Quote:

• Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth.
• New government data show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric.
• The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.
• For the rest of the president's term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.
  

President Donald Trump's central claim about his economic policies officially crashed into reality on Thursday.


Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth. Specifically, they insisted tax cuts and deregulation would return growth to its post-World War II average of 3 percent — a level, candidate Trump said derisively, that President Barack Obama became "the first president in modern history" never to reach in a single year.


New government data on Thursday morning show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.

Instead of annual 2018 growth, the White House emphasized a different growth measure comparing growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018.

By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.


Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA's official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump's for 2018. Thursday's preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.


For the rest of the president's term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.


"2018 will be the high-water mark for growth in the Trump administration," Zandi predicted. He expects the decade-old economic expansion will shrink to 1.1 percent growth in 2020, with a better-than-even chance of recession.
[url=https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/12/29/the-next-recession-corporate-debt-likely-to-cause-problems-in-2020-says-mark-zandi.html][/url]
For the 21st century economy, 2.9 percent represents strong performance in any event. Not since 2005, during George W. Bush's presidency, has America seen a full-year expansion of 3 percent or more. Moreover, 2018 marked the second consecutive year that growth accelerated by six-tenths of a percentage point from 1.6 percent in Obama's final year in office.


GOP's hollow campaign pledge


Economically, that falls short of the upgrade Team Trump pledged. Politically, it demonstrates the hollowness of a core GOP campaign theme.


The theme hardly originated with Trump. Announcing his presidential candidacy in 2015, then-frontrunner Jeb Bush blamed Democratic policies for "the slowest economic recovery ever" and identified the solution as tax cuts and deregulation.


"There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4 percent of year," Bush declared.


Obama's economic advisers cited two big reasons: sluggish worker productivity and shrinking labor supply as baby boomers retire. Those factors, they argued, limited potential growth to a long-term average of 2 percent.


Trump, with characteristic grandiosity, dismissed that argument and outbid Bush. "We think it could be 5 or even 6" percent, he said.


His economic advisers remained more cautious. But they cast sustained growth of 3 percent or more, driven by new, productivity-boosting business investment, as the floor beneath their strategy for making Americans better off and protecting the federal budget.


"The foundation for the plan is 3 percent growth," budget director Mick Mulvaney told Congress. "In fact, that IS Trumponomics."


'Abracadabra,' Obama


Growth ticked up in 2017 to 2.2 percent, though that rate fell below what the Congressional Budget Office had forecast before Trump's election. As the president took steps toward deregulation, Republican allies in Congress called tax cuts critical to achieving their 3 percent goal.


The tax cuts passed in December 2017. And when growth surged to 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018, the White House declared victory.


"We're on track to reach the highest annualized growth in 13 years," the president assured reporters.


"Remember when Obama said you need a magic wand to make that happen?" Donald Trump Jr. told Breitbart. "Well 'abracadabra,' Obama. We're doing it."


In fact, growth in a single quarter had topped 4.2 percent four different times during the Obama administration. A broad range of analysts had forecast that a deficit-financed tax-cut would stimulate short-term boost beginning in 2018.


Yet even as 3rd quarter growth slowed to 3.4 percent, White House advisers reiterated their confidence. In July, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin called the U.S. "well on the path" for four to five years of sustained 3 percent growth.


In December, top White House economist Kevin Hassett sounded the same note while acknowledging a slowdown in business investment. "We're definitely going to be at 3 or above 3" for both 2018 and 2019, he told CNBC.


Thursday's BEA data show otherwise. Growth kept falling in the fourth quarter, to 2.6 percent. The increase in business investment has continued to taper.


Having predicted growth of "substantially over 3 percent," former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, has blamed Trump's trade tariffs for offsetting the boost from the tax cut. But the White House and its allies lacked credible evidence for their growth claim to begin with.


"The 3 percent long-term projection was always a stretch in light of the demographic headwinds," Harvard's Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers for President Bush, told CNBC.

