Obama Complains About Trump Taking Credit for Strong Economy

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: NKT NETWORK

URL: https://ntknetwork.com/obama-complains-about-trump-taking-credit-for-strong-economy/


Former President Barack Obama bashed President Trump for taking credit for the strong American economy during a politically charged speech at the University of Illinois on Friday.

“By the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high, and the uninsured rate had hit an all-time low, and wages were rising, and poverty rates were falling. I mention all this just so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started,” Obama said to applause from the audience.

“When you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on – when the job numbers come out … and suddenly Republicans are saying, ‘It’s a miracle!’ I have to kind of remind them: actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016,” he added.

Obama’s remarks came on the heels of the August jobs report, which found that the United States created 201,000 new jobs in August.

(Excerpt) Read more at above link ...

[skeeter]

Surely the ex president will understand if we don't take his word for it.

[LMAO]

I noticed in the speech he didn’t mention the decline of the middle class  and the overall GDP under his watch

But here’s the problem with Trump patting himself on the back on the state of the economy. Suppose in the next few years we have a economic downturn? Then he’s leaving himself opened to be blamed for it

[SirLinksALot]

OK, is there an objective, reliable way of determining the FACTORS that causes an economy to do well or turn sour?

I do know this -- the stock market already started going up under Obama, but it REALLY TOOK OFF after Trump got elected. I also know that the unemployment rate was trending downwards under Obama and went down even further after Trump took office. so, there is a basis for saying that the economy was already trending positive under Obama. In what way then can we attribute the positive economic news today to Trump's policies?

I really want to know because we can go back and forth as to WHEN the economy really did well but without these objective methods, we cannot really know whose policies actually worked.

[skeeter]

OK, is there an objective, reliable way of determining the FACTORS that causes an economy to do well or turn sour?

I do know this -- the stock market already started going up under Obama, but it REALLY TOOK OFF after Trump got elected. I also know that the unemployment rate was trending downwards under Obama and went down even further after Trump took office. so, there is a basis for saying that the economy was already trending positive under Obama. In what way then can we attribute the positive economic news today to Trump's policies?

I really want to know because we can go back and forth as to WHEN the economy really did well but without these objective methods, we cannot really know whose policies actually worked.

The stock market is a poor indicator as it does well when interest rates are low and these rates can be influenced by political considerations. I always cringe when Trump claims credit for the stock market because the Fed isn't his oyster.

On the other hand there are a few things the government can do to significantly effect the economy and those involve taxes and regulations. Obama increased both, the economy struggled. Trump reduced both, the economy expands. Its pretty clear who can righteously claim credit for todays economy.

[Bigun]

The stock market is a poor indicator as it does well when interest rates are low and these rates can be influenced by political considerations. I always cringe when Trump claims credit for the stock market.

On the other hand there are a few things the government can do to significantly effect the economy and those involve taxes and regulations. Obama increased both, the economy struggled. Trump reduced both, the economy expands. Its pretty clear who can righteously claim credit for todays economy.

Spot on!    

[skeeter]

Spot on!    

I welcome Obama re-emergence onto the political stage.

I do not believe he is as nearly beloved as he believes he is.

[Bigun]

I welcome Obama re-emergence onto the political stage.

I do not believe he is as nearly beloved as he believes he is.

  to that as well!

[mystery-ak]

Trump said he fell asleep during Obama's speech..

[aligncare]

I welcome Obama re-emergence onto the political stage.

I do not believe he is as nearly beloved as he believes he is.

Obama’s aura has lost its luster after 8 years and a chance to tally the results from his two terms – without a glowing media behind him.

Seems he lost support particularly among blacks and Hispanics as they compare and contrast his accomplishments on the economy to Trump’s.

[Wingnut]

Obama's turd has lost its shine.  He can't even get a decent street named after him anymore.

[Snarknado]

Absolutely, let's DO remember when this recovery started - after the 2010 elections that kicked Pelosi to the curb and drastically curtailed 0bama's ability to inflict further damage. The only 0bama "policy" that mattered was leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for the vast majority of taxpayers.

[mountaineer]

Just about everywhere I went today had signs up seeking job applicants. I never saw that 2009-2017, just sayin'.

[Hoodat]

Just posted this on another thread.  Turn the clock back to July 2016:

Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average

7/29/2016

Economists were surprised Friday when the Commerce Department reported that growth in the second quarter of this year was a mere 1.2%. But the real surprise is that anyone is surprised when the economy underperforms, since that's what it has been doing for the past seven years.

There has not been a single year in the past seven when the economy did better than President Obama promised, or that most economists expected.

Indeed, the real problem isn't the tepid growth in the second quarter, after an equally tepid first quarter. The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveries since World War II.

What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.

What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today.  .  .  .

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamas-economic-growth-gap-now-tops-2-2-trillion/

[goatprairie]

Obviously, business and industry can find ways to make money even with capitalist economics-ignorant  presidents. But the idea that a tool like Obama knows what end is up concerning a free market economy is ridiculous. 
Obama is a taker/destroyer of wealth and not a creator.

[skeeter]

Trump said he fell asleep during Obama's speech..

He says what we’d say.

Or what I’d say, anyway.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

To liberals, success is the enemy.  They require dissent, losses and emergencies to retain power.

