No You Assholes, Obama Did Not Do It Too
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The reason is obvious. The news in the report often moves financial markets. If the president can share information about the report with his favored audience then Donald Trump's friends will make money at the expense of everyone else's retirement accounts. For this reason, past presidents have been very careful to keep their mouth shut about the report until after it is available to the general public.
To try to divert attention from Trump's unmitigated stupidity last Friday, the Wall Street Journal ran a column by James Freeman, the essence of which is to say "Obama did it too." In fact, the evidence in the piece doesn't show this at all. Either Freeman is completely ignorant of procedures or dishonest.
Here are the four incidents (in reverse order) where Obama supposedly did it too.
Freeman cites a Wall Street Journal editorial from 2010:
"Did President Obama contribute to last Friday’s stock market dive with a head fake to investors? Last Wednesday, in a speech at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, the President said, 'After losing an average of 750,000 jobs a month during the winter of last year, we’ve now added jobs for five of the last six months, and we expect to see strong job growth in Friday’s report.'
"Perhaps assuming that the President might have known something about the Department of Labor’s monthly unemployment report scheduled for two days later, investors immediately bid up US stocks. On Wednesday, the Dow gained almost 226 points."
Well, we can't know what investors might have thought Obama was telling them with this comment, but he didn't have the jobs numbers on the Wednesday before the release. Maybe if a paper like the Wall Street Journal did a better job informing readers about how these reports are put together they would have known this fact. In any case, it would have been impossible for Obama to leak information he didn't have.
Then we get this one:
"Five months later in July of 2009, according to a speech transcript from Congressional Quarterly, Mr. Obama said that 'when we receive our monthly jobs report next week, it’s likely to show that we’re still continuing to lose far too many jobs.'"
Again, Obama would not have the monthly jobs report that was to be released "next week" in his possession. His comment reflected the same public information that was available to anyone who closely follows the economy.
Next, we have the very first release of his presidency.
"As it happens Mr. Obama had been discussing the forthcoming release long before midnight. On February 5, 2009, the Associated Press reported that in remarks to employees at the Department of Energy, Mr. Obama said, 'Tomorrow, we’re expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs that we lost last year. We’ve lost 500,000 jobs each month for the last two months.'"
Since the president doesn't get the report until the late afternoon or evening, unless he was keeping Energy Department employees for a late Thursday night talk, he again was speaking based on publicly available information. (For what it's worth, I remember that time well. Everyone expected another dismal jobs number.)
Finally, we have the one real potential sharing of data. It's with the majority leader of the Senate at midnight the night before the release. Freeman gives this quote from Senator Harry Reid that appeared in the Senate record:
"Mr. REID. Mr. President, around midnight last night I was in conversation with the President and some others, and the President indicated that this morning, unemployment numbers would come out, and they would be somewhat scary. That was absolutely true. At 8:30 this morning, the unemployment numbers were reported for January, and they hit a 16-year high of 7.6 percent."
Let's assume Reid's account is accurate. The majority leader of the Senate is cleared to receive a wide variety of classified information under the assumption that they can be counted on not to disclose it inappropriately. Did Obama commit an ethical breach by discussing the jobs report with Mr Reid the night before its public release?
I don't know all the details on the rules about sharing these data, but I feel comfortable in saying that discussing the report with someone who has been cleared to see our most important national security secrets is not the same thing as sharing it with 50 million Twitter followers.
Long and short, to say that Obama did it too is a lie and distraction. Anyone who is making this sort of assertion deserves nothing but ridicule and a serious newspaper would not publish it.
Tags
Who is online
403 visitors
Trump lies.
Trump's administration lies.
Trump's allies lie.
Do you have any questions?
Nope, this information has nothing to do with national security and is not secret. Trump rules and is the driving force behind the rapidly growing economy. Some will say Obama did it, but that would be a lie
Read the article. It is about people being able to use the report to manipulate the stock market.
I agree the rapidly changing economy is all on trump.
Under Obama the economy just kinda chugged along slowly, steadily and upward. If you look at the stock market charts today you will see that has changed now the stock market has broken that cycle and is more volatile. No more slow steady regularness it's looking more like a rollercoaster these days. IF and when this rollercoaster flies off the track that also is all on president trump.
