Tax cuts?
A trained monkey could have pushed tax cuts through this Congress
You don’t remember what happened in 2008? And the time needed to recover?
I’m really enjoying my (almost) $1.29 per week tax savings.
That $1.29 savings is scheduled to expire in a few years. I think you should spend your enjoyment vicariously on the Billions (with a B) in permanent tax cuts for the Koch Brothers, and billions more for other heroic Job Creators.
Since you brought it up again, I’m curious if you have an answer to this question yet:
Last time I asked you (about three weeks ago) you said:
Presumably you have the pay stub now. Have you compared your federal income tax withholding from last year to this most recent pay stub? Was $3 the difference?
I think he answered you in that thread you keep ignoring in the pit.
Is that true? Did he actually provide an answer to that question there?
@septimus: where did you get these numbers from? They appear to be wrong.
AFAICT, the BLS keeps the official numbers on this (although I’m certainly open to correction if that’s wrong. Adding up the monthly totals for each year, I get these numbers:
2009 = -5.061 million jobs
2010 = 1.053 million jobs
2011 = 2.09 million jobs
2012 = 2.151 million jobs
2013 = 2.301 million jobs
2014 = 3.005 million jobs
2015 = 2.712 million jobs
2016 = 2.344 million jobs
2017 = 2.188 million jobs
And you know why those 2009 and 2010 job numbers happened as well as anyone here. Are you seriously trying to claim that it was Obama’s bad management that caused them?
No, but I thought it was interesting, in a post calling out cherry-picking, that he’d engage in it himself.
Also, it appears he should have done a better job of it and left 2011 and 2012 off as well, because it looks like Trump’s first year was better than all four years of Obama’s first term.
Cherry picking. You know why Obama’s first four years were like they were.
With an economy handed to him that was chugging along, contrary to the scaremongering he did during the campaign, as opposed to helming the recovery from a historically bad recession. Spare me what a superior job creator Trump is.
First four years? A couple of hours ago it was his first two years. Can we expect by this afternoon that the first six years of Obama’s administration will be Bush’s fault?
I get that you’re criticizing a moving of the goalposts, but I’m confused on your fundamental position.
Are you saying that new Administrations should, or should not, claim total credit over economic developments that occur early in the term, and dismiss that the prior Administration had anything to do with those developments?
You compared Obama’s first four years to Trump’s first.
Politics being what they are, presidents tend to try to claim any good news they can as their doing, and any bad news as residual ill effects from the previous administration (or in this case, some seem to be claiming that it’s residual good news from the previous administration). Should they? It’s probably bad politics not to, but (and this is my fundamental position) I’m generally of the opinion that presidents get far too much credit and / or blame for the economic situation (as I mentioned at the tail end of post #58).
ETA: and in attempt at fairness for Obama, I think there was a good bit more to his claims of residual ill effects than your average president (but even in that case, by the end “Bush’s fault” was wearing a bit thin).
Oh my.
First, I took those numbers and only those numbers presented on a certain NBC page. Blame them for “cherry-picking” if you wish. Second, since you seem to want to a make a mountain out of the molehill way to the right of the decimal point, you should check which are the revised numbers. No, I won’t check that for you — this whole digression is too inane to even be stupid. But, BTW, in case you’re ever arguing with gullible adults you missed the obvious “rebuttal” to my “point”:* It was easy to get good job growth in 2012-2013 because of the huge number of unemployed created in 2009*. (It seems quite peculiar you couldn’t even think of this “rebuttal” yourself; it’s orders of magnitude more cogent and germane than whatever you think you’re arguing.)
But, finally, you need to get a handle on what “cherry-picking” even means. Let’s start you with an easy question: Do you see why an annual figure is more useful than a monthly figure here?
Ask in the other thread if you need further help.
Not trying to play dumb, but that position seems at odds with your OP:
Sure seems like you were giving credit to the Trump Administration for good economic news.
To what end? Is there a certain breakpoint after which we’re expected to say “Oh, well, I guess it’s okay that Trump’s a Nazi-loving Russian asset who has eviscerated the state department, cut corporations loose to poison you, and has all but destroyed the US’s relationships with its allies before embarking on a goodwill tour of his favourite dictatorships”? There’s no gotcha for the Trump supporters here; they have a term for Nazi-loving Russian assets who create lots of jobs, it’s “Nazi-loving Russian asset”.