How Much Credit Does Trump Deserve for the Strong Economy?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/trump-s-economic-record-is-yet-to-be-written

"So I’m not terribly surprised that the economy today looks pretty similar to the economy at the end of the Barack Obama administration. For example, the unemployment rate stands at 3.9 percent, but its 6-percentage-point steady decline began during Obama’s first term.

Or consider the most recent GDP release, which found the economy growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent. That’s fast growth, to be sure. But the economy enjoyed an annual rate of growth above 4 percent during four quarters of Obama’s presidency.

Trump has been president for 19 months, during which the economy added an average of 189,000 jobs per month. In the final 19 months of the Obama presidency, the economy added 208,000 jobs per month — basically no difference.

I’m going to stop the comparisons here. It’s not good practice to analyze economic data grouped by presidential administration, precisely because the president does not control the economy with a wand, magic or otherwise. And the gist of the major economic indicators confirms the
e story told by the three I’ve discussed above."


Comments?

He hasn't ****ed it up yet, so I think he should get kudos for that. Yes, he inherited a recovering economy. I think that Trump is the best example that to get ahead, inherit. The slopes of the lines are pretty much the same as they were under Obama, I don't think that Trump has had great influence over these, other than doing enough not to rock those numbers too hard yet. We'll see what happens when we really start feeling the repercussions of Trade War.

But as of now, it looks more like all the changes are consistent with the changes happening under Obama, the economy is moving in the same direction at about the same rate.

Well, ol' Trump can certainly take credit for the tariffs and sanctions. They are working as farmers will attest. Auto manufacturers might be available for comment, as well. The deferred penalties for stopping Global Warming Mitigation Initiatives will hurt all of our pocketbooks. The increased cost of Chinese imports will be borne by consumers. I don't trust any gov't data on jobs, growth, etc. Most new jobs are temps or less than 32 hours and near minimum wage. We be screwed.
/

I try to never attribute a good economy to a President if he wouldn't ever be willing to take the blame for a recession, and we're overdue for one.

DaveFagan said:

Well, ol' Trump can certainly take credit for the tariffs and sanctions. They are working as farmers will attest. Auto manufacturers might be available for comment, as well. The deferred penalties for stopping Global Warming Mitigation Initiatives will hurt all of our pocketbooks. The increased cost of Chinese imports will be borne by consumers. I don't trust any gov't data on jobs, growth, etc. Most new jobs are temps or less than 32 hours and near minimum wage. We be screwed.
/

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like the Obama record not the Trump record. I have spent months talking about part time, low paying jobs and pointing to the official data and Obama record on creating part time jobs for economic reasons. This measurement has been ongoing since 1993 and never in question until we have Trump in office and those numbers are back to historic lows yet touted as part of the problem. Here is the data whether you like it or not

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2008 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943
2013 8151 8178 7722 7964 7937 8103 8099 7816 7764 7936 7718 7827
2014 7302 7304 7451 7516 7260 7425 7400 7169 7007 7031 6885 6817
2015 6820 6693 6653 6622 6643 6386 6234 6411 6025 5807 6159 6027
2016 5960 6021 6099 6027 6491 5751 5898 5977 5893 5955 5719 5554
2017 5776 5670 5500 5309 5268 5264 5236 5209 5148 4880 4851 4915
2018 4989 5160 5019 4985 4948 4743 4567

Click to expand...

As for the current economy, Trump has seen increased employment in manufacturing as well as mining both higher paying professions and has seen a significant increase in overall job creation in other higher paying positions. Seems that the actual results don't support your rhetoric

Conservative said:

Sounds a lot like the Obama record not the Trump record. I have spent months talking about part time, low paying jobs and pointing to the official data and Obama record on creating part time jobs for economic reasons. This measurement has been ongoing since 1993 and never in question until we have Trump in office and those numbers are back to historic lows yet touted as part of the problem. Here is the data whether you like it or not



As for the current economy, Trump has seen increased employment in manufacturing as well as mining both higher paying professions and has seen a significant increase in overall job creation in other higher paying positions. Seems that the actual results don't support your rhetoric

Click to expand...

Well nothing presented here says that higher-paying jobs are created here than under Obama. All it shows is the continued trend that existed when Obama was President existing when Trump is now President.

So...it seems like the actual results don't support your rhetoric.

