QuoteBy the numbers: Last year the economy grew at 2.3%, after year-over-year accelerations in 2017 and 2018 — marking the slowest annual growth rate since Trump took office. Growth under Trump has yet to hit his oft-promised 3% mark annually.

Economists say the effects of the tax are wearing off. Businesses were too unnerved by the trade war to spend money on new factories or equipment — a key driver of growth.
Yes, but: If history is any guide, an incumbent president isn't going to have a great shot at re-election if the economy tips into a recession under their watch.

Under George H.W. Bush, the economy grew around 2% throughout his presidency, reflecting a return to growth after a recession and spiking unemployment that contributed to his election loss.

https://www.axios.com/presidents-economy-gdp-trump-5d042c64-ace6-4904-8602-40003f917719.html

This is good for perspective.

As long as the economy keeps humming along Trump has a great chance at reelection.

The Democratic candidate can only downplay it by showing that he hasn't done anything that our other Presidents haven't done...

All of it is biased speculation, it's a bull shit article.

Where it stands: Unlike other presidents, Trump inherited a steady economy that's since entered the longest stretch of growth in history. Interest rates remain low. Growth picked up in the wake of the 2017 tax cuts, but now the pace has moderated.

Seriously? They're pushing the lie that the Marxists economy was the seed stock for Trump.
Pure Bull Shit! This is Trump's stand alone economy. Even the Marxist stated "Those jobs are never coming back"!

Quote from: Solar on February 20, 2020, 07:03:57 AM
All of it is biased speculation, it's a bull shit article.

Where it stands: Unlike other presidents, Trump inherited a steady economy that's since entered the longest stretch of growth in history. Interest rates remain low. Growth picked up in the wake of the 2017 tax cuts, but now the pace has moderated.

Seriously? They're pushing the lie that the Marxists economy was the seed stock for Trump.
Pure Bull Shit! This is Trump's stand alone economy. Even the Marxist stated "Those jobs are never coming back"!

The argument to be made is that by most any metric the economy isn't doing better now than any other non-recession time. It's steady as she goes.

Quote from: joesixpack on February 20, 2020, 10:12:44 AM
The argument to be made is that by most any metric the economy isn't doing better now than any other non-recession time. It's steady as she goes.

Numbers can be used to make any case, good or bad, ask any statistician.
The CBO will tell you themselves, GIGO, they can only work with the numerical parameters they're given. Why we even a CBO is beyond me, it's become a weapon of the party in charge.

Okay...but even without the CBO, by almost any metric, the numbers aren't out of this world now.

Heck, Obama added more jobs his last three years in office than Trump has during his first 3

Quote from: joesixpack on February 20, 2020, 04:12:36 PM
Okay...but even without the CBO, by almost any metric, the numbers aren't out of this world now.

Heck, Obama added more jobs his last three years in office than Trump has during his first 3

OMG!!! We've been over this already!
Obozo caused industry to shed full time employment through his Commiecare initiative. People were forced to find secondary employment, thus creating the illusion of job growth.
This is my point about GIGO, you can make the numbers appear favorable, simply by lying, or in this case, ignoring the effects.

Quote from: Solar on February 20, 2020, 04:22:57 PM
OMG!!! We've been over this already!
Obozo caused industry to shed full time employment through his Commiecare initiative. People were forced to find secondary employment, thus creating the illusion of job growth.
This is my point about GIGO, you can make the numbers appear favorable, simply by lying, or in this case, ignoring the effects.

Obamacare was well before his last 3 years in office.

If the numbers and metrics are totally unreliable, Trump wouldn't continue to use them to campaign.

I'm just pointing out that the Dems can counter that because his numbers aren't anything special compared to past presidents

Quote from: joesixpack on February 21, 2020, 01:32:22 AM
Obamacare was well before his last 3 years in office.

If the numbers and metrics are totally unreliable, Trump wouldn't continue to use them to campaign.

