Some final Trump and Obama economy numbers

[houndawg]

I should have thought of looking at this earlier. When you look at something like Black unemployment rate, you need to consider the starting point for each President. And Trump took over under the best circumstances with respect to Black unemployment since they started keeping track of that. It started in 1972. Here is the situation each President took over in that regard:

1973 Nixon took over with the Black unemployment rate at 9.1% and in a decreasing trend.
1977 Carter took over with Black unemployment at 13.8% and in an increasing trend.
1981 Reagan took over with Black unemployment at 14.6% and in an increasing trend.
1989 H.W. Bush took over with Black unemployment at 11.8% and in a decreasing trend.
1993 Clinton took over with Black unemployment at 14.1% and in an increasing trend.
2001 G.W. Bush took over with Black unemployment at 8.2% and in an uncertain trend.
2009 Barack Obama took over with Black unemployment at 12.7% and in an increasing trend.
2017 Donald Trump took over with Black unemployment at 7.4% and in a decreasing trend.

Now, which President took over during the best situation with respect to Black unemployment since they started keeping track of Black unemployment?

So, do you think that the lowest Black unemployment rate of the period would've been during Donald Trump if he'd have taken over when it was at 14.6% and in an increasing trend as was the case with Reagan? How about if it had been at 12.7% and in an increasing trend as was the case with Obama?

Of course not. You can't ignore what the situation was when the person took over and Trump had the benefit of taking over under the best circumstances with respect to Black unemployment rate that any of the eight Presidents listed encountered.

Debating with you is like debating with JBB.

Which of the above aren't true?

[houndawg]

So your entire analysis comes down to timing. Perfect. He just got lucky.

His entire analysis comes down to whatever way he has to frame it so that he can justify not giving Trump credit.

Why don't you use his numbers to show us how he framed them to be 'anti-Trump' and what the real story is? That would carry more weight.

[houndawg]

I should have thought of looking at this earlier. When you look at something like Black unemployment rate, you need to consider the starting point for each President. And Trump took over under the best circumstances with respect to Black unemployment since they started keeping track of that. It started in 1972. Here is the situation each President took over in that regard:

1973 Nixon took over with the Black unemployment rate at 9.1% and in a decreasing trend.
1977 Carter took over with Black unemployment at 13.8% and in an increasing trend.
1981 Reagan took over with Black unemployment at 14.6% and in an increasing trend.
1989 H.W. Bush took over with Black unemployment at 11.8% and in a decreasing trend.
1993 Clinton took over with Black unemployment at 14.1% and in an increasing trend.
2001 G.W. Bush took over with Black unemployment at 8.2% and in an uncertain trend.
2009 Barack Obama took over with Black unemployment at 12.7% and in an increasing trend.
2017 Donald Trump took over with Black unemployment at 7.4% and in a decreasing trend.

Now, which President took over during the best situation with respect to Black unemployment since they started keeping track of Black unemployment?

So, do you think that the lowest Black unemployment rate of the period would've been during Donald Trump if he'd have taken over when it was at 14.6% and in an increasing trend as was the case with Reagan? How about if it had been at 12.7% and in an increasing trend as was the case with Obama?

Of course not. You can't ignore what the situation was when the person took over and Trump had the benefit of taking over under the best circumstances with respect to Black unemployment rate that any of the eight Presidents listed encountered.

So your entire analysis comes down to timing. Perfect. He just got lucky.

What president's legacy wasn't determined by luck?

[JohnStOnge]

The guy took over under perhaps the best circumstances that any President took over in my lifetime. That is just the truth. I think maybe one could argue that H.W. Bush took over under comparably good circumstances. But the idea that things changed dramatically for the better when Trump took over is just objectively false. They did indeed pretty much continue as they had been going until COVID-19 hit.

I am not the one doing all sorts of contortions to try to claim something that's not true. It's the people finding all sorts of ways to try to parse what happened into an argument that Trump had this massive positive impact on the economy. Again: The test is to look at the economic numbers and ask yourself if you'd look at them and suspect something happened if you didn't know anything about who was President when. And no intellectually honest person can say the numbers over time make it look like something happened around the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017. You look at the numbers and you see a definite change around 2010 then the next time you see a definite change is around the beginning of 2020. That's just the truth.

Notice that I did not blame him for the economy tanking after COVID-19 hit. That's another thing that would've happened regardless of who was President.

[UNI88]

His entire analysis comes down to whatever way he has to frame it so that he can justify not giving Trump credit.

