GDP growth for the second quarter was +4.1%, second highest in 15 years

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It took about 2 years after Reagan's second tax cut on the wealthy until start of a recession and about 2 1/2 for Bush 2.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also, you asked why, I gave you investor concerns. Those weren't my opinions. You want to know why anyone might have concern, that is why. The high from the cocaine doesn't mean the cocaine is a great idea.

But the way, Also, you asked why, I gave you investor concerns. That is different then us just coming out and saying they are bad policies. You want us to agree with you so you can feel good about yourself. Find another source than this forum if you need your ego stoked.

"It took about 2 years after Reagan's second tax cut on the wealthy until start of a recession and about 2 1/2 for Bush 2."

And you provided exactly zero evidence that the tax cuts caused the recession. Maybe they helped delay the recession, maybe it made the recession less bad. I don't know. Neither do you. Obama also cut taxes, maybe those will be the cause of the next recession?

"Also, you asked why, I gave you investor concerns"

An article written by someone that neither of us has ever heard of.

I've never actually heard, until now, that high GDP growth was bad. If your pay or net worth increases, that's a bad sign?
What I see, are people who are so desperate to make this guy look bad, that if he says "two and two are four", you'd disagree.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I've never actually heard, until now, that high GDP growth was bad. If your pay or net worth increases, that's a bad sign?

Because it's not healthy growth. The GDP is being driven mostly by foreign purchases of US goods in advance of the tariffs. Why? Because soon they're not going to be buying as much of our stuff.

Small and mid-sized businesses can't buffer this kind of whiplash, they're just going to fold.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it's not healthy growth. The GDP is being driven mostly by foreign purchases of US goods in advance of the tariffs. Why? Because soon they're not going to be buying as much of our stuff.

Small and mid-sized businesses can't buffer this kind of whiplash, they're just going to fold.

what would gdp growth have been, if not for the one time run up in purchases of us giids. and if trump and the eu agreed to work toward zero tariffs, then what are the tariffs that everyone is so afraid of, that they’re stockpiling today.

businesses can’t survuve a one time surge in demand? even if that’s what this is, which is a bug if, it’s better that the surge in demand never happened? how does that make sense? i can’t win piwetball every year, that doesn’t mean it’s bad if i win once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"It took about 2 years after Reagan's second tax cut on the wealthy until start of a recession and about 2 1/2 for Bush 2."

And you provided exactly zero evidence that the tax cuts caused the recession. Maybe they helped delay the recession, maybe it made the recession less bad. I don't know. Neither do you. Obama also cut taxes, maybe those will be the cause of the next recession?

"Also, you asked why, I gave you investor concerns"

An article written by someone that neither of us has ever heard of.

I've never actually heard, until now, that high GDP growth was bad. If your pay or net worth increases, that's a bad sign?
What I see, are people who are so desperate to make this guy look bad, that if he says "two and two are four", you'd disagree.

You see what you want to see. I am starting to waste time with you again so forgive when I stop responding. Obama also cut payroll taxes and slightly raised the top marginal income tax rates. Clinton raised it too. In both cases they were followed by steady long term economic growth. I specifically referred to top rates. KO3blpb gets a wait and see at best from me based on the reality of how this worked in the past, not a reach around like you want to give him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You see what you want to see. I am starting to waste time with you again so forgive when I stop responding. Obama also cut payroll taxes and slightly raised the top marginal income tax rates. Clinton raised it too. In both cases they were followed by steady long term economic growth. I specifically referred to top rates. KO3blpb gets a wait and see at best from me based on the reality of how this worked in the past, not a reach around like you want to give him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, clinton and obama’s tax cuts were followed by growth. how do you know, how could you know, that trumps cuts won’t also be followed by growth? the answer, is because you are the one who sees what he wants to see, and with trump in charge, what you want to see us trump failure. we may go into a recession tomorrow, we might grow for five more years . you don’t know. but you’re assuming we won’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know GDP Growth is Good for the economy

1) but is it sustainable ? and down side

Sustainable over decades? Hopefully. Sustainable quarter to quarter? No.

Obama stated 2% growth was probably the new normal and we should get used to it. He hit 3% one or two quarters IIRC. GDP growth averaged 3.6% from WW2 to the Great Recession. Some years were very high some were lean. Be nice to get back on the high 3s rather than the low 2s.

Originally Posted by wdmso

2) how does it help people like us on this site (outside investments we may or may not have ) Seeing wages are stale interest rates are up and deficits are all time High and the threat of inflation always around the corner

Interest rates have been artificially low for a decade - they should have gone up (hate that thought) previously. Wayne - on the outside if the economy is slow people are not working - think of 2008-2011 how bad it was.

Originally Posted by wdmso

4) what is Tax Revenue % is in the 4.1 GDP

A lot more than if GDP was 3, or 2

Originally Posted by wdmso

I prefer the The Tortoise and the Hare: or something in the middle when it comes to the economy

Originally Posted by zimmy

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not sure why you think you know what I want. I am hardly liberal. I am moderate.

Then how are you and I both moderates ; ) ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Obama stated 2% growth was probably the new normal and we should get used to it. He hit 3% one or two quarters IIRC.

Under Obama we hit over 4 several times and one quarter over 5.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Then how are you and I both moderates ; ) ?

Based on your posts, it seems to me you have shifted more and more right over the last decade. You are anti Obama and his policies, particularly economy, were mostly moderate. I would have pegged you as more tea party than moderate. Socially I am liberal or libertarian in that I don't want people like Jim deciding what is right for other people or the correct family values. Pretty sure it is moderate to think we need border control, but not a billions of dollars ineffective wall. It is moderate to believe the people coming are generally good people in terrible situations and not the b.s. that they are rapists, murders, etc. Ya know, pretty much the same things Reagan believed. I think tax cuts are best focused on the middle class and that payroll tax cuts are particularly helpful. Top tax rates shouldn't be 90 or 70 percent, but cutting top tax rates, which were relatively low, during a strong economy is not necessarily smart policy. And yes I am liberal orelated to fishing in that I have been angry for 12 years at the rate people kill big fish because it is stupid and harmful and generally done to stroke the egos of the insecure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes, clinton and obama’s tax cuts were followed by growth. how do you know, how could you know, that trumps cuts won’t also be followed by growth? the answer, is because you are the one who sees what he wants to see,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Steady long term economic growth is what I said. How do I know Trump's won't be? I don't but his tax bill was not the type that typically followed by sustained growth. I said wait and see. How could I see the results when it has only been a few months? I shouldn't have used the cocaine analogy with you, it should have been lsd since you seem to be hallucinating and see things that haven't happened yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device