I'm just pointing out that the Dems can counter that because his numbers aren't anything special compared to past presidents

That's ridiculous.  If you were serious about learning about the economy, you would start the journey of research.  A basic thing that you can start with is learning about the labor participation rate under Obama, and explain that when overlaid over the unemployment rate.

You're looking at pretty charts and numbers and you don't have the experience, knowledge, or education to understand what you're looking at.  Not being mean, just being real.

Quote from: taxed on February 21, 2020, 06:58:56 AM
That's ridiculous.  If you were serious about learning about the economy, you would start the journey of research.  A basic thing that you can start with is learning about the labor participation rate under Obama, and explain that when overlaid over the unemployment rate.

You're looking at pretty charts and numbers and you don't have the experience, knowledge, or education to understand what you're looking at.  Not being mean, just being real.

Yeah, Govt Hiring vs Private Sector hiring is always hidden and obscured in those numbers and how one even defines the two.

Quote from: taxed on February 21, 2020, 06:58:56 AM
That's ridiculous.  If you were serious about learning about the economy, you would start the journey of research.  A basic thing that you can start with is learning about the labor participation rate under Obama, and explain that when overlaid over the unemployment rate.

You're looking at pretty charts and numbers and you don't have the experience, knowledge, or education to understand what you're looking at.  Not being mean, just being real.

The labor participation rate has barely moved the last 6 years

Quote from: taxed on February 21, 2020, 06:58:56 AM
That's ridiculous.  If you were serious about learning about the economy, you would start the journey of research.  A basic thing that you can start with is learning about the labor participation rate under Obama, and explain that when overlaid over the unemployment rate.

You're looking at pretty charts and numbers and you don't have the experience, knowledge, or education to understand what you're looking at.  Not being mean, just being real.

Richter, Chapman, and Mihaylov present a number of possible factors for why labor force participation and employment rates have declined: less-generous maternity and child-care policies, higher incarceration rates, poorer health outcomes, and less spending on on-the-job retraining and job-search assistance programs. The authors close by noting that labor force participation and employment rates have been declining since before the Great Recession. They suggest that social policies designed to increase parental leave and childcare, lower incarceration rates, improve health care, and provide job training may help reverse the trend.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/beyond-bls/labor-force-participation-and-employment-rates-declining-for-prime-age-men-and-women.htm

Quote from: joesixpack on February 21, 2020, 10:12:24 AM
The labor participation rate has barely moved the last 6 years

6.7 million jobs don't move the needle??   

Quote from: s3779m on February 21, 2020, 10:46:13 AM
6.7 million jobs don't move the needle??   

apparently not. We're still on a slow and steady course

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/09/20/trump-has-created-15-million-fewer-jobs-than-obama/#7ba5a31c27ce

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/479579-trumps-big-reelection-weapon-a-remarkable-manufacturing-jobs-boom

QuoteThese efforts have led to historic economic growth. In Trump's first three years, more than seven million full-time jobs have been added. To put that into perspective, only 2.45 million jobs were gained from 2007 – the height of employment under the Bush administration – to the end of the Obama era in early 2017.

Additionally, unemployment rates in 2019 for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics and women were at or near all-time lows.

In other words, many of obama's job #'s come by due to companies that had to layoff and started hiring again. Trump can point to many actions he has taken to increase new jobs, as stated in the article. What did obama do to increase jobs???

Quote from: joesixpack on February 21, 2020, 10:24:39 AM
Richter, Chapman, and Mihaylov present a number of possible factors for why labor force participation and employment rates have declined: less-generous maternity and child-care policies, higher incarceration rates, poorer health outcomes, and less spending on on-the-job retraining and job-search assistance programs. The authors close by noting that labor force participation and employment rates have been declining since before the Great Recession. They suggest that social policies designed to increase parental leave and childcare, lower incarceration rates, improve health care, and provide job training may help reverse the trend.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/beyond-bls/labor-force-participation-and-employment-rates-declining-for-prime-age-men-and-women.htm

Then why are they coming back into the workforce?