Question Regarding Low Unemployment

[AZST_bowhunter]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jduNwm85mK8"]TN:OBAMA JOBS- MANUFACTURING JOBS - YouTube[/ame]

This is funny...saying all this while Trump is sweeping across America lol

[sir shovelhands]

Per this,

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

When Obama came into office, black unemployment was 12.7%. When he left it was at 7.9%.

When Trump came into offce it was 7.8% and is now at 6.2%.

Assuming we give full credit to the presiding President for how the economy is doing (however ridiculous I think it is to do so), Obama lowered black unemployment by 4.8% over 8 years (for an average of 0.6% per year), and Trump has lowered black unemployment by 1.8% in 1 year 10 months, (for an average of almost 1% per year).

It's inarguable that Trump's numbers are better, but Obama's numbers aren't shabby. Especially if you run that graph back to 1972. What sucks for Trump is that it will be hard to go much lower, and to keep the boom going for another 6 years. As an already developed nation, our economy has been on a boom/bust cycle for decades. And while Presidential policy can dampen or worsen a bust, or lengthen / dampen a boom, it's like fighting a tidal wave: it's going to come at some point.

[Draco]

There is a stark difference in how they accomplished it though. With Obama it took nearly 12 trillion dollars to lower it, Trump did it with a better economy.

[100%TtId]

There is a stark difference in how they accomplished it though. With Obama it took nearly 12 trillion dollars to lower it, Trump did it with a better economy.

If you do the math, Obama's spending spree works out to ~$40,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Adding that much debt to be paid by future generations is treasonous.

Obama's numbers aren't shabby.

I'm astonished anyone could believe spending $12T to lower unemployment 5% points is not "shabby".

It is quite clearly insane fiscal policy that will drag the economy down for years.

[texansfan]

There is a stark difference in how they accomplished it though. With Obama it took nearly 12 trillion dollars to lower it, Trump did it with a better economy.

How many trillions of dollars has it taken trump to do it?

Have you heard about momentum?

[texansfan]

If you do the math, Obama's spending spree works out to ~$40,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Adding that much debt to be paid by future generations is treasonous.



I'm astonished anyone could believe spending $12T to lower unemployment 5% points is not "shabby".

It is quite clearly insane fiscal policy that will drag the economy down for years.

Haven't Trump's budgets been bigger than Obama's?
How much debt per person has trump added since he's been in office?

[texansfan]

Per this,

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

When Obama came into office, black unemployment was 12.7%. When he left it was at 7.9%.

When Trump came into offce it was 7.8% and is now at 6.2%.

Assuming we give full credit to the presiding President for how the economy is doing (however ridiculous I think it is to do so), Obama lowered black unemployment by 4.8% over 8 years (for an average of 0.6% per year), and Trump has lowered black unemployment by 1.8% in 1 year 10 months, (for an average of almost 1% per year).

Trump lowered it 1.6% not 1.8%

Let's see if trump can keep up this 1% pace for the rest of his term. All 6 of those years.
It's not sustainable.

Besides, when Obama was in office y'all said that the way they calculated the unemployment rate was FAKE NEWS but now all of a sudden you are relying on this same flawed formula to prove your point???


But what the RNC needs to note is that under Bush it was almost 13% and Obama (a Democrat) cut that number by 40%
Yuuuge improvement

Trump took it from 7.8 to 6.2 which is only a 21% reduction. That is about half of the improvement than Obama. Trump needs his number around 4.9 in order to be near Obama's improvement rate.


So the question is do you think a 40% improvement is better than a 21% improvement?

[sir shovelhands]

If you do the math, Obama's spending spree works out to ~$40,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Adding that much debt to be paid by future generations is treasonous.



I'm astonished anyone could believe spending $12T to lower unemployment 5% points is not "shabby".

It is quite clearly insane fiscal policy that will drag the economy down for years.

Well, let's clear some numbers up. National debt in Jan of 2009 was $10.6T, national debt in Dec 2016 was $20.5T. Which means Obama added $9.9T to the national debt.

If we're comparing the lowering of unemployment to the addition to our debts, Trump has lowered black unemployment 1.6% (0.2 off in my first post) and the national debt has increased by $1.9T since he's been in office. So Obama's rate is $2.4T per % of unemployment. Trump's is $1.2T per % of unemployment.

Will those numbers last? Considering that if Trump keeps up current spending levels, he'll finish his 2nd term (assuming re-election) having adding about $8.8T to the debt. Not vastly different than Obama (11% less). And in the next 6 years, I think Trump will find it hard to knock down unemployment another 3.2%.

Are Trump's numbers better? Yes. Are they sustainable? I guess we'll find out. I still wish our government could pass a balanced budget. Otherwise it won't matter how good our economy is when our government folds.

[texansfan]

.

If we're comparing the lowering of unemployment to the addition to our debts, Trump has lowered black unemployment 1.6% (0.2 off in my first post) and the national debt has increased by $1.9T since he's been in office. So Obama's rate is $2.4T per % of unemployment. Trump's is $1.2T per % of unemployment.

Will those numbers last?

Let's look at it in terms of % unemoloyment reduction.
Obama had a 40% rate of reduction
Trump has a 21% rate of reduction
Now how does the deficit spending equate to those figures?

[RiverRat1]

Trump lowered it 1.6% not 1.8%

Let's see if trump can keep up this 1% pace for the rest of his term. All 6 of those years.
It's not sustainable.

Besides, when Obama was in office y'all said that the way they calculated the unemployment rate was FAKE NEWS but now all of a sudden you are relying on this same flawed formula to prove your point???


But what the RNC needs to note is that under Bush it was almost 13% and Obama (a Democrat) cut that number by 40%
Yuuuge improvement

Trump took it from 7.8 to 6.2 which is only a 21% reduction. That is about half of the improvement than Obama. Trump needs his number around 4.9 in order to be near Obama's improvement rate.


So the question is do you think a 40% improvement is better than a 21% improvement?

So which is it? Do we give credit to the current POTUS or the previous one? You liberals flip flop every time so the credit always goes to the Dem.. But yet you point to roughly +/- ZERO policies (besides printing money) that help anything in the long run.

[texansfan]

So which is it? Do we give credit to the current POTUS or the previous one? You liberals flip flop every time so the credit always goes to the Dem.. But yet you point to roughly +/- ZERO policies (besides printing money) that help anything in the long run.

What policies really stick or last longer than 4-6 years?
Medicare is still here
So is obamacare
Dodd-Frank
Sarbanes-Oxley
War on drugs is still around, right?

Most presidential policies don't have generational effects.

How many policies has a Republican or Democrat introduced that has LOWERED the deficit or national budget?

[TeamAmerica]

How many policies has a Republican or Democrat introduced that has LOWERED the deficit or national budget?

+/- zero....[emoji3] we'll just spend our way outta recession or stagnation!

[sir shovelhands]

Let's look at it in terms of % unemoloyment reduction.
Obama had a 40% rate of reduction
Trump has a 21% rate of reduction
Now how does the deficit spending equate to those figures?

Those aren't rates of reduction, they're totals of reduction. Without the number of years in office being equal between them, totals significantly favor the one with the greater number of years in office. Conversely, rates can favor the one with fewer years in office should those years be deviations from the mean, but given that it can go both ways, I still prefer them to totals.