Trump’s Economy (merged)

[heyvik]

yeah....but Obama....and Hillary....and Podesta.....

on a more serious note though - we all have an interest in the stock market doing well. I just hope that it does rebound. But for those who bought into the 'successful business' hype, I hope you can take the 'good' with the 'bad' - AND OWN IT!

Believe it or not, Hannity blames the stock market correction on Obama: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/02/05/sean-hannity-blames-obama-historic-market-crash/219279

(of course, by that same argument, all the gains over the past year are due to Obama, but I doubt Hannity wants to make that argument)

Where are the pro-Trump trolls now??? It seems like they jump on to take the credit - but are nowhere to be found when there's blame - THEY ARE THE SNOWFLAKES!!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/dow-plunges-250-points-3-day-losses-total-more-than-2000-points/ar-BBILgaa?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

[fairweatherfan]

I agree that the gloating was obnoxious and mostly unjustified, but I don't take any pleasure in the market tanking either.  It's true that it mainly affects the wealthiest initially, but losses tend to trickle down a lot more readily than gains. 

[Cman]

I agree that the gloating was obnoxious and mostly unjustified, but I don't take any pleasure in the market tanking either.  It's true that it mainly affects the wealthiest initially, but losses tend to trickle down a lot more readily than gains.

I don't take any pleasure in the market tanking. I'm not wealthy, but I am really annoyed at all the value that's been lost in my various retirement accounts.

[Pucaccia]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

[Donoghus]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

Winning what exactly?

[chilidawg]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

But when those equally good numbers would come out under Obama, it was fake news. 

[Erik]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

But when those equally good numbers would come out under Obama, it was fake news.

This is called whataboutism. We all know that unemployment is understated based on the criteria measured, but "lower" still means "lower," and it's a good thing. In reality, it doesn't matter what happened under any prior president, including George Washington. We should all just be happy when the current administration has successes because it's in our best interest. If you cannot be happy for American success regardless of whether or not you voted for the president, you are part of the problem. The classy thing to do would to cheer on American success instead of trying to figure out a way in which Trump did something wrong or had nothing to do with it.

[heyvik]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

But when those equally good numbers would come out under Obama, it was fake news.

This is called whataboutism. We all know that unemployment is understated based on the criteria measured, but "lower" still means "lower," and it's a good thing. In reality, it doesn't matter what happened under any prior president, including George Washington. We should all just be happy when the current administration has successes because it's in our best interest. If you cannot be happy for American success regardless of whether or not you voted for the president, you are part of the problem. The classy thing to do would to cheer on American success instead of trying to figure out a way in which Trump did something wrong or had nothing to do with it.

Exactly Erik. I am cheering that the stocks are doing well, and that unemployment is doing well. HOWEVER, what you may fail to realize is current administration and people on the right are continuing to ignore successes of the previous administration and acting like those accomplishments did nothing towards the current positive situation - when in actuality its the exact opposite. The previous administration had a WHOLE lot to do with current positive situation. I admit that NOW the current administration has their policies in place so all of the accomplishments go to THIS administration. What's frustrating is that some people WILL NOT admit the accomplishments of the previous administration for numerous reasons that we just don't have time to go into - THEREFORE some of us make it a point to highlight the accomplishment because some just won't say or mention it.

What also is funny is that the DJT is calling DEMs who sat during his speech treasonous, and people are saying that the DEMS are un-American. Do you recall when Obama made his speeches and the GOP sat - Paul Ryan and John Boehner among the few? are they also un-American?

[nickagneta]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

But when those equally good numbers would come out under Obama, it was fake news.

This is called whataboutism. We all know that unemployment is understated based on the criteria measured, but "lower" still means "lower," and it's a good thing. In reality, it doesn't matter what happened under any prior president, including George Washington. We should all just be happy when the current administration has successes because it's in our best interest. If you cannot be happy for American success regardless of whether or not you voted for the president, you are part of the problem. The classy thing to do would to cheer on American success instead of trying to figure out a way in which Trump did something wrong or had nothing to do with it.

And by the same token, those happy about the successes but tote it is because of a President that had little to do with the economy moving in the direction it did should at least admit their candidate had little to do with it and just be happy for American success.