KLATTU said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/trump-s-economic-record-is-yet-to-be-written

"So I’m not terribly surprised that the economy today looks pretty similar to the economy at the end of the Barack Obama administration. For example, the unemployment rate stands at 3.9 percent, but its 6-percentage-point steady decline began during Obama’s first term.

Or consider the most recent GDP release, which found the economy growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent. That’s fast growth, to be sure. But the economy enjoyed an annual rate of growth above 4 percent during four quarters of Obama’s presidency.

Trump has been president for 19 months, during which the economy added an average of 189,000 jobs per month. In the final 19 months of the Obama presidency, the economy added 208,000 jobs per month — basically no difference.

I’m going to stop the comparisons here. It’s not good practice to analyze economic data grouped by presidential administration, precisely because the president does not control the economy with a wand, magic or otherwise. And the gist of the major economic indicators confirms the
e story told by the three I’ve discussed above."


Comments?

Click to expand...

The intangibles are what count. Removing burdensome regulations were like a breath of fresh air to the business community. A tax cut will make them more competitive with China and others. Quicker depreciation encourages purchase of more efficient capital equipment. Going to the mat with China shows businesses that he is serious about re directing the worlds supply chain back to America and it's allies. Trump believes that we are not going down without a fight. Obama assumed we were over. A defeatist attitude if there ever was one.

Under Obama, businesses operated in the "Goldilocks Zone" where sales were steady, there was lots of cheap labor and few new jobs for key employees to run off to. Business was moribund and there was very little competition so there was little incentive to purchase new equipment and no incentive to reach larger markets. Running a business at half throttle is easy.

To keep costs in line, many companies sent US components to China and asked them "Can you do this cheaper". It was a very defeatist attitude, indeed.

In high tech, most entrepreneurs only wanted to live long enough to be bought by Google since challenging them for market share was a fools errand.

Back to the numbers. Obama ran the country on a zero interest rate when business had no place to go but up, but "up" was not a level of economic activity that would employ a workforce the size of America's. Obama's "economics" improved only because efficiency was gained mainly through the use of Chinese imports cutting costs by eliminating US workers. If a recession returned, our most important weapon was at zero interest rate, so we would have to go negative. Obama left the nation economically naked, and business dispirited.

Obama's original sin was the decisions he made. He chose to concentrate on changing America's demographic to end the dominant middle class that was mostly Republican through the use of illegal immigration, presumably with the expectation that Hillary would win and naturalize 17 million new "undocumented democrats". He completely blew off the economy because the middle class "was not his people". Obama was content to let the economy limp along until he was gone. He probably never even looked at the numbers the democrats here are posting because he didn't care.

If you want to go back to Obamanomics, you weren't paying attention to economics 1A: "Economics is the sum total of the results of human decisions".

Ikari said:

Well nothing presented here says that higher-paying jobs are created here than under Obama. All it shows is the continued trend that existed when Obama was President existing when Trump is now President.

So...it seems like the actual results don't support your rhetoric.

Click to expand...

What I have posted are the numbers of part time for economic reason employment under both Obama and Trump. These numbers are part of the U-6 or under employment showing they are people who wanted full time jobs but couldn't find them thus settled for part time jobs most of which are lower paying than what they had in the past

What is interesting is the so called trend you want to tout totally ignoring it took 9 years at a cost of 9.3 trillion to generate a U-6 rate still higher than when the recession started. That isn't a trend that would keep you employed in the private sector.

My suggestion is to stay in the public sector that doesn't have consequences for low expectations and performance results

Conservative said:

What I have posted are the numbers of part time for economic reason employment under both Obama and Trump. These numbers are part of the U-6 or under employment showing they are people who wanted full time jobs but couldn't find them thus settled for part time jobs most of which are lower paying than what they had in the past

What is interesting is the so called trend you want to tout totally ignoring it took 9 years at a cost of 9.3 trillion to generate a U-6 rate still higher than when the recession started. That isn't a trend that would keep you employed in the private sector.

My suggestion is to stay in the public sector that doesn't have consequences for low expectations and performance results

Click to expand...

