Trump Can’t Beat Obama on the Economy

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  40 comments

Trump Can’t Beat Obama on the Economy
“The fears of a further slowing in growth and recession are entirely due to the trade war,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told me. “If the president follows through on his current tariff threats, growth will continue to weaken to well below the economy’s 2 percent potential by early next year.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


It’s time for a reality check on Trump’s claims about jobs, wages and economic growth.

By Steven Rattner

Recession fears may be seeping into the national conversation, but President Trump continues to boast about how great the American economy is — “the best in the world, by far,” Mr. Trump tweeted a few days ago.

Time for a reality check on Mr. Trump’s economic accomplishments, using two key measuring sticks: how well the economy is doing, compared with its performance under President Barack Obama’s leadership, and whether it has performed up to Mr. Trump’s promises.

The short answer is, the economy’s performance is not much different than it was under Mr. Obama and far short of what Mr. Trump pledged.

Take, for example, the all-important matter of jobs. Yes, many unemployed Americans are back on the payrolls. Yes, the unemployment rate continues to fall, as it did under Mr. Obama. But no, the pace of hiring has not been faster than it was during a similar period under Mr. Obama and indeed, has been even a bit slower.

In the first 30 months of the Trump presidency, jobs were added at an average rate of 191,000 a month. That’s certainly respectable, although it’s still less than the increase of 220,000 jobs a month during the final two and a half years of the Obama presidency.

Moreover, on Aug. 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that it is likely to revise downward substantially payroll gains earlier this year, which could cut about 15,000 jobs a month from Mr. Trump’s tally.

Then there are wages, the other key component of what matters financially to everyday Americans. The rate of pay raises has continued to edge up under Mr. Trump, a typical occurrence in the latter part of an economic recovery. But more important is what is left for workers after inflation takes its bite.

And on that measure, earnings for American workers rose faster under Mr. Obama.

Not to mention that Mr. Trump has utterly failed to deliver on his wage promises. As part of pushing for the 2017 tax cut, his Council of Economic Advisers projected that the legislation would raise average pay by $4,000 a worker. No material amount of that has been realized.

After Inflation, Workers Did Better Under Obama

Private worker average hourly earnings, year-over-year percent change: Obama’s last 30 months versus Trump’s first 30 months.

Obama average: +1.5%

Trump average: +0.7%

Then there’s the overall economy. The sluggishness of growth since the 2008 recession has puzzled and dismayed policymakers. During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump routinely promised to push this rate up; in seeking passage of his tax cut legislation, he said growth would accelerate to “4, 5 and maybe even 6 percent.”

That is not remotely what transpired. The tax cut produced a short “sugar high,” a momentary boost. Gross domestic product, after adjusting for inflation, rose at a 3.5 percent rate in the second quarter of 2018. But for 2018 as a whole, the 2.5 percent increase did not come close to the Trump administration’s projection of 3 percent.

All told, G.D.P. has risen at a 2.6 rate during Mr. Trump’s presidency, which, in fairness, is marginally higher than the 2.4 percent rate of improvement during the last 10 quarters of Mr. Obama’s tenure. Neither number is anything to brag about.

Now the economy is demonstrably slowing down, thanks in large part to Mr. Trump’s trade war. Interestingly, the business community appears more worried than consumers, who have continued to spend and who, in surveys, still express confidence.

Capital investment has ceased growing (and has even fallen a bit in recent months), manufacturing output peaked last December and business sentiment is softening.

As a result, forecasters have been marking down their projections; by the end of this year, J.P. Morgan expects G.D.P. to be increasing at only a 1.8 percent rate. (The White House seems to live in a parallel universe; it clings resolutely to its prediction of 3.2 percent growth this year.)

Should that slowdown occur, expect Mr. Trump to blame the Federal Reserve and the interest rate increases it instituted beginning in December 2015. But the Fed’s increases were modest; rates are still exceptionally low by historical standards, especially in the tenth year of a recovery.

Accordingly, private economists rank the trade war as playing a much larger role in the slowing economy than the Fed’s actions. (And, of course, now it has begun cutting rates.)

“The fears of a further slowing in growth and recession are entirely due to the trade war,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told me. “If the president follows through on his current tariff threats, growth will continue to weaken to well below the economy’s 2 percent potential by early next year.”

Mr. Zandi is not alone. Private economists recently polled by Reuters gave a median 45 percent probability of the United States economy entering recession in the next two years.

Economists are notoriously poor at predicting downturns. But what’s not disputable is even if we duck a recession, when it comes to the economy, Mr. Trump still has not eclipsed Mr. Obama’s record and is many miles from making America great again.

Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration, is a Wall Street executive and a contributing opinion writer. For latest updates and posts, please visit stevenrattner.com and follow me on Twitter (@SteveRattner) and Facebook.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

It's nice to see such pushback against the Trump bs about the economy. Will the moderates and independents listen? 

 
 
 
Karri
1.1  Karri  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
Will the moderates and independents listen? 

I hope so.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

Nope.

The economy is doing fine, but the markets are having jitters and climbing those walls of worry because Trump is finally dealing with the China problem that other presidents were too timid or stupid to fight. Hell, Clinton was the biggest ass-kisser of all time and sold them military secrets.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    4 weeks ago

Once again:

Opinion

Is NOT//NOT fact.  It's simply the theory and ideas of someone.  In this case (as in most "opinion" pieces from the Trump haters of America) it's based on extreme bias and cherry picking facts to contort to his twisted belief.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
After Inflation, Workers Did Better Under Obama

Private worker average hourly earnings, year-over-year percent change: Obama’s last 30 months versus Trump’s first 30 months.

Obama average: +1.5%

Trump average: +0.7%

Not to mention the cost to the American families of Trump's tariffs which is estimated to be hundreds of dollars per year per family. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

The tariffs haven’t cost me a penny and are not likely to.  The media and leftist economists have completely made up phony projected numbers

secondly, neither you nor any other critic has provided an alternative solution to the decades of China’s trade war with us that both parties have permitted and have done nothing to stop

what’s your alternative?

BTW, Schumer disagrees with you

“Chuck Schumer offered some rare praise for President Trump on Thursday, amid his decision to slap a 10 percent tariff on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods on Sept. 1.

“We have to be really tough on China. They’ve taken advantage of us,” he said. “America has lost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs because China has not played fair. And being tough on China is the right way to be.”

https://nypost.com/2019/08/01/chuck-schumer-backs-trump-on-new-china-tariffs/

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1    4 weeks ago

Trump admitted that the tariffs are affecting American consumers when he said he was postponing the next round of tariffs until after the holidays because he wanted consumers to have more money in their pockets. Spin it all you like, tariffs DO affect the American consumers. 

The tariffs haven’t cost me a penny and are not likely to.

Unfortunately Larry, you aren't the only fucking person in the country. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

 tariffs DO affect the American consumers. 

To this point they haven't amounted to much.

Just more left wing lies and propaganda.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
To this point they haven't amounted to much.

Tell that to the farmers in the midwest who have lost everything because of trump's idiotic trade wars. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Prove that the tariffs have affected consumers.

as I posed to John what alternative solution do you have to China ripping us off

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.5  MUVA  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Tell them to knock it off.jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

You forget that the labor force participation rate is higher now than under Obama's last 30 months. What has happened is that we've increased hourly wage earners at not nearly the same pace that we decreased white collar jobs during the recession. This will skew the results so that it will appear that wages are decreasing in the hourly range when in reality, this is a direct result of their being more wages reported, thereby diluting the pool the original figures were based upon.

IOW's if I had 50 people making  10 dollars per hour and 10 people making 20 dollars per hour, I would have an average wage of 15.00 per hour. Now if I added 50 people and they all make 10 dollars per hour, my average wage drops to 12.50 per hour, but there are actually 50 more people working and no one got a pay cut. On paper, it looks like they did simply because there are more lower wages being reported than before, which dilutes the average wage.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.3  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

I will note that there is one item I have begun ordering from China for my new company (no American manufacturers available) that could have tariff impact. But it’s not yet on their list and I could easily absorb a 50% tariff on it and not have my profits seriously affected. Worst case would cost me an extra 25 cents a piece (most would be less than 2 cents).   Even with that I can make great profits and beat my competition by 35% in retail pricing

i fully support the president staying tough on China until we get better trade agreements.  China is hurting economically from this.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @3.3    4 weeks ago

http://www.catman.global/the-impact-of-tariffs-on-consumers-and-retailers

I would also add, Larry, that tariffs are the government interfering in private business, which also has another term....

"SOCIALISM"

"I hereby ORDER all business's STOP doing business with China!!!!"

Hmmmmm.

I'll take things a fascist dictator would say for $500.00 Alex.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.3.2  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @3.3.1    3 weeks ago

FDR is not the subject of this thread

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @3.3.2    3 weeks ago

FDR is not the subject of this thread

Thank goodness because that's NOT who I was talking about. Also, really piss poor rebuttal. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

Not to mention the cost to the American families of Trump's tariffs which is estimated be hundreds of dollars per year per family. 

Bovine Scat.

Provide us with some documentation. Are you aware that China has been trading unfairly with us for years...and you want that to continue??