The reason is obvious. The news in the report often moves financial markets. If the president can share information about the report with his favored audience then Donald Trump's friends will make money at the expense of everyone else's retirement accounts. For this reason, past presidents have been very careful to keep their mouth shut about the report until after it is available to the general public.
Skirting the CoC "BF"
Just another drive by lack of knowledge comment. Something that he does with regularity.
Please read the seed. Thank you.
No. Actually, when Obama took office, the economy was in free-fall, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. The economy turned around under Obama's presidency.
That said, I don't really believe Presidents have much to do with the economy. Bernanke saved our asses, and then Yellen kept things going nicely.
Many people dont so your are in good company. But, when one looks at the stock market chart it shows that probably isn't the case. slow steady increase from about when Obama took over till about the time trump started gaining significant ground towards becoming president. Then bouncy bouncy ....
Try this.
Two points:
- correlation is not causation
- the stock market is not the economy
I agree, however the stock market is an good indicator of how the economy is doing overall.
correlation is not causation
True again , however this particular example "( the stock chart) shows the timing pretty well coordinated with the timing of election process. steady till about the time of the presidential election. Coincidence ? perhaps.. reality ? .. more likely.
I don't think so.
It is a very good indicator of how the very wealthy are doing. It says nothing at all (unless it is in free fall) about employees.
These days, the Dow is at record levels, while employee remuneration is flat.
Is that a fancy way of saying employment numbers are flat ?
If so I believe unemployment is still dropping at this time. If that continues wages "could" start to go up finally as well.
And as far as the stock market being an indicator of the wealthy only. I disagree, millions of average americans have a state in that market as well.
Also, From my experience when the economy is doing well so is the stock market, when the stock market falls too much so does the economy.
The only way to justify current stock prices is for the big multi-national corporations to all drastically increase income and profits and that can only be ascertained one way. I N F L A T I O N. Otherwise, the markets must collapse. You are correct that the stock markets are mostly a political indicator or rather a barometer of one portion of the economy. They are though an indicator or what the rich and powerful are up to and how they intend to make the numbers add up to their advantage. Bill Clinton said it best, "Economics is just math". The infinitely rich and powerful are getting even richer, working folks pay the burden and the poor are fucked. Always remember that less than 1% of the world's population owns about 99% of all the stocks in all the world to realize stock market valuations are only one small indicator. An indicator of how rich corporations are and how much richer they intend to be. Historically stocks are priced at 13-14% of current earnings but today the indexes are over double that. Do the math...
Tell me how Trump tweeting the report an hour early, and 2 hours earlier than tradition dictates, actually manipulates the market? Did he lie about the report? Frankly, this is just a gaffe, just like Biden saying "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
That is an aspect of the article for sure ..
That is the 3rd paragraph .. the remainder of the article is in defense of how what Obama did was not the same thing as the current President (justifiably so I presume .. I try not to encage in the whole 'but they did it too' kind of thing)
No. "Remuneration" is a fancy word for "pay" .
The DOW is at record levels... corporate stock buy-backs are at record levels... Those are great news for shareholders. For already-rich-people.
Employees are stuck at the same salary levels as when the crash hit.
I guess it depends on what one thinks the economy should be doing, making the already-rich ever richer, or improving conditions for everyone.
It's a whole lot easier to pick the low hanging fruit. The economy floundered around for the last two years of Obama and actually the Dow took a couple of pretty good dips right before the 2016 election when everyone thought Hillary was going to win. If you look at the Dow right after Trump won, the markets realized it was going to be much better. After 2 years of stagnant growth when for the most part of 2016 the polls showed only 25% of the American people thought we were heading in the right direction. From the day Trump was elected it has gone up 6,000 to 7,000. The Dow only went up approximately 1,000 points during the last two years of Obama from election date.
By the way Trump is proud the economy turned around and has gone up so much. The media won't tell it like it is, so you have to give him credit for defending himself.
LOL You are correct, I guess I've just gotten so used to and bought into a degree that the wealthy are the economy.
For my own little world though I do seem to do better when the stock market is doing well.
Please post pertinent to the seed. Thank you.
