimulates growth...all they needed to do was look at Japan and see that theory is moronic.

    The cycle time for policy change might actually be MORE than 18 months to 24 months, if you think about the time it takes to enact policy change, have that change impact whatever the target is, that activity to translate to a benefit, that benefit to be realized and monetized, then hopefully transferred down the line and realized, it might be more like three years to see the effects of whatever the crap Trump is getting credit for today with no cause.

    Feel good is fine, but feel good does not pay the bills, leadership which has not been defined (and does not exist) is a feel good experience unless it is turned into action and policy...and how has that happened yet?

    The stock market is not moving on feel good hope and intangibles...they are forecasting and baking in corporate freebies and this yield curve flattening is telling them that the good cheap times for debt will continue, and THAT is moving the market more than the big mouth is right now.
    Reply
    Raiders,

    The stock market is turning on expectation of corporate friendly tax benefit and freebies, that is not an intangible, that is for sure a solid expectation...but so far almost a year in it has not materialized but we will see. I am not in support of this as corps are very healthy and do not hire or give raises based on tax benefit or more cash in the bank, but that discussion has been had many times.

    The reason for the stagnation in the economy for the last almost ten years is due to the actions which mute growth, but protected corporations especially banks and financial firms. So at the cost of stunted, flatline growth we saved the banks and financial firms and quieted the implosion that Obama inherited. I do not agree with these decisions either but they are not Obama centric as central banks everywhere are doing this and Japan has done this for what like twenty years. 

    When these central banks decided to crush interest rates so banks and corps and governments can get cheap debt, this did not boost economic growth for the same reason any of this bogus tax changes will. Corps will use freebies to give themselves raises, to reduce their float and shore up their balance sheets, to maximize that free cash in the safest way possible. Corps are not going to hire and expand unless demand dictates and even NEGATIVE rates will not stimulate demand unless those rates and benefit are given to the buyer of goods and services, the end user. And in the case of the consumer, the trickle down theory has not panned as of yet...mortgage rates have benefitted and that has boosted the real estate market, but that is limited as to its impact and with tighter lending rules and banks being a little less moronic the multiplier effect of low rates has not caused heavy inflation like it did in 2005-2007. 

    Bush does get blame for what Obama inherited, there is no way around it..the drop started prior to the election and it is considered as I mentioned above, a systemic shock...it was one of the largest shocks we have experienced that I can recall. And the decisions made after by central banks are sucking out future growth because they are wrong in thinking low rates stimulates growth...all they needed to do was look at Japan and see that theory is moronic.

    The cycle time for policy change might actually be MORE than 18 months to 24 months, if you think about the time it takes to enact policy change, have that change impact whatever the target is, that activity to translate to a benefit, that benefit to be realized and monetized, then hopefully transferred down the line and realized, it might be more like three years to see the effects of whatever the crap Trump is getting credit for today with no cause.

    Feel good is fine, but feel good does not pay the bills, leadership which has not been defined (and does not exist) is a feel good experience unless it is turned into action and policy...and how has that happened yet?

    The stock market is not moving on feel good hope and intangibles...they are forecasting and baking in corporate freebies and this yield curve flattening is telling them that the good cheap times for debt will continue, and THAT is moving the market more than the big mouth is right now.
     
    sundance
    sundance
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2002
    Posts: 16806
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 1:00 PM ET #56

    The Obama genius told America that raising the debt ceiling does not increase our debt. Say what!
    Reply
    The Obama genius told America that raising the debt ceiling does not increase our debt. Say what!
     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 3:50 PM ET #57

    WSC,,look who has lost the ability to be specific now..

    I asked you why " the Debt to GDP ratio has decreased by more than 1%" and 90 % of your answer is to tear down what I feel is the answer....and again slam President Trump.

    The only reason you give for this decrease is because things move slow ..and it was some event or action that happened between May 2015 and the end of 2015...  well we know it wasn't the Clean Power Plan (state cap & trade)  President Obama enacted in 2015...or the Obama brokered nuclear peace agreement with Iran in of 2015,nor the negotiated Trans Pacific Partnership in October 2015...and it sure would not have been the Paris Climate Agreement announce in December of, 2015..

    One thing we know for sure it wasn't because of the 2,353 federal regulators issued during 2015 ...some major ,,that would impose an annual costs of $100 million or more...

    You want specifics,, but avoid being specific about what tangible actions happened 18 to 30 months ago that caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...

    Do you want to try again to answer the Q  ?
    Reply
    WSC,,look who has lost the ability to be specific now..

    I asked you why " the Debt to GDP ratio has decreased by more than 1%" and 90 % of your answer is to tear down what I feel is the answer....and again slam President Trump.

    The only reason you give for this decrease is because things move slow ..and it was some event or action that happened between May 2015 and the end of 2015...  well we know it wasn't the Clean Power Plan (state cap & trade)  President Obama enacted in 2015...or the Obama brokered nuclear peace agreement with Iran in of 2015,nor the negotiated Trans Pacific Partnership in October 2015...and it sure would not have been the Paris Climate Agreement announce in December of, 2015..

    One thing we know for sure it wasn't because of the 2,353 federal regulators issued during 2015 ...some major ,,that would impose an annual costs of $100 million or more...

    You want specifics,, but avoid being specific about what tangible actions happened 18 to 30 months ago that caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...

    Do you want to try again to answer the Q  ?
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 4:10 PM ET #58

    Ah I see...

    So you make a silly thread, get asked for specifics and pull your usual deflect and Obama blaming then get testy when I do not reply how you want?

    It goes both ways...not just the direction you want it how you want it. I am happy to answer the debt question but it is not as simple as you claim it to be.