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.4    4 weeks ago

I just did...@3.3.1

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

The Worst recovery from a recession in modern History. 

The rule was the steeper the recession, the stronger the recovery, pre Obama.  No President had a better opportunity for spectacular economic growth numbers.  

All he did was borrow almost as much as every President before him combined. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 weeks ago
The Worst recovery from a recession in modern History. 

But it was a recovery and it was from a recession created by a republican. I am guessing that the recovery would have been a lot faster if the republican congress had done...I don't know....ANYTHING at all to help.

But Bitch McConnell said....

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government.   We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell:   The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

But by all means tell us how the GOP has the interests of America as a goal? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 weeks ago

Obama and the Democrats, of course, had more power than any President/Party in generations, with a filibuster proof control of Congress. Calling it a Republican congress is, of course, totally false. Obama made it clear almost from day one with his famous declaration to Republican leaders that "elections have consequences" as a justification for ignoring him.

It's comedy and extremely disengenous to blame republicans when Democrats could do whatever they wanted and not be stopped.  Name any Progressive wet dream for the economy and Obama and the Democrats could have implemented it without a single Republican vote.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 weeks ago

By making sure none of the clown candidates for the democrat party get elected, and taking back the house. I want what's good for America, not some other country like China.

The Democrats haven't demonstrated any desire to do that.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Obama and the Democrats, of course, had more power than any President/Party in generations, with a filibuster proof control of Congress.

Huh? Obama had a republican congress for the last 6 years he was in office. Moscow Mitch made his comment almost literally the day republicans took control of congress. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

He had two entire years with a Democratic Congress. You know, the two years nearest in time to the recession when his actions would have had the greatest impact. 

Is that the new Obama take, he could have done something to handle the recession if the only Republicans hadn't stoped him in 2011?  Very sad. 

The idea that "Republicans" stopped him form dealing with the recession is just another big lie Democrats tell to justify his obvious failure.  If he had been at all successful, there'd be no need to blame Republicans who had zero power until 2011.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.4    4 weeks ago
He had two entire years with a Democratic Congress.

WHOA!!!!! Two whole fucking years????!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! And in those two years, we dug ourselves out of a recession Sean! The 113th congress, (republican led), was the 2nd least productive in the history of this nation! They literally did nothing for 6 fucking years, but it's all the dems fault in the two years they had control? Are you shitting me???!!!! 

But remind me again all the help that Obama got from our 113rh congress to help fix the economy?

NONE. Not anything at all. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

Two whole fucking years?

do you not understand how this works? Look at the massive amounts of legislation Roosevelt passed in 100 days.  2 years is an eternity in politics. No other President in generations has had the amount of political power Obama did for two years.  And he failed. Your whining about Republicans being to blame proves you know he failed.  If he had actually been a successful President, there'd  be no need to blame Republicans. 

se two years, we dug ourselves out of a recession Sean

The heavy lifting was done to before he was even sworn in. The recession was over in June.  

and then with  economic conditions primed for a massive recovery and armed with almost unlimited political control  that his predecessors and successor never had, Obama fumbled it away.  The very fact you have to blame Republicans who had no power until 2011 proves the point that  Obama failed. 

When you are whining about things that happened in 2011, you prove my point.  Obama could have accomplished  whatever he wanted in weeks, let alone years.  

Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.  Then he whines when Republicans effectively said the same thing in 2011. Sad.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

I guess the new excuse for Obama is that he failed because he only had two years of total Democrat  control of Congress, including a period when Republicans didn't even have the votes to mount a filibuster.  Sad they are so ignorant of American history. Here, for instance, is what one of the very few Presidents in American history to enjoy the type of partisan,  political control of Congress that Obama did managed to accomplish in 100 days.

ederal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) [ edit ]

While Roosevelt's main goal was to increase employment, he also recognized the need for a support system for the poor. The   Federal Emergency Relief Administration , started in 1933, addressed the urgent needs of the poor. It spent $500 million on soup kitchens, blankets, employment schemes, and nursery schools. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration was shut down in 1935, and its work taken over by two completely new federal agencies, the   Works Progress Administration   and the   Social Security Administration . FERA was involved with a broad range of projects, including construction, projects for professionals (e.g., writers, artists, actors, and musicians), and production of consumer goods. They also focused on giving food to the poor, educating workers, and providing nearly 500,000 jobs for women. [6]

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) [ edit ]

