Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.Millions are available.Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.In 5 months! His slow recovery was awesome!
How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%
Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?
As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.
So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?
You mean the 4.7% unemployment rate (and dropping) Obama handed Trump? Or the record high stock market?Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.In 5 months! His slow recovery was awesome!
How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%
Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?
Why is Trump's GDP growth so weak?
Still cleaning up Obama's assclownery.
But trumps trillions in tax cuts for needy billionaires was going to give us 5% and 6%. Trump promised.Help me out, is +3.2% more than Obama's -1.0% in his 9th quarter?
The point of this thread is that Trumpo is going to be the second president in US history to not have a full year above 3.0 percent GDP.
You are all aglow with a 3,2 quarter for TrumpO
Those were a dime a dozen under Obama. When TrumpO hits 5.1 let us know. Because Obama did.
You are all aglow with a 3,2 quarter for Trump
Yes, Trump's +3.2% is much better than Obama's -1.0%
A fucking liar is what you are and you prove it in every economic thread.
Have you no shame at all?
-1% Q1 growth is a cherrypicked number from 2014 and 2011 and those were the ONLY negative growth Qs since the end of recession.
You Don’t think he lied, do you?
LOLOLBlack unemployment dropped from 16.8% to 7.7% under Obama. That was not much higher than the record low when Trump became president. within a few months, it was already down to 7.1%, 0.1 point above the record.If this is a weak recovery, how come the rate of growth is no greater now under trump than it was under Obama?
As you know, the rate of growth is indicated by the GDP which is above that of failed former President Barack Hussein Obama.
Are you serious? Once you get down to full employment it is extremely difficult to push it down further below that level. That makes sense, doesn't it? Today we have far more job openings than we do jobs. Unemployment for blacks is the lowest in history and wages are beginning to increase.
Raw numbers don't tell the whole story.
Why Credit for the Decline in Black Unemployment Goes to Trump, Not Obama | People's Pundit Daily
Under Obama, people were dropping out of the labor market at record rates, thus black unemployment was down. Under Trump, labor participation is at record highs, meaning unemployment rates are actual indicators of the number of unemployed. Or at the very least, aren't simply a reflection of a dead job market and nobody bothering to look for work.
The unemployment rate will decline if people exit the labor force, meaning workers retire or give up on the American Dream. As the labor participation rate declines, unemployment will decline.
That’s how BLS methodology works.
Under Mr. Obama, that trend was clear and his supporters sought to explain it away with demographic changes. That was partially true. Baby-boom retirements assuredly contributed, but it wasn’t the full picture.
When labor force participation and the equally important but less-cited employment-population ratio rises, and yet unemployment continues to fall as people enter the labor force, it’s a far stronger labor market.
Put plainly, it’s real.
It’s also worth pointing out the increase in labor force participation for all races after Mr. Obama’s tenure is occurring despite those dastardly demographic pressures.
Labor market is thriving far better under Trump than under Obama
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009
Obama Economy: 9.9M More Employed, But 14.6M Left Labor Force
At no point under Obama's 8 years was there a time when we had more job openings than we had people looking for work. Trump hit that point long ago.
Fucking moron, the recession ended in June, 2009.That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?
https://www.nber.org/cycles/
None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.That means it was a much deeper hole to climb out of.Bush's Great Recession was far worse than any other since the Great Depression.
Your point being?
So what? Did the other recessions not recover much faster than failed former President Barack Husein Obama?
Are you aware that the Socialist policies implemented by FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, Former President George Bush made the same mistake and failed former President Barack Hussein Obama doubled down on the mistakes.
Moron.There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.Millions are available.Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.
How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%
Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?
As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.
So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?
Fed Funds.
If you can't notice the bars get shorter as the years pass, I can't help you.
None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.
"The chart posted indicates average GDP during the recovery."If you can't notice the bars get shorter as the years pass, I can't help you.
The chart posted indicates average GDP during the recovery.
None were as deep since the Great Depression. And yes, I'm well familiar with rightarded revisionism.
Why do you feel the need to slur Republicans? Did I call you names?
What revision are you talking about? Are you calling UCLA a conservative institution? Really?
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004
Category: Research
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
[…]
As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.
Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
-UCLA-
LSMS368
Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?
Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html
View attachment 258550
Again, you were shown the rate of employment growth and saw how it's been steady for the last 9 years and you were unable to explain why that rate hasn't increased since trump's been in office.
How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%
Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?
Why is Trump's GDP growth so weak?
Compared to...?
Compared to Obama...Trump's best year is no better than Obama's best year
The average?
That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?
Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html
View attachment 258550
The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.
Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.Who says that?
So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.
who says what?
Nope. economists on the government payroll define the end of a recession as the point where GDP becomes positive, not the point where it stops declining.That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?
Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?
Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html
View attachment 258550
The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.
Bullshit. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
His recession was much worse. Unemployment went to 10.4%So? Reagan's recession was much milder and was intentionally induced to reduce inflation.What it needs to show is that this result was better than doing nothing, and the record of past recessions indicates it isn't.It shows a steady rise in employment for the last 9 years. You know, what fucking morons call a slow recovery.A moron is someone who believes that graph supports your claim.It's always amusing when the USMB's fucking moron chimes in.Horseshit. Obama's schemes made it worse, not better.
ROFL! It immediately preceded the recession, but that didn't cause the recession? What do you imagine caused it?Who said it didn't? It just didn't cause a recession. At least not by itself. 9.11 expanded the contraction into a recession.Actually, he did. The stock market bubble burst during the Clinton administration.Wikipedia??Technically the recession didn't start until Bush, but I meant when Silcon Valley started to implode BEFORE Bush became PresidentYou mean the recession that started after Bush became president? The one that likely wouldn't have even been a recession if not for 9.11?Oh please you guys are so full of shit, Bush inherited a bad recession after silicon valley imploded in the late 90s......calm down bro
Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia
The burst of the bubble, known as the dot-com crash, lasted from March 11, 2000, to October 9, 2002.[
March 11, 2000, who was the President of the United States?
Regardless, at least you show Bush didn't inherit a recession. Even you admit it started after he became president and you can't inherit something that didn't exist before your presidency.