    In order to answer the question since it is a financial and specific question I would likely have to pour over the financial statements of the government and see where the differences come through...the same way today I was looking at the Income Statement and Balance sheet on a stock I follow and I traced back to how their profit/loss changed and why it changed. It isnt just a two second credit the republican and blame the democrat game that you like to pull..

    BUT....all that reality and detail shared, the answer isnt all that complex. There are inflows and outflows, there are revenues and expenses...there are a variety of reasons but to answer simply the GDP either increased or the debt decreased. That seems obvious but in reality the GDP likely increased since the debt has not seemed to decrease since Clinton so it has to be that the GDP increased.

    Increasing the GDP is not something that comes from a quickie intangible feel good awesome leadership hocus pocus explanation...GDP that printed for the last quarter is likely between 2-4 years in development, generation and acquisition. Decisions made multiple years prior are what generate revenues now...same goes for corporations. Corps plan out 5-10 years with their spending and investing and forecasting. So what you see now was not built off 10 months of Trump being in office, that is impossible. There are likely a few drivers of GDP and one would be the housing industry, another would be transportation...as low oil prices for the last 18 months plus have driven profits for transport companies. I really would need to have the financials from quarter to quarter right next to each other and analyze what the difference is specifically, not just some hambone "Trump is loosening regulation" (which you have not given any details as to what that means). 

    Whatever Trump has done (I still have no idea outside some repub cheer words to what he HAS done) will not be realized for at LEAST another six months, more like another year to hit GDP and tax receipts.

    Go along to your other blog sites and verify what I am saying it is not liberal/democrat blah blah...it is legit business/economic cycle common information..
    Reply
    Ah I see...

    So you make a silly thread, get asked for specifics and pull your usual deflect and Obama blaming then get testy when I do not reply how you want?

    It goes both ways...not just the direction you want it how you want it. I am happy to answer the debt question but it is not as simple as you claim it to be.

    In order to answer the question since it is a financial and specific question I would likely have to pour over the financial statements of the government and see where the differences come through...the same way today I was looking at the Income Statement and Balance sheet on a stock I follow and I traced back to how their profit/loss changed and why it changed. It isnt just a two second credit the republican and blame the democrat game that you like to pull..

    BUT....all that reality and detail shared, the answer isnt all that complex. There are inflows and outflows, there are revenues and expenses...there are a variety of reasons but to answer simply the GDP either increased or the debt decreased. That seems obvious but in reality the GDP likely increased since the debt has not seemed to decrease since Clinton so it has to be that the GDP increased.

    Increasing the GDP is not something that comes from a quickie intangible feel good awesome leadership hocus pocus explanation...GDP that printed for the last quarter is likely between 2-4 years in development, generation and acquisition. Decisions made multiple years prior are what generate revenues now...same goes for corporations. Corps plan out 5-10 years with their spending and investing and forecasting. So what you see now was not built off 10 months of Trump being in office, that is impossible. There are likely a few drivers of GDP and one would be the housing industry, another would be transportation...as low oil prices for the last 18 months plus have driven profits for transport companies. I really would need to have the financials from quarter to quarter right next to each other and analyze what the difference is specifically, not just some hambone "Trump is loosening regulation" (which you have not given any details as to what that means). 

    Whatever Trump has done (I still have no idea outside some repub cheer words to what he HAS done) will not be realized for at LEAST another six months, more like another year to hit GDP and tax receipts.

    Go along to your other blog sites and verify what I am saying it is not liberal/democrat blah blah...it is legit business/economic cycle common information..
     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 4:16 PM ET #59

    Absolutely it is an intangible. It is anticipatory.  Nothing policy-wise has been done at that point. There is in fact nothing tangible at that point.  It is the anticipation of business-friendly and investor-friendly policies, hopefully, being implemented.  If they don't --- watch what happens. 
    Yes. It is more dynamic than simple cause and effect.  A lot more goes into it. Obviously it frees up more capital to invest and do research with, etc.  But for sure the opposite has been shown to be true when taxes are raised.  So the tricky part is where is the delineation?  
    Again, the lagging kicks in.  From Reagan thru to Clinton. Then from Clinton thru Bush to Obama.  There is no doubt which policies are more business-friendly and investor-friendly.  And therefore, much better for the economy.  But then you have the conservative and democratic polarization on what to do about the non-economic issues.  Then the money considerations.  Then policies change again. Parties change again. Etc. 
    Absolutely the cycle time can be more than many months. It can be many years.  That's my point about why all of a sudden Clinton looks good when he inherits Reagan's economic policicy effects.  But then he has to do with the neglected non-economic issues.  Then Clinton's lagging issues comes into Bush's term.  Etc. It is so hard to balance the economic issues and the other issues.  So there is a constant state of flux in parties and policies. It is hard to isolate direct cause and effect that way. 
    Hard to argue against Ireland and England with that logic.  But for sure you may sacrifice in other areas. 
    And there is no question that lower rates bring in more capital. It is simply economics. But it goes to the heart of the issue. Are you neglecting other issues that might be needed to be tended to?  Then a switch kicks it back and forth again. 
    Then you have to consider what happens when say Obama gets in office.  Or if Hillary had been elected. The opposite happens. As a business it is not good.  Hard to find a level ground.  But again it is always about priorities. 