It is why racism to them will never go away, nor poverty even though blacks are elected into the highest offices of the land and trillions have been dumped onto the War on Poverty.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

OK, is there an objective, reliable way of determining the FACTORS that causes an economy to do well or turn sour?

I do know this -- the stock market already started going up under Obama, but it REALLY TOOK OFF after Trump got elected. I also know that the unemployment rate was trending downwards under Obama and went down even further after Trump took office. so, there is a basis for saying that the economy was already trending positive under Obama. In what way then can we attribute the positive economic news today to Trump's policies?

I really want to know because we can go back and forth as to WHEN the economy really did well but without these objective methods, we cannot really know whose policies actually worked.

Absolutely not (and I say that as a guy with an Econ degree, as well as real science degrees).  The economy is just too complex.  There are about an infinite number of moving parts, and some of them take years for their effects to be "seen".  [Also, the POTUS controls pretty much none of them].

The stock market, which is not a good economic indicator in normal times and is completely disconnected from reality and has been for several years, went on an absolute tear during 0's reign.  It tripled, and IIRC experienced the longest bull market in history.  Then, at least at first, when DJT was elected it started growing even faster.  Take your pick.

Now, if I were looking for CLUES as to how the economy was reacting to policies, I'd look at things like consumer confidence surveys, Purchasing Managers' Index, and levels of capital investment.  If people are planning on buying more stuff and companies are investing in the capability to make more stuff, I'd say that's a pretty good indication that things are heading in the right direction.  It is in no way perfect.  We've had a very long, slow "recovery".  At some point, people could be buying more stuff not because they are confident about their future, but because they put off those purchases during the long period of uncertainty and now they simply can't put them off any longer [not saying this is true, but it's possible].  And any new confidence could be caused by any number of unrelated issues.  But if I was trying to find a connection between POTUS and the economy, that's where I'd be looking.

[Suppressed]

Sorry, Barry...you screwed over our grandchildren to pay off your buddies.


Donnie chose to screw over our grandchildren to let the people party in false prosperity.

Your decision, Barry...your decision.

[Suppressed]

Absolutely not (and I say that as a guy with an Econ degree, as well as real science degrees).  The economy is just too complex.  There are about an infinite number of moving parts, and some of them take years for their effects to be "seen".  [Also, the POTUS controls pretty much none of them].

Surely, the first thing we have to do is to define "good economy".  Everyone living in economic luxury might look like a good economy, but it's no better than buying your lifestyle on a credit card. (Well, okay, better interest rates.)

[Hoodat]

Absolutely not (and I say that as a guy with an Econ degree, as well as real science degrees).  The economy is just too complex.  There are about an infinite number of moving parts, and some of them take years for their effects to be "seen".  [Also, the POTUS controls pretty much none of them].

The stock market, which is not a good economic indicator in normal times and is completely disconnected from reality and has been for several years, went on an absolute tear during 0's reign.  It tripled, and IIRC experienced the longest bull market in history.  Then, at least at first, when DJT was elected it started growing even faster.  Take your pick.

Now, if I were looking for CLUES as to how the economy was reacting to policies, I'd look at things like consumer confidence surveys, Purchasing Managers' Index, and levels of capital investment.  If people are planning on buying more stuff and companies are investing in the capability to make more stuff, I'd say that's a pretty good indication that things are heading in the right direction.  It is in no way perfect.  We've had a very long, slow "recovery".  At some point, people could be buying more stuff not because they are confident about their future, but because they put off those purchases during the long period of uncertainty and now they simply can't put them off any longer [not saying this is true, but it's possible].  And any new confidence could be caused by any number of unrelated issues.  But if I was trying to find a connection between POTUS and the economy, that's where I'd be looking.

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

Expectation plays such a crucial role in how our economy moves.  I seem to recall an economic indicator that gauges uncertainty v. confidence, but I never hear it cited by the political pundits.  Perhaps it is because they are constantly driving forward with their propaganda efforts hoping to affect the expectations of the American voter.

Your assessment of the stock market is 100% accurate.  It is NOT an economic indicator.  It is simply another showcase of supply and demand.  Wonder why the stock market continues to rise?  It is because more dollars are chasing stocks.  As our trade deficits continue onward, foreign traders holding dollars invest those dollars in the stock market, thus driving up the price.  So it is disingenuous to complain about the trade deficit while also applauding the increase in stock prices (which in essence makes them less affordable for the average Joe).

The fact is that our growth rate should be higher.  And it would be if our government weren't sucking $1+ trillion out of the economy each year in government excess (i.e. deficit spending).  Government creates zero growth, period, despite how much the Keynesian liberals want to bring up that asinine government multiplier BS.  If government would just get the hell out of the way, all boats would be lifted.

[Free Vulcan]

I laugh, because Obama spent 6 years blaming the previous admin for everything bad economic, now he wants to take credit from the next admin for everything good.

All the while conveniently forgetting the $11T in debt for the most pathetic 'recovery' on record.

[aligncare]

I laugh, because Obama spent 6 years blaming the previous admin for everything bad economic, now he wants to take credit from the next admin for everything good.

All the while conveniently forgetting the $11T in debt hw eN UP for the most pathetic 'recovery' on record.

Nicely put. 

[Free Vulcan]

Nicely put. 

Sorry 'bout the typos.

[corbe]

   Brilliant and Concise @Free Vulcan