It works both ways.

Puccacia was giving all the credit to Trump, isn't that just as bad in your mind as what you call chilldawg's "whataboutism"

[Erik]

I would argue that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump have had very little to do with the stock market. Obama passed Healthcare, which didn't really do anything positive for the stock market. He also bailed out the banks, which really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things for the average American. Most money is FDIC insured and 401ks are diversified so much that a couple more bankruptcies wouldn't affect you that much in the long run. So instead of the government guaranteeing the debts of a failed bank using taxpayer money, they used taxpayer money to keep them afloat. The real losers in the deal would have been your friends "the evil rich people" who had over 250k and owned retail stock in those banks.

The strength of the stock market (and housing market) has been primarily due to "it's the only place to invest." This was accomplished by lowering the interest rates to basically nothing for 10 years. So you have two choices: invest in companies that are making profits or invest your money with banks for nothing and lose to inflation every year. While you could argue that Obama appointed Yellen, I'm pretty sure the same strategy would have been followed through by any fed chairman. This is why you're seeing a dip lately. There is a new fed chairman and the market is testing him because we're not sure what he's going to do with interest rates. It's basically just hedge funds looking to get some profits for their clients. Most long term investors aren't even paying attention to this garbage. What has changed? The companies are still making a lot of profits. If interest rates go up a quarter percent, it's still the best investment in town by a mile. Bonds will be down, of course, but still a better safety investment than CDs.

The point is.. anyone who is celebrating the stocks going down as a victory for Democrats, or is in any way trying to pin it on Donald Trump has a very limited understanding of economics. If your goal is to say "Well, he claims credit for the stocks being up," so I'm going to say it's his fault when they go down: he's a politician. His job is to convince enough "uninformeds" to vote for him by lying. That should be the definition of a politician's job. They all do it. Every single one. Trump convinced more "uninformeds" than Hillary did (well, electorally). Why fall for the bait and post equally inaccurate statements to the opposite?

But, yes, Puccacia is equally wrong. I just feel bad for Trump supporters on this board so I'm not as quick to point out their inaccuracies.

[heyvik]

I would argue that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump have had very little to do with the stock market. Obama passed Healthcare, which didn't really do anything positive for the stock market. He also bailed out the banks, which really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things for the average American. Most money is FDIC insured and 401ks are diversified so much that a couple more bankruptcies wouldn't affect you that much in the long run. So instead of the government guaranteeing the debts of a failed bank using taxpayer money, they used taxpayer money to keep them afloat. The real losers in the deal would have been your friends "the evil rich people" who had over 250k and owned retail stock in those banks.

The strength of the stock market (and housing market) has been primarily due to "it's the only place to invest." This was accomplished by lowering the interest rates to basically nothing for 10 years. So you have two choices: invest in companies that are making profits or invest your money with banks for nothing and lose to inflation every year. While you could argue that Obama appointed Yellen, I'm pretty sure the same strategy would have been followed through by any fed chairman. This is why you're seeing a dip lately. There is a new fed chairman and the market is testing him because we're not sure what he's going to do with interest rates. It's basically just hedge funds looking to get some profits for their clients. Most long term investors aren't even paying attention to this garbage. What has changed? The companies are still making a lot of profits. If interest rates go up a quarter percent, it's still the best investment in town by a mile. Bonds will be down, of course, but still a better safety investment than CDs.

The point is.. anyone who is celebrating the stocks going down as a victory for Democrats, or is in any way trying to pin it on Donald Trump has a very limited understanding of economics. If your goal is to say "Well, he claims credit for the stocks being up," so I'm going to say it's his fault when they go down: he's a politician. His job is to convince enough "uninformeds" to vote for him by lying. That should be the definition of a politician's job. They all do it. Every single one. Trump convinced more "uninformeds" than Hillary did (well, electorally). Why fall for the bait and post equally inaccurate statements to the opposite?

This is everyone's gripe with Pres. Trump and his followers do not believe that he is. That's why there's so much backlash.

