Low growth projection by Fed - more cold water thrown on Trump’s “great economy” lie

[Bugsy McGurk]

Here, I'll explain it to you. The first thing you have to know is what a target growth rate is. A target growth rate is what the FED wants the economy to grow at. Forever and as long as the FED has existed, the target growth rate has been 3%. That means if growth is heating up, the FED will raise rates to get the growth (inflation) back down to 3%, but if growth is anemic, the FED will drop rates to get the economy growing again.

Under Obama the average annual growth rate was 2%, but the cost of money was already zero (1/4%, hell not even that, 1/8%, as in 0.125%) they had a term for that, all it meant was interest rates hit the floor, money cost nothing; which is another way of saying the money was worth nothing. We had become Japan. Finally, as Obama's 8th term in office was ending, Yellen (head of the FED; Obama chose her) decides to raise the interest rate 1/4% to 3/8% ... out of desperation to revive the carry trade. Even though there was no growth to base it on. We were still under the target growth rate. So, how does Yellen justify it? She lowers the target growth rate to 2%. That's right, we want to underperform. while everyone's jaw was dropping she then, grasping for straws, says, unemployment numbers are real good, so she cites that as a reason to raise rates; literally saying the FED needs to trim employment and lay more people off. That's why Yellen was canned immediately by Trump.

Okay, now what? The Trump economy actually did grow at 4.2% (higher, by the way, than any single year of Obama's) and the FED was projecting it would go to 5%, so they raised interest rates another 1/4% to 0.625%. Justifiable, this time. Pissed Trump off same as it would any president.

So where are we now? The white house says we are looking at a return to 3% growth, but the FED says we are looking at closer to 2% growth. Either way, the FED is pulling in their horns and signalling no more rate hikes.

The rest is just political writers trying to sling mud at Trump.

Crikey, you’ve actually returned to that off-topic babbling.

You need help.

 

[RickWA]

Yes, sports fans, it is degenerating into a truly dopey dittofest, as the wingers lick their wounds and seek solace from their pals...

;-)

Net increases in real dollars = “starvation” in DNC Prostitute World.

Don’t forget to bathe in de-lousing solution, Bambi.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I already did. There has been no inflation ANYWHERE NEAR what you are requiring a non-Democrat to fund NIH in order to escape the charge of program “starvation”. In REAL dollars, Trump has funded that institution more robustly than Obama did every single year of his presidency.

Point proven. Dollars cited. And you merely double down. There’s nonsense arguing with the DNC harlot.

Which was not my point, and not what I said, but let’s challenge your idiotic lie anyway...

You seem to think that the rate of increase in the costs of health care research and care is the same as the overall level of inflation applicable to goods and services generally.

Prove that.

 

[Barbella]

There’s a great series on PBS about the war on cancer. One central point is that there are truly promising pure research projects to be done (gene therapy, immunotherapy and the like), but agencies like the NIH are starved of funding. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP have given more massive tax cuts to fatcats, and want to give even more, when a very small slice of that money could actually result in a cure for cancer.

And yet the GOP rabble supports such things. They could literally be supporting their own painful, premature deaths, without even knowing it.

Sheer madness.

Wow. These agencies were apparently flush during Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t find the cure for cancer despite it, and now they’re suddenly broke so it’s Trump’s fault that no cure has been found.

Okey dokey...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Net increases in real dollars = “starvation” in DNC Prostitute World.

Don’t forget to bathe in de-lousing solution, Bambi.

A logic exercise for your simple mind...

True or false...

Whether cancer research is currently starved for funding to explore currently promising cancer therapies has nothing to do with past funding.

Can your simple mind handle that softball?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Wow. These agencies were apparently flush during Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t find the cure for cancer despite it, and now they’re suddenly broke so it’s Trump’s fault that no cure has been found.

Okey dokey...

Crikey. Talk about a grotesquely dishonest winger “post re-write.”

It’s a GOP lying contest. Strong entry!

;-)

 

[Days]

Crikey, you’ve actually returned to that off-topic babbling.

You need help.

I returned to your top post you twit. Remember writing that?


Low growth projection by Fed - more cold water thrown on Trump’s “great economy” lie

No one questions Trump’s skills as a carnival barker. As a snake oil salesman. And he freely deploys those skills when it comes to the economy.

“The greatest economy in history!”, he lies. Way better than the Obama economy, he lies some more.

Of course, Trump has yet to match quarterly growth rates achieved under Obama. And he just matched the best annual growth rate achieved under Obama, after inheriting Obama’s ever-growing economy.

Jobs? Well, more jobs were created in Obama’s last two years than in Trump’s first two years. And last month we had barely any jobs growth at all - a very anemic number in the 20,000 jobs range.

But, say Trump and his assistant liars, future growth will be better. He even projects growth over 3% for many years to come when putting out his very phony budget outline.

Alas, the Fed does not lie for Trump. And they project a growth rate of a mere 2.1%.

Here, I'll explain it to you. The first thing you have to know is what a target growth rate is. A target growth rate is what the FED wants the economy to grow at. Forever and as long as the FED has existed, the target growth rate has been 3%. That means if growth is heating up, the FED will raise rates to get the growth (inflation) back down to 3%, but if growth is anemic, the FED will drop rates to get the economy growing again.

Under Obama the average annual growth rate was 2%, but the cost of money was already zero (1/4%, hell not even that, 1/8%, as in 0.125%) they had a term for that, all it meant was interest rates hit the floor, money cost nothing; which is another way of saying the money was worth nothing. We had become Japan. Finally, as Obama's 8th term in office was ending, Yellen (head of the FED; Obama chose her) decides to raise the interest rate 1/4% to 3/8% ... out of desperation to revive the carry trade. Even though there was no growth to base it on. We were still under the target growth rate. So, how does Yellen justify it? She lowers the target growth rate to 2%. That's right, we want to underperform. while everyone's jaw was dropping she then, grasping for straws, says, unemployment numbers are real good, so she cites that as a reason to raise rates; literally saying the FED needs to trim employment and lay more people off. That's why Yellen was canned immediately by Trump.

Okay, now what? The Trump economy actually did grow at 4.2% (higher, by the way, than any single year of Obama's) and the FED was projecting it would go to 5%, so they raised interest rates another 1/4% to 0.625%. Justifiable, this time. Pissed Trump off same as it would any president.

So where are we now? The white house says we are looking at a return to 3% growth, but the FED says we are looking at closer to 2% growth. Either way, the FED is pulling in their horns and signalling no more rate hikes.

The rest is just political writers trying to sling mud at Trump.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I returned to your top post you twit. Remember wthat?


Low growth projection by Fed - more cold water thrown on Trump’s “great economy” lie

I do remember it.

What’s your point, if any?

 

[Dawg]

Wow. These agencies were apparently flush during Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t find the cure for cancer despite it, and now they’re suddenly broke so it’s Trump’s fault that no cure has been found.

Okey dokey...

They don't want to find a cure for cancer, they would lose $billions of dollars and if Trump found a cure libs would still hate him.

It's amazing and makes me wonder why anyone replies to Bugs the troll.

 

[Days]

I do remember it.

What’s your point, if any?

translation: I am hopelessly lost when it comes to money, but that never stops me from writing about a subject

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

translation: I am hopelessly lost when it comes to money, but that never stops me from writing about a subject

Translation: That was very unfair asking me what my point was, if any. How would I know?

;-)

 

[Days]

Translation: That was very unfair asking me what my point was, if any. How would I know?

;-)

I guess, but it seemed the fair thing to do, but after you refused to say what your point was, I returned to the top post itself and responded. Then you can't read that either, and now you want me to explain my point which is already explained clear as day, what you are asking for is beyond me, which is what you always do, you go off into goofy land and spin nonsense into nonsensical yarn and wait for the rest of us to give up and leave.

 

[RickWA]

Which was not my point, and not what I said, but let’s challenge your idiotic lie anyway...

You seem to think that the rate of increase in the costs of health care research and care is the same as the overall level of inflation applicable to goods and services generally.

Prove that.

Nope. You called out a non-Democrat funding of the same institution in more REAL DOLLARS “starving” that institution. It is YOU that has some explaining to do.

Or...you can refuse as you always do - I’m good either way.

Have a nice evening, Bugs. There’s just too much college hoops on to waste more time on this. :-/

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I guess, but it seemed the fair thing to do, but after you refused to say what your point was, I returned to the top post itself and responded. Then you can't read that either, and now you want me to explain my point which is already explained clear as day, what you are asking for is beyond me, which is what you always do, you go off into goofy land and spin nonsense into nonsensical yarn and wait for the rest of us to give up and leave.

More lies.

Again, my posts were clear, and I did a recap to make the points even clearer. I did the opposite of “refusing to say what my point was.”

Then I asked you what your point was, since your post made none. You then refused to say.

Trying to have a rational discussion with a winger is often impossible.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nope. You called out a non-Democrat funding of the same institution in more REAL DOLLARS “starving” that institution. It is YOU that has some explaining to do.

Or...you can refuse as you always do - I’m good either way.

Have a nice evening, Bugs. There’s just too much college hoops on to waste more time on this. :-/

I didn’t even mention political party. I simply noted a fascinating PBS series on current cancer research, one of the points of which is that they do not have the funding required to fully research very promising therapies. An intelligent person hears that and watches the series. You chose instead to babble about Obama.

So be it.

 

[UPNYA2]

Yup. There is inflation. It leads to an increase in such spending to keep pace.

But no worries - Trump proposes to slash NIH funding by $5 billion to help pay for his $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for fatcats.

And yet you support it. You even willingly ignore it.

Like I said above, you people literally support Trump/GOP insanity that could cost you your lives. Slow, painful deaths from cancer. So deeply ingrained is your GOP cultism.

Remarkable.

Hey, bug guy, you speak of Trump cutting funds somewhere to, "pay FOR", tax cuts, correct?

Well being that by defination, a tax "cut" means LESS will be taken in taxes, NOT mind you, "NO" taxes will be taken, only less, just how in the livin' HELL can taking less from one be in any FUKIN' WAY BE CONFUSED with, "paying" them?????

So riddle me this my loony socialist friend, if the girl who took your lunch money every single day you went to school had happened to not take it all one day, actually took money from you, just less than before, I assume you would have run home and told your 2 daddies that she PAID you money, correct?

Silly-ass simple sumbitch.....

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Hey, bug guy, you speak of Trump cutting funds somewhere to, "pay FOR", tax cuts, correct?

Well being that by defination, a tax "cut" means LESS will be taken in taxes, NOT mind you, "NO" taxes will be taken, only less, just how in the livin' HELL can taking less from one be in any FUKIN' WAY BE CONFUSED with, "paying" them?????

So riddle me this my loony socialist friend, if the girl who took your lunch money every single day you went to school had happened to not take it all one day, actually took money from you, just less than before, I assume you would have run home and told your 2 daddies that she PAID you money, correct?

Silly-ass simple sumbitch.....

This one’s in outer space. A tangent to the tangent to the tangent.

 

[UPNYA2]

This one’s in outer space. A tangent to the tangent to the tangent.

Which daddy told you that?

 

[Mick]

translation: I am hopelessly lost when it comes to money, but that never stops me from writing about a subject

Well, this is the same guy who tried to claim the GOP tax cuts were benefiting with the rich while simultaneously whining that those paying $50,000 in salt taxes (aka the rich) were being cheated so no surprise that he is clueless. He's not mentally well. TDS is nasty.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Well, this is the same guy who tried to claim the GOP tax cuts were benefiting with the rich while simultaneously whining that those paying $50,000 in salt taxes (aka the rich) were being cheated so no surprise that he is clueless. He's not mentally well. TDS is nasty.

It’s a GOP lying contest - they’re going mano a mano.

;-)