the economy

[stevenash]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy grew robustly in the third quarter despite two hurricanes, propelled by steady spending from American businesses and households.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services made in the U.S., expanded at a 3% annual rate in July through September, the Commerce Department

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had projected a 2.7% gain.

 

The third quarter’s strong growth is particularly impressive because

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

temporarily shut down major population centers in Texas and Florida in August and September. The Commerce Department said in its report Friday that the storms likely suppressed business activity such as oil and gas extraction in Texas and Details from Friday’s report suggested underlying health and point to momentum heading into 2018. agriculture production in Florida. But the agency added, “it is not possible to estimate the overall impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma on 2017 third-quarter GDP.”

[TxHoops]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[stevenash]

Couple of points for your responses.   1.  My remarks DID NOT say that 3% was an annual rate.  It DID SAY that the result was better than projected in spite of the effect of two unplanned hurricanes.  2.  Anybody who assumes the Presidency at or near the bottom of a severe economic contraction is going to look good statistically.  If Lebron James has a ten game streak of averaging 12 points a game and then has one where he scored 20, he can claim a 66% increase in his recent scoring average or he can claim an approximate 25% decline vs his career average.  The question one would want to ask is whether or not the bulk of the good statistics is the result of the cyclicality of the economy or was it something instituted by the Administration that caused the rebound.  I side with the former because there has NEVER been a recession/decline/economic contraction from which we did not recover.  I will also suggest to you that Steve Kerrs percentage increase in wins this year will probably not be as good as it will be for the coach of the Nets, the Knicks, or the Bucks but that does not tell the whole story about who is the better coach. My suggestion to you is that Mr. Obama's long suit was probably social justice as opposed to being an economic expert.  Paint it any way you wish, but higher taxes and thousands of additional regulations are very counterproductive to an economy.  From my perspective, whatever credit the Obama administration is given for economic numbers, I will contend they could/should have been much better.  If my memory serves me correctly, there has never been another President that did not experience a 3% annual growth rate ( note annual, not annualized) at some point during his administration.  Bottom line- the electorate decided that enough emphasis had been given to social justice and this time around, it wanted more attention to the economy. Perhaps it will swing back the other way come next election.  Apparently, it's not just the economy that is cyclical.

[Tigers2010]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Now Hoops, over the last several days, I feel like we have developed a certain semblance of a friendshhip. One of your "sources" is titled "Fool". They can't really be taken all that serious, at least in terms as a useful reference. After reading it, it also gives some excuses or shady explanations of why Obama's numbers are what they are. Doesn't that article seem a little, dare I say, biased to you? Lol 

[TxHoops]

53 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Now Hoops, over the last several days, I feel like we have developed a certain semblance of a friendshhip. One of your "sources" is titled "Fool". They can't really be taken all that serious, at least in terms as a useful reference. After reading it, it also gives some excuses or shady explanations of why Obama's numbers are what they are. Doesn't that article seem a little, dare I say, biased to you? Lol 

I had never heard of The Motley Fool but apparently it’s a trader’s website.  I would defer to Nash as to it’s usefulness (or lack thereof) with the market.  As to all the stuff I posted, I just found it interesting.  I’m not qualified to break it down any further than defining words.  And only some of them.  Heck, I thought GDP was an acronym for something my dad called the Packers.  

And the kinship is mutual Tiger!

[stevenash]

Motley Fool is, in my opinion, a credible source.

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

Motley Fool is, in my opinion, a credible source.

I wasn't sure how it was regarded with you guys, but I knew you would be familiar with it.  I know how to buy a WSJ and pretend to understand it...

