• 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!

US economy adds 148K jobs in December, manufacturing remains strong

You really think cutting the WH staff has any significant impact on the deficit?

More full-time jobs were created in 2016 than in 2017.

The effect of the GOP tax-plan has been discussed and it clearly favors the wealthy.

Any cut impacts the budget which of course is a foreign concept to you

Seems that actual BLS data is also a foreign concept to you which isn't surprising. Prove that more full time jobs were created in 2016 than 2017.

By favoring the wealthy would mean less of a percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy and that is a lie. Now answer the question, how much of a income tax cut should a person get who isn't paying any income taxes?

Where did these part time employee jobs go?

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: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

one of these days you are going to realize how the left has lied to you and wonder how you could have been so easily duped
 
Interesting headlines that again ignore context but still a great finish to an outstanding year.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your grasp of economics and statistics is astoundingly bad. Quit letting Fox lie to you. Economic growth was worse this year than it was last year. Yes, some jobs were created, but fewer jobs were created under Trump this year, than under Obama last year. Secondly, Trump has not passed a single solitary piece of legislation that could have any meaningful effect whatsoever on the economy. What you saw this year is a largely a continuation of the strong economy we had that Obama gave us. Trump's presidency is slowing down Obama's economy, but even a bafoon like Trump can't completely destroy it in the span of just one year.

Even if you're delusional enough to believe that business reputation alone was enough to have a serious influence on the economy, the reality is that the economy was actually worse during Trump's first year than Obama's last. Try and imagine this like a relay race. If I ran the first 100 meters in 11 seconds, and then passed the baton to you. Then you ran only 50 meters, and it took you 20 seconds. You did not do a better job than I did. You weren't bad enough to turn around and run backwards, but the fact that you tecnically advanced our position in the race doesn't mean you did a good job.
 
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your grasp of economics and statistics is astoundingly bad. Quit letting Fox lie to you. Economic growth was worse this year than it was last year. Yes, some jobs were created, but fewer jobs were created under Trump this year, than under Obama last year. Secondly, Trump has not passed a single solitary piece of legislation that could have any meaningful effect whatsoever on the economy. What you saw this year is a largely a continuation of the strong economy we had that Obama gave us. Trump's presidency is slowing down Obama's economy, but even a bafoon like Trump can't completely destroy it in the span of just one year.

Even if you're delusional enough to believe that business reputation alone was enough to have a serious influence on the economy, the reality is that the economy was actually worse during Trump's first year than Obama's last. Try and imagine this like a relay race. If I ran the first 100 meters in 11 seconds, and then passed the baton to you. Then you ran only 50 meters, and it took you 20 seconds. You did not do a better job than I did. You weren't bad enough to turn around and run backwards, but the fact that you tecnically advanced our position in the race doesn't mean you did a good job.

Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand OFFICIAL data from bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury.org. You call it Fox information but the reality is you have been indoctrinated so well by the radical left that you are incapable of understanding the official data and call everything propaganda from Fox

I have posted over and over again the EO's reversed and have given Obama complete credit for giving us Trump. I hope I am around the day you finally realize that you have been duped by the radical left.

What part of the Obama results are inaccurate, the 1.8% GDP growth? the no year of 3% growth? the record numbers of part time employees for economic reasons? the 9.3 trillion added to the debt? the 9.4% U-6 rate he left Trump? Keep spouting the rhetoric, ignoring results and keep losing elections
 
Obviously doing research isn't one of your strong suits and probably not a trait at all

Working-class families are winning big under Trump

Your op-ed from the Washington Examiner is not "research". I already provided you with real, unbiased sources, including data extracted and analyzed via scientific methodology, that you dismissed because you didn't like their conclusions. Your posts are not intended to engage in an honest and thoughtful exchange of ideas. They're just full of partisan talking points, raw Treasury data without context, and conservative opinion pieces. You do the same thing in every thread. It's a waste of time for both of us.
 
You really think cutting the WH staff has any significant impact on the deficit?

More full-time jobs were created in 2016 than in 2017.

The effect of the GOP tax-plan has been discussed and it clearly favors the wealthy.

I wonder if there ever will come a time when you realize that that left is making a fool out of you and that bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury are not part of Fox News and actually present actual verifiable data and you can put that data in context?

You post the same crap over and over again never responding when challenged as you ignore anything that refutes your opinions. Still waiting for the BLS.gov data showing more full time jobs created in 2016 than 2017 along with how much of a tax cut should someone who doesn't pay net FIT taxes get?

Only in the liberal world is an unemployment rate of 4.9% a great number with 6 million people employed part time for economic reasons skewing that number downward. Only in the liberal world do actual bottom line numbers matter more than numbers in context. Only in the liberal world was 2016 better than 2017 and 2017 was due to the incredible Obama economy that cost Democrats the Congress

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2016 150576 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
2017 152076 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021

2.3 million more employed in 2017 than 2016 and you still claim that more full time jobs were created in 2016? Let's see if you are mature enough to admit when wrong?
 
Your op-ed from the Washington Examiner is not "research". I already provided you with real, unbiased sources, including data extracted and analyzed via scientific methodology, that you dismissed because you didn't like their conclusions. Your posts are not intended to engage in an honest and thoughtful exchange of ideas. They're just full of partisan talking points, raw Treasury data without context, and conservative opinion pieces. You do the same thing in every thread. It's a waste of time for both of us.

My posts include actual data which of course are irrelevant to leftwing ideologues as they don't present the appearance you want thus are ignored. I posted the actual BLS charts which apparently you still haven't had time to review and check for accuracy. Yes, you are right, presenting actual data in context is a waste of time. what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty in the face of data that refutes the leftwing rhetoric and ideology?

By the way, I don't write for the Washington Examiner therefore it isn't my Op Ed
 
My posts include actual data which of course are irrelevant to leftwing ideologues as they don't present the appearance you want thus are ignored. I posted the actual BLS charts which apparently you still haven't had time to review and check for accuracy. Yes, you are right, presenting actual data in context is a waste of time. what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty in the face of data that refutes the leftwing rhetoric and ideology?

:lamo

Data clearly indicates that 2017 was actually a bad jobs year, when compared to the Obama years. It's you who is denying reality.
 
:lamo

Data clearly indicates that 2017 was actually a bad jobs year, when compared to the Obama years. It's you who is denying reality.

Really? LOL, another so called centrist incapable of understanding actual data. You pick and choose a point in time to use as your base totally ignoring that we had pre recession numbers of 146 million working when the recession began and when Obama left office it was 152 million, stunning how poorly informed you are and how actual data confuses you. Trump's 2017 exceeded 2016 by 2.3 million jobs but according to the left is worse than 2016 and you people wonder why you continue to lose elections and have zero credibility? the silent majority is sick and tired of the lies from the leftwing

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145122 145161 145673 145680 145825 146267 146401 146522 146752 147411 147391 147597
2015 148113 148100 148175 148505 148788 148806 148830 149136 148810 149254 149486 150135
2016 150576 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
2017 152076 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021
 
Really? LOL, another so called centrist incapable of understanding actual data. You pick and choose a point in time to use as your base totally ignoring that we had pre recession numbers of 146 million working when the recession began and when Obama left office it was 152 million, stunning how poorly informed you are and how actual data confuses you. Trump's 2017 exceeded 2016 by 2.3 million jobs but according to the left is worse than 2016 and you people wonder why you continue to lose elections and have zero credibility? the silent majority is sick and tired of the lies from the leftwing


I would consider 2017 an Obama year because that year's budget was set by Obama and the economic policies most affecting that year were Obama's. If you want to get real technical, you could cut the year off at fiscal year ending 09/30/17. Anyway, not much difference in employment level rise in 2017 compared to prior years other than the Great Recession years.
 
I would consider 2017 an Obama year because that year's budget was set by Obama and the economic policies most affecting that year were Obama's. If you want to get real technical, you could cut the year off at fiscal year ending 09/30/17. Anyway, not much difference in employment level rise in 2017 compared to prior years other than the Great Recession years.

You are so right, the Obama policies gave us trump and I thank him for that. Budgets are a guideline but aren't spending appropriation bills. trump has already cut spending regardless of the budget.

Employment rise isn't as big because of the point in time you choose. Obama signed a stimulus for shovel ready jobs which took employment down 3 million two years later and that is the point in time you want to start totally ignoring the stimulus failure. Were it not for the stimulus then the job losses would have been Bush's but you don't spend 842 billion on a stimulus to lose 3 million jobs and that had nothing to do with Bush.

You want badly to give Obama credit totally ignoring the actual verifiable results IN CONTEXT. Obama should be judged on why he was hired, to return us to pre recession levels which never happened on the U-6. Credit for employment that includes millions of part time for economic reasons isn't something to be proud of
 
Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand OFFICIAL data from bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury.org. You call it Fox information but the reality is you have been indoctrinated so well by the radical left that you are incapable of understanding the official data and call everything propaganda from Fox
False. Other way around. You see there are lies, damn dirty lies, and then there are statistics. I fully understand that the data is factually accurate, and I know where it comes from. I'm not disputing that. However Fox is presenting these numbers completely out of context without giving you the important information that actually matters. Jobs are created under virtually all presidents, and the economy grows more often than not regardless of who is in the white house. The important question is did it grow better under Obama or Trump, and the answer to that questions is unequivocally that it grew better under Obama.

The second important question to understand is what exactly did Trump do to influence the economy? And the answer is very little. The United States Economy is a massive entity that is largely self sustaining. There is almost nothing that a president could do which would cause it to immediately change it's current course. Even if Trump had passed some piece of important economic legislation on day one of his administration(which he didn't). It would take a minimum of 6 months before we'd see any measureable effects from that legisation.

Now, it's possible I suppose that the reputation of a president in and of itself could instill optimism or pecimism that could influence the economy a little bit even if he doesn't actually justify it via legislative action, but even if you believe that is the case the numbers tell us that the economy slowed down and trended worse this year than last year. So if Trump is having any effect on the Economy at all, it's a bad effect.


What part of the Obama results are inaccurate, the 1.8% GDP growth? the no year of 3% growth?
Actually, yes that is largely in accurate. You see when Obama took office we actually had -2.8% growth. However one year later we reversed that and had +2.5% growth for a total net gain of 5.3% in the span of one year. Unfortunately after that Republicans got back enough power in congress to filibuster all the the things Obama wanted to do to continue to improve the economy. As a reslut it took a bit longer than it should have to recover, but for the first two years in office when Obama had the power to fix the economy he did.


the record numbers of part time employees for economic reasons? the 9.3 trillion added to the debt?
Yes, those things were caused by a massive recession that Obama enherited from the previous Republican administration not to mention the tax cuts and wars that largely drove the deficit in the earlier years of Obama's administration. As I've repeatedly explained to you the US Economy is a massive entity, and it cannot simply be turned around on a dime regardless of how good or bad your economic policy is.

When president Obama took office he immediately passed legislation to end the recession. It still took about six months for us to start seeing the positive effects of that. Trump passed very little, yet as the year went on the economy continued to trend worse and worse.


the 9.4% U-6 rate he left Trump?
Obama was left a u-6 rate of 16% and climbing by the previous Republican administration. Once Obama put out the fire that Bush started the U-6 rate fell during every successive year of his administration. The 9.4% rate Obama had when he left office was better than Bush in had it in 2003, and better than what Bush and Regan left Clinton in 1992.

all of the unemployment measures have continued to fall at roughtly the exact same rate they were already falling when President Obama took office. Again, Trump passed no significant piece of legisltation to alter their trajectory which is why the economy did okay this year, but as time passes his influence will get greater and greater, and the economy will suffer as a result.
 
As pointed out revenue is generated by employment, FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT is always better and here are those results. You want to give Obama credit for creating more jobs that are part time for economic reasons than any other President in history? Go for it and keep losing elections



You simply cannot admit that Obama and the left duped you and continue to make you look foolish. Be mature and admit you are wrong

I don't think anyone is saying that the economy is not good right now. But it takes a thoroughly partisan person, a dishonest person, or a thoroughly partisan and dishonest person to say not only that the economy was bad when President Obama left office but also that administrations around the world, especially in the US and Europe, did not save the entire global economy from collapse. Give credit where credit is due and put an ice cube in your liberals bashing and Obama hating.
 
But it takes a thoroughly partisan person, a dishonest person, or a thoroughly partisan and dishonest person to say not only that the economy was bad when President Obama left office

A perfect description of 'you know who'. Totally dishonest.
 
Please provide your evidence that it is a lie to say 2016 had more job gains than 2017. Because the BLS says it is true. What source are you using to claim it is a lie to say 2016 had more job gains than 2017?

I use respected sources like BLS, what are you using?

:lol:

You mean just like there were more people employed at the end of 2010 than 2009? More in 2011 than 2010? More in 2012 than 2011? More in 2013 than 2012? More in 2014 than 2013? More in 2015 than 2014? More in 2016 than 2015?

Wow, that is quite the accomplishment you're listing there. I know how impressed I am when someone does the same thing his predecessor did 7 years in a row.

I wonder what it is about some conservatives that have them "led to believe that mediocrity is excellence"?

They actually say that mediocrity is excellence when they achieve it and that mediocrity is an abysmal failure when liberals achieve it. Some people live too much in media echo chambers.
 
I would consider 2017 an Obama year because that year's budget was set by Obama and the economic policies most affecting that year were Obama's. If you want to get real technical, you could cut the year off at fiscal year ending 09/30/17. Anyway, not much difference in employment level rise in 2017 compared to prior years other than the Great Recession years.

This speaks volumes about the success of the Obama Presidency, lavish, self centered, egotistical with lack of significant accomplishments thus no documents and this is who you are supporting and propping up? No wonder the left keeps losing elections

Obamas criticized for lavish library plans, including 'test kitchen' | Fox News
 
Were it not for the stimulus then the job losses would have been Bush's but you don't spend 842 billion on a stimulus to lose 3 million jobs and that had nothing to do with Bush.
Wrong. If it wasn't for the stimulus we could have lost 7 million jobs, not 3. Even conservative economists have been forced to admit that the stimulus likely saved between 2-3 million jobs. in reality, it was closer to 4-5 million.

You claim that Obama passing significant economic legislation means is that the economy belonged to him, but if he hadn't it would still belong to Bush. Okay, well by that logic Trump hasn't passed any significant economic legislation which means the credit for this economy should still go to Obama.

You want badly to give Obama credit totally ignoring the actual verifiable results IN CONTEXT. Obama should be judged on why he was hired, to return us to pre-recession levels which never happened on the U-6.
Yes, he did...
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends

The U-6 rate was above 9.4% for most of Bush's term. It dipped below that briefly toward the end as a result of a bubble, then burst and sent the U-6 to 14% and rising before Obama took office. Ever since President Obama's economic policies started taking effect the U-6 rate has been falling every single month, and his policies are the reason it continues to fall today.


Credit for employment that includes millions of part-time for economic reasons isn't something to be proud of

Your right, but that credit goes to Republicans who destroyed our economy under Bush's administration. Obama inherited terrible unemployment numbers, and within six months of taking office he turned them around and got them heading in the right direction. Starting in June of 2009 we had over 80 consecutive months of Job growth under President Obama. That amazing streak was broken in August of 2017 just as Trump's economic policy finally started to have an impact. August was the first month in over 7 years that the United States actually lost jobs.
 
I don't think anyone is saying that the economy is not good right now. But it takes a thoroughly partisan person, a dishonest person, or a thoroughly partisan and dishonest person to say not only that the economy was bad when President Obama left office but also that administrations around the world, especially in the US and Europe, did not save the entire global economy from collapse. Give credit where credit is due and put an ice cube in your liberals bashing and Obama hating.

People didn't have to say the economy was bad the American electorate spoke and the non partisan results give the picture. You buy the bottom line and ignore context. Being dishonest is what the left has been for the past 8 years as results don't matter nor does basic civics and economics. You want me to credit Obama with bringing us out of the recession?? Sorry cannot do that nor can the WSJ

What Ended the Great Recession?

You want badly to believe what you are told but hope I am around when you realize what a fool the left has made of you
 
Wrong. If it wasn't for the stimulus we could have lost 7 million jobs, not 3. Even conservative economists have been forced to admit that the stimulus likely saved between 2-3 million jobs. in reality, it was closer to 4-5 million.

You claim that Obama passing significant economic legislation means is that the economy belonged to him, but if he hadn't it would still belong to Bush. Okay, well by that logic Trump hasn't passed any significant economic legislation which means the credit for this economy should still go to Obama.


Yes, he did...
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends

The U-6 rate was above 9.4% for most of Bush's term. It dipped below that briefly toward the end as a result of a bubble, then burst and sent the U-6 to 14% and rising before Obama took office. Ever since President Obama's economic policies started taking effect the U-6 rate has been falling every single month, and his policies are the reason it continues to fall today.




Your right, but that credit goes to Republicans who destroyed our economy under Bush's administration. Obama inherited terrible unemployment numbers, and within six months of taking office he turned them around and got them heading in the right direction. Starting in June of 2009 we had over 80 consecutive months of Job growth under President Obama. That amazing streak was broken in August of 2017 just as Trump's economic policy finally started to have an impact. August was the first month in over 7 years that the United States actually lost jobs.

Sorry but facts have no place in the liberal world Republican Congress 2007-2011?? Where do you get your information and are you mature enough to admit when wrong. Bush U-6 average 9.1% Obama 13.4

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: 2001 to 2008

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6 97.7
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 115.0
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 121.6
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2 114.9
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6 107.2
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9 98.8
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8 100.1
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6 126.6

881.9 9.186458333( AVERAGE U-6)
 
MrWonka;1068036759]

Obama U-6

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: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
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 17.1 195.2
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6 200.7
2011 16.2 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.1 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.2 191.0
2012 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.4 176.2
2013 14.6 14.4 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.6 13.1 13.1 165.5
2014 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.1 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2 144.3
2015 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.9 125.4
2016 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.3 9.1 115.5 1313.8 13.40612245( AVERAGE U-6)

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
 
Sorry but facts have no place in the liberal world Republican Congress 2007-2011??

HAHAHHA!!!!! So now you're trying to blame Congress for the recession instead of the President? The democratic congress didn't vote for the War in Iraq, and they certainly didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts.

Where do you get your information and are you mature enough to admit when wrong? Bush U-6 average 9.1% Obama 13.4

Yeah, but I'm not wrong. You are. You're again operating under the ridiculously nonsensical conclusion that the day a president gets sworn into office you can start blaming/giving credit to them for the Economy despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing that they could have done to effect it yet.

Obama inherited 14% u-6 from Bush. With 6 months he turned it around and got it headed back in the other direction thanks to the help of the Democratic Congress.

Enjoy your denial while it lasts. The economy has no where to go but down, and I can assure you it's only a matter of time before the numbers are so obviously bad, you'll have no where to hide.
 
It was President Trumps economy even before he was inaugurated:

1. from the moment he won the election business leaders started reacting to Obama or another Leftist no longer being in-charge.

2. Trump was negotiating to bring jobs back from overseas even before inauguration, which if nothing else changed Americas economic attitude from "Obama pessimism" to "Trump optimism."

3. As President, Trump quickly repealed almost all of Obama's executive orders and regulations, erasing Obama's influence over the economy.

Does this explain this inconvenient fact?...

2016 - 2.2 million new jobs
2017 - 2.1 million new jobs

You see, if you are going to imagine up a scenario where Trump owns the economy before he actually does, then you must go all the way with the game. According to your words above, "erasing Obama's influence over the economy" meant less job creation. But that's not really true, is it?

The reality is that it is common knowledge that economic performance under a new president doesn’t really commence until the second quarter of his first year in office. Trump inherited years and years of effort to rebound the economy away from the Great Recession, which is something Obama inherited from his former. The economy does not stop and start anew on election day.
 
HAHAHHA!!!!! So now you're trying to blame Congress for the recession instead of the President? The democratic congress didn't vote for the War in Iraq, and they certainly didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts.



Yeah, but I'm not wrong. You are. You're again operating under the ridiculously nonsensical conclusion that the day a president gets sworn into office you can start blaming/giving credit to them for the Economy despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing that they could have done to effect it yet.

Obama inherited 14% u-6 from Bush. With 6 months he turned it around and got it headed back in the other direction thanks to the help of the Democratic Congress.

Enjoy your denial while it lasts. The economy has no where to go but down, and I can assure you it's only a matter of time before the numbers are so obviously bad, you'll have no where to hide.

Not sure what it is about liberalism that creates people like you but please take a civics class, the results are BOTH the President and the Congress but you blame only Bush which thus gives you no credibility

You have no understanding of leadership or responsibility. Trump is responsible day one just like Obama was responsible day one although you want to blame Bush for the poor recovery and give Obama credit for the results of 2017 showing just how little you know about the responsibilities of leadership. Whatever Obama inherited doesn't change the Obama results and the fact that over 15 million Americans were unemployed over a year after the stimulus and employment went down 3 million two years later.

It is a true waste of time dealing with people totally ignorant of responsibility and actual results. Your denial is the issue and one of these days you are going to wake up and understand what a fool the left has made out of you. None once have you addressed the numbers of Obama and not once have you accepted any responsibility for anything that Obama did, all placing blame which is what leftists always do. The American people are fed up with that kind of attitude and rhetoric which is why you are going to continue to lose elections so keep it up
 
Does this explain this inconvenient fact?...

2016 - 2.2 million new jobs
2017 - 2.1 million new jobs

You see, if you are going to imagine up a scenario where Trump owns the economy before he actually does, then you must go all the way with the game. According to your words above, "erasing Obama's influence over the economy" meant less job creation. But that's not really true, is it?

The reality is that it is common knowledge that economic performance under a new president doesn’t really commence until the second quarter of his first year in office. Trump inherited years and years of effort to rebound the economy away from the Great Recession, which is something Obama inherited from his former. The economy does not stop and start anew on election day.

Another leftist out of touch with reality and no understanding of the actual verifiable results. Please show me the 2.2 million jobs Obama created in 2016?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2016 150576 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
2017 152076 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021

Don't worry, I don't expect an answer as leftists always run when challenged and never learn. You want to give Trump credit starting second quarter? Ok, great, first quarter GDP 1.2%, 2nd and 3rd qtr. 3.1% and 3.2%. you cannot win for trying but keep digging that hole deeper
 
US economy adds 148K jobs in December, manufacturing remains strong | Fox Business



Interesting headlines that again ignore context but still a great finish to an outstanding year.

Not a great finish, since actually there are 578,000 fewer Americans are working.

In fact, employment peaked in September at 154,494,000 and declined to 153,602,000 in December.

More jobs were created in 2016 than 2017.

In reality, there were 4,414,000 jobs created in 2016 versus 4,550,000 in 2017.
 
Back
Top Bottom