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.
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22682945"We are exactly periencing the longest string of consecutive monthly jobs gains in economic history," see link below.
That’s Obama’s magnificent record at seven years. TrumpO is at two and s half.
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22681658
I wrote: You have no baseline from which to place the ‘weakest’ label on the recovery years
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22678485The baseline is........every recovery since WWII.
Do you have all those baselines in some sort of order of weakness? Can you tell us specifically which one is second weakest so we can analyze the baseline you have determined has the same conditions as the Obama recovery.
Or did you just pull ‘the weakest” out of your ass like most of your crazy ideas.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=weakest+economic+ recovery
From one of your links dumbass:
- Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.
Furthermore, the average pace of job growth in this recovery has already topped what happened during the 2001 to 2007 expansion under President George W. Bush (the Bush recovery was the slowest in terms of jobs growth, Achuthan says).
Over 14 million jobs have been added since the low point from the financial crisis. Job growth is as important -- if not more important -- than overall growth, many economists argue.
"We are experiencing the longest string of consecutive monthly jobs gains in economic history," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII
Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.
Yes, the very weak recovery has gone on a long time.
According to your link Obama’s recovery was not weakest in terms of jobs growth and of course duration. And we know TrumpO can’t get GDP past Obama’s numbers.
You are a liar when you say Obama’s recovery was the weakest since WWII. His lasted longer and produced more jobs than all those postwar recoveries.
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22682945"We are exactly periencing the longest string of consecutive monthly jobs gains in economic history," see link below.
That’s Obama’s magnificent record at seven years. TrumpO is at two and s half.
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22681658
I wrote: You have no baseline from which to place the ‘weakest’ label on the recovery years
Toddsterpatriot, post: 22678485The baseline is........every recovery since WWII.
Do you have all those baselines in some sort of order of weakness? Can you tell us specifically which one is second weakest so we can analyze the baseline you have determined has the same conditions as the Obama recovery.
Or did you just pull ‘the weakest” out of your ass like most of your crazy ideas.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=weakest+economic+ recovery
From one of your links dumbass:
- Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.
Furthermore, the average pace of job growth in this recovery has already topped what happened during the 2001 to 2007 expansion under President George W. Bush (the Bush recovery was the slowest in terms of jobs growth, Achuthan says).
Over 14 million jobs have been added since the low point from the financial crisis. Job growth is as important -- if not more important -- than overall growth, many economists argue.
"We are experiencing the longest string of consecutive monthly jobs gains in economic history," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII
Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.
Yes, the very weak recovery has gone on a long time.
According to your link Obama’s recovery was not weakest in terms of jobs growth and of course duration. And we know TrumpO can’t get GDP past Obama’s numbers.
You are a liar when you say Obama’s recovery was the weakest since WWII. His lasted longer and produced more jobs than all those postwar recoveries.
If was pretty damn weak, even looking at jobs growth.
If you get a chance, post your links that show his recovery "produced more jobs than all those postwar recoveries"
Toddsterpatriot, post: 2268846If was pretty damn weak, even looking at jobs growth.
It was not the weakest recivery from the worst recession since the Great Depression when looking at jobs growth during a recivery since WWII, so you lied about that.
If you get a chance, post your links that show his recovery "produced more jobs than all those postwar recoveries"
Show me the post WWII recovery from much milder recessions that produced ttat many jobs per year and lasted as long as it has with consecutive positive yearly jobs growth,
- The trend in job growth is easier to see by focusing on the year-over-year growth at any point, rather than the more volatile monthly figures. Looked at this way, hiring accelerated early in the recovery, peaking in early 2015 at a pace of more than three million jobs per year. The Jobs Recovery: A Longer View
I meant Obama’s recovery produced more jobs than all those individual post war recoveries..I didnt say combined if you are confused about that.
Bush's Great Recession lost 8 million jobs to E3, 12 million to E6. If you can find a recession that lost more, post it.Toddsterpatriot, post: 2268846If was pretty damn weak, even looking at jobs growth.
