It's the Economy, Stupid!

[Mountain Man]

Yes, because there was an economic recession that started under Bush. Again, we see a recovery all the way through Obama's period, continuing into Trump's period. Again Trump seems to be doing good, and the US continues on a good path.

Yes, unemployment rates dropped under Obama but only because of the shrinking labor force. Labor participation rate under Obama was at a 40-year low. It has gone up under Trump.

The tricky thing about determining economic health is that no one number tells the whole story.

[seanD]

The stock market is not the economy. The Main Street versus Wall Street dynamic is often overlooked when discussing these matters. Part of the reason Wall Street did so well under Obama is because of the massive stimulus/slush fund he was handed early in his presidency, but while Wall Street investors were happy, those who lived on Main Street were struggling to find work and make ends meet.

Problem is, if the market goes, so goes the rest of the economy. Main street is barely being sustained by the market boom, and the market boom is being sustained by federal reserve policy, which is why we're seeing crazy wealth gaps -- insane wealth accumulation on wallstreet, while everything else is barely jugging along -- stagnant GDP, low wage employment, growing inflation, growing debt. No one seems to understand this dynamic. Trump does, but he's being dishonest about it to his and conservatives' peril.

[KingsGambit]

Agreed - and a certain amount of debt is tolerable, of course, particularly when you can see light at the end of the tunnel --- but we seem to be on a spending spree on steroids, with Republicans wanting every bigger increases in defense spending, and getting it by caving into Democrats' spending on anything they want.

The only way I see around that would be a balanced budget amendment, but that seems about as realistic as Bernie Sanders' ideas.

[seanD]

The only way I see around that would be a balanced budget amendment, but that seems about as realistic as Bernie Sanders' ideas.

Point of no return has been already been passed. We haven't had an above annual 3% GDP growth since 2005. Federal Reserve has opened the spigots and flushed the financial system with trillions of dollars while deficits and debt are exploding and GDP is stagnant. There's no possible turnaround from that.

[Cow Poke]

The only way I see around that would be a balanced budget amendment, but that seems about as realistic as Bernie Sanders' ideas.

It's like "trillion dollars" (times whatever) is no big thing.

[Leonhard]

Yes, unemployment rates dropped under Obama but only because of the shrinking labor force. Labor participation rate under Obama was at a 40-year low. It has gone up under Trump.

That is not quite true. The US in general is getting older, like Europe and other wealthy nations. Therefore more of its population is retiring. Therefore a lower labor participation rate in general. So if you want to look at relevant changes in the participation rate, you have to look at the seasonally adjusted rate for prime-age workers. Using that data, there was quite a bounce back under Obama as well.

It is also quite clear from this data, that most of the loss was solely due to the economic bubble burst in 2009, and most of it has been recovery since that point, and a near full bounce back happened under Obama.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...17-2?r=US&IR=T

[Leonhard]

I think there were a few more examples that were similar, but it's not worth belaboring the point.

There weren't, Obama only ever said it once, and only ever expressed it as a fear. You might remember it as multiple instances since right-wing news outlets had a field day with it.

My point is, as I said, that the doom and gloomers were predicting that the economy would come crashing down if Trump were elected. It obviously has not. Yet.

I hope not, and I don't expect it to, even though I hear fears about a double dib recession.

[demi-conservative]

Leonhard, you are way too credulous.

Stock market values are easily manipulated by injecting trillions into the stock market, aka QE.

GDP is easily manipulated by injecting trillions into the economy, aka government borrowing.

What I don't get is the flip conservative politicians did from criticizing Obama for it, to Newt Gingrich claiming "Debt doesn't matter".

Because increasing debt is necessary to create an illusion of growth.

The only way I see around that would be a balanced budget amendment

The logic and math is simple. Balanced budget = big drop in government spending = big drop in GDP = instant depression by definition.

[Teallaura]

Obama definitely helped pull the U.S. out of the Bush crash and got the economy headed back in the right direction. The only thing Trump has done is to make his wealthy supporters even wealthier.

I'm personally far better off than I was 2016.

[demi-conservative]

I'm personally far better off than I was 2016.

Ordinary peoples' lives improving is a better description of economic health than the worldly obsession with those two lines keep going up.

[Cow Poke]

There weren't, Obama only ever said it once, and only ever expressed it as a fear. You might remember it as multiple instances since right-wing news outlets had a field day with it.

You're a good man, Leon, if you say it's so, I won't argue.

I hope not, and I don't expect it to, even though I hear fears about a double dib recession.

I just need the stock market to keep "up" til the middle of June -- that's when my 403(b) "annualizes", and my gains are "locked in". I did amazingly well last year, for which I praise God.

[demi-conservative]

Concerning sovereign debt, the World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77%. The U.S. ratio is 104%.

An analogy is a household borrowing money to increase cashflow. GDP alone is useless as a measurement of growth, GDP+debt is a little better and what does that tell you?

[seanD]

An analogy is a household borrowing money to increase cashflow. GDP alone is useless as a measurement of growth, GDP+debt is a little better and what does that tell you?

And to add more perspective to that. Government spending (debt) affects the rise of GDP. Yet we've never had an annual GDP number above 3% since 2005. But we know government deficits and debt is exploding, which means actual economic growth is being grossly overestimated. Considering government spending and the federal reserve pumping trillions into the system, we should be well exceeding 3% GDP, maybe even 5-6%, yet in spite of unprecedented measures we're seeing, we can't even get anywhere near that high.

[Teallaura]

The only way I see around that would be a balanced budget amendment, but that seems about as realistic as Bernie Sanders' ideas.

Careful what you wish for. I like the balanced budget idea but I don't think that the nation is ready for proration.

[Leonhard]

Stock market values are easily manipulated... GDP is easily manipulated...

If you have reasons to claim that the economy was doing poorly under Obama, then feel free to submit the evidence. So far I am simply countering claims that the economy had flatlined, or that unemployment was stagnant. I haven't seen any compelling evidence yet showing that anything other than climb out of recession happened under Obama.