Why don't you use his numbers to show us how he framed them to be 'anti-Trump' and what the real story is? That would carry more weight.

Mr Glib wants details?

AZ has provided JSO with details which he ignores because they don't fit the narrative that he has decided is correct.

[kalm]

Why don't you use his numbers to show us how he framed them to be 'anti-Trump' and what the real story is? That would carry more weight.

Mr Glib wants details?

AZ has provided JSO with details which he ignores because they don't fit the narrative that he has decided is correct.

Well at least in this convo, AZ summarily dismissed JSO’s work with “luck”.

Doesn’t deserve a response.

It’s similar to defense of supply side. Can’t fix stupid.

[UNI88]

Mr Glib wants details?

AZ has provided JSO with details which he ignores because they don't fit the narrative that he has decided is correct.

Well at least in this convo, AZ summarily dismissed JSO’s work with “luck”.

Doesn’t deserve a response.

It’s similar to defense of supply side. Can’t fix stupid.

Did AZ summarily dismiss JSO's work as luck or did JSO summarily dismiss the economic records that were set during Trump's Presidency as luck (circumstance)? In other threads, AZ addressed why what occurred under Trump's Presidency was historic but JSO dismissed summarily dismissed those arguments. Why should AZ beat a dead horse by bringing up valid points that JSO isn't going to give credence to?

Defending supply-side is similar to defending socialism.

I don't think JSO is stupid, I think he's blinded by his hatred for Trump.

[kalm]

Well at least in this convo, AZ summarily dismissed JSO’s work with “luck”.

Doesn’t deserve a response.

It’s similar to defense of supply side. Can’t fix stupid.

Did AZ summarily dismiss JSO's work as luck or did JSO summarily dismiss the economic records that were set during Trump's Presidency as luck (circumstance)? In other threads, AZ addressed why what occurred under Trump's Presidency was historic but JSO dismissed summarily dismissed those arguments. Why should AZ beat a dead horse by bringing up valid points that JSO isn't going to give credence to?

Defending supply-side is similar to defending socialism.

I don't think JSO is stupid, I think he's blinded by his hatred for Trump.

I apologize. You’re right. Z reduced it to timing. Both timing and luck play a roll. I do think JSO’s explanations and work suggest an earnest, less partisan attempt rather than simple TDS. He’s at least trying to apply reason.

Then again, I think a willingness to change your mind is a virtue.

[BDKJMU]

Trump added about 35% to the national debt on spending alone

Maybe the Tea Party really WAS about the black guy because they sure didn’t say shit about the profligate spending under Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

National debt rose under:
Bush 86% in 8 years (5.7 to 10.6 trillion)
Obama 88% in 8 year (10.6 to 19.9 trillion)
Trump 39% in 4 years (19.9 to 27.7 trillion) (93% pace if over 8 years) (1.39 x 1.39)

A large chunk of that increase under Trump was the last year with the 3.8 trillion in China Virus relief bills. The 1st 3 years of Trump the national debt was rising at a slower % increase than under Bushbama. Then it blew up the last year.

[UNI88]

Did AZ summarily dismiss JSO's work as luck or did JSO summarily dismiss the economic records that were set during Trump's Presidency as luck (circumstance)? In other threads, AZ addressed why what occurred under Trump's Presidency was historic but JSO dismissed summarily dismissed those arguments. Why should AZ beat a dead horse by bringing up valid points that JSO isn't going to give credence to?

Defending supply-side is similar to defending socialism.

I don't think JSO is stupid, I think he's blinded by his hatred for Trump.

I apologize. You’re right. Z reduced it to timing. Both timing and luck play a roll. I do think JSO’s explanations and work suggest an earnest, less partisan attempt rather than simple TDS. He’s at least trying to apply reason.

Then again, I think a willingness to change your mind is a virtue.

My problem isn't with the information and arguments that JSO gives. I think they're valid. My problem is his complete dismissal of any information and argument that gives Trump credit for anything positive. There are two sides to this coin and JSO's bias limits his analysis and conclusions, he only recognizes the anti-Trump side of the coin.

[JohnStOnge]

I apologize. You’re right. Z reduced it to timing. Both timing and luck play a roll. I do think JSO’s explanations and work suggest an earnest, less partisan attempt rather than simple TDS. He’s at least trying to apply reason.

Then again, I think a willingness to change your mind is a virtue.