That doesn't mean the White House agenda won't have long-term benefits. But Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush adviser and CBO director, says determining its impact will take years.


"The real question is how much the trend has improved: are we decelerating to 2.5 percent instead of 2.0 percent?" asked Holtz-Eakin. "The test of the Trump administration policies will be their impact on productivity growth, and the data are not yet in."


Meantime, economists at CBO and the Federal Reserve have cut their forecasts for 2019 growth to 2.3 percent. For the long-term, both project growth below 2 percent.


Correction: This story was revised to correct a summary that should have said the Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015. It also was updated to reflect other measures of GDP growth.

(02-28-2019, 09:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Today:
Unemployment for Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/Women is at an all time record low,

Trump First 21 Months/Obama's last 21 months

GDP:  2.9%/1.5% Doubled
New Jobs avg per month: 75,000/900... No comment needed
Number of Employed Americans per month: 214,000/157,000 36% improvement
Weekly earnings increased on avg per month: $2.31/$1.31  76% improvement

Yes Fred, I must have gotten this info from a Right-Wing source, considering my number matched what Dino posted.
Is that your auto default mode when someone shows you something good that DJT does?

https://fee.org/articles/the-obama-economy-vs-the-trump-economy/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH

(02-28-2019, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can you take your catfight back to the thread it was in?

This is about how DJT ignored the experts (again) and lied to his voters (again).

(02-28-2019, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can you take your catfight back to the thread it was in?

This is about how DJT ignored the experts (again) and lied to his voters (again).

(02-28-2019, 09:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I thought you would be appreciative that I actually back up your numbers on the 2.9% GDP growth from a non Left Web site, such as the one you posted.

Why so pissed? it's completely on topic and add much more depth to the OP.

(02-28-2019, 11:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't really add much depth. The attempt to compare the first 21 months (why 21 months? That's an odd number) of the two presidents is nothing more than an attempt to make the performance of Trump's economic policies look better. Obama's first six months were still in the midst of the Great Recession, and turning around economic growth coming out of that is far more difficult than continuing to ride a trend of upward growth, which is what Trump was handed. Therefore attempting to compare those two periods is disingenuous.

I'm not saying this to disparage any economic growth under Trump or anything, just pointing out that the information provided is lacking in that contextual information that makes the comparison truly meaningless.

Edit to add: I am also someone that finds any sort of these comparisons meaningless because the president's role on economic performance is vastly exaggerated.

(02-28-2019, 11:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Obama’s last 21 months.

(02-28-2019, 11:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Obama’s last 21 months.

(02-28-2019, 11:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't really add much depth. The attempt to compare the first 21 months (why 21 months? That's an odd number) of the two presidents is nothing more than an attempt to make the performance of Trump's economic policies look better. Obama's first six months were still in the midst of the Great Recession, and turning around economic growth coming out of that is far more difficult than continuing to ride a trend of upward growth, which is what Trump was handed. Therefore attempting to compare those two periods is disingenuous.

I'm not saying this to disparage any economic growth under Trump or anything, just pointing out that the information provided is lacking in that contextual information that makes the comparison truly meaningless.

Edit to add: I am also someone that finds any sort of these comparisons meaningless because the president's role on economic performance is vastly exaggerated.

(02-28-2019, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude posts about economic growth being better under Trump than Obama and provides a link in a thread that talks about economic growth of the Obama v. Trump administrations and he gets slurred and admonished by you for not sticking with the subject?

(02-28-2019, 09:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I thought you would be appreciative that I actually back up your numbers on the 2.9% GDP growth from a non Left Web site, such as the one you posted.

Why so pissed? it's completely on topic and add much more depth to the OP.

(02-28-2019, 11:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't really add much depth. The attempt to compare the first 21 months (why 21 months? That's an odd number) of the two presidents is nothing more than an attempt to make the performance of Trump's economic policies look better. Obama's first six months were still in the midst of the Great Recession, and turning around economic growth coming out of that is far more difficult than continuing to ride a trend of upward growth, which is what Trump was handed. Therefore attempting to compare those two periods is disingenuous.

