Assessment of Mr. Trump

[Starlight]

It is three straight quarters which so far is his entire term with the New York Federal Reserve Bank predicting that this quarter the GDP will be at 3.8%^[1] which would make it four. That is hardly "a tiny short term increase." Moreover, don't you find it a tad strange that under Obama's 8 years we didn't experience this short term fluctuation?

And now, according to Reuters, the New York Federal Reserve has raised their estimate of GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2017 to 3.98%. Again, we were repeatedly told for the last 8 years by the left that this sort of growth was no longer possible because world markets have changed so much, that we need to get used to the anemic growth we experienced under Obama (average of 1.5%) as representing the new norm and yet, here we are.

Here's the rate of US GDP growth per quarter over the last 10 years:



As can been seen, the GDP growth fluctuates, and the 2017 quarters were well within the kind of fluctuations that occurred during the Obama years.

Oops, looks like the unemployment rate for blacks has now dipped to a 17 year low as well

The overall unemployment rate has been dropping since the Great Recession.

US Unemployment Rate:



Again, nothing looks unusual about 2017 when compared to the Obama years. (The graph for blacks only looks the same but wasn't as easily displayable here as a pic)


None of that is surprising because Trump hasn't yet done anything that might cause a significant change in those graphs. If and when his tax legislation passes I would expect a temporary economic upturn followed by a medium to long term economic downturn. But at the moment he's just coasting off the economic situation that came out of the Obama presidency, which is one of gradual economic recovery from Bush's Great Recession.

[carpedm9587]

Um, the writers of that fact check appear to assume that if McConnell made a statement that he wanted Obama to be a 1 term president at one time, then he would never have made that statement at other times. That seems... a strange assumption.

Here's a few links to read.

This does not seem to be reflected in the article I linked.

Thanks for the links, though.

[firstfloor]

Abby Martin on The Jimmy Dore Show, Untold History of US Empire.

[JimL]

Woodward was one of the principle agents in the documenting of Nixon's downfall - and has deep and credible roots. His journalisic credentials are as close to impecable as they come, AFAIK. I'm going to add that book to my reading list.

Yes, I'm well aware of who Woodward and Berstein are, I lived through those days as well. But Woodward is just wrong here, and his book certainly isn't journalism. His main point being Obama has no excuse, it's his job to get it done. Well, when your negotiating with a brick wall your chances of a compromise are exactly zero. Obama was certainly willing to compromise with the republican Congress and offered significant spending cuts, including cuts in entitlement spending, but he could'nt get the republican Congress to move on tax increases. Their mantra from the get go was to oppose anything Obama proposed! It was a purely political tactic, in complete disregard for the practical consequences.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I'm well aware of who Woodward and Berstein are, I lived through those days as well. But Woodward is just wrong here, and his book certainly isn't journalism. His main point being Obama has no excuse, it's his job to get it done. Well, when your negotiating with a brick wall your chances of a compromise are exactly zero. Obama was certainly willing to compromise with the republican Congress and offered significant spending cuts, including cuts in entitlement spending, but he could'nt get the republican Congress to move on tax increases. Their mantra from the get go was to oppose anything Obama proposed! It was a purely political tactic, in complete disregard for the practical consequences.

I cannot comment until I've read the book and spot checked his sources. I'm assuming you've already done so?

[Starlight]

One way of measuring the Republican obstructionism under Obama is to consider the number of Presidential appointees that the Senate blocked.

In the history of the US there was a aggregate total of "68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office", compared to (as of Nov 2013). So in the first 5 years of Obama's presidency, the Republicans had blocked more of his appointments than all Presidential appointments ever blocked in the rest of US history.

[One Bad Pig]

One way of measuring the Republican obstructionism under Obama is to consider the number of Presidential appointees that the Senate blocked.

In the history of the US there was a aggregate total of "68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office", compared to (as of Nov 2013). So in the first 5 years of Obama's presidency, the Republicans had blocked more of his appointments than all Presidential appointments ever blocked in the rest of US history.

No one is arguing that Republican obstructionism did not occur under Obama. On the other hand, it helps to nominate people who are likely to be confirmed.

[JimL]

No one is arguing that Republican obstructionism did not occur under Obama.

Nobody is arguing that, are you kidding me? What do you think rogues argument is? He's parroting the republican BS of the time, that it wasn't that they were obstructing, it was that the President wouldn't work with them, that he wouldn't compromise. It's a common tactic of republicans, they blame the other side for the exact thing that they are doing.

On the other hand, it helps to nominate people who are likely to be confirmed.

You mean like the people Trump is nominating for judgeships. And btw, that argument falls to peices with the republicans rejecting to confirm Obama's Supreme court nominee, M. Garland.

[One Bad Pig]

Nobody is arguing that, are you kidding me? What do you think rogues argument is? He's parroting the republican BS of the time, that it wasn't that they were obstructing, it was that the President wouldn't work with them, that he wouldn't compromise.

Rogue is bright enough to know that both were going on.

It's a common tactic of politicians, they blame the other side for the exact thing that they are doing.

Fixed that for you.

You mean like the people Trump is nominating for judgeships. And btw, that argument falls to peices with the republicans rejecting to confirm Obama's Supreme court nominee, M. Garland.

I said it helps, Jim, not that it was the only factor. And yes, when Trump nominates someone unqualified, the nominee should be rejected. That appears to be happening.

[Starlight]

On the other hand, it helps to nominate people who are likely to be confirmed.

Haha, I wish Obama had been nominating radical leftists and progressives. A Cornel West or a socialist economist would have been nice and would have given me at least some respect for Obama. The sad thing was he was nominating centrists to try to pander to the Republicans and still getting them rejected. Given he could see they were going to get rejected because of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, he might as well have gained some brownie points with his base by nominating populist leftist figures and that way he could have at least told the left "look I tried".

[One Bad Pig]

Haha, I wish Obama had been nominating radical leftists and progressives. A Cornel West or a socialist economist would have been nice and would have given me at least some respect for Obama. The sad thing was he was nominating centrists to try to pander to the Republicans and still getting them rejected. Given he could see they were going to get rejected because of unprecedented Republican obstructionism, he might as well have gained some brownie points with his base by nominating populist leftist figures and that way he could have at least told the left "look I tried".

Obama? Pander to Republicans?

[Starlight]

Obama? Pander to Republicans?

Progressives were angry at Obama every day for most of his presidency for his excessive pandering to Republicans. I started following US politics closely during the Obama administration and got to see a half dozen Progressive commentators per day all but shouting at the top of their voices in anger at Obama for his constant attempts to pander to Republicans rather than hold to Progressive principles.

The fact that you think it didn't happen shows you are totally divorced from reality in your perceptions of the world.

[One Bad Pig]

Progressives were angry at Obama every day for most of his presidency for his excessive pandering to Republicans. I started following US politics closely during the Obama administration and got to see a half dozen Progressive commentators per day all but shouting at the top of their voices in anger at Obama for his constant attempts to pander to Republicans rather than hold to Progressive principles.

The fact that you think it didn't happen shows you are totally divorced from reality in your perceptions of the world.

Oh, I'm well aware that the far left was quite unhappy with Obama for not being sufficiently left.

[demi-conservative]

Progressives were angry at Obama every day for most of his presidency for his excessive pandering to Republicans.

More like 'messiah' of progs was sellout to donors of his, and always was!!

"But it must be mostly Rep's fault!!! "

[demi-conservative]

What I would really like to know, especially from those whgo are his supporters, what you believe to be both his strengths and his weaknesses.

Strength: he will actually slow down prog agenda

Weakness: he's not going to go far enough to stop, also reverse it!!