toonkee Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 1 hour ago, soupslam1 said: Improving the poor’s situation is better for us all in the long run and it starts with education. Everything begins with education. We'd all make better decisions and choices if we were smarter and wiser as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 39 minutes ago, pokebball said: Very few politicians on either side of the aisle are willing to do what is necessary. 90%+ of the folks on this board aren't willing to do what is necessary. Well, the gravy train has to end sometime. Or I guess we'll just sell the entire country to China and join the collective, right? I'd like to be a part of the solution. I'd like to be part of when people look back and say "Generation X said this was a bunch of bullshit, and made the government work this out so we didn't have huge fiscal problems by the time they were dead." I mean, the national debt along has increased so much during my lifetime. Deficits are at an all time high. It has to stop at some point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokebball Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Just now, Jack Bauer said: Well, the gravy train has to end sometime. Or I guess we'll just sell the entire country to China and join the collective, right? I'd like to be a part of the solution. I'd like to be part of when people look back and say "Generation X said this was a bunch of bullshit, and made the government work this out so we didn't have huge fiscal problems by the time they were dead." I mean, the national debt along has increased so much during my lifetime. Deficits are at an all time high. It has to stop at some point. I'm on board. The only way to get there, in my opinion is something similar to what Simpson - Bowles were suggesting. It can't be done with just tax increases or budget cuts. It's got to be both. The Dems don't want budget cuts and the Repubs don't want increased taxes. Hold your nose, we're going down. Quote The World Needs More Cowboys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 36 minutes ago, Rebels18 said: The difference being Obama's economy grew dramatically slower in thanks to the Fed keeping the effective interest rate at about zero percent throughout the entirety of his presidency. Conveniently, the moment Trump won the general election the Fed began to raise rates rapidly. Wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant economic posts of all time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebels18 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 20 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: Wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant economic posts of all time. Im not wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Rebels18 said: Im not wrong So lower interest rates allowing for lower cost borrowing isn't a spur of economic activity? You better write a paper explaining that because every economist in existence thinks you are wrong. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebels18 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: So lower interest rates allowing for lower cost borrowing isn't a spur of economic activity? You better write a paper explaining that because every economist in existence thinks you are wrong. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! No, my first post was poorly worded. The point of my original post was to say the economy only grew under Obama in thanks to low interest rates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modestobulldog Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 14 hours ago, Rebels18 said: The difference being Obama's economy only grew in thanks to the Fed keeping the effective interest rate at about zero percent throughout the entirety of his presidency. Conveniently, the moment Trump won the general election the Fed began to raise rates rapidly. 14 hours ago, bluerules009 said: Wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant economic posts of all time. 13 hours ago, Rebels18 said: Im not wrong 12 hours ago, bluerules009 said: So lower interest rates allowing for lower cost borrowing isn't a spur of economic activity? You better write a paper explaining that because every economist in existence thinks you are wrong. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! 12 hours ago, Rebels18 said: No, my first post was poorly worded. The point of my original post was to say the economy only grew under Obama in thanks to low interest rates. I'm glad this was clarified. Based on interest rates, Obama's economy should have been kicking ass and Trump's economy should be sucking balls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 17 hours ago, Rebels18 said: The difference being Obama's economy only grew in thanks to the Fed keeping the effective interest rate at about zero percent throughout the entirety of his presidency. Conveniently, the moment Trump won the general election the Fed began to raise rates rapidly. This is revisionist history. The Fed is independent (thank goodness) and they raised the rate twice during Obama's term because inflation (not interest, duh, edited) rates had finally risen above 1% (https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135) Because of that rates were able to continue to rise. I'm admittedly leery of the economic growth. We're effectively in another stimulus just like Bush did in 2007, we just did it in a non recession time. Fueling a bull market with massive government deficits is not sound fiscally (not that Obama was sound fiscally but he and congress's inability to agree on anything accidentally made them both more fiscally responsible than they would have been alone. The sequester did good work, should have been expanded). 2 Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 5 hours ago, happycamper said: This is revisionist history. The Fed is independent (thank goodness) and they raised the rate twice during Obama's term because inflation (not interest, duh, edited) rates had finally risen above 1% (https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135) Because of that rates were able to continue to rise. I'm admittedly leery of the economic growth. We're effectively in another stimulus just like Bush did in 2007, we just did it in a non recession time. Fueling a bull market with massive government deficits is not sound fiscally (not that Obama was sound fiscally but he and congress's inability to agree on anything accidentally made them both more fiscally responsible than they would have been alone. The sequester did good work, should have been expanded). That is actual history. Low rates were all that kept any growth at all going during most of Obama's term. Glowing less than inflation most of the time even with the low rates. The man was spot on, once I figured out what he was saying. Obama's economic guy even tried to say anything more than 2% growth wasn't possible anymore. To excuse the pathetic economic numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 46 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: That is actual history. Low rates were all that kept any growth at all going during most of Obama's term. Glowing less than inflation most of the time even with the low rates. The man was spot on, once I figured out what he was saying. Obama's economic guy even tried to say anything more than 2% growth wasn't possible anymore. To excuse the pathetic economic numbers. It's revisionist history that the rates started hiking once Trump got in to office - he was saying that a) Obama deliberately kept the rate down (Obama did not have the power to do anything about it) b ) Trump deliberately rose it (Trump did not have the power to do anything about it) c) it was the choice of Trump to have the economy be stronger and d ) rates weren't already undergoing hikes under Obama's presidency. Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 minute ago, happycamper said: It's revisionist history that the rates started hiking once Trump got in to office - he was saying that a) Obama deliberately kept the rate down (Obama did not have the power to do anything about it) b ) Trump deliberately rose it (Trump did not have the power to do anything about it) c) it was the choice of Trump to have the economy be stronger and d ) rates weren't already undergoing hikes under Obama's presidency. They certainly started hiking the rates faster when Trump entered office. They were making an effort during Obama's term with 8 rate decreases compared with 3 rate hike's. Trumps term has already seen 7 rate hikes in less than 2 years. Obama leaving office was an economic win for everyone. https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135 2008: GDP = -0.3%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 0.1% Jan 22 3.5% Jan 30 3.0% Tax rebate. Mar 18 2.25% Bear Stearns bailout. Apr 30 2.0% Lehman fails. Bank bailout approved. AIG bailout. Oct 8 1.5% Oct 29 1.0% Dec 16 0.25% Effectively zero. The lowest fed funds rate possible. Fed Chair Janet Yellen (February 2014 - February 2018) 2015: GDP = 2.6%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 0.7% Dec 17 0.5% Growth stabilized. 2016: GDP = 3.2%, Unemployment = 4.6%, Inflation = 2.1% Dec 14 0.75% 2017: GDP = 2.6%, Unemployment = 4.1%, Inflation = 2.1% Mar 15 1.0% Fed was steady on its path of normalizing its benchmark rate. Jun 14 1.25% Dec 13 1.5% Fed Chair Jerome Powell (February 2018 - February 2022) 2018 Mar 21 1.75% Fed projects steady growth. Jun 13 2.0% Sep 26 2.25% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 33 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: They certainly started hiking the rates faster when Trump entered office. They were making an effort during Obama's term with 8 rate decreases compared with 3 rate hike's. Trumps term has already seen 7 rate hikes in less than 2 years. Obama leaving office was an economic win for everyone. https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135 2008: GDP = -0.3%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 0.1% Jan 22 3.5% Jan 30 3.0% Tax rebate. Mar 18 2.25% Bear Stearns bailout. Apr 30 2.0% Lehman fails. Bank bailout approved. AIG bailout. Oct 8 1.5% Oct 29 1.0% Dec 16 0.25% Effectively zero. The lowest fed funds rate possible. Fed Chair Janet Yellen (February 2014 - February 2018) 2015: GDP = 2.6%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 0.7% Dec 17 0.5% Growth stabilized. 2016: GDP = 3.2%, Unemployment = 4.6%, Inflation = 2.1% Dec 14 0.75% 2017: GDP = 2.6%, Unemployment = 4.1%, Inflation = 2.1% Mar 15 1.0% Fed was steady on its path of normalizing its benchmark rate. Jun 14 1.25% Dec 13 1.5% Fed Chair Jerome Powell (February 2018 - February 2022) 2018 Mar 21 1.75% Fed projects steady growth. Jun 13 2.0% Sep 26 2.25% Blues. Now you're engaging in revisionist history. The fed is independent. The President has nothing to do with the fed deciding to hike rates. The independence of the fed is a good thing. Rate hikes started when they did because inflation and employment had finally picked up; rate hikes continued because inflation and employment were stable. It wouldn't have mattered if it ha happened 2 years earlier or later, it had nothing to do with who was elected and you know it. The fed is independent and the fed decides based on hard data. Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, happycamper said: Blues. Now you're engaging in revisionist history. The fed is independent. The President has nothing to do with the fed deciding to hike rates. The independence of the fed is a good thing. Rate hikes started when they did because inflation and employment had finally picked up; rate hikes continued because inflation and employment were stable. It wouldn't have mattered if it ha happened 2 years earlier or later, it had nothing to do with who was elected and you know it. The fed is independent and the fed decides based on hard data. I posted the actual history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebels18 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 8 hours ago, happycamper said: This is revisionist history. The Fed is independent (thank goodness) and they raised the rate twice during Obama's term because inflation (not interest, duh, edited) rates had finally risen above 1% (https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135) Because of that rates were able to continue to rise. I'm admittedly leery of the economic growth. We're effectively in another stimulus just like Bush did in 2007, we just did it in a non recession time. Fueling a bull market with massive government deficits is not sound fiscally (not that Obama was sound fiscally but he and congress's inability to agree on anything accidentally made them both more fiscally responsible than they would have been alone. The sequester did good work, should have been expanded). We would like to think the fed is independent...but is it though? Trump may regret attributing himself to stock market growth so much. He's been a major boon to private sector growth, which in turn had a positive effect on the market. But if the Fed rate begins to exponentiate, the stock market could tank and the blame would surely fall on Trump in the eyes of the MSM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 3 hours ago, bluerules009 said: I posted the actual history. No, you posted revisionism. Tastes good when it helps your point of view doesn't it? Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Rebels18 said: We would like to think the fed is independent...but is it though? Yes 2 hours ago, Rebels18 said: Trump may regret attributing himself to stock market growth so much. He's been a major boon to private sector growth, which in turn had a positive effect on the market. But if the Fed rate begins to exponentiate, the stock market could tank and the blame would surely fall on Trump in the eyes of the MSM. Yeah but the MSM is for the lowest common denominator. Stick inflation and unemployment on your chart and it will correlate better. Quote Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 25 minutes ago, happycamper said: No, you posted revisionism. Tastes good when it helps your point of view doesn't it? Okay, right. the actual timeline of fed actions is "revisionist history". You sound like YRB now. I may have thought the world was round but it is really flat because of the bad white man right? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 25 minutes ago, happycamper said: Yes So the Fed Chairman can't be influenced by his need to be reappointed by the president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingGiantFan Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 On 10/3/2018 at 12:25 PM, happycamper said: This attitude, right here, more than the wind or the boom bust cycles or constant influx of Texans who immediately try to be more Wyoming than thou, is my biggest Wyo pet peeve. Things are okay or even just tolerable for me so why bother making them better ever? Trying is for suckas. His main premise is life is doog (inside joke) because his family is earning twice as much as pre-Trump. It appears the main reason is the boom in the oil and gas industries. My wife's nephew works on an oil rig somewhere between your city and Cheyenne and life is pretty doog for him these days too. However, at what cost to the environment? There's an Aztec who said for years on our old board that global warming had absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuels. That guy hasn't posted here for at least a year to my knowledge and although I haven't posted to AztecMesa for longer than that I do still lurk on that board on which he continues to be a regular and it appears even he has finally given up playing that tune. I can't blame anybody for earning money where they can but fossil fuel usage is doing considerable damage to the one planet human beings are capable of living on so in addition to things you and others have pointed out, I think we all need to temper our elation with the Trump administration for that reason at least. Quote Boom goes the dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...