On March 9, 1933, Roosevelt ordered some of his senior staff to put unemployed men to work on conservation projects by summertime. On March 21, he submitted a proposal to Congress calling for the employment of 250,000 men by June. It was soon passed into law on March 31, giving the President authority to establish the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) program. The ECW was the program's official name until 1937, when the popular name of CCC became official. Above and beyond other Hundred-Day programs, the CCC was Roosevelt's favorite creation, often called his "pet." The   Civilian Conservation Corps   allowed unemployed men to work for six months on conservation projects such as planting trees, preventing soil erosion, and combating forest fires. Workers lived in militarized camps across the country and made $30 per month. By the end of the program in 1942, the CCC had employed 2.5 million men. [7]

Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) [ edit ]

In May 1933, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration was created in order to raise crop prices in response to the rural economic crisis. The administration helped to control the falling prices by setting quotas to reduce farm production. Beyond price adjustment, the act helped farmers to modernize and implement innovative farming methods. In extreme cases, the agency helped farmers with their mortgages and provided direct payment for farmers who would agree to sign acreage reduction contracts. [8]

National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA) [ edit ]

The National Industry Recovery Act came into place on June 16, 1933, just five days before the end of 100 days. The act was an attempt to rebuild the economy from the severe deflation caused by the Great Depression. The act consists of two sections; the first promoted industrial recovery, and the second established the   Public Works Administration   (PWA). The   National Industry Recovery Act   set up the   Public Works Administration   (PWA) and the   National Recovery Administration   (NRA). The PWA used government money to build infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, for the state. This demand for construction created new jobs, which achieved Roosevelt's main priority. The National Recovery Act also improved working conditions and outlawed child labor. Wages increased, making it possible for workers to earn and spend more. Today, the act is widely considered a legal failure because it generated large numbers of regulations and resulted in a significant loss of support for President Roosevelt.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) [ edit ]

Main article:   Tennessee Valley Authority

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was established to build dams on the Tennessee River. These dams were designed to stimulate farming in the area while creating   hydroelectricity , as well as prevent flooding and deforestation. The hydroelectric power was used effectively to provide electricity for nearby houses. The TVA marked the first time the federal government competed against private companies in the business of selling electricity. [9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_presidency

But poor Obama didn't have enough time to accomplish anything with two entire years. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.8  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    3 weeks ago

Opposing Barack Obama was demonstrating love of country and patriotism 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.9  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
Opposing Barack Obama was demonstrating love of country and patriotism 

*snort*

Supporting Trump is demonstrating hatred of our country, our system of government, and a total lack of patriotism. Trump is practically a traitor.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
Trump is practically a traitor

He certainly has given aide and comfort to Putin who the majority of Americans agree is an enemy of the United States and wants nothing more than the total destruction of western Democracy.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.11  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

Not to mention his insinuating that the Fed chief is a greater enemy than Xi ... calling our press the enemy of the people (to hell with the Constitution; he tramples it constantly) ... loving Kim and Putin ... alienating our allies while admiring dictators and wishing he had that kind of power ...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.12  livefreeordie  replied to  katrix @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

Nope, Trump is a hero of the Republic. The Establishment Republicans and the Democrats hate him because he won’t play their destructive game of tearing down our Constitutional Republic 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.13  Raven Wing  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.12    3 weeks ago
tearing down our Constitutional Republic 

I don't know what constitution your Republic believes in, but, if in fact your Republic was truly loyal to the true American Constitution, none of them would ever support or vote for Trump. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.14  Raven Wing  replied to  katrix @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
Trump is practically a traitor.

A traitor by any other name is still a traitor. And treason is the reason Trump will likely see one of his days in court.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

Trump could shit on his supporters heads and they would likely just beg for more or run to get a waffle cone. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @5    3 weeks ago
Trump could shit on his supporters heads and they would likely just beg for more or run to get a waffle cone.

Why would intelligent people want to emulate what Obama supporters were begging for for eight years?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1    3 weeks ago

Why would intelligent people want to emulate what Obama supporters were begging for for eight years?

LOL The, "I know you are but what am I", rebuttal, nice one. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.2  katrix  replied to  MrFrost @5    3 weeks ago

They'd put some kind of spin on it -  how his shit smells good, or why he didn't REALLY shit on their heads, or say he was just joking ...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @5.2    3 weeks ago
or say he was just joking ...

"Here, you dropped your phony dog poo..." (picks up dog poo)

"What phony dog poo?"...

Omar Sharif in Top Secret! (1984)

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  katrix @5.2    3 weeks ago
or say he was just joking ...

Yet, if it smells like sh*t, looks like sh*t, or feels like sh*t, then it is what it smells like, looks like and feels like. But, Trump would tell them that it was just chocolate fudge and they would believe it and beg for more. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
Ender
igknorantzrulz
CB
dave-2693993


42 visitors