• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The U.S. economy rebounds, adds 196,000 jobs, beating expectations

Puigb said:
Except for the fact that Trump's approval rating has stayed stagnant despite the economy. Any other president would be soaring with high approval ratings now with the economy, but Trump is such a failure that he can barely muster a mediocre 45%.
Click to expand...

He has been CONSTANTLY ATTACKED in the media , instead of PROPPED UP like Obama was, and STILL has similar ratings to BOTH OBAMA and CLINTON who was also PROPPED UP BY THE LEFT MEDIA....which are ALSO according to "polls' conducted by the SAME PEOPLE ATTACKING HIM.


You know, the SAME "POLLS" that had Hillary winning in a landslide.... :cool:


The ECONOMY continues to CHUG RIGHT ALONG.....
 
Last edited:
Puigb said:
Except for the fact that Trump's approval rating has stayed stagnant despite the economy.
Click to expand...

His approval rating also remained stagnant, despite all of his scandals.

Any other president would be soaring with high approval ratings now with the economy, but Trump is such a failure that he can barely muster a mediocre 45%.
Click to expand...

I believe we have indentified the problem. There are some people who believe Trump is any other President.
 
Puigb said:
and some Republicans rooted for failure during the Obama years. Hell, your hero Trump and other idiot Republicans called the employment numbers "fake" until January 20 2017 when the orange chosen one was inaugurated. Only then did they become "real" again.
Click to expand...

Was this reply meant for someone else? I only ask because you said "your hero."
 
Tanya said:
His approval rating also remained stagnant, despite all of his scandals.
Click to expand...

Yes, Republicans haven't abandoned their president, yet. Of course, Republicans don't have a large enough base to win presidential elections base on the strength of only their base, so...


Tanya said:
I believe we have indentified the problem. There are some people who believe Trump is any other President.
Click to expand...

He barely squeaked by a victory against the least popular candidate the Democrats ever fielded, mainly due to 80,000 votes in 3 blue states. Since then, he's lost support among everyone except Republicans. Could he win? Sure, but things as of now don't exactly look rosy for him either.
 
Grokmaster said:
He has been CONSTANTLY ATTACKED in the media , instead of PROPPED UP like Obama was, and STILL has similar ratings to BOTH OBAMA and CLINTON who was also PROPPED UP BY THE LEFT MEDIA....which are ALSO according to "polls' conducted by the SAME PEOPLE ATTACKING HIM.


You know, the SAME "POLLS" that had Hillary winning in a landslide.... :cool:


The ECONOMY continues to CHUG RIGHT ALONG.....
Click to expand...

the polls showed Hillary up about 2 points nationally. She received nearly 3 million more votes.

As for the media, save it. You guys always blame the media when you elect bad presidents. You did it during the Bush years, and now you've increased it during the Trump years, mainly because he feeds you guys the "enemy of the people" tripe that the rubes continue to gobble up.
 
Puigb said:
Yes, Republicans haven't abandoned their president, yet. Of course, Republicans don't have a large enough base to win presidential elections base on the strength of only their base, so...
Click to expand...

Economic models from Yale and Moody's are already predicting a Trump landslide. I'd be interested in learning how you are basing your forecast.

He barely squeaked by a victory against the least popular candidate the Democrats ever fielded, mainly due to 80,000 votes in 3 blue states. Since then, he's lost support among everyone except Republicans. Could he win? Sure, but things as of now don't exactly look rosy for him either.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, then you're not being objective...
 
Puigb said:
It was directed to you...
Click to expand...

Well, Trump isn't my hero. And yes, Republicans engaged in some very bad arguments. That doesn't mean that you should also engage in the same bad arguments.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
There aren't that many data points. You don't need a linear regression. You can eyeball this data

View attachment 67254290
Click to expand...
LOL, of course you'd say that. Actual numbers are quite that kind. In December of 2007 when the recession began unemployment was 5.0% it didn't get back to that until September of 2015.



I never denied that they were lower. It seems you're denying that they were getting lower every year long before Trump.

