You and Donald put your economic cart before the horse. The horse was
fueling up on Obama's steady boom long before Donald arrived. And
whether it was quarterly consistent or not, it comes out in the end it
was greatly better by 2017 than it was in 2009, and significantly better
by 2014. NPR took a hard look at comparisons between the first 18 months
of Trump, and the months before he took office. It shows that reworking,
reinterpreting stats on his economic progress is absolutely necessary to
claim any real marked improvement by Donald's efforts alone. This long
quoted excerpt explains it: (quote)
Job growth has been remarkably consistent since the end of the recession
in 2010. The 3.6 million jobs added in the 19 months since Trump took
office are roughly comparable to the 3.9 million added in the previous
19 months under Obama. Likewise, unemployment has steadily declined. And
wages have inched up at a slow but steady pace.
On a graph of any of these metrics, the period before Trump took office
is virtually indistinguishable from the period since.
"At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend,"
economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC.
Goolsbee, who had Hassett's job early in the Obama administration,
challenged the idea that things suddenly improved following Trump's
election.
"I don't see how you come into the game with 10 minutes left in the
fourth quarter, your team is already ahead, and you're like, 'I won this
game.' "
But Hassett presented his own charts to back up the idea of a Trump
turning point.
Job growth in goods-producing industries has accelerated under President
Trump, even as growth in the much larger services sector has slowed.
White House Council of Economic Advisers
One area he focused on is the growth in what the Labor Department calls
"goods-producing" jobs such as manufacturing, construction and oil
drilling. (Hassett called these "blue collar jobs," although the term
"blue collar" can also refer to some service-sector jobs such as
custodial or warehouse work.)
Goods-producing employment has accelerated since Trump took office, even
as job gains in the much larger service sector have slowed. As Mark Muro
and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution have noted, that could be
helpful to Republicans in November, since goods-producing jobs tend to
be concentrated in redder, more rural parts of the country.
"As the elections approach, smaller, redder places are doing relatively
better than they were in 2016," Muro and Whiton wrote.
It's important to remember, though, that goods-producing jobs make up a
relatively small slice of the overall U.S. economy, accounting for less
than 14 percent of the total workforce. By focusing on those jobs, the
Trump administration is discounting the industries that employ 86
percent of American workers.
Hassett also highlighted a surge in business investment in property,
plants and equipment beginning around the time that Trump was elected.
The White House says business investment surged after President Trump's
election.
White House Council of Economic Advisers
"What's happened is that the capital spending boom that we promised
would happen if we passed the tax cuts is underway," Hassett said.
In theory, that additional investment should make workers more
productive, boosting both output and wages in the future. But not
everyone is convinced that the boom is widespread or that Trump and the
tax cuts are responsible.
The president of the federal reserve bank of Atlanta says much of the
increased investment is in the energy sector, driven by higher oil prices.
"Excluding energy and oil investment, investment growth is still below 5
percent on a year-over-year basis — a bit lower than the typical
expansion average," Raphael Bostic told the Savannah, Ga, Rotary Club in
June.
NFIB members were much more optimistic about the economy after the 2016
election.
White House Council of Economic Advisers
One area where there is a clear, election-related turning point is
small-business sentiment. Members of the NFIB, a Republican-leaning
small-business group, were significantly more optimistic after Trump's
upset victory in 2016, perhaps anticipating his policies of tax cuts and
reduced regulation.
"People started to ratchet up their expectations for what would happen
to the economy," Hassett said. "Everybody, except for Mrs. Clinton's
supporters, was starting to do that right after the election."
Significantly, Hassett did not highlight GDP growth, perhaps because the
measure has bounced up and down and would not show a clear difference
between Trump and Obama. Although Trump often boasts about the strong
GDP showing between April and June — when growth topped 4 percent —
there were quarters during Obama's tenure when growth was even stronger.
Forecasters disagree about whether Trump can deliver sustained,
multiyear growth in the 3 percent range, as promised.
So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that
indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch — including small
business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth —
broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy
continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646708799/fact-check-who-gets-credit-for-the-booming-u-s-economy
Now, aside from your devil's playground of promotion of Donald -
economic stats spinning - we don't have to have ALL the MANY behavioral
downsides that Donald exhibits regularly and to a prominent degree, in
order to have a booming economy, a more secure border, a revival of
patriotism, etc., or any other desirable or positive improvement. Do you
know that? It's just a sad fact. None of this animosity, chaos, violence
or fearfulness needed to happen if Donald's mindset and general behavior
hadn't centered on satisfying his ego (at any cost).
The wrong personality to get two parties and houses to work together,
and foolish reckless policies not even the GOP wants.
@Y@
V