Of course, many in politics never face consequences they should from low expectations and performance. Trump would have been fired many months ago if so. But that's neither here nor there. There was a Great Recession, things blew up, things got better, and were still improving both under Obama and Trump. The trend lines have neigh the same slope, the numbers are similar, the same improvement keeps coming. Trump inherited an economy that was on the mend. We'll see how long it can be kept like this, I have a feeling we'll start seeing the effects of ill-advised Trade War sooner rather than later.

What we are seeing is rather amazing: the American people are able to recognize that Trump is NOT the one who created the good economy and he merely inherited a good economy from his predecessor.

KLATTU said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/trump-s-economic-record-is-yet-to-be-written

"So I’m not terribly surprised that the economy today looks pretty similar to the economy at the end of the Barack Obama administration. For example, the unemployment rate stands at 3.9 percent, but its 6-percentage-point steady decline began during Obama’s first term.

Or consider the most recent GDP release, which found the economy growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent. That’s fast growth, to be sure. But the economy enjoyed an annual rate of growth above 4 percent during four quarters of Obama’s presidency.

Trump has been president for 19 months, during which the economy added an average of 189,000 jobs per month. In the final 19 months of the Obama presidency, the economy added 208,000 jobs per month — basically no difference.

I’m going to stop the comparisons here. It’s not good practice to analyze economic data grouped by presidential administration, precisely because the president does not control the economy with a wand, magic or otherwise. And the gist of the major economic indicators confirms the
e story told by the three I’ve discussed above."


Comments?

Click to expand...

Here's the answer to the question in your thread title:

Ikari said:

Of course, many in politics never face consequences they should from low expectations and performance. Trump would have been fired many months ago if so. But that's neither here nor there. There was a Great Recession, things blew up, things got better, and were still improving both under Obama and Trump. The trend lines have neigh the same slope, the numbers are similar, the same improvement keeps coming. Trump inherited an economy that was on the mend. We'll see how long it can be kept like this, I have a feeling we'll start seeing the effects of ill-advised Trade War sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion but results always trump rhetoric especially rhetoric that doesn't have the consequences you want to believe.

No there wasn't a GREAT RECESSION, there was the leftwing marketing of the Recession with most recessions called GREAT. The 81-82 recession hurt Americans a lot more than this one which was a financial recession corrected mostly by TARP not Obama. Then that ill advised Trade War you are touting again focuses on opinions and not actual results. Those foreign countries raped our businesses for years but was ignored until Trump did what other Presidents should have done. There is nothing wrong with FREE trade but that isn't what foreign countries participate in.

You don't have lot of credibility touting trend lines that never achieve pre recession levels especially when factoring in the costs. costs don't seem to resonate with you when generated by a Democrat thus you don't have credibility.

*How Much Credit Does Trump Deserve for the Strong Economy?*

Not much to very little, as is with all Presidents. Now a President can monkey things up and slow things down with the votes of Congress. But mostly they should get out of the way.

Conservative said:

That is your opinion but results always trump rhetoric especially rhetoric that doesn't have the consequences you want to believe.

No there wasn't a GREAT RECESSION, there was the leftwing marketing of the Recession with most recessions called GREAT. The 81-82 recession hurt Americans a lot more than this one which was a financial recession corrected mostly by TARP not Obama. Then that ill advised Trade War you are touting again focuses on opinions and not actual results. Those foreign countries raped our businesses for years but was ignored until Trump did what other Presidents should have done. There is nothing wrong with FREE trade but that isn't what foreign countries participate in.

You don't have lot of credibility touting trend lines that never achieve pre recession levels especially when factoring in the costs. costs don't seem to resonate with you when generated by a Democrat thus you don't have credibility.

Click to expand...

lol

OK, there was no "Great Recession". :roll:
You've lost all credibility, you're now just spewing propaganda and trying to spin a faux narrative.

I complained about costs under Obama, I complain now with Trump spending faster than Obama ever did. But looking at the numbers, and charts, the recovery and growth has been on a steady track. Constant slope. Trump hasn't done much other than not completely **** this one up just yet.

Sorry it conflicts with the fake narrative you want to spin, but if denial of history is the only way you can begin your spin, it's laughable at best.

For 8 years, everything was "Bush". Bad economy, Bush. Airstrikes, Bush. Civilian casualties, Bush. How about those Obama girls? Bush. OK...just kidding about the Obama girls. But its a fact and everyone here knows it. EVERYTHING bad throughout the entire 8 years of the Obama presidency...Bush. ANY TIME Obama was caught doing something..."It wasnt me". Now...anything good? Obama. Jobs? Obama. Manufacturinbg jobs (you know...those jobs Obama tried to kill and said were NEVER COMING back). Obama.