Either you are aware of this... and are a hypocrite... or you are unaware, and really, really, really should not be posting on this topic...
... you refuse to acknowledge it...
No.
Why do you folks always have to make shit up?
Holy F! Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
You complained about the money injected into Obama's economy (by the Fed, not by the President)... while dismissing 700 000 lost jobs every month?
If you're really that ignorant, you should abstain from posting. If you did this consciously... it's even more urgent that you abstain from posting...
Your boy trump does it on a daily basis and you give him credit for it, hypocrisy sucks when you forget.
You'd think someone who works for the CIA or FBI as special ops would know better or have integrity.
No.
When you (or anyone else, for that matter) post nonsense, I call it nonsense.
There are two possible reasons for posting nonsense. First, the person may not understand the subject. Second, the person may be posting in Bad Faith .
Shhhhhh.....
Quiet.. It's covert..
The name is Bond... James Bond...
The Dow closed at 19,827.25 on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017,
The Dow is close to 24,345.75. now.
Calling just slightly over a 4,000 point increase in a year and a half hardly seems like "a near vertical rocket ride" to me.
Which is just fine by me I believe a slow steady increase is better and more sustainable that a rocket ride anyway.
Holy sh!t ! ! !
Is it possible to be so dense??
Look at your chart. When does the collapse turn around? What is the slope afterwards? Until when?
And stop digging!
No value [ph]
Just a note Tessy, I will be "No valuing" all of the comments here with just a delete and will not be keeping them. This is nothing more than a disturbance to the discussion.
Yes I agree and I expected the up turn as trump took office as well. At The time it was speculation, when the tax breaks happened it made it more long term. However, if the wealth dont invest these savings into the economy that money will soon be stagnant and we will start to see a downturn.
trump may blow the market gains in other ways as well. Trade war may be unexpectedly be very hard on many of his own followers as well.
Now, we have some Democrats effectively throwing water on everything with their calls for tax increases.
Perhaps they are afraid of adding much more to the deficit and dept just to pay our daily bills ? I remember a time back when some conservative republicans were also concerned about that.
Please stop... You're embarrassing yourself.
I heard on the radio this morning that there are currently more jobs available than there are people looking for work.
Dow Update: 25,146. On the 2016 election day the Dow lost 900 points from 18,400 down to 17,500 until it was obvious Trump had won and the rest is history. No worldwide recession that would never end as predicted by the Left's favorite economists and today it closed at 25,146 points. It's only fair to mention the Dow was at 17,491 on November 6, 2014, two years before the 2016 election. There are more jobs than people applying for them today.
Why would anyone expect anything else?
Trump's one big accomplishment was a huge shift of the tax burden from the ultra-rich to ordinary people, thus allowing the ultra-rich to but more stocks, driving up the DOW.
Duh.
Of course, Joe Sixpack gets screwed, but hey!
Oh, and of course... this has nothing whatsoever to do with the seed...
Here is the wage index used by Social Security, if you notice Obama has less wage growth than George W. Bush. Obama's wage growth from 2008 to 2016 was around $7000, whereas Bush had wage growth of over $9000. Sadly, this only goes to 2016, so I cannot determine if Trump's wage increases are higher than Bill Clinton's or Obama's over the first 2 years of office. Clinton's wage increase from 1992 to 1994 was just $818.11, which is less than the $1000+ increase per year under Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. If you, also, notice Clinton's numbers went up to the $1000+ per year increase AFTER Republicans took the House and Senate from Democrats.
Oh, and of course... this has nothing whatsoever to do with the seed...
I don't claim to be an economist in any fashion, but I would also factor in the condition of the economy when Obama came to office. If I drive a car into the ground and you buy it I would be disingenuous at best if I then said it failed because you didn't take care of it. Trump walked into a very strong economy, it takes effort to lose that. I realize you will of course deny it all because you have to, admitting the truth is tantamount to regressive treason.
True... but totally off-topic..
I was providing proof of the fact wage growth was somewhat stagnant under Obama and was really stagnant under Clinton while Democrats held the House and Senate.
Trump didn't walk into a roaring economy. He took the sputtering engine that Obama was using and fine-tuned it.
78 months of continuous growth following a near collapse, just because you say it doesn't make it true.
You did say one truth Trump didn't walk into anything, he slithered.
Off topic, but I wouldn't let fake poop hang on the wall just because it was thrown.
Using your method Obama had better wage growth than Ronald Reagan did.
Wage growth during Reagan's years was appx 5,600 dollars, and under Obama it was appx. 7,900 dollars.
Of course, avg earnings is not the best way to understand wages, as very high earners will skew average figures.
Also notice that by using your "growth per year" metric, presidents like Eisenhower and Kennedy were utter failures.
I don't think you demonstrated much of anything.
And 401k's and other investments started to fall and have continued the decline since, now if one is heavily invested in trump properties or weaponry some gain may be seen.
The bigger question is....why do you keep keep posting untrue crap that is consistently refuted?
Please take another look at your own data. You've got it wrong.
Oh, and of course... this has nothing whatsoever to do with the seed...
Oh, and of course... this has nothing whatsoever to do with the seed...
Two possibilities here, Greg:
1) Your lack of understanding is so absolute that you actually believe what you say,
2) You know it's nonsense, and are posting in pure Bad Faith .
I see you left out the year that the election was held that got them first elected as President. For Reagan, that would be 1980's number and Obama's would be 2008's number. Now, go and recalculate.
You hit the target; but missed the bullseye.
The correct statement would be.
All politicians lie.
The US, State, and local governments lie.
All politician allies lie.
It seems the gop has become dependent on lying to cover up and make excuses for Trump's lying.
Is it any wonder the once Grand Old Party of Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop"? How sad...
It;s just like Fox who apologized after airing a pro-Trump segment about the football champions who were "disinvited" with the White House stating the "kneeling protest" of the team when this team did not participate in any of the kneeling protests.
Fox lied and falsely aired a photo of the pre-game PRAYER session by this team as a falsehood to go along with the WH and Trump lying narrative.
Fox made a brief apology for airing this lie but how many of their viewers saw the apology or even believed it. The lies were out there with Fox perpetuating those lies with more verbal and visual propaganda.
Fox the the fake news, and the "Faux News" moniker is totally apt and every cartoon depicting Fox and their BS is on the mark.
So.. We've now posted over fifty times... without ever being on-topic.
Congratulations to all!
True but trump not doing what Obama did isn't exactly anything new.
Him claiming superiority over everyone isn't either. So what's to say ?
Donald Trump did something unbelievably stupid when he tweeted about the jobs report last Friday morning, 69 minutes before it was public.
I still see NO one with any power trying to do anything about trump doing anything, so
Also not much new here, except the details of what he's done most recently. Hell If this works to him and/or his "peoples" advantage I'd expect this is the new way we'll be hearing the job reports for a while.
PS: Just my opinion
He takes a bow.
That's right, it's actually much worse. The whole point is to avoid insider trading. When you just whisper the numbers to one or two people, they now have secret insider information no one else has. Tweeting about it an hour before it's going to be released anyway - and the markets are closed anyhow - is literally disclosing it to the whole world, so it's no longer secret, insider information. And, because markets were closed anyway, it's not like it's information anyone could have used. And, in fact, it had no impact on markets.
And the president saying he's "looking forward" to the numbers isn't much of a tell.
Further, the dismissal of Obama's gaffes are biased and based on a lack of facts. To wit:
Not only do you not know these things for certain, neither would investors. Such talk could spook them regardless of what "normal procedure" might be.
The truth is no sensible fund manager is going to gamble millions or billions of dollars based on the president "looking forward" to something - especially something like the jobs report, for crying out loud! All this is just another childish attack on the president. It's not based in reality.
It's significant that you presume that a President's inner circle will naturally break the law.
Kinda sad, no?
I have made no such presumption. However, the risk of insider trading exits where only a small number of people have information. That's just logical. Where everyone has the information, (e.g. if you put it on Twitter) then insider trading is impossible.
The people who habitually make financial decisions based on the employment numbers expect to get the information at a certain moment via a certain canal. When that information comes at that time via that canal, all the pertinent players get the information at the same time.
When the information is published earlier via a different canal, only a portion of the players gets it.
Clear?
Bed time.
Locking for the night.
Good morning