I'm not saying this to disparage any economic growth under Trump or anything, just pointing out that the information provided is lacking in that contextual information that makes the comparison truly meaningless.

Edit to add: I am also someone that finds any sort of these comparisons meaningless because the president's role on economic performance is vastly exaggerated.

(03-01-2019, 01:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's basically a copy and paste from another thread to show how much Trump loves his African American.






See above.


Which is why I'm still waiting for the Trump supporters people who hate to see Trump criticized "all the time" to share some of the policies he's enacted to create all those glowing stats they post.  

The article says most who are knowledgeable said the slow down was going to happen but DJT made a campaign promise so we know he can't tell the truth if it isn't happening.

The only thing we've seen economically from any "plan" Trump and the GOP has managed to pass is a ballooning deficit while the claim it will pay for itself.



I spent the better part of the evening do some statistical work.  Give me numbers and facts and not "look how good it is now" when nothing was done to make it that way in the last two years.

(03-01-2019, 12:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, back then everyone was scared about a possible president Trump... so that's not fair either. 

Also, the part of the article quoted just represents the words of a Mr. Andrew Puzdar, which after a quick google search I identify as a severely biased source.

The author of the article himself concludes "The bottom line is that there’s no reason to expect big economic improvements under Trump, at least in the long run. His good policies on taxes and regulation are offset by bad policies on spending and trade."

(03-01-2019, 12:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But why 21 months!?



Edit: Just saw your edit after I posted this. While comparing economic performance under presidents to operationalize presidential performance is a fool's errand, using any period that includes different quarters would be extra so. Final 21 months for Obama would have been April 2015 through December 2016, while Trump's first 21 would be January 2017 through September 2018. Different economic quarters bring with them different trends, which means comparing those two data sets would not work out as they are too dissimilar.

All in all, it's stupid to look at these things in general. Presidents are stupid for making promises, and they are stupid for touting good numbers. The population is stupid for putting so much stock in economic numbers as an indicator of what a president is doing.

(03-01-2019, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought it compared Obama's LAST 21 months to Trump's FIRST 21 months.

(03-01-2019, 04:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a bad habit of replying too quickly and then realizing I missed something, and trying to add before anyone responds.

I think there’s enough similar quarters plus isn’t Obama’s missing quarter (the 1st) generally a pretty weak quarter?

(03-01-2019, 04:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Sorta moving the goalposts there.

(03-01-2019, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.

Trump over promised (as is his want as a braggart) and under delivered (just like his business dealings).  And it was a campaign so I'm good with people saying "they" can do "better".  But DJT sad 5% or 6% only because Bush said 4.  I truly believe you could tell him Bush promised 10% and Trump would say then we'll do 20.

The article simply points out that not only did not reach what he said he would.  And the few high points that he brags about were surpassed multiple times during the last administration.

Also the market and the economy is cyclical.  There will be a downturn after a rise.  It happens.  The smart people who usually make decisions will have facts and data that they can make suggestions to lessen it or to prolong the growth, but it will happen.  And it might happen because of something no one can control like an attack or a natural disaster.  

But if people want to post how wonderful Trump has made life in the US they are going to need to provide the policies he enacted to cause it otherwise it just not doing anything to change the trend of the last 5 years plus.

(03-01-2019, 10:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You first gave data and when someone countered that data you said, well what did he do to cause it?  And who decided on midterm being the cutoff for success or failure?

(03-01-2019, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ask the guy who picked that time frame.

The article I posted covered what Trump said/says and what actually happened.

Why the unemployment rate for minorities matters in that discussion is up to you to decide.

But, again, if Mike wants to keep saying how much Trump loves his African-American I want to see what Trump did to make their lives better.  Actually policies and budget decision that were enacted.

Otherwise the article shows that the economy kept going as it was, on its own as usual, and that DJT was talking out his hiney.  Again.