My problem isn't with the information and arguments that JSO gives. I think they're valid. My problem is his complete dismissal of any information and argument that gives Trump credit for anything positive. There are two sides to this coin and JSO's bias limits his analysis and conclusions, he only recognizes the anti-Trump side of the coin.

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

I also like putting constructionists on the Supreme Court. The problem with that, though, is that I consider McConnell to be more responsible for getting three of them on than Trump. McConnell is the one that held a spot open. Then the other two just happened. Kennedy retired and Ginsberg died. Whoever is President when something like that happens gets to nominate a replacement. So Trump got to nominate some replacements and the Senate had changed the rules so there isn't any filibuster. Again, the fact that Trump didn't have to deal with having to get enough support for his nominees to break a fillibuster as Presidents have had to do in the past isn't Trump's accomplishment.

I mean, it's just the truth. My impression is that Trump fans generally want to portray Trump who took over when things were horrible and turned them around so that we had the greatest economy in history. It's just not true. Also he seriously damaged United States credibility on the World stage.

[houndawg]

My problem isn't with the information and arguments that JSO gives. I think they're valid. My problem is his complete dismissal of any information and argument that gives Trump credit for anything positive. There are two sides to this coin and JSO's bias limits his analysis and conclusions, he only recognizes the anti-Trump side of the coin.

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

I also like putting constructionists on the Supreme Court. The problem with that, though, is that I consider McConnell to be more responsible for getting three of them on than Trump. McConnell is the one that held a spot open. Then the other two just happened. Kennedy retired and Ginsberg died. Whoever is President when something like that happens gets to nominate a replacement. So Trump got to nominate some replacements and the Senate had changed the rules so there isn't any filibuster. Again, the fact that Trump didn't have to deal with having to get enough support for his nominees to break a fillibuster as Presidents have had to do in the past isn't Trump's accomplishment.

I mean, it's just the truth. My impression is that Trump fans generally want to portray Trump who took over when things were horrible and turned them around so that we had the greatest economy in history. It's just not true. Also he seriously damaged United States credibility on the World stage.

Much of that was permanent - we may recover some to most of the credibility, but the peak of our influence and prestige is behind us and its going to stay behind us. Thanks Trump.

[CAA Flagship]

I see that JSO still doesn't get it.

[Ibanez]

So Trump took over and maintained a decreasing trend in black unemployment...is that right? Sounds like progress to me. Sounds good to me.

[GannonFan]

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

I also like putting constructionists on the Supreme Court. The problem with that, though, is that I consider McConnell to be more responsible for getting three of them on than Trump. McConnell is the one that held a spot open. Then the other two just happened. Kennedy retired and Ginsberg died. Whoever is President when something like that happens gets to nominate a replacement. So Trump got to nominate some replacements and the Senate had changed the rules so there isn't any filibuster. Again, the fact that Trump didn't have to deal with having to get enough support for his nominees to break a fillibuster as Presidents have had to do in the past isn't Trump's accomplishment.

I mean, it's just the truth. My impression is that Trump fans generally want to portray Trump who took over when things were horrible and turned them around so that we had the greatest economy in history. It's just not true. Also he seriously damaged United States credibility on the World stage.

Much of that was permanent - we may recover some to most of the credibility, but the peak of our influence and prestige is behind us and its going to stay behind us. Thanks Trump.

Please, you need to get out more. People have been bemoaning the US for longer than we've been alive. US "prestige" has always been higher in our eyes than in the eyes of the rest of the world. As for influence, sure, you can say our influence at the end of WWII was probably as high as it's ever been, but it was natural that we would never be at that point again - eventually Europe was going to rebuild and we wouldn't be presiding over a war-devastated world. But our influence is still plenty high, just based on population size, military strength, strength of our technology, and our cultural impact. That will be true for many years to come.

[UNI88]

My problem isn't with the information and arguments that JSO gives. I think they're valid. My problem is his complete dismissal of any information and argument that gives Trump credit for anything positive. There are two sides to this coin and JSO's bias limits his analysis and conclusions, he only recognizes the anti-Trump side of the coin.

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

I also like putting constructionists on the Supreme Court. The problem with that, though, is that I consider McConnell to be more responsible for getting three of them on than Trump. McConnell is the one that held a spot open. Then the other two just happened. Kennedy retired and Ginsberg died. Whoever is President when something like that happens gets to nominate a replacement. So Trump got to nominate some replacements and the Senate had changed the rules so there isn't any filibuster. Again, the fact that Trump didn't have to deal with having to get enough support for his nominees to break a fillibuster as Presidents have had to do in the past isn't Trump's accomplishment.

