https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.5a1919192d65 A @Denny Crane avalanche of rebuttal charts and graphs in five, four, three.........
No need. Trump was elected in November. Massive gains after that. The recovery was the slowest in modern history, while the really big gains were for those who were in a position to buy stock. Carry on.
So you really didn't read the article. I didn't honestly figure you would. It doesn't fit your relentlessly pro Donny narrative. Carry on yourself.....
I read it top to bottom. I read it yesterday, too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...he-trump-bump-forget-about-jobs/#3616279f7465 Read that. It's from a month after the election. The TL;DR version is that starting Nov. 9, the stock market took off, businesses began hiring and raising pay.
Ah Denny, you are the epitome of predictability. You've whined so long and hard about Trump not getting any credit for anything (despite his having done little to nothing of positive consequence), now you're taking the credit that belongs to others for their actual accomplishments and giving it to Donny. Then, when Donny acts vaguely presidential (i.e.; working with the Democrats) you shit the bed. Sad..................not to mention shameless trolling. The past 10 months do not account for the slow but steady upswing over the past several years. And all the OpEd pieces in the world will not change that fact. But nice try. All I can say is, when you hate, you don't fuck around......Who are you going to blame if/when Trump doesn't (or can't) come through and the economy either falters or tanks? Oh, that's right! The recalcitrant and obstructionist Democrats. Silly question on my part.....if the current spike (and that is exactly what it is at this point) turns into a consistent and steady upswing, then even I will give Trump his due. But this early in the game??? C'mon, you're so hell bent on being "right" you're desperately grasping at straws.
The facts matter. Sorry they are not in your side. Slow and steady? Sure, if sub par performance and a lot of suffering along the way are good things. People vote their pocketbook and Trump won. How can that be if everything was so great? Looks like all things Progressive were utterly rejected. There is no denying the Trump economic effect. To deny it is to be ignorant. If the show fits...
I find it odd that I give credit where credit is due, regardless of party or person. I don't hate Obama - I just think he wasn't up to the job. He seems like a fine fellow, his wife is stunning, and he looks to be a gentleman and fine family man. I'd say he is mostly honest, though there were several times he abused power (IRS), and lied (Benghazi). John Kerry was effective as Secy of State. He got shit done - Cuba, nuke deal with Iran. He didn't accomplish zip like his predecessor. Bill Clinton shrank government through attrition. Trump is, too, fwiw. I'm all for shrinking government. The economy rocked until Clinton's last year. Credit where it is due. Those pesky facts. I gave Obama credit all along when he did good. Ended don't ask, don't tell, ended DOMA, etc. things that were Right, and didn't cost any money. I've posted my disappointment that Trump is expanding our presence in Afghanistan, his immigration bans, mistreatment of Hispanic immigrants, bashing the Hispanic judge, banning trans from the military, etc. These things are policy and I am being specific. So who among us isn't willing to give any credit at all, even when it is due?
But isn't Obama still in office on Nov. 9th? Still doing work? Why can't that be attributed to what Obama did in the months prior... years prior? Call me naive, but that just seems logical to me. I mean, it's simple psychology too. Correlation is not causation. I wouldn't think that just because someone was elected all this stuff happens. Businesses began hiring and raising pay? Doesn't that happen in voting with cities and states? That takes years to put those stipulations of increased pay (in terms of min. wage at least) in place. I would say the same thing if this correlation happens when Trump isn't out yet but we have a new president-elect. Things like this just don't happen overnight once an election is over. Correlation? Sure. Causation? I don't think so.
Obama gets credit for the budget through Sept this year. The Federal Government's fiscal year is Sept to Sept. There is no doubt that there was a major economic upturn the day Trump was elected. Businesses anticipate more favorable treatment, lower taxes, and so on. Obama's economic "success" is tied to his running up massive debts. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to near 0% so the government wouldn't be crushed by debt service on all that borrowed money. With savings accounts offering 0.1% and T-Bills offering 1%, where is there to save money? The stock market. The borrowed money added to the GDP, distorting it's true measure (true measure being what GDP is without the $10T borrowed). It's like making $50K a year and spending $50K a year on your credit cards. You aren't making $100K a year though you spent it. In spite of the sluggish growth during his 8 years (1.8% annual GDP growth compared to 3.4% historically), the market did well. But here's the rub. In the first month after Trump was elected, the market (S&P 500) increased by 6%. That 6% is definitely attributable to Trump's election. The stock market has increased more in Trump's term (so far) than the past few years of Obama's. From Februrary: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-markets-trump-rally-has-just-begun-2017-02-11 The juggernaut of optimism unleashed by President Donald Trump’s presidency will continue to steamroll its way through the market, paving the way for stocks to carve out new highs and keep hungry bears at bay. Wall Street is fairly upbeat on the positive impact of lower taxes and regulatory reforms promised by Trump, even if details remain murky. But despite the lack of clarity, enthusiasm for the president’s agenda has not waned with at least one prominent strategist suggesting that the so-called Trump rally is only beginning.
In line with my last post... How hilarious is this https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trumps-mysterious-stock-boom In the run-up to last year’s Presidential election, pundits, economists, and Wall Street analysts agreed on one thing: a Donald Trump Presidency would be a disaster for the stock market. The common wisdom is that markets hate uncertainty. They’re all about prediction, and Trump is unpredictability personified. Citigroup said that a Trump win would send the S. & P. 500 down three to five per cent, and, on Election Day, the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates told its clients that the Dow could fall almost two thousand points—a full ten per cent—if Trump was elected. As the result became clear, these forecasts briefly looked accurate: stock-market futures took a vertiginous overnight tumble. But the day after Trump’s victory markets rebounded, and, as he never tires of boasting, they’ve risen since. The Dow is up more than thirteen per cent, an impressive gain by historical standards. And another good read, this from December just after the election: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...e-trump-stock-market-rally-continue-into-2017 Will the Trump stock market rally continue into 2017?
Obama's parting gift is a deficit of $702B and massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Trump's first budget represents a decrease from $702B to $589B, if not more. The last paragraph addresses Obama's "new normal" that people assume we're stuck with. Sub par growth. Yet, the economy is approaching 3% growth this year, since Trump took office. We've yet to see the effect of tax reform, etc. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/trump-officials-say-budget-deficit-to-rise-to-702-/ Trump officials say budget deficit to rise to $702 billion in 2017 The White House said Friday that faltering tax revenues will cause the budget deficit to rise to $702 billion this year, $99 billion higher than was predicted in late May. The Office of Management and Budget’s report also said the deficit for fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, will increase by $149 billion to $589 billion. Last year’s deficit was $585 billion. The report said the fault lies with “the failed policies of the previous administration.” “The rising near-term deficits underscore the critical need to restore fiscal discipline to the nation’s finances,” said White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. “Our nation must make substantial changes to the policies and spending priorities of the previous administration if our citizens are to be safe and prosperous in the future.” In May, Mr. Trump unveiled his first federal budget with proposed cuts to domestic programs and a promise to balance the budget within 10 years. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the administration is counting on rosy projections of economic growth, an average of 3 percent annually, that aren’t likely to be achieved. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/28/news/economy/gdp-second-quarter-trump-economy/index.html U.S. economy accelerated during first full Trump quarter The U.S. economy gathered momentum during the first full quarter with President Trump in charge. Economic growth accelerated to an annual rate of 2.6% from April through June, the government said Friday. That was about what economists had expected. Second-quarter growth more than doubled the sluggish pace from the first three months of the year. First-quarter economic growth was revised down to 1.2%. ... Overall economic growth is well short of 4%, the promise Trump made as a candidate, but it is getting closer to the moderate goal of 3% that he has set since taking office. Trump's election and promises of massive tax cuts and infrastructure spending lifted expectations on Wall Street and among economists of faster growth. But Trump hasn't been able to get his economic agenda through Congress, so those expectations have been dialed back.
And we have an update on the deficit. Yes, the president/executive branch can affect spending by not spending money allocated. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...-taxes-through-august-still-run-6737b-deficit Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.
I'm confused, then, I suppose, as to how a president who's not even in the office gets credit for it? I just feel like there is more factors involved than just someone being elected.
The markets tend to rise on expectations of better things to come. The election of Trump was exactly that - a signal of better things to come. Candidate A: "I'm going to crush business with burdensome regulations and punitive taxation" Candidate B: "I'm going to eliminate burdens, foster business growth wherever possible, cut taxes, create jobs" When Candidate B is elected, the market rises in anticipation of the better environment. Some of a president's policies last much longer than his term(s). The $10T increased debt is going to crush spending on virtually everything (the debt payments are projected to soon be the 2nd largest spending item in the entire budget). That's not getting paid down without a lot of deep spending cuts. Obama's legacy is also the "new normal." Modest employment gains (sub 300,000 per month), sluggish GDP growth (sub 2%), increases in Food Stamps and other programs to help easy the pain caused by his economic policies. There is also the long lasting effect of a generation (millennials) who lost nearly a decade of productive employment, home ownership and wealth creating opportunities stifled by living in their parents' basements. The GDP part is pretty interesting. If you look at GDP growth WITHOUT the borrowing, Obama's was negative and W's was positive. To illustrate, if the economy grew from $1T to $1.2T, but you borrowed $1T, it's a net effective loss of $800B. The $1T you borrowed got spent on goods and services worth $1T. If the economy grew from $1T to $2T and you borrowed $400B, it's a net effective gain of $600B.
I guess I see where you're coming from with the candidate example, sure. But in terms of what I bolded - I don't think that's a fair assessment to just say that Obama is the reason for a generation of people being unemployed (or lack of sustained employment). Sure, there are lots of people who will have high levels of internal locus' of control and blame themselves as to why they are where they are. However, there are just too many factors at play to say that a president is the reason all of it went the way it did. Inflation, sellers' market, more and more people -choosing- to live in a rent-free (or drastically reduced rent) situation such as a parent. Sure, educational systems are there to get people the training and job knowledge, but (and I'd have to go find data for this - if there is any) it averages years to get there. I get it, were all in different phases in life, but if we're signaling out a certain generation, then all the other factors that are going into that generation need to be accounted for. Otherwise, it's a disservice to that generation, and quite unfair. I also don't think it's fair to say the writing is on the wall for this generation. I also have a slight worry about seeing the initial growth due to an incumbent or newly-elected person. Things shift and change. I think we can agree that the next fiscal year will be the most important for this person. (If you haven't noticed, I will not call that person by his official title. Personal preference.) If it truly is based on projecting and predicting, they'll have a much better understanding in the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
Read the "new normal" link in my post? It's Obama himself admitting either: 1) his policies are certain to have these negative effects, or 2) he has no clue to the damage of his policies. Given that Rahm Emannuel as Chief of Staff was quoted, "never let a good crisis go to waste," it's reasonable to assert the plan was to exacerbate the ill effects in order to pass a bunch of left wing agenda items. Party and philosophy over country. The problem for millennials is that they did get education, they're in debt up to their eyeballs, and no quality jobs to give them a path to paying off their student loans. Imagine what the resumes of these people look like - college, then years of no employment or underemployment. By underemployment, I mean they got a degree is engineering but had to take a fast food job. Later on when the market is better, they will be the last hired because they have no industry experience. It may well be the Trump rally turns into a bubble, irrational exuberance where stocks are overvalued way too much. I'd rather wait and see more of his policies enacted before judging that, though. Another consideration is unemployment. An example that explains Obama's unemployment figures: 1) There are 100 people looking for jobs. 2) 50 of them get jobs 3) Unemployment rate is 50% 4) 50 of those without jobs give up looking, the market is really bad 5) Unemployment rate is now 0% During Obama's "recovery," those in the #4 above were 7.5M, if not more.
