So you don’t approve of Trump borrowing anywhere from 1 to 5 trillion to pay for his tax cut then I assume?
Trump says the economy is doing better.
Fox News reports that Trump says the economy is doing better.
Silver Lining posts that Fox News reports that Trump says the economy is doing better.
Big deal.
It is a matter of record – and all mainstream economists agree – that the recovery from the Great Recession was in fact the weakest, slowest of all recoveries from recessions in the last 70 years.
I have posted charts showing this, on this board. I will NOT repeat my efforts. It is not our fault that you are too stupid and too ignorant to pay attention to what’s going on around you. If you are in any way interested in actually learning something, you can do a little basic research yourselves.
Oh, FFS.
And, assuming that by the meaningless term “labor rate” you mean unemployment rate, here’s what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Straight down since 2011 until it stops declining in … 2018.
Life is almost never this simple. Economics certainly isn’t. In terms of jobs, certainly an important indicator, the Obama recovery measures quite well against the others of the last century or so. In terms of GDP, it is indeed the slowest, but also the longest (in fact, it’s still going). The Obama recovery was/is the longest since WWII. He turned around the economy and kept it growing through the remainder of his presidency. This is a fact, and many Presidents can’t claim to have an economy that grew throughout their tenure after the first year.
Of course, if you’re only interested in personal insults, then you can carry on without me.
I’m not even asking you for a cite-- I’m just asking you what you mean. I can’t find a cite myself for what you’re saying if I don’t even know what you’re saying.
By comparison, suppose I had said that Obama’s recovery was the purplest recovery ever. You can’t find cites either for or against that, because it makes no sense: What does it mean for a recovery to be purple, and how do you measure purpleness?
“Slowest” at least has some meaning, but even that, I can interpret in two different ways: Does it refer to the time required to complete the recovery, or does it refer to the rate? If the former, then that just means that Bush’s recession was a very deep one, and so it would be inevitable that it would take a long time to recover from. If the rate, then what numbers are you using as your economic indicators? The unemployment rate, the GDP the DJIA, the value of the dollar against other currencies, the price of gas?
Best typo of the week.
This is a warning for personal insults. You are welcome to argue your position forcefully, but you are not permitted to insult other posters in this forum. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Oh look, another thread with Republicans telling Democrats how they should think and act in the next election!
We should be nicer. Get more flies with honey than vinegar. 'Course, shit works best…
The unemployment rate has been on aconsistently downward trend since 2010. What’s Trump got to do with that? Also, there was a time not long ago during the Obama administration that Trump insisted that the unemployment statistics were inaccurate; “phony” to be specific.
So, if the number was phony then, it’s phony now unless there’s been some drastic correction that Trump implemented in method of discerning the accurate rate of unemployment. Unsurprisingly, we haven’t heard about any executive order that fixed that. Any change in methodology would surely also be reflected in an interruption of some sort to the general downward trend, but again unsurprisingly, we haven’t seen that either. Does Trump still believe the number is phony and he wants us to forget about his previous claims? Or did Trump never believe the number is phony and now wants to take credit for outcome of the previous administrations policies.
I’ll give him this. In his incompetency, his policies have not reversed the gains of the previous administration. Yet. Give it time.
It’s not even really Fox News. It’s an opinion piece on the Fox News website. An opinion piece written by Andy Puzder. Andy Puzder, as you may recall, withdrew his nomination for Secretary of Labor over ethical concerns.
Not ethical enough for the Trump administration. Wow!
But the OP asked, “What did Andy Puzder say that was wrong?”
This is not remotely accurate. It barely qualifies as a straw man. It’s like a three-year-old’s drawing of a blurry photo of a poorly assembled straw man.
Wait.
The recovery from the worst recession in 70 years…was the slowest in 70 years?
And they’re blaming Obama??
This is a strange world we live in.
.
The Democrats are just doomed, full stop. They could pivot from Trump, they could pivot away from Trump, they could pivot on a divot on a rivet, it won’t make a difference, they are doomed. As far as I can tell the party is currently death-rattle-‘n’-rollin’ off the mortal coil. The upside is, I believe Trump’s upset victory and throwing out the old books, has paved the way for an Independent president. I think it probably won’t be in the next election (I expect Trump to be re-elected) but possibly after that.
They say “adapt or die.” The Republican party’s embracing of Trump, no matter how much it pisses everyone off (including me), is a form of adapting to a changing culture. The Democrats failed to do it. Trump broke the mold of traditional politicians. This has both pros and cons. The con is that Trump is now President. The pro is that he opened the door for someone who’s not a professional politician to win an election. This is something that’s very significant. And I believe that we will see an Independent president in my lifetime. (I’m 31.)
Parties do adapt. The biggest losses seen in modern times were 1964 and 1972. In both cases the losing party won the very next presidential election. Just pray to whatever god (or gods) you believe in that the Dems don’t adapt by coming up with a trump of their own.
Part of the problem with economics is that economics is hard. “Obama had the slowest recovery since the great depression” works as a pithy statement because it’s technically true, and delving into all the reasons why it’s still a remarkably unfair statement takes time and energy the average voter just isn’t going to spend discussing economics.
Similarly, the economy is actually pretty decent right now. Why? It has approximately fuck-all to do with Trump’s policies; the trend lines from the Obama administration continue almost entirely unabated. The Trump tax cut is popular. Why? People are seeing their tax returns, and aren’t thinking about how obscenely expensive it is to give the rich such a gigantic tax cut, they’re thinking about their own paltry sum. And so on, and so forth.
That said, there’s still plenty of room to run on economic populism, and if the entirety of your argument can be summed up as “stupid motherfucker on Fox News’s opinions website says”, then I’m not even going to bother to read the article, because I have better things to do than waste my time reading propaganda from the most dishonest mainstream western news outlet.
It’s amazing how the partisans can slam a Democratic administration for a slow recovery from a near-Depression without exploring whose fault it was that there *was *a near-Depression, or the obstacles Obama faced in recovering from it.
More like Obummer, amiright!? LOCK HIM UP!
It’s hard to run against the economy right now, but it’s not hard to run on specific economic issues like health insurance coverage.
Like a majority of SDMB pundits, I fully expect Trump’s term to be an economic disaster, but that’s a hard sell right now.