[stevenash]

[stevenash]

Service sector activity grew in October at the fastest pace since 2005, putting an exclamation point on what has been a week of solid economic data. Sixteen of eighteen industries reported growth (two reported contraction), while all major measures of activity stand comfortably in expansion territory. The most forward looking indices – new orders and business activity – both stand at very healthy levels above 60, signaling that activity should remain robust in the months ahead. The impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma can still be felt across industries as respondents from the construction, retail trade, and real estate, rental & leasing fields credit storm impacts with boosting activity. But the largest impact can be seen in the pricing data. The prices paid index declined to a still high 62.7 in October, the second highest reading (behind just last month) in five years. Supply chains were impacted as well, keeping the supplier deliveries index elevated at 58.0, which means firms are having trouble keeping up with the strength in orders. The storm impacts on the data will subside in the coming months, but we expect the underlying trend of growth seen to-date in 2017 to remain and possibly accelerate

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Service sector activity grew in October at the fastest pace since 2005, putting an exclamation point on what has been a week of solid economic data. Sixteen of eighteen industries reported growth (two reported contraction), while all major measures of activity stand comfortably in expansion territory. The most forward looking indices – new orders and business activity – both stand at very healthy levels above 60, signaling that activity should remain robust in the months ahead. The impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma can still be felt across industries as respondents from the construction, retail trade, and real estate, rental & leasing fields credit storm impacts with boosting activity. But the largest impact can be seen in the pricing data. The prices paid index declined to a still high 62.7 in October, the second highest reading (behind just last month) in five years. Supply chains were impacted as well, keeping the supplier deliveries index elevated at 58.0, which means firms are having trouble keeping up with the strength in orders. The storm impacts on the data will subside in the coming months, but we expect the underlying trend of growth seen to-date in 2017 to remain and possibly accelerate

Wow, that's terrible news. Tobie is gonna be p o'd.

[stevenash]

7 minutes ago, baddog said:

Wow, that's terrible news. Tobie is gonna be p o'd.

He's gonna say that all of this took place on grounds where people were hung 200 years ago and Trump said grab em.

[new tobie]

28 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Service sector activity grew in October at the fastest pace since 2005, putting an exclamation point on what has been a week of solid economic data. Sixteen of eighteen industries reported growth (two reported contraction), while all major measures of activity stand comfortably in expansion territory. The most forward looking indices – new orders and business activity – both stand at very healthy levels above 60, signaling that activity should remain robust in the months ahead. The impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma can still be felt across industries as respondents from the construction, retail trade, and real estate, rental & leasing fields credit storm impacts with boosting activity. But the largest impact can be seen in the pricing data. The prices paid index declined to a still high 62.7 in October, the second highest reading (behind just last month) in five years. Supply chains were impacted as well, keeping the supplier deliveries index elevated at 58.0, which means firms are having trouble keeping up with the strength in orders. The storm impacts on the data will subside in the coming months, but we expect the underlying trend of growth seen to-date in 2017 to remain and possibly accelerate

Keep trying to make the most disrespectful man in the history of the presidency the greatest since reagan , lets see how this term ends.

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, new tobie said:

Keep trying to make the most disrespectful man in the history of the presidency the greatest since reagan , lets see how this term ends.

It's just news...why does that upset you?

[stevenash]

Tobie, in this case, unfortunately for you, Mr. Trump is occupying the top office while these FACTS occur.  Are they permanent? No   Might they undergo a decline? yes 

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It's just news...why does that upset you?

Because his man couldn't achieve these numbers.  His man, the worst potus in history!! Show em

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, new tobie said:

Keep trying to make the most disrespectful man in the history of the presidency the greatest since reagan , lets see how this term ends.

Was there anything disrespectful about receiving oral sex in the white house from someone other than your spouse?  Do the names Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky affect  your perception of a former President?  There is a PLETHORA of disrespect in the incidents related to those names.  Never seemed to trouble you.

[BS Wildcats]

26 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Was there anything disrespectful about receiving oral sex in the white house from someone other than your spouse?  Do the names Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky affect  your perception of a former President?  There is a PLETHORA of disrespect in the incidents related to those names.  Never seemed to trouble you.

He loves him some Slick Willie, even more than obama, that's his words.  Clinton did this and he says nothing, but he yells grab em every other breath.  Talk about two-faced!!

[TxHoops]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."

Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with." Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth."

[Englebert]

36 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."

Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with." Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth."

Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to adopt a more Conservative economic platform. Wild-spending Bill shut the government down twice in childish defiance before acquiescing to Gingrich's policies. I give Bill credit for finally "seeing the light", although he had to be arm-twisted. If left unchallenged Bill would have probably been just as bad as Obama.

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to adopt a more Conservative economic platform. Wild-spending Bill shut the government down twice in childish defiance before acquiescing to Gingrich's policies. I give Bill credit for finally "seeing the light", although he had to be arm-twisted. If left unchallenged Bill would have probably been just as bad as Obama.

No offense, but I will take republican appointee Greenspan’s assessment over the rhetoric of this board.  And besides, I have given Reagan credit on here often, even though he had a Democratic Congress during his administration.  Somehow, Pubbies have a hard time doing the same. 

[TxHoops]

The real genius of both men is they were able to reach across the aisle and work with the other party btw.  Something at which their successors have failed miserably.  The current has enough problems working with his own party.  

[stevenash]

Clinton enacted Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which reduced taxes for many small business. Furthermore, he signed legislation that increased the tax deduction for self-employed business owners from 30% to 80% by 1997. The 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 reduced some federal taxes. The 28% rate for capital gains was lowered to 20%. The 15% rate was lowered to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child and in 1999, it was raised to $500. This Act removed from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses. Since 1998, an exemption could be taken out for those family farms and small businesses that qualified for it. In 1999, the correction of inflation on the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was accomplished. By the year 2006, the $600,000 estate tax exemption had risen to $1 million

 

Will the "Demies" have any problem acknowledging that lower, rather than higher taxes are beneficial to an economy?  Will the Demies have any problem admitting that ideology did not and should not dictate every policy?  Mr. Clintons entire administration was not totally focused on "social justice" as "some" were.

 

 

[TxHoops]

Nash, did I strike a nerve with “Pubbies?” After all the cute names this board likes to call the Dems, I thought it appropriate.  I debated “Pubes” but thought the former to be more tasteful.  

You know I defer to you on economic issues, but I will say a couple of things that I believe (and have also seen you write - I think - in the past).  

One, Clinton was, by most accounts, one of the most deep and forward-thinking, astute Presidents we’ve had in terms of economic policy.  BUT (and here’s my reference to you) he played a large part in the housing policies that ended a colossal failure.  

And two, I have actually read a lot on this issue (and if I recall, have heard you state this as well), and most of the so-called experts will say that Presidents (and certainly Congress) get way too much credit for robust economies and way too much blame for the opposite. 

I apologize if I’ve misremembered anything but I’m convinced REBgp has infected me with his contagious senility. 

[Englebert]

15 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No offense, but I will take republican appointee Greenspan’s assessment over the rhetoric of this board.  And besides, I have given Reagan credit on here often, even though he had a Democratic Congress during his administration.  Somehow, Pubbies have a hard time doing the same. 

 

13 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

The real genius of both men is they were able to reach across the aisle and work with the other party btw.  Something at which their successors have failed miserably.  The current has enough problems working with his own party.  

I gave wild-spending Bill credit for working with the Right, although that capitulation came reluctantly and not without a fight. The Left will not admit that Bill was forced to change his wild spending ways and continually give him full credit for an economy that would never have happened if he had stuck to his ideology.

And I'm very thankful that the Right will not work with the current Liberals in office. The loony Liberals have hi-jacked the once proud Democratic party and turned it into a despicable (or deplorable) platform of anti-American ideas. Compromise with them cannot be good for anybody. Please, I beg you, take back your party from these current nut-cases...then we can talk about compromising. 

[stevenash]

20 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Nash, did I strike a nerve with “Pubbies?” After all the cute names this board likes to call the Dems, I thought it appropriate.  I debated “Pubes” but thought the former to be more tasteful.  

You know I defer to you on economic issues, but I will say a couple of things that I believe (and have also seen you write - I think - in the past).  

One, Clinton was, by most accounts, one of the most deep and forward-thinking, astute Presidents we’ve had in terms of economic policy.  BUT (and here’s my reference to you) he played a large part in the housing policies that ended a colossal failure.  

And two, I have actually read a lot on this issue (and if I recall, have heard you state this as well), and most of the so-called experts will say that Presidents (and certainly Congress) get way too much credit for robust economies and way too much blame for the opposite. 

I apologize if I’ve misremembered anything but I’m convinced REBgp has infected me with his contagious senility. 

Can find no fault with anything you say.  I am, however, amazed that the left still SINCERELY BELIEVES that Bush was at fault for an economic debacle that began with the sub prime mortgage crisis