    Reply
    Absolutely it is an intangible. It is anticipatory.  Nothing policy-wise has been done at that point. There is in fact nothing tangible at that point.  It is the anticipation of business-friendly and investor-friendly policies, hopefully, being implemented.  If they don't --- watch what happens. 
    Yes. It is more dynamic than simple cause and effect.  A lot more goes into it. Obviously it frees up more capital to invest and do research with, etc.  But for sure the opposite has been shown to be true when taxes are raised.  So the tricky part is where is the delineation?  
    Again, the lagging kicks in.  From Reagan thru to Clinton. Then from Clinton thru Bush to Obama.  There is no doubt which policies are more business-friendly and investor-friendly.  And therefore, much better for the economy.  But then you have the conservative and democratic polarization on what to do about the non-economic issues.  Then the money considerations.  Then policies change again. Parties change again. Etc. 
    Absolutely the cycle time can be more than many months. It can be many years.  That's my point about why all of a sudden Clinton looks good when he inherits Reagan's economic policicy effects.  But then he has to do with the neglected non-economic issues.  Then Clinton's lagging issues comes into Bush's term.  Etc. It is so hard to balance the economic issues and the other issues.  So there is a constant state of flux in parties and policies. It is hard to isolate direct cause and effect that way. 
    Hard to argue against Ireland and England with that logic.  But for sure you may sacrifice in other areas. 
    And there is no question that lower rates bring in more capital. It is simply economics. But it goes to the heart of the issue. Are you neglecting other issues that might be needed to be tended to?  Then a switch kicks it back and forth again. 
    Then you have to consider what happens when say Obama gets in office.  Or if Hillary had been elected. The opposite happens. As a business it is not good.  Hard to find a level ground.  But again it is always about priorities. 

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 4:31 PM ET #60

    When you decide to cut back on spending this is what you get:


    No President in more than 50 year years has decreased the Debt to GDP ratio in his first year in office by more than 1%.  The last President to do so was Nixon in 1969.  Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush decreased the Debt to GDP ratio in their first years in office but by less than 1%.  President Obama increased the Debt to GDP ratio his first year in office by 15% and by 37% over his eight years in office.



    Reply
    When you decide to cut back on spending this is what you get:


    No President in more than 50 year years has decreased the Debt to GDP ratio in his first year in office by more than 1%.  The last President to do so was Nixon in 1969.  Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush decreased the Debt to GDP ratio in their first years in office but by less than 1%.  President Obama increased the Debt to GDP ratio his first year in office by 15% and by 37% over his eight years in office.



     
    sundance
    sundance
    MVP
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2002
    Posts: 16806
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 4:42 PM ET #61

    Sounds/looks like we are winning 'big' time!
    Reply
    Sounds/looks like we are winning 'big' time!
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 5:42 PM ET #62

    That Repub only first year, or any president first year GDP stat is a joke, it is factually impossible for any president to move the needle like that, it just cannot happen.

    Barring a catastrophe (like Obama stepped into) the needle takes a LONG TIME to move, just the sheer numbers especially without any legit policy change or legislation. 

    Intangibles do not move GDP 1% in 10 months, especially with the total lack of inflation we have now. The ONLY thing I can imagine that MIGHT slide the needle is how much oil has gone up and the backdrop as to revenues being massively depressed from energy companies and the offloading that many energy companies did over the last 18 months prior...many companies reorganized or went under, many dumped the closet into the abyss (as they love to do) and that might have artificially depressed GDP, then once those effects pass off the ledger and energy has rebounded, that MIGHT move GDP some, that is the only big time mover relative to the previous 18 months...and that really is fake when you think about it. Energy companies purged their skeletons and cleaned off their books (like how the banks did into the 2007-2009 mess) and so when those drop off what goes forward looks REALLY good.

    Without really having a few years of detailed government GDP stats, it is impossible to determine with high certainty what changed.

    One other possible thought is the debt number dropped as older debt rolls off and cheaper debt rolls on as our rates continue to be depressed.
    Reply
    That Repub only first year, or any president first year GDP stat is a joke, it is factually impossible for any president to move the needle like that, it just cannot happen.

    Barring a catastrophe (like Obama stepped into) the needle takes a LONG TIME to move, just the sheer numbers especially without any legit policy change or legislation. 

    Intangibles do not move GDP 1% in 10 months, especially with the total lack of inflation we have now. The ONLY thing I can imagine that MIGHT slide the needle is how much oil has gone up and the backdrop as to revenues being massively depressed from energy companies and the offloading that many energy companies did over the last 18 months prior...many companies reorganized or went under, many dumped the closet into the abyss (as they love to do) and that might have artificially depressed GDP, then once those effects pass off the ledger and energy has rebounded, that MIGHT move GDP some, that is the only big time mover relative to the previous 18 months...and that really is fake when you think about it. Energy companies purged their skeletons and cleaned off their books (like how the banks did into the 2007-2009 mess) and so when those drop off what goes forward looks REALLY good.

    Without really having a few years of detailed government GDP stats, it is impossible to determine with high certainty what changed.

    One other possible thought is the debt number dropped as older debt rolls off and cheaper debt rolls on as our rates continue to be depressed.
     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 6:05 PM ET #63

