wouldn’t it’s lowering from around 10% to 4.7% under Barry be akin to Fatima?
What am I missing or is Barry the greatest economic miracle worker since WWII?
start from low altitude and it's easy, you may spend 4 hours and climb 2,000 feet. When you reach to high altitude, it becomes more challenge (steeper). You may spend 5 hours for 800 feet. You can't use linear algebra to compare low altitude climbing and high altitude climbing. Same applies to growth of developing countries and developed countries. Many developing countries have better number in term GDP growth than developed countres' . But you can't say economy of developing countries is better than that od developed countries based on your baby math
unemployment , not 10% as you claimed. It's 7.3% to 4.7% in 8 years, not from 10% to 4.7% as you claimed. Unemployment rate continued went up in Obama's 1st year from 7.3% to 9.9% at the end of his first year. It's deceiving to use 9.9% (or 10%). Your baby math should be from 7.3% to 4.7% for Obama in 8 years. I can tell you didn't check and even think about this. You just stole some media's propaganda which is intended to mislead people and then post something as me think.
Now run along back to the troll farm.
even less than he claims.
Higher premiums, can’t get in to see a doctor and higher deductibles. Answer me that homer.
Don’t you agree.
point unemployment drop should be kept in perspective, I am well aware of Barry’s deficiencies, but reading you guys fellating Orange all the time here is a bit tiresome.
whatever you believe he had to deal with the shit sandwich that Bush gave him. He screwed small business with his lies and BS about his healthcare insurance program. He paid for insurance on the backs of small business knowing the big corporations would not be effected. He did that willingly. Explain that.
govt staying out of our lives, bidness, and wallets to the extent reasonably possible in this day and age.
Where I part company with that crowd is over xenophobia, nationalism, isolationism, and protectionism.
I would slash spending in half if I could.
No one is xenophobic. That is a red herring word.
Nationalism used to be a good thing. Not sure why it is a problem now. Nationalism ≠ National Socialism. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Reagan were nationalists. Washington and Lincoln were nationalists.
Isolationism...also not a bad thing as a default, if by that we mean not running around the world sticking our noses in places we have no reasonable business being in. George Washington was an isolationist by that standard. Obviously, it is just a default position, not a rule that cannot be broken.
Protectionism...as I indicated before, I am, by default, against protectionism. But, trying the same thing and expecting different results?...I'm not for that. Might as well give protectionism a shot and see what happens. It may be like the typical liberal solution: short term benefits, long term disaster. We shall see.
Not all Orange supporters are Xenophobic, but plenty are. Disagree that no one is. This is a solvable problem that Orange wants to campaign on.
Nationalism has become a destructive doctrine post WWI and WWII. The world is too interconnected. Nations need to pursue their interests and be proud of their heritage but chest beating nationalism is an evil not a good.
Interventionism is also an evil but isolating the nation such that it’s us against everyone else all the time is as bad if not worse. There is a happy medium that doesn’t involve either extreme. Coalitions that are in, and serve our interests are good. The Orange go it alone policy isn’t good.
Tariffs have always proved destructive in the long term. They are also outdated solutions to current problems. Let the market work and things go better than when the govt is interfering and setting artificial barriers.
Sure, but QE was gone while Obama was still president, and interest rates under Trump are not much above zero.
The point is that Trump didn't "turn the economy around", or "save the economy from Obama", and the "economy did not explode under Trump". Obama put up decent improvement numbers with some monetary policy help, and the economy was fine when Trump got it. We only point out those numbers so that you Trump lovers tap the brakes on touting Trump's economic achievements
any difference as it was clearly the result of the Bush recession.
Unemployment trended down under Obama from a Recession peak of 10% to about 4.7% when Trump was elected. In nearly three years since Trump was elected, it's gone down about 1%.
Again, it didn't have far to go, which cuts two ways. 1) It would have been hard for it to go much lower under Trump (or any president); and 2) it's not much different than it was when Trump was elected.
The 10% recession peak was still in the first year of Obama's presidency. It was 9% in April of 2009. I'm not sure using 7.8% (from January, 2009) is any kind of fair measure, but it would still have been 3.1% reduction in unemployment, despite having a huge recession in motion.
The link shows the data in its naked glory. If anyone can detect a turnaround in 2017, well then good for them.
It's like approaching the speed of light...it is more difficult to reduce unemployment from 4% to 3% as opposed to 10% to 9%.
That will give you a percentage point most times.