It was not the weakest recivery from the worst recession since the Great Depression when looking at jobs growth during a recivery since WWII, so you lied about that.
How many months did it take to recover all the job losses?
If you have one that took longer, post it.
What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
"Gosh I don't know."What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
Gosh I don't know. I keep hearing this was Bush's recession. As if congress, who takes a great share of responsibility are unaccountable. Let's be honest, people are short-sighted morons, especially progs.
"Gosh I don't know."What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
Gosh I don't know. I keep hearing this was Bush's recession. As if congress, who takes a great share of responsibility are unaccountable. Let's be honest, people are short-sighted morons, especially progs.
Then why make a point of it?
No answer? Figures."Gosh I don't know."What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
Gosh I don't know. I keep hearing this was Bush's recession. As if congress, who takes a great share of responsibility are unaccountable. Let's be honest, people are short-sighted morons, especially progs.
Then why make a point of it?
Oh shit Faun, nice comeback. You really showed me.
No answer? Figures."Gosh I don't know."What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?Are you guys arguing that losing more jobs in a recession results in more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
Are you guys arguing that a greater population may result in more jobs lost during recession and more jobs captured during recovery? That's crazy talk.
ILMAO at comparing population and economics of today with that of the past.
Once again, the Democrats had the majority in congress when "Bush's recession" occurred. The primary reason for recovery was historically low interest rates. It's not magic.
Gosh I don't know. I keep hearing this was Bush's recession. As if congress, who takes a great share of responsibility are unaccountable. Let's be honest, people are short-sighted morons, especially progs.
Then why make a point of it?
Oh shit Faun, nice comeback. You really showed me.
LOLOLNo answer? Figures."Gosh I don't know."What difference does it make which party was in control when the dam burst?
Gosh I don't know. I keep hearing this was Bush's recession. As if congress, who takes a great share of responsibility are unaccountable. Let's be honest, people are short-sighted morons, especially progs.
Then why make a point of it?
Oh shit Faun, nice comeback. You really showed me.
You're a coward and intellectually dishonest. You only addressed sarcasm and ran away from the point.
Who ya gonna believe?Dumbfuck...Obama did not have 5.1% growth. That growth would have been attained if Joy Behar was president, or Snoop Dog. Obama's best was 2.3, and that sunk to 1.8.Great, thanks for proving me right when I said Trump has not yet had a quarter as high as Obama's 5.1% growth.
Trying to point to Obama as economically successful is a laughingstock.
This whole thread is leftist loons trying to BS the forum.
Looks like Obummer's GDP was starting to stagnate
In reality, having good economic numbers is not an advantage for a president because making further improvements is that much more difficult the better they are.
bripat9643, post: 22663604In reality, having good economic numbers is not an advantage for a president because making further improvements is that much more difficult the better they are.
So that is TrumpO’s brilliant strategy to tank the economy right now so he can take credit for the huge improvements he’s going to make right before the election next year.
- Latest forecast: 1.4 percent — July 10, 2019. The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2019 is 1.4 percent on July 10, up from 1.3 percent on July 3. The nowcast of second-quarter real GDP growth increased 0.1 percentage points on July 5 after the release of the employment report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I meant it's not and advantage to have good economic numbers at the beginning of his term, shit for brains.bripat9643, post: 22663604In reality, having good economic numbers is not an advantage for a president because making further improvements is that much more difficult the better they are.
So that is TrumpO’s brilliant strategy to tank the economy right now so he can take credit for the huge improvements he’s going to make right before the election next year.
- Latest forecast: 1.4 percent — July 10, 2019. The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2019 is 1.4 percent on July 10, up from 1.3 percent on July 3. The nowcast of second-quarter real GDP growth increased 0.1 percentage points on July 5 after the release of the employment report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
He was referencing common sense, math, logic and economics..