At its peak the unemployment rate was 10.0% in Oct 2009. When Obama left it was down to 4.7%. Under Trump it has gone from 4.7% to 3.8%. Keep in mind that Romney boldly predicted he would get unemployment down to 6% but Obama did better than that promise. [/quote]Who care about Romney?
son of D. said:
Under Obama inherited rising unemployment and had to turn it around. Trump inherited declining unemployment. Unemployment under 5% is considered FULL EMPLOYMENT.
Click to expand...
LOL, seriously? He had to "turn it around"? More like it turned around in spite of him; he turned in the worst post-recession recovery since WW II. Oh, and the 5% definition of "full employment" has been disproved by months of increased jobs AND rates a full percentage point below 5%



Son of D said:
Terrible analogy! We're not comparing two different runners. Here the runner is the economy. There is only one American economy. And we're not comparing pace because the pace has remained the same.
Click to expand...
And 100 meters is always 100 meters.
Son of D said:
Obama traveled from 10 to 4.7. Trump traveled from 4.7 top 3.8. It's more like a relay race where Obama ran 85% of the race and Trump ran the last 15%. Obama had the longest streak of job growth in American history. That's how we got from 10.0 to 4.7. The jobs that Trump added got us from 4.7 to 3.8.
Click to expand...
Longest AND slowest. His overall growth is hardly above inflation and population growth.
Son of D said:
Anyway, I'm done responding to you on this issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
When all else fails throw the insults, eh?
Son of d said:
Trump inherited a good economy and has maintained. Maybe has slightly improved it. But there is no dramatic change.
Click to expand...
GDP growth in 2016 was 1.6%, hardly a "good economy".
 
Tanya said:
Well, Trump isn't my hero. And yes, Republicans engaged in some very bad arguments. That doesn't mean that you should also engage in the same bad arguments.
Click to expand...

Republicans set the standard and can't complain about hypocrisy now.
 
Tanya said:
Economic models from Yale and Moody's are already predicting a Trump landslide. I'd be interested in learning how you are basing your forecast.
Click to expand...

Republicans haven't won a presidential election by a landslide since 1988. Trump barely won the first time, against a very weak Democratic candidate, and after 8 years of a Democratic president, which usually means the opposing party wins the presidency. He's done nothing to increase his support outside of the Republican base, has lost support with independents and moderates, and the GOP doesn't have a large enough base to win elections with low independent support. I'd be curious to see why these "economic models" predict why a largely vulnerable baggage laden incumbent like Trump will win in a landslide, something Republicans haven't been capable of doing in a presidential election since 1988.


Tanya said:
If you believe that, then you're not being objective...
Click to expand...

It's you who's not being objective. Everything i've stated is factual, which you have yet to refute.
 
Bullseye said:
More like it turned around in spite of him; he turned in the worst post-recession recovery since WW II. Oh, and the 5% definition of "full employment" has been disproved by months of increased jobs AND rates a full percentage point below 5%
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, when Obama is in office and the economy turns around and unemployment drops 5 full percentage points exceeding even Romney's promise, you claim the economy turned itself around but when Trump is in office and unemployment drops a mere 1% Trump is a great hero.

You can keep repeating that it was the slowest recovery but it was also the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And it was also the longest period of job growth in history. The longest ever.

I'll give you the definition of full employment given that you don't understand the term:

Full employment is considered to be any acceptable level of unemployment above 0%. Full employment exists without any cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment, but does exists with some level of frictional, structural and voluntary unemployment. Full employment is seen as the ideal employment rate within an economy and is normally represented by a range of rates that are specific to regions, time periods and political climates.

A government or economy often defines full employment as any rate of unemployment below a defined number. If, for example, a country sets full employment at a 5% unemployment rate, any level of unemployment below 5% is considered acceptable. Full employment, once attained, often results in an inflationary period. The inflation is a result of workers having more disposable income, which would drive prices upward.
Click to expand...

Full Employment

It's just so absurd that you're praising Trump for a 1% drop in unemployment when he inherited an economy that already had the longest streak of job growth in history. He inherited an economy that was already near or at full employment.

I'll concede that 1.6% was a low GDP number but GDP fluctuates significantly. You have to look at longer trends.

And finally, Obama was in office for 8 years. Trump has only been office for 3. It wasn't until Bush's 7th year that everything fell apart. Reagan's economy hadn't really turned around by year 3.

We can more fairly compare Obama and Trump after 8 years of Trump. But we're just assuming that Trump won't end up being a one-term failure president. LOL

My money is on Trump being a one term failure.
 
Bullseye said:
I understand all that, probably better than you. I also understand that determining rates of change and slope from erratic values requires more than a quick eyeballing. I also understand that what ever excuse you want to use doesn't change the fact that the 2018-2019 numbers are LOWER than the 2009-2016 numbers. Period. It's like denying acknowledging Usain Bolt's 100 meter world record because someone ran ALMOST AS FAST in the past.
MY facts show exactly what I state - your the one trying to through large scale charts (including one that doesn't even include Trump's term.
Get back to me when he matches Obama's record of four consecutive trillion dollar deficits.
Click to expand...

So you focus on cherry picking rather than trends?

Oh...
 
Lesh said:
So you focus on cherry picking rather than trends?

Oh...
Click to expand...

Horse****. The US economy has been BOOMING since the dismal final year of the failed Obamanomics anemic 1.6% growth.

That is the TREND.
 
What if...? said:
I've seen this all before. After Reagan's and bush 2s tax cuts.

Sugar rush followed by recession, loss of control of government. Liberals blamed for the downturn
Click to expand...

There was a recession after Reagans and Bushs tax cuts? And youve 'seen' this? Thats odd because it didnt happen.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Oh, I see, when Obama is in office and the economy turns around and unemployment drops 5 full percentage points exceeding even Romney's promise, you claim the economy turned itself around but when Trump is in office and unemployment drops a mere 1% Trump is a great hero.

You can keep repeating that it was the slowest recovery but it was also the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And it was also the longest period of job growth in history. The longest ever.

I'll give you the definition of full employment given that you don't understand the term:



Full Employment

It's just so absurd that you're praising Trump for a 1% drop in unemployment when he inherited an economy that already had the longest streak of job growth in history. He inherited an economy that was already near or at full employment.

I'll concede that 1.6% was a low GDP number but GDP fluctuates significantly. You have to look at longer trends.

And finally, Obama was in office for 8 years. Trump has only been office for 3. It wasn't until Bush's 7th year that everything fell apart. Reagan's economy hadn't really turned around by year 3.

We can more fairly compare Obama and Trump after 8 years of Trump. But we're just assuming that Trump won't end up being a one-term failure president. LOL

My money is on Trump being a one term failure.
Click to expand...

Your argument would have more (any?) credibility if people on the left werent claiming Trump would destroy the economy since the day he was elected. The truth is, we havent ended the business cycle and a recession IS inevitable. If Trump is president for 8 years, it is hard to imagine we wont see a recession in there somewhere. The US economy has never gone 16 straight years without a recession. In fact, we have gone 10 years since the last one ended and that may already be a record for expansion.
 
Puigb said:
Republicans haven't won a presidential election by a landslide since 1988. Trump barely won the first time, against a very weak Democratic candidate, and after 8 years of a Democratic president, which usually means the opposing party wins the presidency. He's done nothing to increase his support outside of the Republican base, has lost support with independents and moderates, and the GOP doesn't have a large enough base to win elections with low independent support. I'd be curious to see why these "economic models" predict why a largely vulnerable baggage laden incumbent like Trump will win in a landslide, something Republicans haven't been capable of doing in a presidential election since 1988.
Click to expand...

It's not difficult to understand. As James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid." Voters tend to shrug off much of what they dislike about an incumbent and vote based on their perception of the economy, which is doing very well. Using a 5% significance level, they use current economic indicators and segment how these indicators affect specific voting groups using survey data from University of Michigan Survey of Consumer confidence to estimate voter turnout for a particular candidate.

They've also conducted logistic regressions to determine the relationship between improving economic performance and incumbency re-elections, which denotes a very high relationship.

“Despite the fact that Trump is a largely incompetent clown, Democrats should not be overly confident or sanguine that they can beat him,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a top aide to former President Barack Obama. “He is a slight favorite to win. But he barely won last time and it took a Black Swan series of events to make that happen. All Democrats have to do is flip 100,000 or so votes in three states to win and that’s a very doable thing.” - Politico

It's you who's not being objective. Everything i've stated is factual, which you have yet to refute.
Click to expand...

Nothing you've stated strengthens your claim that Trump will lose. The only thing you've demonstrated is your own confirmation bias.
 
Puigb said:
Republicans set the standard and can't complain about hypocrisy now.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't matter who set the standard if your were always intellectually consistent.
 
Lesh said:
So you focus on cherry picking rather than trends?

Oh...
Click to expand...
Nope, not at all. Trends looked at carefully can be informative but not necessarily predictive; otherwise we'd never have recessions or recoveries.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Oh, I see, when Obama is in office and the economy turns around and unemployment drops 5 full percentage points exceeding even Romney's promise, you claim the economy turned itself around but when Trump is in office and unemployment drops a mere 1% Trump is a great hero.
Click to expand...
As I recall that drop in unemployment was caused by huge numbers of people dropping out of the labor force or taking part time jobs because they could find full time.
SonOfDaedalus said:
You can keep repeating that it was the slowest recovery but it was also the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And it was also the longest period of job growth in history. The longest ever.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that many economists will tell that deep recessions recover faster. And even just comparing Obama recovery to similar length recoveries still leaves him in last place.
SonOfD said:
I'll give you the definition of full employment given that you don't understand the term:



Full Employment
Click to expand...
Which turned out to be pretty meaningless as Trump charged passed it.

SonOfD said:
It's just so absurd that you're praising Trump for a 1% drop in unemployment when he inherited an economy that already had the longest streak of job growth in history. He inherited an economy that was already near or at full employment.
Click to expand...
LOL "full employment" is an academic term that's been shown to have little real world influence. It took Obama six years just to get unemployment back to what it was at the start of the recession and nearly that long to get the number of people in the labor force back to pre-recession numbers - even with population growth.
SonOfD said:
I'll concede that 1.6% was a low GDP number but GDP fluctuates significantly. You have to look at longer trends.
Click to expand...
Nope, that was THE ECONOMY he handed over, not the one in 2009, or 2010 or any other year.
SonOfD said:
And finally, Obama was in office for 8 years. Trump has only been office for 3. It wasn't until Bush's 7th year that everything fell apart. Reagan's economy hadn't really turned around by year 3.

We can more fairly compare Obama and Trump after 8 years of Trump. But we're just assuming that Trump won't end up being a one-term failure president.
Click to expand...
LOL. Not TOO DESPERATE, eh?
 
Bullseye said:
As I recall that drop in unemployment was caused by huge numbers of people dropping out of the labor force or taking part time jobs because they could find full time.
Click to expand...

That's what I recall too. Can you show me how Trump has changed the labor participation rate? Funny we don't hear about it anymore.
 
Bullseye said:
Funny thing is that many economists will tell that deep recessions recover faster. And even just comparing Obama recovery to similar length recoveries still leaves him in last place.
Click to expand...

Great, so we must have bounced back really fast from the Great Depression, right?
 
Bullseye said:
It took Obama six years just to get unemployment back to what it was at the start of the recession and nearly that long to get the number of people in the labor force back to pre-recession numbers - even with population growth.
Click to expand...

More jobs were added during Obama's last year than Trump's first year. At no point do we see any sudden increase in job creation.

Moreover, Obama has the longest streak of job creation in history. Trump has been in office for about 3 years. He may not even get reelected. Economically, G.W. Bush's first 4 years were pretty good. It's not easy to survive 8 years.
 
Grokmaster said:
More " BAD NEWS"...if you're a DEMOCRAT, that is. :mrgreen:

Looks like the low February jobs report was an ANOMALY.


Great news for the rest of us. And , despite a lower growth in wages from February's substantial increase...average hourly wages are 3.2% HIGHER, YEAR-OVER-YEAR...easily outpacing inflation....currently at 1.5%. ( Current US Inflation Rates: 2009-2019 | US Inflation Calculator ).




The U.S. economy adds 196,000 jobs, beating expectations




The U.S. economy added a surprisingly robust 196,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported on Friday, rebounding from a weak month that prompted markets to question the strength of the labor market.
March’s jobs data exceeded the expectations of Wall Street economists, who were expecting the economy to add 175,000 non-farm payrolls in March, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Meanwhile, February’s sharply lower-than-expected 20,000 job additions were revised up to 33,000.

The unemployment rate checked in at 3.8%, the same pace of increase as in February, according to consensus economists polled by Bloomberg.
The hot jobs market is also putting more money in workers’ pockets. Data showed that average hourly earnings grew 3.2% year-over-year, just below economists expectations of 3.4% growth. Month-over-month, average hourly earnings grew 0.1%, below the 0.4% increase seen in February.


The U.S. adds 196,000 jobs, beats expectations




Getting popcorn and a beverage to watch the "HURRY!! TRY OT MAKE THIS BAD NEWS!!" gyrations of the DP LEFT...which is always a source of great entertainment.... :cool:
Click to expand...

Trump started with unemployment under 5% and the strong wage growth is a result of the low unemployment Trump inherit and a growing economy he also inherited. The actual GDP growth under Trump looks like it is averaging more like 2.5% instead of over 3% and won't be able to pay for those tax cuts and increase in government spending. In fact, government revenue has stagnated since Trump took office while spending has been skyrocketing. Obama's economy growth has averaged around a little over 2% which is lower than Trump but he also didn't inherit a healthy economy and even with healthy revenue creating nearly trillion dollar deficits which is basically an economy bubble and a debt-based sugar high. In addition, GDP growth is likely to fall to the low 2% range under Trump unless the deficit is increased and add more debt money from the last year. Trump is trying to do this by suggesting another debt-based tax cut and a record 4.75 trillion in government spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom