The last 21 months of the Obama Economy V. The first 21 months of the Trump Economy.

[lwf]

Yes, Republicans in Congress kept Obama under control for a while.

But then Obama started using executive orders get around Congress and implement his economy killing policies.

Trump came in and repealed them and the economy immediately skyrocketed.


Chechmate.

Many would argue that corporate tax relief is what caused the economy to skyrocket, and most economists agree that it is a bubble and we're teetering dangerously on the edge of another recession.

Leftist economic policies are based on demand-side economics. Demand-side economics are not perfect, nor the be-all-end-all of economic management. But most economists agree that supply-side economics (rightist economic policies) are less effective at growing an economy in the majority of cases. Rightist policies work best in an extremely robust economy to make it even stronger. Attempting to use rightist policies in a weak or recovering economy risks a recession, as Bush found out and Trump is currently learning. It starts with a short spike, then a long dive into recession.

 

[Casca XV]

Many would argue that corporate tax relief is what caused the economy to skyrocket, and most economists agree that it is a bubble and we're teetering dangerously on the edge of another recession.

Leftist economic policies are based on demand-side economics. Demand-side economics are not perfect, nor the be-all-end-all of economic management. But most economists agree that supply-side economics (rightist economic policies) are less effective at growing an economy in the majority of cases. Rightist policies work best in an extremely robust economy to make it even stronger. Attempting to use rightist policies in a weak or recovering economy risks a recession, as Bush found out and Trump is currently learning. It starts with a short spike, then a long dive into recession.

Except Bush policies did not cause a recession.

 

[lwf]

Except Bush policies did not cause a recession.

Conservative economic policies were the biggest contributing factor, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

 

[Casca XV]

Conservative economic policies were the biggest contributing factor, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

The Link doesn't actually say that.

Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act which forced Banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them.

During the Clinton years the CRA started to fail so Clinton signed some deregulations to prop it up. Clinton mostly enabled liars loans and lenders able to bundle bad loans and sell them to Freddy & Fanny.

A lot of bad acting Bankers and Investors took advantage of these deregulations.

In 2006 Bush actually tried to undo some of these deregulations but failed to get it through a Democrat controlled congress. That is his only fingerprints on the 2008 Crash

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That employment started improving at almost twice the rate after Obama's influence was erased says it all.

A vague fuzzy graph doesn't change that fact.

There were no Obama policies that improved any part ofthe economy. But there were several that retarded it's improvement.

The *rate* you're talking about is a nonsense figure. Look at the graph. You see the unemployment.

You're not going to fool me. I work in an investment bank. Those numbers are all BS. More jobs were created during Obama's last year than Trump's first year.

And like I said, the beginning of Trump's administration is a result of Obama's administration. It takes TIME for policy changes to affect the economy. Trump began taking credit for Obama's economy on day one.

And again. Obama was president for 8 YEARS. Let's see where Trump is 6 years from now before you bring out your "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Trump probably won't even be reelected. He'll be another Jimmy Carter or Bush Sr. A failed president rejected by voters.

 

[Casca XV]

The *rate* you're talking about is a nonsense figure. Look at the graph. You see the unemployment.

You're not going to fool me. I work in an investment bank. Those numbers are all BS. More jobs were created during Obama's last year than Trump's first year.

And like I said, the beginning of Trump's administration is a result of Obama's administration. It takes TIME for policy changes to affect the economy. Trump began taking credit for Obama's economy on day one.

And again. Obama was president for 8 YEARS. Let's see where Trump is 6 years from now before you bring out your "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Trump probably won't even be reelected. He'll be another Jimmy Carter or Bush Sr. A failed president rejected by voters.

See #20

Well I work in a high skilled licensed trade. Having a state license my mailing address is available to businesses who would hire me. Even after the Housing market crash after the recession started but before Obama took office I would get flooded recruitment letters form businesses wanting to hire me. That abruptly ended about 3 months after Obama was in. I did not get another letter like that until a month after Trumps was in. Now I'm being flooded with them again.

 

[lwf]

The Link doesn't actually say that.

Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act which forced Banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them.

During the Clinton years the CRA started to fail so Clinton signed some deregulations to prop it up. Clinton mostly enabled liars loans and lenders able to bundle bad loans and sell them to Freddy & Fanny.

A lot of bad acting Bankers and Investors took advantage of these deregulations.

In 2006 Bush actually tried to undo some of these deregulations but failed to get it through a Democrat controlled congress. That is his only fingerprints on the 2008 Crash

When you say deregulations to prop up the CRA, I assume you're referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That was a republican act that Clinton unwisely signed into law as a compromise with a republican controlled congress.

Don't get me wrong, there were certainly a plethora of things that caused the recession, and Clinton isn't without blame, but I'm glad you mentioned that deregulation was a primary contributing factor. Deregulation and propping up corporations are an example of supply-side economics and Bush, like all republicans, was all about deregulation. Setting federally-mandated lending standards (i.e. government regulation) would likely have gone a long way toward preventing it. Don't forget, the trade deficit peaked at about the same time housing prices did, and deregulated trade was also a big Bush talking point.

I don't blame GW for the recession. I do blame rightist policies.

 

[ultmd]

See #20

Well I work in a high skilled licensed trade. Having a state license my mailing address is available to businesses who would hire me. Even after the Housing market crash after the recession started but before Obama took office I would get flooded recruitment letters form businesses wanting to hire me. That abruptly ended about 3 months after Obama was in. I did not get another letter like that until a month after Trumps was in. Now I'm being flooded with them again.

:roll:
Well, there you have it...one man's personal, anecdotal experience translated into self-affirmation of his own ideology.

Who needs those pointy-headed scholars and academics when we can all just base truth and reality on our feelings and personal experiences, huh?

 

[Casca XV]

:roll:
Well, there you have it...one man's personal, anecdotal experience translated into self-affirmation of his own ideology.

Who needs those pointy-headed scholars and academics when we can all just base truth and reality on our feelings and personal experiences, huh?

That was a lot less anecdotal than what I was responding to. I looks like you missed that point.

 

[Casca XV]

When you say deregulations to prop up the CRA, I assume you're referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That was a republican act that Clinton unwisely signed into law as a compromise with a republican controlled congress.

Don't get me wrong, there were certainly a plethora of things that caused the recession, and Clinton isn't without blame, but I'm glad you mentioned that deregulation was a primary contributing factor. Deregulation and propping up corporations are an example of supply-side economics and Bush, like all republicans, was all about deregulation. Setting federally-mandated lending standards (i.e. government regulation) would likely have gone a long way toward preventing it. Don't forget, the trade deficit peaked at about the same time housing prices did, and deregulated trade was also a big Bush talking point.

I don't blame GW for the recession. I do blame rightist policies.

Deregulation to get the Govt off Job Creators backs and deregulation to prop a Leftist program and allow nefarious lending practices are 2 different things.

 

[lwf]

Deregulation to get the Govt off Job Creators backs and deregulation to prop a Leftist program and allow nefarious lending practices are 2 different things.

Getting the government off job creators backs doesn't work as well as it sounds like it would in a struggling economy. It's a conservative misconception to assume that jobs are created out of nothing, and that if we only make it cheaper to create them they will magically appear. Investing in demand is the real job creator. Getting money into consumer's pockets works much better than getting money into the job creator's pockets, even if it comes out of the job creator's pockets. Consumers determine demand, and demand determines supply. When the demand is there, it doesn't matter how much regulation exists or how much money is being siphoned from the job creators. Jobs are created. When demand evaporates it doesn't matter how much cash you shovel into the arms of job creators. Jobs are lost. Investing in consumers always works. Investing in business works only when demand is already high.

You need look no further than the recent closing of the GM plants. Government subsidy of business doesn't create demand.

 

[can2man]

The US economy usually does better under the Democrats.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...oes-better-under-the-democrats/#62d79c626786d

 

[Luckyone]

Writing is the Wall Street Journal, Former CEO Andy Puzder claims that Trump’s economy easily wins over Obama when you look at the numbers.

Obama’s last six full quarters in office GDP growth averaged 1.5%. Trumps first full six quarters in office GDP growth averaged 3%.

Obama’s last 21 months in office, job openings increased an average of 900 a month. Trump’s first 21 months in office, job openings increased an average of 75,000 a month.

Obama’s last 21 months in office, the number of Americans employed increased an average of 157,000 a month. Trumps’ First 21 months in office, the number of Americans employed increased an average of 214,000 a month.

Obama’s last 21 months in office, weekly earnings rose an average of $1.31. Trumps first 21 months average weekly earnings rose an average of $1.84 before tax cuts, after tax cuts the weekly average increase rose to $2.31.

Obama’s last 21 months in office, unemployment declined 13% from what it was at the beginning of that time period. Trump’s first 21 months in office, unemployment declined 23% from what it was at the beginning of that time period.

(First quarter of 2017 was not counted in GDP stats because both Presidents shared it. The time period is 21 months because although elected a smidge over 2 years ago Trump has been in office a smidge over 21 months.)

The WSJ article is behind a pay wall. This link has the entire article along with Op Ed commentary, as well as a link to the original WSJ article if you with to subscribe.

https://themoneymanifesto.com/2018/11/26/the-trump-economy-v-the-obama-economy/

True statements. Nonetheless, you forgot to say that there was no Tax cut for the rich during Obama's presidency and there was one during Trump's presidency and that was the main reason why the examples you gave are true.

Nonetheless, the Tax Cuts (especially tailored to the rich) do have negative results over the longer term so it is as simple as "it will make Trump look good for the short term but will cause the U.S. to suffer in the long term". Do you remember the Fram oil filter ad about "you can pay me $3 now or pay me $300 later"?. It does apply here.

See links below:

https://www.thebalance.com/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs-3306325

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/30/452905475/fact-check-do-tax-cuts-grow-the-economy

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/13566/economics/the-effect-of-tax-cuts/

 

[Cardinal]

That employment started improving at almost twice the rate after Obama's influence was erased says it all.

A vague fuzzy graph doesn't change that fact.

There were no Obama policies that improved any part ofthe economy. But there were several that retarded it's improvement.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth under Obama was a little better.

 

[ultmd]

That was a lot less anecdotal than what I was responding to. I looks like you missed that point.

I got your point, I just don't buy it.

And I don't buy it because it's not reflective of what actually happened in the job market during that period.