Growth for Third Quarter 1.9%-- Way Below Trump's Budget Predictions

[*Z*]

This is a great win for Americans who root against America due to who the President is.

Nobody is rooting against America. People didn't agree with Trump's tax cuts or the huge budgets in the first place. People knew where this was leading. Meanwhile the Trumpers cheered him the whole way.

 

[Rational Poster]

But it's not just that. It's the excessive building of planes, tanks etc and the over the top foreign intervention. Couple that with all of the foreign aid we give countries. Three billion a year alone to Israel for their defense fund.

I'm all for military R and D and having a solid defense... I just don't think we need it on the level we currently do.

Agreed, it's not necessary, yet our economy is already addicted to the overspending and has been for decades. Self imposed inefficiency lines pockets and creates jobs.

It's just not quite so simple as just cutting the budget here or there... that's why they never do it. Increasing spending is easy, decreasing spending is hard especially when you compound the impact of the increased spending over several decades. Economies form around that spending and once you take it away those people that depended on that spending are left holding the bag.

US government spending is intrinsically linked with the global economy. Large or even small percentage decreases to US government spending will have reverberating impacts in not only the domestic market, but global markets.

 

[luckyshot]

He pretty much promised 3% and did not hit it. Perfectly acceptable to point that out. The other side would do it to a guy with a D next to his name

Rational post followed by...

It is wise to keep in mind we are doing much better than most of the world though

Unsupported assertion.

What are you basing this claim on? The counter arguments are many and well known:
-- Only highly developed country without UHC
-- Only " " " without guaranteed maternity/ paternity leave
-- More hours working, less vacation time than other developed nations
-- Lower union membership " " " "
-- Lower share of GDP going to middle class " " " "
-- Ongoing opioid crisis
-- Increasingly unaffordable college education and multi-trillion dollar student debt crisis
-- One of the only countries in the whole world where the life expectancy has actually decreased over the last two years...
-- Etc., Etc.

And those are just the uncontroversial points that everyone agrees on-- doesn't even get into subjective measurements like quality of life....

 

[Andy Capp]

But it's not just that. It's the excessive building of planes, tanks etc and the over the top foreign intervention. Couple that with all of the foreign aid we give countries. Three billion a year alone to Israel for their defense fund.

I'm all for military R and D and having a solid defense... I just don't think we need it on the level we currently do.

QFT
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want
"Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected.""

In other words, it's so that plant doesn't need to compete for contracts for private sector work. Bro, do you even free market economy?

"Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories. However, he noted that it was not unusual for Congress to go against the military's recommendations on the budget.

"It's just one example and it's not unique to this year," Harrison said. "In some cases, Congress is using its appropriate role of oversight. In some cases, Congress can act out of purely parochial interests."

The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force. He told the Associated Press at the time that "if we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way" than spending it on 70-ton Abrams tanks."

 

[Rational Poster]

Also, @TeTe

There is a lot of misinformation about foreign aid, especially foreign military aid.

We don't just give them billions of dollars in weapons. We give them cash which they then use to buy arms from US manufacturers.

It's basically an indirect subsidy for the arms industry. It's not just free money for a foreign government.

 

[TeTe]

QFT
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want
"Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected.""

In other words, it's so that plant doesn't need to compete for contracts for private sector work. Bro, do you even free market economy?

"Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories. However, he noted that it was not unusual for Congress to go against the military's recommendations on the budget.

"It's just one example and it's not unique to this year," Harrison said. "In some cases, Congress is using its appropriate role of oversight. In some cases, Congress can act out of purely parochial interests."

The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force. He told the Associated Press at the time that "if we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way" than spending it on 70-ton Abrams tanks."

And to think, they could use that excess they piss away on tanks and fighter jets... on infrastructure, education, etc.

That's what I'm talking about. People who make a living off of government contracts for defense could make money off of government contracts doing something more useful for the American people and you wouldn't even need to raise taxes.

Think about the amount of money they spend on one F-35. You know how many public universities you could fund for a year off of that amount? Countries not as rich as the US like Sweden, Germany, etc may need to bleed people for half of their money for these luxuries but we do not.

 

[TeTe]

Also, @TeTe

There is a lot of misinformation about foreign aid, especially foreign military aid.

We don't just give them billions of dollars in weapons. We give them cash which they then use to buy arms from US manufacturers.

It's basically an indirect subsidy for the arms industry. It's not just free money for a foreign government.

I get it, a lot of countries do buy arms from us so there is some ROI on what we develop. But I certainly don't think it comes close to what we invest. I'd be interested to find some numbers on how much return we get on what we spend.

 

[Rational Poster]

I get it, a lot of countries do buy arms from us so there is some ROI on what we develop. But I certainly don't think it comes close to what we invest. I'd be interested to find some numbers on how much return we get on what we spend.

Look at Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin etc

The return is exponential.

 

[Black Conf3derate]

Here's how much I care about your opinion

I feel like I'm conversing with a teenager. I'm sorry I bothered you but you can't try and play mod-lite asking for peoples insight when you yourself gave none.

 

[Letssnuggle]

The housing market is looking better and better. Perfect timing for me. I expect prices to dip come election time next year as well. Buyers market LOOMS.

I unloaded two middle class rental houses the past two years. Have one more to go!

Would love the opportunity to purchase three more if 2009 repeated!

 

[ScottE]

I’d argue not

No you'll opine not, you won't argue anything as you post nothing substantive.

 

[Luke Rockhard]

How many billions were wasted on white trash farmers???? Anyone, anyone.
Imagine having a failed business man with multiple bankruptcies who was always saved by his rich daddy in charge of the worlds largest economy??? Who would have thought this would happen. Dudes a stable genius, knows finance better than anyone. This is just one of thousands of examples of how bad American is failing under this administration. You need actually people who know about politics, policies, and government to run said government. You can't have a matchbox car collector suddenly running an Auto Mechanic shop as head mechanic. Just like you can't have a spoiled bitch trust fund baby with no political experience run the American government.

 

[Ophydian]

It’s one quarter
I expect a thread about the next one if it’s 3-4% from you or an admission you’re just an angry little man

Wouldn’t it be weird to see a Trump voter making this initial OP? It would never happen because it’s fake news.

 

[cincymma79]

No you'll opine not, you won't argue anything as you post nothing substantive.

I mean you are posting from a cellphone using the internet
Outside of those inventions nothing good has ever come form the military

 

[ultramanhyata]

The GDP growth of the third quarter was 1.9%. This followed second quarter growth of 2%.

As long as 99% of that growth went to the top .05% the US economy remains solid and on track. Don't be a naysayer.

 

[panamaican]

I'm sure that he and other Republicans will use this as a moment of self-reflection and reconsider the efficacy of their policies.

What else would they possibly do?

 

[Michaelangelo]

You can only artificially inflate growth for so long. It’s going to collapse on itself soon enough.

 

[ScottE]

Look at Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin etc

The return is exponential.

The problem is having out economy as predicated on those things means that we engage in deals and or actions we otherwise would not in order to sustain that portion if our economy. It makes us comprised.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Every. Fucking. Time.

 

[BForrester]

It’s one quarter
I expect a thread about the next one if it’s 3-4% from you or an admission you’re just an angry little man

Do you not pay attention to any of the leading economic indicators? Inverted yield curve, fed rate cuts, the ISM is in recession, the Shipping index flashed the death cross in Oct with its 50 day moving average crossing below the 200 day.

I don't suppose you do. That would require forward thinking. I moved my portfolio from a 100% equity allocation to a 70-30 back in June... The writing is on the wall, you just have to know how to read.