[nickagneta]

I would argue that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump have had very little to do with the stock market. Obama passed Healthcare, which didn't really do anything positive for the stock market. He also bailed out the banks, which really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things for the average American. Most money is FDIC insured and 401ks are diversified so much that a couple more bankruptcies wouldn't affect you that much in the long run. So instead of the government guaranteeing the debts of a failed bank using taxpayer money, they used taxpayer money to keep them afloat. The real losers in the deal would have been your friends "the evil rich people" who had over 250k and owned retail stock in those banks.

The strength of the stock market (and housing market) has been primarily due to "it's the only place to invest." This was accomplished by lowering the interest rates to basically nothing for 10 years. So you have two choices: invest in companies that are making profits or invest your money with banks for nothing and lose to inflation every year. While you could argue that Obama appointed Yellen, I'm pretty sure the same strategy would have been followed through by any fed chairman. This is why you're seeing a dip lately. There is a new fed chairman and the market is testing him because we're not sure what he's going to do with interest rates. It's basically just hedge funds looking to get some profits for their clients. Most long term investors aren't even paying attention to this garbage. What has changed? The companies are still making a lot of profits. If interest rates go up a quarter percent, it's still the best investment in town by a mile. Bonds will be down, of course, but still a better safety investment than CDs.

The point is.. anyone who is celebrating the stocks going down as a victory for Democrats, or is in any way trying to pin it on Donald Trump has a very limited understanding of economics. If your goal is to say "Well, he claims credit for the stocks being up," so I'm going to say it's his fault when they go down: he's a politician. His job is to convince enough "uninformeds" to vote for him by lying. That should be the definition of a politician's job. They all do it. Every single one. Trump convinced more "uninformeds" than Hillary did (well, electorally). Why fall for the bait and post equally inaccurate statements to the opposite?

But, yes, Puccacia is equally wrong. I just feel bad for Trump supporters on this board so I'm not as quick to point out their inaccuracies.

I was talking more about the whole economy rather than stock market. I agree the Presidents have little to due with the stock market unless its due to getting a huge law passed like a bank bailout or massive corporate tax cuts. I think a lot of the recent increases on the market had to due to speculation and passing of the tax cut law. So Trump gets some credit there. IMO

[Quetzalcoatl]

I would argue that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump have had very little to do with the stock market.

I would argue that it takes about a year before the President's policies start to come into light.  But overall, modern Republicans have been pretty bad on the stock market and economy.  There aren't any results that you can point to at all. What they do is get a lot of money for a handful of Republican CEOs, then tank the economy in the process.  Trump just gave everyone a $50 tax decrease per month while giving 83% of the benefits to the rich.  They can then go "well you got $50!" and yet they get a market correction right after they pass it.  It's ridiculous.  They just doubled the deficit per year and guess who is going to have to pay that money back?  They're inflating the debt beyond anything I've ever seen.

Reagan


Both Bushes, Clinton and Obama


Trump

[byennie]

Jobless claims drop....remain near 45-year low.

More jobs, less unemployment.
https://www.marke****ch.com/story/jobless-claims-drop-9000-to-221000-remain-near-45-year-low-2018-02-08

Trump is winning.

But when those equally good numbers would come out under Obama, it was fake news.

This is called whataboutism. We all know that unemployment is understated based on the criteria measured, but "lower" still means "lower," and it's a good thing. In reality, it doesn't matter what happened under any prior president, including George Washington.

Of course prior presidents matter. Economic policy has long lasting and delayed effects that can hardly be captured in 8 years, let alone over a few days of market correction. Should we look at everything through that lens, as if a president and the Dow Jones work hand-in-hand? Of course not.

I see what you're getting at, but totally ignoring past presidencies would just lay the perfect groundwork for playing Two Santas between the Republicans and the Democrats forever.

[fairweatherfan]

A topic that doesn't come up much - the trade deficit, which Trump repeatedly cited as terrible and adamantly promised to "fix" is now higher than at any point under Obama at $566 billion. The trade deficit with China which was frequently targeted has also jumped to an all-time record high.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-trade/u-s-trade-deficit-rises-to-nine-year-high-on-robust-imports-idUSKBN1FQ1XG

Problem is I'm in that weird place where Trump promised to lower or even eliminate the trade deficit, but I also think it would be extremely stupid if he did. It's still striking that his signature economic target is going in the opposite direction of the promises and barely anyone's noticed.