Every president gets the heat...positive or negative...from the moment they raise their hand. Bush took all the burden of responsibility for the AL Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, regardless of the FACT that they came to this country 6 years prior and the previous administration, KNOWING their intel was ****...did nothing. Obama OWNED none of the criticism, even going so far as to blame things like Fast and Furious-an operation conducted by HIS Attorney General-on Bush, even though Bush turned down the operation 3 years earlier.

Trump owns the current economic recovery. If it crashes, as so many Trump haters are praying for, Trump will own that as well.

Ikari said:

lol

OK, there was no "Great Recession". :roll:
You've lost all credibility, you're now just spewing propaganda and trying to spin a faux narrative.

I complained about costs under Obama, I complain now with Trump spending faster than Obama ever did. But looking at the numbers, and charts, the recovery and growth has been on a steady track. Constant slope. Trump hasn't done much other than not completely **** this one up just yet.

Sorry it conflicts with the fake narrative you want to spin, but if denial of history is the only way you can begin your spin, it's laughable at best.

Click to expand...

I stand by that statement as every Recession is a Great Recession but this one affected fewer Americans than any other in history. tell me how you and your family were affected. Were you hit with massive inflation, higher interest rates, massive unemployment, oh wait that was 81-82

Your opinion noted but as usual you have posted no data to support your claims other than trend lines which mean absolutely nothing, here is what matters.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Years: 2008 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.1 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.2
2012 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.6 14.4 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.6 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.1 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2
2015 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.9
2016 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.3 9.1
2017 9.4 9.2 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.1
2018 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.5 7.4

Click to expand...

Touting a 9.4% U-6 rate at a cost of 9.3 trillion added to the debt shows staggering ignorance of reality and very low expectations from any elected official

Ikari said:

lol

OK, there was no "Great Recession". :roll:
You've lost all credibility, you're now just spewing propaganda and trying to spin a faux narrative.

I complained about costs under Obama, I complain now with Trump spending faster than Obama ever did. But looking at the numbers, and charts, the recovery and growth has been on a steady track. Constant slope. Trump hasn't done much other than not completely **** this one up just yet.

Sorry it conflicts with the fake narrative you want to spin, but if denial of history is the only way you can begin your spin, it's laughable at best.

Click to expand...

Oh, by the way regarding Costs is the 500 billion in debt service which is part of the 2018 deficit Trump's fault as well? Do you know what debt service even is? As for spending more than Obama where is the proof of that in data excluding the 500 billion in debt service which is on inherited debt? Have you bothered to even look at the PROPOSED Trump budget for 2019 or are you just so full of hatred over what Trump says that it doesn't matter?

Trump knows exactly what it’s like to be handed the keys to a warmed up, well tuned engine. “Just keep the bitch upright and in between the lines!” He hasn’t wrecked it yet, but it’s early.............

His deregulation could earn some credit ... as long as he's also willing to take the consequences of planetary destruction where he goes too far.

His rising stock market could a lot of credit ... even with te little problem of the debt he has piled on in order to give bigger dividends to himself and other shareholders.

Of course, then there are the tariffs, the increased cost of production he has caused, the international contracts he has killed for our businesses.



If he would have just sat on the solid economy that he inherited and tweaked it a little with moderate deregulation, and not started his "my dick is bigger than yours" trade wars, he would have earned a lot of credit and it would be reflected in his poll numbers.

KLATTU said:

Comments?

Click to expand...

For what it is, the article seems fairly accurate. However, there are a few things we should add.

• A President (and Congress, and the Fed, and the Treasury) can implement or remove regulations on the financial industry. Less regulation, or ineffective regulation, or crippled regulation, can result in the type of financial crisis we saw in 2007. We already see Trump trying to roll back those controls, which basically sets the US up for another meltdown at some future date.

• A President who is up to his or her neck in corruption, and/or is not willing to uphold the law on his donors or corporate buddies, and/or tries to use the laws as weapons to target his or her enemies, erodes faith in the rule of law in the US and by foreign investors. Even though the US is not squeaky clean, it's miles beyond banana republics like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the Philippines etc., i.e. states run like the kind of strong-men that Trump envies. Trump won't have enough time in office to completely decimate our system, but he can do a fair amount of damage before he's out.

