Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Feb 2018, 7:05 am

No point in relitigating this. You believe Bush was fault-free; I believe he was partially responsible. You probably believe that the Financial Crisis was caused by Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac and government encouragement of lending to minority buyers; I believe that was only a small part of the problem. We can pretend that we rehashed all of our arguments on the issue over the past ten years below and we agree to disagree. Deal?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Feb 2018, 11:52 am

freeman3 wrote:No point in relitigating this. You believe Bush was fault-free; I believe he was partially responsible. You probably believe that the Financial Crisis was caused by Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac and government encouragement of lending to minority buyers; I believe that was only a small part of the problem. We can pretend that we rehashed all of our arguments on the issue over the past ten years below and we agree to disagree. Deal?


I'm just sayin' you went from blaming him to absolving him in a very few posts . . .

We definitely agree to disagree!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Feb 2018, 2:45 pm

Back to the Trump question. Growth in 2017 was a bit higher than in 2016. But can that be tied to "regulatory relief"?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Feb 2018, 6:52 am

freeman3 wrote:The economy grew by 2.6% and 2.9% in 2014 and 2015 under Obama before slowing down in 2016 and rebounding a bit to 2.3% in 2017. And the growth was 2.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017. What's the big difference?

It's just funny when we were pretty close to the desired 3 percent growth rate under Obama in 2014 and 2015 and then....we're supposed to celebrate that Trump has given us a 2.3% growth rate?


You are just cherry picking to make a point. But if you look at all the Obama quarters and the Trump quarters, the data doesn't support your position.

Obama had ok growth from 2nd quarter 2014 to 1st quarter 2015. But giving him a pass for his first year, he averaged low growth during his Presidency. As I wrote, from 2010 to 2016 he averaged just over 2% growth. (It's under 2% if you include 2009.) Why not respond to that instead of picking a few good quarters during an 8 year presidency.

Re Trump and 2.3%, you are misreading the data. the 2.3% growth is year over year, examined by quarter for one of the links that I provided. So if you look at 2nd qtr. 2017, it is comparing GDP from 2nd qtr. 2016 to 2nd qtr. 2017, which is mostly during Obama's Presidency. However the other link looks at the quarterly growth rate. There you will see that we've averaged 3% since 2nd qtr. 2017.

Although Trump has had some impact on 1st qtr. 2017, it's hard to put those #s to him since his inauguration happened during the quarter. However, I do believe his regulatory changes impacted 1st qtr. growth and had an important effect on growth since then.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Feb 2018, 7:01 am

Freeman:
Over five quarters from 2nd quarter 2014 to 2nd quarter 2015 (that's only 18 months before Trump came to power)under Obama the economy averaged 3.54% growth.


Sounds like he had 1 good year of economic growth during his 8 year presidency. 4th quarter 2011 was also pretty good.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2018, 12:16 pm

RJ,

What distinguishes Trump's economic policies--tax cuts, spending increases, deregulation, from Bush II's policies--tax cuts, spending increases, deregulation
? We got about 2.3% growth under Bush II at the price of huge deficits plus a Financial Cris brought about in large part due to...wait...deregulation. Why would we expect similar policies under Trump to have different results

Obama had to deal with the Financial Crisis--neither Trump nor Bush II had to deal with that. Clearly, he has to get some credit for dragging our economy out of that. Most economists credit his 800 billion stimulus plan for helping us get of the recession created by the Financial Crisis. He gets no credit for that? Perhaps Obama did not have great growth but he avoided any bubbles, kept the deficit from getting even more out of control and avoided any recessions.

The US economy has now been growing at a little over 2% rate for about the past 20 years. Under Bush II under it grew at that rate even when it was getting massive stimulus due to tax cuts and deficits. Most economists do not believe that our economy is capable at growing at a 3.0% rate unless something major happens--such as new technologies--and that something major is not tax cuts or deregulation.

You would have an impossible job proving that Trjmp's deregulation caused 3.0% growth almost immediately. What is your basis for believing that businesses react that fast to regulatory change. It might affect NEXT year's planning but not the next quarter. That doesn't make rational sense to me. Even if a company announced the building of a new plant that still would not happen immediately. Things do not happen that quickly.

Gosh...I just read your post on allowing more coal leases and pesticide. Just what we want--more black lung disease and birth defects! And those things would still take time to have a significant economic impact. Perhaps you could explain how getting rid of regulations would have such a large impact so quickly?

And if deregulation did not do anything to cause economic growth then Trump did not do anything to cause it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Feb 2018, 6:17 pm

Freeman:
We got about 2.3% growth under Bush II


It's higher if you exclude the effects of 9/11, but it is still subpar over the presidency.

Freeman:
Most economists do not believe that our economy is capable at growing at a 3.0% rate unless something major happens--such as new technologies--and that something major is not tax cuts or deregulation.


I'd like to see a source for that "most economists" pronouncement. I don't understand why a country that can dramatically grow its economy for 230 years all of a sudden runs out of gas. There is still tremendous innovation going on. There are new technologies and concepts every day. Productivity should be growing faster because of the explosion in technology.

Freeman:
We got about 2.3% growth under Bush II at the price of huge deficits plus a Financial Cris brought about in large part due to...wait...deregulation. Why would we expect similar policies under Trump to have different results


There is a lot of room for deregulation in this country. Under SOX, the smallest public companies pay $2 million just to audit their procedures, as opposed to their financials. This is the reason why we have about 1/2 as many public companies today then in the past. SOX came about in 2002 from Bush Jr. Perhaps he wasn't deregulating as much as you think (and as much as the press wants you to believe)..

Regulation is complex. Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. As you mention, there may be some scary stuff going around because of pesticides and coal. But other regulation is hurting us and there have been real changes to the good this last year. I've posted many examples, but you have your view no matter what I show.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2018, 6:31 pm

Here is an article about why economists are skeptical about a 3% growth rate over the long-term. Obviously, this was just a survey by a writer but one of the guys is from the Cato Institute...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... 3-percent/

I am open to the idea that cutting unnecessary regulations can be good for the economy. My skepticism is directed to the contention that it would have a quick impact. That's it. And of course about cutting necessary regulations, too. Ultimately, we'll see if cutting regulations seems to be beneficial or not. If we start seeing continuous 3% growth over several years I am not going to have much to say, regardless if you can specifically prove cutting regulations was the cause of the economic growth. But 2 good quarters is not much to support a theory.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Feb 2018, 10:29 am

freeman3
I am open to the idea that cutting unnecessary regulations can be good for the economy.


Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.
In the first year of the Trump administration, the CRA was used to reverse a whole suite of final-year Obama regulations. These reversals mostly made life easier for polluters but also let Internet Service Providers sell your web browsing data to advertisers and made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns
.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

That being said, there is no question that simplifying regulations would make things easier for both consumers and businesses. Perhaps the notion that congress is passing prescriptive laws rather than objective laws is part of the problem,
When much of the legislation, and the prescriptive regulations, are delivered to congress by lobby groups .... the regulations usually somehow favor one group or another purposefully.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Feb 2018, 12:24 pm

rickyp wrote:freeman3
I am open to the idea that cutting unnecessary regulations can be good for the economy.


Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.
In the first year of the Trump administration, the CRA was used to reverse a whole suite of final-year Obama regulations. These reversals mostly made life easier for polluters but also let Internet Service Providers sell your web browsing data to advertisers and made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns
.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

That being said, there is no question that simplifying regulations would make things easier for both consumers and businesses. Perhaps the notion that congress is passing prescriptive laws rather than objective laws is part of the problem,
When much of the legislation, and the prescriptive regulations, are delivered to congress by lobby groups .... the regulations usually somehow favor one group or another purposefully.


Oh, if a Vox op piece says it, it must be true.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Feb 2018, 3:02 pm

Fate
Oh, if a Vox op piece says it, it must be true.

What specific fact are you disputing?
There are dozens of other sources we could produce .
example follows....

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... al-n727221

Please be specific on which of the regulation roll backs you are disputing ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Feb 2018, 3:37 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Oh, if a Vox op piece says it, it must be true.

What specific fact are you disputing?
There are dozens of other sources we could produce .
example follows....

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... al-n727221

Please be specific on which of the regulation roll backs you are disputing ...


It's easy. This article/"fact" has nothing to do with this thesis:

rickyp wrote:Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Feb 2018, 11:23 am

Fate
It's easy. This article/"fact" has nothing to do with this thesis

rickyp wrote:
Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.


Maybe if you kept reading to the paragraph below... Or do you share trump's attention span?
The list of regulations actually affected didn't have that much to do with business unless you were a polluting company.

In the first year of the Trump administration, the CRA was used to reverse a whole suite of final-year Obama regulations. These reversals mostly made life easier for polluters but also let Internet Service Providers sell your web browsing data to advertisers and made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns

.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

The 33 environmental regulations he rolled back can be found below. How, for instance, does ending the Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands help business?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ersed.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Feb 2018, 1:26 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
It's easy. This article/"fact" has nothing to do with this thesis

rickyp wrote:
Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.


Maybe if you kept reading to the paragraph below... Or do you share trump's attention span?
The list of regulations actually affected didn't have that much to do with business unless you were a polluting company.

In the first year of the Trump administration, the CRA was used to reverse a whole suite of final-year Obama regulations. These reversals mostly made life easier for polluters but also let Internet Service Providers sell your web browsing data to advertisers and made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns

.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-illness

The 33 environmental regulations he rolled back can be found below. How, for instance, does ending the Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands help business?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ersed.html


I'm not playing your game.

You want to say none of the rollbacks affected the economy, prove it. On the other hand, I am not obligated to prove each one of them did.

Have a nice life.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 10:13 am

Fate
You want to say none of the rollbacks affected the economy, prove it. On the other hand, I am not obligated to prove each one of them did.


But I didn't say that did I? I said:

Whether or not the regulations that Trump rolled back using the Congressional Review Act actually effected business a great deal is questionable.


I linked to a list of the regulations rolled back. Since RayJay and you have said that the regulatory rollbacks under the CRA HAVE benefited the economy ....perhaps one of you could point to those which have had an impact...
I think some probably have helped major polluters ... but how does helping a handful of polluters willfully pollute help the economy.
Here's three of the regulations that were changed... In what way have they contributed to economic growth?
The “resource extraction rule.” This SEC regulation, finalized in June 2016, would require publicly traded oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose payments they make to foreign governments. It was done under the auspices of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Its supporters say the increased transparency would deter corruption from oil companies working abroad. But oil companies hate it — when Trump’s new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was head of ExxonMobil, he flew to DC to lobby against it, arguing it would put US energy companies at a competitive disadvantage.
The “blacklisting” rule for contractors. This rule, finalized by the Department of Labor in August 2016, would require federal contractors to disclose labor law violations from the last three years — and change their practices — before they can receive a contract. In October, a federal judge halted this rule from taking effect, saying it went beyond the authority Congress had given the executive branch.
The Social Security gun rule. Under this regulation, finalized in December 2016, the Social Security Administration would submit information on recipients of disability insurance to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System if they met certain “mental impairment” criteria. Gun-rights advocates said the system could block those on disability from being able to buy guns and rallied to repeal it
.