I mean, it's just the truth. My impression is that Trump fans generally want to portray Trump who took over when things were horrible and turned them around so that we had the greatest economy in history. It's just not true. Also he seriously damaged United States credibility on the World stage.

You stopped reading once you found the first counterpoint to the confirmation bias you were searching for. Didn’t you?

[kalm]

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

I also like putting constructionists on the Supreme Court. The problem with that, though, is that I consider McConnell to be more responsible for getting three of them on than Trump. McConnell is the one that held a spot open. Then the other two just happened. Kennedy retired and Ginsberg died. Whoever is President when something like that happens gets to nominate a replacement. So Trump got to nominate some replacements and the Senate had changed the rules so there isn't any filibuster. Again, the fact that Trump didn't have to deal with having to get enough support for his nominees to break a fillibuster as Presidents have had to do in the past isn't Trump's accomplishment.

I mean, it's just the truth. My impression is that Trump fans generally want to portray Trump who took over when things were horrible and turned them around so that we had the greatest economy in history. It's just not true. Also he seriously damaged United States credibility on the World stage.

You stopped reading once you found the first counterpoint to the confirmation bias you were searching for. Didn’t you?

You will hearing from my attorney, Ivytalk, Esq. soon.

[UNI88]

You stopped reading once you found the first counterpoint to the confirmation bias you were searching for. Didn’t you?

You will hearing from my attorney, Ivytalk, Esq. soon.

I saw that and I thought to myself - who else does that apply to over and over and over ad nauseum?

And bring on that ambulance chaser ...

[AZGrizFan]

My problem isn't with the information and arguments that JSO gives. I think they're valid. My problem is his complete dismissal of any information and argument that gives Trump credit for anything positive. There are two sides to this coin and JSO's bias limits his analysis and conclusions, he only recognizes the anti-Trump side of the coin.

I think it's a positive that he didn't screw the economy up. As I said, if you just look at the data, you see a big change in 2010 and a big change in 2020. Between those two points things were generally positive. Not great. Not the greatest economy ever or anything like that. But positive. There was no significant change in the data either way around the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And Trump was indeed President during 3 years of a good 10 year period.

So easy a caveman could do it.

[AZGrizFan]

And today, 120 days into his presidency, Biden is setting some economic records of his own:

Gas Prices: Highest in a decade
Jobs Report: Worst in two decades
Inflation: Highest in three decades
illegal Immigration: Highest increase in four decades

But it’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.

[BDKJMU]

And today, 120 days into his presidency, Biden is setting some economic records of his own:

Gas Prices: Highest in a decade
Jobs Report: Worst in two decades
Inflation: Highest in three decades
illegal Immigration: Highest increase in four decades

But it’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.

+ an energy crisis, conflict in the ME. Hey, its Jimmy Cater 2, except ALOT more liberal..

[CID1990]

And today, 120 days into his presidency, Biden is setting some economic records of his own:

Gas Prices: Highest in a decade
Jobs Report: Worst in two decades
Inflation: Highest in three decades
illegal Immigration: Highest increase in four decades

But it’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.

+ an energy crisis, conflict in the ME. Hey, its Jimmy Cater 2, except ALOT more liberal..

Shut down a US pipeline

Enabled a Putin pipeline


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

+ an energy crisis, conflict in the ME. Hey, its Jimmy Cater 2, except ALOT more liberal..

Shut down a US pipeline

Enabled a Putin pipeline

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I thought Trump was Putin's lackey.

Now I'm waiting for Houndie to tell us what Putin has on Biden (or more likely Hunter).

[SDHornet]

And today, 120 days into his presidency, Biden is setting some economic records of his own:

Gas Prices: Highest in a decade
Jobs Report: Worst in two decades
Inflation: Highest in three decades
illegal Immigration: Highest increase in four decades

But it’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.

Can't wait to see JSO's rebuttal to these facts.

[UNI88]

And today, 120 days into his presidency, Biden is setting some economic records of his own:

Gas Prices: Highest in a decade
Jobs Report: Worst in two decades
Inflation: Highest in three decades
illegal Immigration: Highest increase in four decades

But it’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.

Can't wait to see JSO's rebuttal to these facts.

They're a continuation of a statistically clear trend that started with the Trump administration so they're obviously his fault.