• A President (and Congress, and the Fed, and the Treasury) can implement policies which can blunt the worst impacts of a recession. It won't completely fix it, but borrowing heavily (especially when investors are shoveling money at the US government at near-zero interest rates) and spending it on programs like infrastructure does hire people, get them back to spending, minimizes the amount of time they are out of work (which makes them more hireable when the economy rebounds), gets money circulating, and thus revenues rebound faster. Also, the Fed et al can find ways to mitigate some of the fear that grips the international financial system, either by propping up financial institutions, or forcing them to get deposit insurance (which stops the kind of bank runs that decimated the world economy in the late 20s).

So, part of the question in the future might be, "How well does Trump handle an economic crisis?" I can't see him doing a good job, but perhaps the Conservative Resistance in the White House will stop him from making a total mess of it. :mrgreen:

Conservative said:

I stand by that statement as every Recession is a Great Recession but this one affected fewer Americans than any other in history. tell me how you and your family were affected. Were you hit with massive inflation, higher interest rates, massive unemployment, oh wait that was 81-82

Your opinion noted but as usual you have posted no data to support your claims other than trend lines which mean absolutely nothing, here is what matters.



Touting a 9.4% U-6 rate at a cost of 9.3 trillion added to the debt shows staggering ignorance of reality and very low expectations from any elected official

Click to expand...

Quite a bit was added to the debt, then and now. Trump is spending at a higher rate than Obama, and we're seeing widening deficits in our budgets now, with a Republican owned Congress and White House.

Obama did spend a lot, he had a Great Recession to work through as well, Trump doesn't but also is spending like a wild man. All those numbers show what I've been saying, the economy was on the mend, it was all ticking along rather constantly, Trump inherited an economy with improving numbers and he hasn't done much to speed up the rate at which they improve.

Conservative said:

Oh, by the way regarding Costs is the 500 billion in debt service which is part of the 2018 deficit Trump's fault as well? Do you know what debt service even is? As for spending more than Obama where is the proof of that in data excluding the 500 billion in debt service which is on inherited debt? Have you bothered to even look at the PROPOSED Trump budget for 2019 or are you just so full of hatred over what Trump says that it doesn't matter?

Click to expand...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...-to-fifth-highest-ever-cbo-reports-2018-09-11

widening budget deficit

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Donald Trump: As projected in the FY 2019 budget, Trump plans to add $8.282 trillion, a 41-percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. He will add almost as much in four years as Obama did in eight. That would also make him the second-biggest contributor to the debt in history in just one term.

FY 2021 - $1.119 trillion.
FY 2020 - $1.198 trillion.
FY 2019 - $1.225 trillion.
FY 2018 - $1.233 trillion.

Click to expand...

Spend spend spend, but it was only bad when Obama did it, right?

lol

Partisans.

Ikari said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...-to-fifth-highest-ever-cbo-reports-2018-09-11

widening budget deficit

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296



Spend spend spend, but it was only bad when Obama did it, right?

lol

Partisans.

Click to expand...

I have said for decades (yes I'm that old) that both parties want to spend more. The only question is what they spend it on.

washunut said:

I have said for decades (yes I'm that old) that both parties want to spend more. The only question is what they spend it on.

Click to expand...

Yup, they're both Big Government, Big Spending, Big Deficit parties and Trump ain't no different.

Ikari said:

Quite a bit was added to the debt, then and now. Trump is spending at a higher rate than Obama, and we're seeing widening deficits in our budgets now, with a Republican owned Congress and White House.

Obama did spend a lot, he had a Great Recession to work through as well, Trump doesn't but also is spending like a wild man. All those numbers show what I've been saying, the economy was on the mend, it was all ticking along rather constantly, Trump inherited an economy with improving numbers and he hasn't done much to speed up the rate at which they improve.

Click to expand...

That is certainly your opinion that Trump is spending more than Obama so now post the data to support that claim

Are you ever going to address the debt service that is part of the 2018 deficit and how that is related to Trump spending? It does seem that you want to ignore the past and blame everything on either Bush or Trump never accepting responsibility for being wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk