Job Gains For 2018 Almost As Good As During Obama Years, But NOT AS GOOD. Weaker Than

[PoliTalker]

Hello anatta,

good jobs, wages, GDP, all superior under Trump

That is not true. Good jobs and good wages for most are never coming back. And the GDP is not enough to generate the needed revenue to balance the budget. GDP/Federal Debt ratio is too high under Trump, and getting higher. The situation is getting worse. We are living on borrowed time. An economy which cannot pay the government bills is a false economy. It is unsustainable, and bound to crash.

 

[Oneuli]

good jobs, wages, GDP, all superior under Trump

Job creation, wage growth, and GDP growth all are trends firmly established in the Obama years, which have merely continued at more or less the same pace in the Trump years (somewhat higher real GDP growth rate, somewhat lower job creation rate). Will he be able to sustain that? Maybe.... with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases, it's certainly possible, for a while. But I wouldn't hold your breath. When was the last time we had a Republican administration that DIDN'T see the start of a recession?

Seriously, that's not a hypothetical question, it's a real one. Has it ever happened? Coolidge, maybe?!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

Job creation, wage growth, and GDP growth all are trends firmly established in the Obama years, which have merely continued at more or less the same pace in the Trump years (somewhat higher real GDP growth rate, somewhat lower job creation rate). Will he be able to sustain that? Maybe.... with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases, it's certainly possible, for a while. But I wouldn't hold your breath. When was the last time we had a Republican administration that DIDN'T see the start of a recession?

Seriously, that's not a hypothetical question, it's a real one. Has it ever happened? Coolidge, maybe?!

It is so sad that that is no exaggeration.

That's what Republicans get for fooling themselves into protecting and defending the super-rich.

 

[anatta]

Job creation, wage growth, and GDP growth all are trends firmly established in the Obama years, which have merely continued at more or less the same pace in the Trump years (somewhat higher real GDP growth rate, somewhat lower job creation rate). Will he be able to sustain that? Maybe.... with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases, it's certainly possible, for a while. But I wouldn't hold your breath. When was the last time we had a Republican administration that DIDN'T see the start of a recession?

Seriously, that's not a hypothetical question, it's a real one. Has it ever happened? Coolidge, maybe?!

ridiculous.
Obama averaged what was it? less then 2% GDP per year? right around that.
Obama lost 200k GOOD jobs -like manufacturing - Trump has created close to 500k =220k this year alone.
And he didn't need a "magic wand" as Obama claimed he would have

Obama wage growth was around 2% or less -Trump is 3.2% per the last year.

 

[anatta]

Hello anatta,



That is not true. Good jobs and good wages for most are never coming back. And the GDP is not enough to generate the needed revenue to balance the budget. GDP/Federal Debt ratio is too high under Trump, and getting higher. The situation is getting worse. We are living on borrowed time. An economy which cannot pay the government bills is a false economy. It is unsustainable, and bound to crash.

Obama doubled the national debt,and now you are worried about it?
I agree it's a long term problem but there are sadly no deficit hawks anymore -I'm not excusing Trump either-
except for the fact Ryan could not get a deal to fix damage from sequestor without matching domestic spending wanted by the Dems

Good jobs and good wages for most are never coming back

simply untrue

 

[Oneuli]

Hello Oneuli,



It is so sad that that is no exaggeration.

That's what Republicans get for fooling themselves into protecting and defending the super-rich.

I was curious about my own question, so I looked it up:

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

Two recessions started during Bush's presidency, one during the elder Bush's, one during Reagan's, two during Nixon's, three during Eisenhower's, one during Hoover's, one during Coolidge's, one during Harding's, two during Taft's, three during Teddy Roosevelt's, one during McKinley's, two during Harrison's, and one during Arthur's. So, going 140 years, there are only two Republican presidents who didn't have a recession start on their watch:

(1) Gerald Ford -- he inherited a recession from Nixon, and after it ended, had a bit less than two years before his term ended, during which time another recession didn't start.
(2) James Garfield -- he died six months after taking office, and made it through without a recession.

By comparison, Clinton and Obama each served eight years without a recession starting, and Kennedy and Johnson also made it through without a recession starting.

 

[Oneuli]

ridiculous.

The facts are as I stated them. In Obama's last four years, payrolls were expanding at a somewhat faster rate than in Trump's first two years. Meanwhile, real GDP was also expanding, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than in Trump's first two years. Of course, Obama was pulling that off without the "magic wand" of massive deficit spending increases to stimulate the economy, the way Trump has had.

Obama wage growth was around 2% or less -Trump is 3.2% per the last year.

What data are you using? See here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

That's median usual weekly earnings for full-time workers, adjusted for inflation. As you can see, the last reading for 2016 was $349. The most recent was $355. That's for 1.75 years, so it annualized to 0.98% annual growth. Obama's last year had 1.16% growth, while the prior year had 2.68% growth. The average for Obama's second term was 1.18%.

 

[cawacko]

Job creation, wage growth, and GDP growth all are trends firmly established in the Obama years, which have merely continued at more or less the same pace in the Trump years (somewhat higher real GDP growth rate, somewhat lower job creation rate). Will he be able to sustain that? Maybe.... with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases, it's certainly possible, for a while. But I wouldn't hold your breath. When was the last time we had a Republican administration that DIDN'T see the start of a recession?

Seriously, that's not a hypothetical question, it's a real one. Has it ever happened? Coolidge, maybe?!

When you reference massive amounts of stimulus are you referencing three rounds of QE? Because that is what we had from 2009 - 2016. Now we have a Fed both raising rates and reversing its QE. When have we had this done before?

 

[Oneuli]

Obama doubled the national debt

As you're presumably aware, Obama inherited a record deficit and then we began to lower it at a pace that many leading economists considered much too quick. Yet, any deficits were going to raise debt. Right-wingers pretended to be worried about it, back then, despite the titanic deficit reductions, because pretending to worry about it was a tactic for insisting we had to screw the poor and middle class to balance the budget in a hurry. They stopped pretending once Trump got in office and greatly expanded the deficit with his upper-class tax cuts. The pretense of deficit hawkery goes out the window the minute the question is about handouts for the rich.

 

[Oneuli]

When you reference massive amounts of stimulus are you referencing three rounds of QE?

Is English not your first language, or are you just a very careless reader? Here, I'll help you out by isolating the text you misunderstood:

"with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases"

Which part of that did you imagine referenced three rounds of QE?

 

[cawacko]

Is English not your first language, or are you just a very careless reader? Here, I'll help you out by isolating the text you misunderstood:

"with the help of massive amounts of stimulus from deficit increases"

Which part of that did you imagine referenced three rounds of QE?

English is my first language though I wouldn’t consider its mastery a strength. I throw in the Fed and that time period because it led up to where we are today. So on top of the Fed we’ve included recent tax stimulus. My point was this most recent stimulus is another in a long line of stimulus and debt we’ve had over the past decade

 

[Oneuli]

English is my first language though I wouldn’t consider its mastery a strength. I throw in the Fed and that time period because it led up to where we are today. So on top of the Fed we’ve included recent tax stimulus. My point was this most recent stimulus is another in a long line of stimulus and debt we’ve had over the past decade

In the Obama years we had effectively a net-neutral stimulus: fiscally, we had drag, in the form of massive reduction of deficits: the biggest reduction over such a time period since right after WWII. Monetarily, we had stimulus -- though not the usual monetary stimulus of rate cuts, since Obama inherited effectively zero interest rates, forcing the Fed to try untested ideas for monetary stimulus.

With the Trump years, we have massive fiscal stimulus.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello anatta,

ridiculous.
Obama averaged what was it? less then 2% GDP per year? right around that.
Obama lost 200k GOOD jobs -like manufacturing - Trump has created close to 500k =220k this year alone.
And he didn't need a "magic wand" as Obama claimed he would have

Obama wage growth was around 2% or less -Trump is 3.2% per the last year.

Obama's economic growth could have done much better if the Stimulus was greater.

Republicans did not want to deficit-spend then.

I'll tell you what's ridiculous. Republicans voted for deficit spending to give the rich a tax cut under Trump after pretending to be such deficit hawks during a Democratic administration.

If Republicans believe the economic success is due in any part to the tax cuts, then they should own up to the fact that the economy is propped up by irresponsibly adding to the federal debt. It's easy to pump up an economy by throwing free borrowed money around. The economic success can't last if that economy doesn't pay back the federal debt. The next recession is coming. All the pieces are in place.

Obama reduced the deficit.

Trump increased the deficit.

It is foolish for a nation to shirk the responsibility of paying down the debt during good economic times.

If we can't pay the debt down during a hot economy, we will NEVER be able to pay it down during the next recession.

If we are not paying the debt down now, when will we ever be able to?

 

[cawacko]

In the Obama years we had effectively a net-neutral stimulus: fiscally, we had drag, in the form of massive reduction of deficits: the biggest reduction over such a time period since right after WWII. Monetarily, we had stimulus -- though not the usual monetary stimulus of rate cuts, since Obama inherited effectively zero interest rates, forcing the Fed to try untested ideas for monetary stimulus.

With the Trump years, we have massive fiscal stimulus.

2009 and 2010 had fiscal stimulus. 2009 - 2016 has unprecedented monetary stimulus which was responsible for the asset bubbles we face today. Now the Fed is trying to unwind QE and raise rates which is the opposite of stimulus so a lot is going on

 

[Cypress]

I was curious about my own question, so I looked it up:

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

Two recessions started during Bush's presidency, one during the elder Bush's, one during Reagan's, two during Nixon's, three during Eisenhower's, one during Hoover's, one during Coolidge's, one during Harding's, two during Taft's, three during Teddy Roosevelt's, one during McKinley's, two during Harrison's, and one during Arthur's. So, going 140 years, there are only two Republican presidents who didn't have a recession start on their watch:

(1) Gerald Ford -- he inherited a recession from Nixon, and after it ended, had a bit less than two years before his term ended, during which time another recession didn't start.
(2) James Garfield -- he died six months after taking office, and made it through without a recession.

By comparison, Clinton and Obama each served eight years without a recession starting, and Kennedy and Johnson also made it through without a recession starting.

Also worth noting: the two worst recessions of the post WW2 era were the Bedtime for Bonzo recession in 1982, and the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

"I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
- Donald Trump, 2004

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello anatta,

Obama doubled the national debt,and now you are worried about it?

The Great Recession doubled the debt. Obama inherited the economy with all the pieces of the Great Recession already in place. President Obama did a good job of guiding us out of the Great Recession.

I agree it's a long term problem but there are sadly no deficit hawks anymore

Wrong.

-I'm not excusing Trump either- except for the fact Ryan could not get a deal to fix damage from sequestor without matching domestic spending wanted by the Dems

And we had the sequestor, why? Remind us again who forced that issue?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

I was curious about my own question, so I looked it up:

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

Two recessions started during Bush's presidency, one during the elder Bush's, one during Reagan's, two during Nixon's, three during Eisenhower's, one during Hoover's, one during Coolidge's, one during Harding's, two during Taft's, three during Teddy Roosevelt's, one during McKinley's, two during Harrison's, and one during Arthur's. So, going 140 years, there are only two Republican presidents who didn't have a recession start on their watch:

(1) Gerald Ford -- he inherited a recession from Nixon, and after it ended, had a bit less than two years before his term ended, during which time another recession didn't start.
(2) James Garfield -- he died six months after taking office, and made it through without a recession.

By comparison, Clinton and Obama each served eight years without a recession starting, and Kennedy and Johnson also made it through without a recession starting.

Thanks for that.

And it doesn't surprise me.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

The facts are as I stated them. In Obama's last four years, payrolls were expanding at a somewhat faster rate than in Trump's first two years. Meanwhile, real GDP was also expanding, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than in Trump's first two years. Of course, Obama was pulling that off without the "magic wand" of massive deficit spending increases to stimulate the economy, the way Trump has had.

Sure is easy to pump up an economy by throwing borrowed money around. And irresponsible to do it with no plan to ever pay it back. Sounds like Trump, alright.

What data are you using? See here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

That's median usual weekly earnings for full-time workers, adjusted for inflation. As you can see, the last reading for 2016 was $349. The most recent was $355. That's for 1.75 years, so it annualized to 0.98% annual growth. Obama's last year had 1.16% growth, while the prior year had 2.68% growth. The average for Obama's second term was 1.18%.

Obama strong, Trump weak.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

When you reference massive amounts of stimulus are you referencing three rounds of QE? Because that is what we had from 2009 - 2016. Now we have a Fed both raising rates and reversing its QE. When have we had this done before?

The chairman of the federal reserve bank does that. A president cannot order QE. It is just as disingenuous to blame President Obama for QE as it is to blame him for the effects of the Great Recession.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



The chairman of the federal reserve bank does that. A president cannot order QE. It is just as disingenuous to blame President Obama for QE as it is to blame him for the effects of the Great Recession.

Presidents don’t control the economy. It has been argued many time the Fed has more control over the economy only than the President. So it’s disigenuous to argue Obama, Trump, Bush, Clinton have total control when they don’t. Presidents ultimately get way more credit/blame than they deserve. I bring up the Fed because most others don’t and you can’t have a true economic discussions without their actions