Q1 2019 watch - if under 3.0% - where is Trump’s economic miracle - can Trump beat O’s 2.9% ever?

[Markle]

==========================================]]]

Labor market is thriving far better under Trump than under Obama

Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

Obama Economy: 9.9M More Employed, But 14.6M Left Labor Force

Which, as all Progressives wish to ignore, is what led to the drop in the unemployment rate. Today the labor force is beginning to creep up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 5 months! His slow recovery was awesome!

Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Millions are available.

As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.

So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 5 months! His slow recovery was awesome!

Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Why is Trump's GDP growth so weak?

Still cleaning up Obama's assclownery.

You mean the 4.7% unemployment rate (and dropping) Obama handed Trump? Or the record high stock market?

Yes, the rate that's lower now, the market that's higher.
With better GDP growth.

 

[basquebromance]

Americans pay double in taxes than they pay for food and clothing, according to THE DATA!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Help me out, is +3.2% more than Obama's -1.0% in his 9th quarter?

The point of this thread is that Trumpo is going to be the second president in US history to not have a full year above 3.0 percent GDP.

You are all aglow with a 3,2 quarter for TrumpO

Those were a dime a dozen under Obama. When TrumpO hits 5.1 let us know. Because Obama did.

You are all aglow with a 3,2 quarter for Trump

Yes, Trump's +3.2% is much better than Obama's -1.0%

A fucking liar is what you are and you prove it in every economic thread.

Have you no shame at all?

-1% Q1 growth is a cherrypicked number from 2014 and 2011 and those were the ONLY negative growth Qs since the end of recession.

But trumps trillions in tax cuts for needy billionaires was going to give us 5% and 6%. Trump promised.
You Don’t think he lied, do you?

I'm not a millionaire, I got a decent cut.
Still waiting for the $2500 a year savings on my insurance that twat Obama promised.

 

[Faun]

If this is a weak recovery, how come the rate of growth is no greater now under trump than it was under Obama?

As you know, the rate of growth is indicated by the GDP which is above that of failed former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Are you serious? Once you get down to full employment it is extremely difficult to push it down further below that level. That makes sense, doesn't it? Today we have far more job openings than we do jobs. Unemployment for blacks is the lowest in history and wages are beginning to increase.

Black unemployment dropped from 16.8% to 7.7% under Obama. That was not much higher than the record low when Trump became president. within a few months, it was already down to 7.1%, 0.1 point above the record.

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

Why Credit for the Decline in Black Unemployment Goes to Trump, Not Obama | People's Pundit Daily

Under Obama, people were dropping out of the labor market at record rates, thus black unemployment was down. Under Trump, labor participation is at record highs, meaning unemployment rates are actual indicators of the number of unemployed. Or at the very least, aren't simply a reflection of a dead job market and nobody bothering to look for work.

The unemployment rate will decline if people exit the labor force, meaning workers retire or give up on the American Dream. As the labor participation rate declines, unemployment will decline.

That’s how BLS methodology works.

Under Mr. Obama, that trend was clear and his supporters sought to explain it away with demographic changes. That was partially true. Baby-boom retirements assuredly contributed, but it wasn’t the full picture.

When labor force participation and the equally important but less-cited employment-population ratio rises, and yet unemployment continues to fall as people enter the labor force, it’s a far stronger labor market.

Put plainly, it’s real.

It’s also worth pointing out the increase in labor force participation for all races after Mr. Obama’s tenure is occurring despite those dastardly demographic pressures.

Labor market is thriving far better under Trump than under Obama

Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

Obama Economy: 9.9M More Employed, But 14.6M Left Labor Force

At no point under Obama's 8 years was there a time when we had more job openings than we had people looking for work. Trump hit that point long ago.

LOLOL

93% of the drop in black unemployment to hit the record low of 7.0% occurred under Obama. 7% occurred under trump. And you're dumb enough to think you can erase that with a bullshit page on a rightwing website?



Watch as I dismantle their nonsense.

They attribute much of the drop under Obama due to the drop in the labor force participation rate, which does lower unemployment as it drops. From your link...

Black unemployment was as high as 14.2% as recently as June 2013, hitting resistance at around 8%. It only broke resistance levels as labor force participation declined.​

But their argument gets squashed under the reality that black participation grew during that period. In June, 2013, black participation was 61.6 while the black unemployment rate was 14.2%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

But by the time Obama left office, black participation was 62.3% while the black unemployment rate was 7.7%. With a rising participation rate, that makes the drop under Obama even more impressive since a rising labor force participation raises the unemployment rate.

Now under Trump, the black unemployment rate has gone from 7.7% to 6.7%. Meanwhile, that drop is aided slightly by the black participation rate also dropping from 62.3% to 62.1%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Fucking moron, the recession ended in June, 2009.

https://www.nber.org/cycles/

Obama ended such a deep recession in only 5 months? He really was magic!!!

 

[Faun]

Bush's Great Recession was far worse than any other since the Great Depression.

Your point being?

That means it was a much deeper hole to climb out of.

So what? Did the other recessions not recover much faster than failed former President Barack Husein Obama?

Are you aware that the Socialist policies implemented by FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, Former President George Bush made the same mistake and failed former President Barack Hussein Obama doubled down on the mistakes.

None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.

 

[Faun]

Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Millions are available.

As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.

So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
if i lived in the past i would go shoot karl marx in the face

speaking of the past and faces
Ill repeat see what the average voter is gonna care about at the polls.
they certainly didnt forget their doctor or 2500.00 dollar savings while the irs threatened them with a fine for non compliance
that they remembered ..

Carry on arguing till you guys are blue in the face !

 

[Markle]

If you can't notice the bars get shorter as the years pass, I can't help you.

The chart posted indicates average GDP during the recovery.

None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.

Why do you feel the need to slur Republicans? Did I call you names?

What revision are you talking about? Are you calling UCLA a conservative institution? Really?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
[…]
As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-
LSMS368

Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[Faun]

If you can't notice the bars get shorter as the years pass, I can't help you.

The chart posted indicates average GDP during the recovery.

None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.

Why do you feel the need to slur Republicans? Did I call you names?

What revision are you talking about? Are you calling UCLA a conservative institution? Really?

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
[…]
As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-
LSMS368

Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

"The chart posted indicates average GDP during the recovery."

And that average got smaller as time went on.

As far as your right wing revisionism, that's not by UCLA, it's by 2 economists from UCLA. Not everyone from UCLA is a Liberal. Regardless, what they published is nonsense. They point to 1938 as an indication of a drawn out recovery; but that was the one year unemployment shot up after declining steadily for years. And the reason it shot up was because the government tightened spending the previous year. They also don't count people working thanks to the WPA, just so they could say the unemployment rate was higher than it actually was.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


in 2007 they should of let it all crash n burn ..we'd be in a better place today .
cause by what? government policies that were tweeked in 90's
EVEN NEO CON GW stood up and said we're gonna pop
no one listened

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

View attachment 258550

The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Why is Trump's GDP growth so weak?

Compared to...?

Compared to Obama...Trump's best year is no better than Obama's best year

The average?

If you take the recession year out of the equation the average is not all that different. Trump's is only slightly better and last year may end up being Trump's best year

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

View attachment 258550

The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.

Bullshit. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

 

[bripat9643]

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

View attachment 258550

The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.

Bullshit. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Nope. economists on the government payroll define the end of a recession as the point where GDP becomes positive, not the point where it stops declining.

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit. Obama's schemes made it worse, not better.

It's always amusing when the USMB's fucking moron chimes in.

A moron is someone who believes that graph supports your claim.

It shows a steady rise in employment for the last 9 years. You know, what fucking morons call a slow recovery.

What it needs to show is that this result was better than doing nothing, and the record of past recessions indicates it isn't.

So? Reagan's recession was much milder and was intentionally induced to reduce inflation.

His recession was much worse. Unemployment went to 10.4%

 

[bripat9643]

Oh please you guys are so full of shit, Bush inherited a bad recession after silicon valley imploded in the late 90s......calm down bro

You mean the recession that started after Bush became president? The one that likely wouldn't have even been a recession if not for 9.11?

Technically the recession didn't start until Bush, but I meant when Silcon Valley started to implode BEFORE Bush became President

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia

The burst of the bubble, known as the dot-com crash, lasted from March 11, 2000, to October 9, 2002.[
March 11, 2000, who was the President of the United States?

Wikipedia??



Regardless, at least you show Bush didn't inherit a recession. Even you admit it started after he became president and you can't inherit something that didn't exist before your presidency.

Actually, he did. The stock market bubble burst during the Clinton administration.

Who said it didn't? It just didn't cause a recession. At least not by itself. 9.11 expanded the contraction into a recession.

ROFL! It immediately preceded the recession, but that didn't cause the recession? What do you imagine caused it?