    Of course it is not impossible.  That is the point the article makes. It is empirical in the numbers.  It is just the more conservative ones cut spending; the more liberal increase spending. These things on a macro scale will for sure show up sooner. If you cut spending, that is reflected pretty much daily. The GDP obviously is updated quarterly. So, sure there is some lag. But extrapolated data confirms what cutting spending does. 
    The next question is what about the debt ceiling?
    Trust me when I say we don't think the stat is a joke.  A lot of our studies and and policies consider this stat very strongly. Now cause and effect can be argued for sure. 
    Intangibles moved the stock market; tangibles moved the debt to GDP ratio. Big difference. 
    It doesn't appear to most of us the energy sector had that much to do with it at this point. That is a factored-in effect.  It really has to do more with spending.  
    Not sure at this point if Trump or Obama inherited more of a 'catastrophe'.  It is not like Bush caused the 'catastrophe'. But folks want to lay the blame there.  It is not like Obama caused this 'catastrophe' either.  But like I say he was in office, so we give him the blame.  Just like people will (if they are honest) give Trump this credit. Just too hard to serve it really. Unless it is blind dislike. 
    A few years is not needed in most cases.  It is known what causes these things.  What is needed to be examined more is the counter-balance policies. 
    For sure, some is old debt dropping off. The difference is Obama was renewing and adding to it; Trump is not adding to it or renewing it, at least so far.  For this he has to be given credit. 
    Reply
    Of course it is not impossible.  That is the point the article makes. It is empirical in the numbers.  It is just the more conservative ones cut spending; the more liberal increase spending. These things on a macro scale will for sure show up sooner. If you cut spending, that is reflected pretty much daily. The GDP obviously is updated quarterly. So, sure there is some lag. But extrapolated data confirms what cutting spending does. 
    The next question is what about the debt ceiling?
    Trust me when I say we don't think the stat is a joke.  A lot of our studies and and policies consider this stat very strongly. Now cause and effect can be argued for sure. 
    Intangibles moved the stock market; tangibles moved the debt to GDP ratio. Big difference. 
    It doesn't appear to most of us the energy sector had that much to do with it at this point. That is a factored-in effect.  It really has to do more with spending.  
    Not sure at this point if Trump or Obama inherited more of a 'catastrophe'.  It is not like Bush caused the 'catastrophe'. But folks want to lay the blame there.  It is not like Obama caused this 'catastrophe' either.  But like I say he was in office, so we give him the blame.  Just like people will (if they are honest) give Trump this credit. Just too hard to serve it really. Unless it is blind dislike. 
    A few years is not needed in most cases.  It is known what causes these things.  What is needed to be examined more is the counter-balance policies. 
    For sure, some is old debt dropping off. The difference is Obama was renewing and adding to it; Trump is not adding to it or renewing it, at least so far.  For this he has to be given credit. 
     
    Crusher13
    Crusher13
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2009
    Posts: 8071
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 6:16 PM ET #64

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    That Repub only first year, or any president first year GDP stat is a joke, it is factually impossible for any president to move the needle like that, it just cannot happen.

    Barring a catastrophe (like Obama stepped into) the needle takes a LONG TIME to move, just the sheer numbers especially without any legit policy change or legislation. 

    Intangibles do not move GDP 1% in 10 months, especially with the total lack of inflation we have now. 



    Your POSTS in here are priceless.......


    We have a NEW   POTUS, whom despite MANY warts and  moments....."breathes fresh OPTIMISM" to our AND the  world's economies.....


    He seems to FULLY understand "stability"..


    Really, ...how Do YOU specifically "feel" how other world leaders RESPOND to DJT compared to BOH's leadership???


    Now, EVERYBODY is winning.....I'm getting tired already..


    VENEZUELA's next..after we assist Puerto Ricans....
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

    That Repub only first year, or any president first year GDP stat is a joke, it is factually impossible for any president to move the needle like that, it just cannot happen.

    Barring a catastrophe (like Obama stepped into) the needle takes a LONG TIME to move, just the sheer numbers especially without any legit policy change or legislation. 

    Intangibles do not move GDP 1% in 10 months, especially with the total lack of inflation we have now. 



    Your POSTS in here are priceless.......


    We have a NEW   POTUS, whom despite MANY warts and  moments....."breathes fresh OPTIMISM" to our AND the  world's economies.....


    He seems to FULLY understand "stability"..


    Really, ...how Do YOU specifically "feel" how other world leaders RESPOND to DJT compared to BOH's leadership???


    Now, EVERYBODY is winning.....I'm getting tired already..


    VENEZUELA's next..after we assist Puerto Ricans....
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 7:53 PM ET #65

    Raiders,

    Cutting spending per what you said does not increase GDP, as government spending effects how much in a percentage of GDP?

    Gross Domestic Product is not government spending only, in fact in total local, state and national the total contribution is 36%..

    So how much do you think would need to be cut and how long would that cut take to filter through to impact GDP? To have a 1% impact in a less than 10 month period of a potential 15% impact, the cut required would probably need to be in the 20% range, maybe higher. Federal spending I am giving half of the total, maybe that number is a tad high, maybe not. So to move the total needle 1% when the impact is less than 20%, that would mean a 5X move AND add that you are talking an ten or less month period.

    No way...

    Oh and are you saying that what Trump inherited and what Obama did are similar? And Bush did not personally cause the event, but it happened for sure on his watch. The bubble started in early 2002 or so and built up to explode....the event happened during his time, the shockwaves were felt for 5 years, and still we are dealing with it now...and maybe we will continue for another 20 years depending on how long we string along these low rates.
    Reply
    Raiders,

    Cutting spending per what you said does not increase GDP, as government spending effects how much in a percentage of GDP?

    Gross Domestic Product is not government spending only, in fact in total local, state and national the total contribution is 36%..

    So how much do you think would need to be cut and how long would that cut take to filter through to impact GDP? To have a 1% impact in a less than 10 month period of a potential 15% impact, the cut required would probably need to be in the 20% range, maybe higher. Federal spending I am giving half of the total, maybe that number is a tad high, maybe not. So to move the total needle 1% when the impact is less than 20%, that would mean a 5X move AND add that you are talking an ten or less month period.

    No way...

    Oh and are you saying that what Trump inherited and what Obama did are similar? And Bush did not personally cause the event, but it happened for sure on his watch. The bubble started in early 2002 or so and built up to explode....the event happened during his time, the shockwaves were felt for 5 years, and still we are dealing with it now...and maybe we will continue for another 20 years depending on how long we string along these low rates.
     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 9:15 PM ET #66

    WSC,

    What I'm gleaning from your economic Mumbo Jumbo and shot gun answer is you do not have a specific answer to what tangible action caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...you just know it has nothing to do with President Trump.

    Well ,maybe we should revisit this thread after the next quarter or six months down the road ..or better yet after 30 months into his presidency like you claim it takes to affect change..that would make it the around the second quarter of 2019....coming near the end of his first term....
    Reply
    WSC,

    What I'm gleaning from your economic Mumbo Jumbo and shot gun answer is you do not have a specific answer to what tangible action caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...you just know it has nothing to do with President Trump.

    Well ,maybe we should revisit this thread after the next quarter or six months down the road ..or better yet after 30 months into his presidency like you claim it takes to affect change..that would make it the around the second quarter of 2019....coming near the end of his first term....
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 9:49 PM ET #67

    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:

    WSC,

    What I'm gleaning from your economic Mumbo Jumbo and shot gun answer is you do not have a specific answer to what tangible action caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...you just know it has nothing to do with President Trump.

    Well ,maybe we should revisit this thread after the next quarter or six months down the road ..or better yet after 30 months into his presidency like you claim it takes to affect change..that would make it the around the second quarter of 2019....coming near the end of his first term....

    Ahhh cute, you cannot even come at me in a sharp way. I did not say any of what you suggest. I DID say that in order to answer the question with exactness I would need to see several, more like 8 or more GDP reports and compare the categories to see what the reasoning was. I then said it was my opinion based on observation that what has changed is the price of oil and that energy companies last year dumped their closet and it DID have an impact on GDP, in fact the energy sector was one if not the worst performing groups last year in the market, they reported lower earnings pretty much across the board...so with those skeletons out the potential for some improved earnings for sure was there and with the rise in the price of oil, it for sure had an impact on GDP and that the housing sector has been stronger, that it also had an impact...and that as older 10 and 30 yr debt rolls off and is refinanced at current rates, that has an impact on the debt and debt costs we have as a country.

    See how the way I phrase things is in detail and uses some sense of intelligence while you can barely make a few sentences in rebuttal?

    I think you are better suited for old guy cut and paste work, reading blogs and summarizing what other say. I dont see much in the way of independent, well executed detail from you, just partisan bickering and buzz words from twitter. Hey you are a chip off the old block!

    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:

    WSC,

    What I'm gleaning from your economic Mumbo Jumbo and shot gun answer is you do not have a specific answer to what tangible action caused the debt to GDP ratio to decrease by more than 1%...you just know it has nothing to do with President Trump.

    Well ,maybe we should revisit this thread after the next quarter or six months down the road ..or better yet after 30 months into his presidency like you claim it takes to affect change..that would make it the around the second quarter of 2019....coming near the end of his first term....

    Ahhh cute, you cannot even come at me in a sharp way. I did not say any of what you suggest. I DID say that in order to answer the question with exactness I would need to see several, more like 8 or more GDP reports and compare the categories to see what the reasoning was. I then said it was my opinion based on observation that what has changed is the price of oil and that energy companies last year dumped their closet and it DID have an impact on GDP, in fact the energy sector was one if not the worst performing groups last year in the market, they reported lower earnings pretty much across the board...so with those skeletons out the potential for some improved earnings for sure was there and with the rise in the price of oil, it for sure had an impact on GDP and that the housing sector has been stronger, that it also had an impact...and that as older 10 and 30 yr debt rolls off and is refinanced at current rates, that has an impact on the debt and debt costs we have as a country.

    See how the way I phrase things is in detail and uses some sense of intelligence while you can barely make a few sentences in rebuttal?

    I think you are better suited for old guy cut and paste work, reading blogs and summarizing what other say. I dont see much in the way of independent, well executed detail from you, just partisan bickering and buzz words from twitter. Hey you are a chip off the old block!

     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Nov. 22, 2017 - 10:39 PM ET #68

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    Ahhh cute, you cannot even come at me in a sharp way. I did not say any of what you suggest. I DID say that in order to answer the question with exactness I would need to see several, more like 8 or more GDP reports and compare the categories to see what the reasoning was. I then said it was my opinion based on observation that what has changed is the price of oil and that energy companies last year dumped their closet and it DID have an impact on GDP, in fact the energy sector was one if not the worst performing groups last year in the market, they reported lower earnings pretty much across the board...so with those skeletons out the potential for some improved earnings for sure was there and with the rise in the price of oil, it for sure had an impact on GDP and that the housing sector has been stronger, that it also had an impact...and that as older 10 and 30 yr debt rolls off and is refinanced at current rates, that has an impact on the debt and debt costs we have as a country.

    See how the way I phrase things is in detail and uses some sense of intelligence while you can barely make a few sentences in rebuttal?

    I think you are better suited for old guy cut and paste work, reading blogs and summarizing what other say. I dont see much in the way of independent, well executed detail from you, just partisan bickering and buzz words from twitter. Hey you are a chip off the old block!



    Now look who is getting cute. ..stooping so low as to discredit someones father....

    ..and you of all people should not be talking about someones parents..

    Well one thing WSC,, at least I knew who mine were ..

    ......................

    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    Ahhh cute, you cannot even come at me in a sharp way. I did not say any of what you suggest. I DID say that in order to answer the question with exactness I would need to see several, more like 8 or more GDP reports and compare the categories to see what the reasoning was. I then said it was my opinion based on observation that what has changed is the price of oil and that energy companies last year dumped their closet and it DID have an impact on GDP, in fact the energy sector was one if not the worst performing groups last year in the market, they reported lower earnings pretty much across the board...so with those skeletons out the potential for some improved earnings for sure was there and with the rise in the price of oil, it for sure had an impact on GDP and that the housing sector has been stronger, that it also had an impact...and that as older 10 and 30 yr debt rolls off and is refinanced at current rates, that has an impact on the debt and debt costs we have as a country.

    See how the way I phrase things is in detail and uses some sense of intelligence while you can barely make a few sentences in rebuttal?

    I think you are better suited for old guy cut and paste work, reading blogs and summarizing what other say. I dont see much in the way of independent, well executed detail from you, just partisan bickering and buzz words from twitter. Hey you are a chip off the old block!



    Now look who is getting cute. ..stooping so low as to discredit someones father....

    ..and you of all people should not be talking about someones parents..

    Well one thing WSC,, at least I knew who mine were ..

    ......................

     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 2:25 AM ET #69

    Not sure exactly what you are getting confused about.  It is not the GDP itself we are talking about.  It is the GDP to debt ratio we are talking about. 
    Bush only got blame because he was in office. The policies that actually got the ball rolling were instituted during the Clinton years --- that is my point.  Yes, each president will inherent things that they want to change --- or keep the same.  How they handle these issues is what decides whether they get blame or credit. Absolutely, the isssues are similar in that respect.  Sooner or later the debt issue will have to be dealt with. 
    And the way GDP counts the federal vs private hiring is a factor.  A govt hire does not have to produce at all to be counted, whereas a private hire will actually have to produce a product to be counted. So, shifting or 'stealing' a hire from the private sector to the govt sector can be seen as doubly negative, for example. So, there is a lot more that goes into it.  Some are lagging for sure; but others can show up fairly quick. And a big change in a 30% sector can be huge.  Then the flatness toward the debt ceiling comes into play as well. Bottom line is it happened on Trumps watch.  So as Bush get the blame, Trump gets the credit.  You don't have to like it; but you have to agree with it by your logic. 
    The following is a little older but may help you understand it better:
    The good news is that the work of Alesina, Ardagna, and other economists has shown that austerity packages based mostly on spending cuts are very effective at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, and they are also associated with mild and short-lived recessions. Moreover, spending-based fiscal adjustments accompanied by supply-side reforms, such as goods- and labor-market liberalization, readjustments of public-sector size and pay, public-pension reform, and other structural changes can sometimes have positive impact on economic growth. This is less likely today, in part because export-led growth is unlikely when most of the world’s economies are hurting, but it’s worth noting nonetheless. By contrast, as Garett Jones noted recently, austerity done through tax increases hurts the economy much more than the same process via spending cuts.
    Reply
    Not sure exactly what you are getting confused about.  It is not the GDP itself we are talking about.  It is the GDP to debt ratio we are talking about. 
    Bush only got blame because he was in office. The policies that actually got the ball rolling were instituted during the Clinton years --- that is my point.  Yes, each president will inherent things that they want to change --- or keep the same.  How they handle these issues is what decides whether they get blame or credit. Absolutely, the isssues are similar in that respect.  Sooner or later the debt issue will have to be dealt with. 
    And the way GDP counts the federal vs private hiring is a factor.  A govt hire does not have to produce at all to be counted, whereas a private hire will actually have to produce a product to be counted. So, shifting or 'stealing' a hire from the private sector to the govt sector can be seen as doubly negative, for example. So, there is a lot more that goes into it.  Some are lagging for sure; but others can show up fairly quick. And a big change in a 30% sector can be huge.  Then the flatness toward the debt ceiling comes into play as well. Bottom line is it happened on Trumps watch.  So as Bush get the blame, Trump gets the credit.  You don't have to like it; but you have to agree with it by your logic. 
    The following is a little older but may help you understand it better:
    The good news is that the work of Alesina, Ardagna, and other economists has shown that austerity packages based mostly on spending cuts are very effective at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, and they are also associated with mild and short-lived recessions. Moreover, spending-based fiscal adjustments accompanied by supply-side reforms, such as goods- and labor-market liberalization, readjustments of public-sector size and pay, public-pension reform, and other structural changes can sometimes have positive impact on economic growth. This is less likely today, in part because export-led growth is unlikely when most of the world’s economies are hurting, but it’s worth noting nonetheless. By contrast, as Garett Jones noted recently, austerity done through tax increases hurts the economy much more than the same process via spending cuts.
     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58436
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 9:27 AM ET #70

    SS,

    The old block is a Trump reference...sheesh how would I know anything about your parents?


    Raiders, not sure what you were discussing, I didnt say anything about public vs government hiring or swapping, I was discussing GDP contribution, total government contribution on all levels is around 35% of GDP, so if the feds is HALF of that, maybe it is half or maybe a smidge more or less (vs state and local) then the fed contribution to GDP is less than 20%, now to move GDP 1% (I am suggesting the claim is more that GDP increased vs debt decreased since as you keep referencing we are not lowering debt, we keep hitting the ceiling) then to move 1% and the feds contribute 20% or less, then the move has to be 5X because the contribution is 20%, so federal cuts would need to be 5X and that would be pretty near impossible, I have not seen any reference to an enormous cut in federal spending, rather a shifting from one pool to another that always happens when a party change switches. Then I referenced that this 1% move would have to cycle completely through the economy in less than 10 months...all of this, the cut, the cycle and the accounting in less than ten months.

    Translation, it is impossible...no possible way. A move in current GDP is due to 18-24 months prior actions or the effects of those actions bearing fruit today (as I referenced about energy companies dumping their dirty laundry for the last two years and this cleaning their books and revenues increasing with oil going up)
    Reply
    SS,

    The old block is a Trump reference...sheesh how would I know anything about your parents?


    Raiders, not sure what you were discussing, I didnt say anything about public vs government hiring or swapping, I was discussing GDP contribution, total government contribution on all levels is around 35% of GDP, so if the feds is HALF of that, maybe it is half or maybe a smidge more or less (vs state and local) then the fed contribution to GDP is less than 20%, now to move GDP 1% (I am suggesting the claim is more that GDP increased vs debt decreased since as you keep referencing we are not lowering debt, we keep hitting the ceiling) then to move 1% and the feds contribute 20% or less, then the move has to be 5X because the contribution is 20%, so federal cuts would need to be 5X and that would be pretty near impossible, I have not seen any reference to an enormous cut in federal spending, rather a shifting from one pool to another that always happens when a party change switches. Then I referenced that this 1% move would have to cycle completely through the economy in less than 10 months...all of this, the cut, the cycle and the accounting in less than ten months.

    Translation, it is impossible...no possible way. A move in current GDP is due to 18-24 months prior actions or the effects of those actions bearing fruit today (as I referenced about energy companies dumping their dirty laundry for the last two years and this cleaning their books and revenues increasing with oil going up)
     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 10:57 AM ET #71

    I don't know where you are getting 35% from? Are you going by memory or maybe I don't know what you are referring to.  Government spending is 18% and federal is 7%. You are assuming the government spending is where the drop is coming from I think.  That is wrong I feel.  I think it is more intangible and anticipatory at this point --- just because a republican (Trump) is in office. It is a large part of the expectation of lowered government regulatory measures. Trump has started this and indicates he will continue to do this. This initially makes corporations gleeful and leads to more hiring and more production, etc. But you have to also keep the ceiling in mind right now. But manufacturing is up and things seem much better for a government-friendly manufacturing environment --- which Trump touted. You have to give Trump credit for this initial bump --- whether you want to or not. You also have to realize that some of the numbers were getting better the last ear with Obama. But companies and people also knew Obama could not tuna again. 
    Now whether Trump can sustain or improve upon these is still to be seen. 
    That is why I say you are incorrect when you say intangibles don't move numbers. Absolutely they do. I have written and talked about this for a long time.  But sure, the actual policy implementation has to be done to uphold the rush.  Watch what happens if tax reform does not go through or some of the other corporation-friendly things Trump has promised do. It happen. What if debt ceiling goes up and Republicans lose the mid-terms?
     You are correct that to sort it all out sometimes it is a wait and see game to tell how much is policy and how much was not. Quite, obviously congress can't pass anything right now and therefore, Trump can't sign anything. But they better start or things could go sour in a hurry. 
    Reply
    I don't know where you are getting 35% from? Are you going by memory or maybe I don't know what you are referring to.  Government spending is 18% and federal is 7%. You are assuming the government spending is where the drop is coming from I think.  That is wrong I feel.  I think it is more intangible and anticipatory at this point --- just because a republican (Trump) is in office. It is a large part of the expectation of lowered government regulatory measures. Trump has started this and indicates he will continue to do this. This initially makes corporations gleeful and leads to more hiring and more production, etc. But you have to also keep the ceiling in mind right now. But manufacturing is up and things seem much better for a government-friendly manufacturing environment --- which Trump touted. You have to give Trump credit for this initial bump --- whether you want to or not. You also have to realize that some of the numbers were getting better the last ear with Obama. But companies and people also knew Obama could not tuna again. 
    Now whether Trump can sustain or improve upon these is still to be seen. 
    That is why I say you are incorrect when you say intangibles don't move numbers. Absolutely they do. I have written and talked about this for a long time.  But sure, the actual policy implementation has to be done to uphold the rush.  Watch what happens if tax reform does not go through or some of the other corporation-friendly things Trump has promised do. It happen. What if debt ceiling goes up and Republicans lose the mid-terms?
     You are correct that to sort it all out sometimes it is a wait and see game to tell how much is policy and how much was not. Quite, obviously congress can't pass anything right now and therefore, Trump can't sign anything. But they better start or things could go sour in a hurry. 
     
    Raiders22
    Raiders22
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 34802
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 11:00 AM ET #72

    It is simply too hard to swerve the fact that a lot of numbers besides just the stock markets are turning around. So, it is not just investors anticipating this.  For example, are companies waiting to expand if mandate is not required, etc. For example, these are some new numbers:

    Manufacturing output rose 1.3 percent in October, and upward revisions to previous months reduced the decrease estimated for the third quarter to 1.2 percent at an annual rate.


    Manufacturing PMI index for the United States increased to 60.1 in October of 2017 from 59.8 in September, beating market expectations of 58.5. It is a new high reading since August of 2005, as production, employment and inventories continued to rise and the outlook for business conditions remained positive. It is the 4th time in the whole series the number is above 60.


    Manufacturing employment rose by 24,000 in October, with job gains in computer and electronic products (+5,000) and chemicals (+4,000). Employment in fabricated metals continued to trend up (+4,000). Manufacturing has added 156,000 jobs since a recent employment low in November 2016.



    Reply
    It is simply too hard to swerve the fact that a lot of numbers besides just the stock markets are turning around. So, it is not just investors anticipating this.  For example, are companies waiting to expand if mandate is not required, etc. For example, these are some new numbers:

    Manufacturing output rose 1.3 percent in October, and upward revisions to previous months reduced the decrease estimated for the third quarter to 1.2 percent at an annual rate.


    Manufacturing PMI index for the United States increased to 60.1 in October of 2017 from 59.8 in September, beating market expectations of 58.5. It is a new high reading since August of 2005, as production, employment and inventories continued to rise and the outlook for business conditions remained positive. It is the 4th time in the whole series the number is above 60.


    Manufacturing employment rose by 24,000 in October, with job gains in computer and electronic products (+5,000) and chemicals (+4,000). Employment in fabricated metals continued to trend up (+4,000). Manufacturing has added 156,000 jobs since a recent employment low in November 2016.



     
    shiek
    shiek
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2005
    Posts: 1404
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 12:33 PM ET #73

    Y'all want specifics

    1.   Trump couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag.  While I agree w some of his intentions, he can't get anything passed and the things he has tried would be a disaster (wall, healthcare, faux tax reform).  He is a divider and more concerned w ego and kicking others down

    2.  Wsc it is laughable that you basically blame Bush and Trump and by implication give yur buddy obama a pass.  Yes he inherited a mess but guess what he knew exactly what mess he inherited at time of his election.  And what did he do basically continue the emergency measures started by bush.   Then he starts a commission on the debt issue ( r most serious problem by far) and actually sabotages the findings of his own commission.  Then for rest of his term he does absolutely nothing.

    3. Our system is broken because the haters on both sides shout everything down.  We could come up w reasonable solutions to the issues of the day (debt, income inequality, immigration, entitlements, tax reform) but special interests and the haters kill everything


    Yes I realize there are no specifics but happy thanksgiving to every1

    Reply
    Y'all want specifics

    1.   Trump couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag.  While I agree w some of his intentions, he can't get anything passed and the things he has tried would be a disaster (wall, healthcare, faux tax reform).  He is a divider and more concerned w ego and kicking others down

    2.  Wsc it is laughable that you basically blame Bush and Trump and by implication give yur buddy obama a pass.  Yes he inherited a mess but guess what he knew exactly what mess he inherited at time of his election.  And what did he do basically continue the emergency measures started by bush.   Then he starts a commission on the debt issue ( r most serious problem by far) and actually sabotages the findings of his own commission.  Then for rest of his term he does absolutely nothing.

    3. Our system is broken because the haters on both sides shout everything down.  We could come up w reasonable solutions to the issues of the day (debt, income inequality, immigration, entitlements, tax reform) but special interests and the haters kill everything


    Yes I realize there are no specifics but happy thanksgiving to every1

     
    SarasotaSlim
    SarasotaSlim
    Covers Rehab
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2007
    Posts: 35543
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 2:32 PM ET #74

    Raiders22,

    I can't see how anyone with knowledge of the way the economy moves can say intangibles don't move numbers.. especially since things are moving at a faster pace than they have in the past.

    Some people, that like to pooh pooh intangibles... often find themselves miffed and at a loss to explain happenings in the age of the new economy..but both tangible and intangible assets are recorded on some balance sheets .... Why ?

    Because,, intangible assets add to a company's possible future worth and can be much more valuable than its tangible assets.....The value of intangible assets are not to be disregarded..

    For example in the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, Apple, Inc. recorded total goodwill and acquired intangible to be worth $8.09 billion and Net PP&E worth $27.16 billion.

    To say something that is intangible can not effect something in the present is turning a blind eye to a valuable resource..An intangible
    attribute in leadership can truly distinguish those who succeed at the top....that is why it's said that extraordinary leaders possess certain characteristics,, that fall between the lines of existing leadership models..

    This is one of the reasons that President Trumps intangible leadership is producing tangible results..and like you said we will have to see whether President Trump can sustain or improve on these numbers with tangible results....

    Reply
    Raiders22,

    I can't see how anyone with knowledge of the way the economy moves can say intangibles don't move numbers.. especially since things are moving at a faster pace than they have in the past.

    Some people, that like to pooh pooh intangibles... often find themselves miffed and at a loss to explain happenings in the age of the new economy..but both tangible and intangible assets are recorded on some balance sheets .... Why ?

    Because,, intangible assets add to a company's possible future worth and can be much more valuable than its tangible assets.....The value of intangible assets are not to be disregarded..

    For example in the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, Apple, Inc. recorded total goodwill and acquired intangible to be worth $8.09 billion and Net PP&E worth $27.16 billion.

    To say something that is intangible can not effect something in the present is turning a blind eye to a valuable resource..An intangible
    attribute in leadership can truly distinguish those who succeed at the top....that is why it's said that extraordinary leaders possess certain characteristics,, that fall between the lines of existing leadership models..

    This is one of the reasons that President Trumps intangible leadership is producing tangible results..and like you said we will have to see whether President Trump can sustain or improve on these numbers with tangible results....

     
     
    shiek
    shiek
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jan, 2005
    Posts: 1404
    Posted: Nov. 23, 2017 - 2:39 PM ET #75

    The most important metric in rating a leader is how and whether they accept responsibility when something goes wrong.    What is the clowns rating on that metric.  All he does is blame everyone else
    Reply
    The most important metric in rating a leader is how and whether they accept responsibility when something goes wrong.    What is the clowns rating on that metric.  All he does is blame everyone else
    All Forums | Politics
    «First Previous 1234 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • Thursday 10/22/2026 935
    • 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 279,953
    • Patriots vs Bears in-game live TNF 1,944
    • NFL LOCKED IN! 109,719
    • Patriots@Bears discussion 3,638
    • NFL THREAD * 151 * 27,058
    • Thursday”s POD 2,686
    • Public Indicator Calculations 2026 23,657
    • Week 8 Money 7,474
    • Republicans push back against the lunatic Trump and his team of liars. 23,327

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo
    Covers Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.