Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[OaklandA's]

Those number support my position. Why do you say otherwise?

They do not support your position. Your post says "Trump, in comparison, brought more jobs." In comparison to what? If you are comparing to the last several years under Obama, that is false. If you are comparing to Bill Clinton, your statement is also false. I guess if you are looking at Trump's performance in comparison to George W. Bush, then you are correct, but you should state that is who you are comparing Trump with.

[Gregg]

They do not support your position. Your post says "Trump, in comparison, brought more jobs." In comparison to what? If you are comparing to the last several years under Obama, that is false. If you are comparing to Bill Clinton, your statement is also false. I guess if you are looking at Trump's performance in comparison to George W. Bush, then you are correct, but you should state that is who you are comparing Trump with.

Yep and what does it even matter?

How much influence does a President have on "bringing jobs in?"

All Presidents since Coolidge have a + on bringing them in. Obama has the fifth highest number since Coolidge. He also has the fourth lowest.

Jimmy Carter has the 4th highest.

I think the bigger question is what kind of jobs are in those statistics of "bringing jobs in."

The question that is not answered yet; Will Trumps actions return jobs that have been outsourced back to America?

[onejayhawk]

They do not support your position. Your post says "Trump, in comparison, brought more jobs." In comparison to what? If you are comparing to the last several years under Obama, that is false. If you are comparing to Bill Clinton, your statement is also false. I guess if you are looking at Trump's performance in comparison to George W. Bush, then you are correct, but you should state that is who you are comparing Trump with.

To some degree, we are talking apples and oranges. In hindsight, my post is not as precise as I would like. When a union member says there are more jobs, he/she could mean the ones on the company board or that his/her unemployed friends are finding work. Local unemployment is near a record low. More jobs is a perception which is underlain by low unemployment rather than job creation in the strict sense. That said, your numbers did support me. I said it was in line with the Obama years and provided support. Your posted numbers say the same thing.

Still, it's early. 2017 is a half and half proposition. Trump's administration only covers February to October. As a practical matter, you can give the whole thing to Obama because Trump had not had time to react or for his actions to ahve fruit. We routinely do this with 2009, for example. In about six weeks we will get the first Trump full-fiscal-year numbers. These will have the effects of the tax cut included so I am eager to see how badly the CBO skewed the projections.

[OaklandA's]

In about six weeks we will get the first Trump full-fiscal-year numbers. These will have the effects of the tax cut included so I am eager to see how badly the CBO skewed the projections.

The stated goal of the Trump tax cuts was to increase GDP growth to be 3%, or maybe even 4%, instead of the usual 2% growth for the past few years.

The U.S. GDP is around $20T. So growth of 2% would have GDP increase by $400B, growth of 3% would increase GDP by $600B, and growth of 4% would increase GDP by $800B. So the goal of the tax cuts is to add an extra $200B-$400B to GDP.

But to achieve this increase in GDP, the budget deficit has increased by even more, estimated at ~$850B this year, or perhaps as high as $1T. So to achieve an extra $200B in GDP, the deficit will probably increase by $400B. Does that seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to you? Do you think this is a good strategy for the country?

EDIT to add that through the first 11 months of the fiscal year, the deficit is already at $898B, so it's even worse than expected.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

[onejayhawk]

I do agree with the principle that the corporate rate needs to be competitive with corporate rates around the world. That's one of the you-don't-have-to-like-it-you-have-to-do-it things in life. I am not in agreement with the personal cuts that are the majority of the 2018 hit. Then again, I was not in agreement with the two Stimulus bills. This should be at least as effective as those were.

What you are actually edging toward is Trump's approach to trade. That's a whole different thread.

J

[OaklandA's]

Then again, I was not in agreement with the two Stimulus bills. This should be at least as effective as those were.

Stimulus packages are useful when the economy is in a recession, like in 2009. Look at the GDP Growth numbers from that era:

2008 Q3: -1.9 %
2008 Q4: -8.2%
2009 Q1: -5.4%
Stimulus Bill Passes in February 2009
2009 Q2: -0.5%
2009 Q3: +1.3%
2009 Q4: +3.9%

Somehow I doubt that we will see as dramatic a rise in GDP Growth from Trump's tax cuts as we did with the stimulus bills.

[Teenwolf]

Stimulus packages are useful when the economy is in a recession, like in 2009. Look at the GDP Growth numbers from that era:

2008 Q3: -1.9 %
2008 Q4: -8.2%
2009 Q1: -5.4%
Stimulus Bill Passes in February 2009
2009 Q2: -0.5%
2009 Q3: +1.3%
2009 Q4: +3.9%

Somehow I doubt that we will see as dramatic a rise in GDP Growth from Trump's tax cuts as we did with the stimulus bills.

Not to mention the $12 Bn stimulus package for farmers, that's said to be proportional to a piss in the ocean for that industry, so there could be a lot more giveaways to come.

How much did the 2009 stimulus package cost? I seem to recall like $300 Bn, but can't remember. Trump's tax cuts are estimated to cost $1.9 Tn over 10 years, right?

[nots]

Obama never saw a 3% yearly GDP under his reign. He also stated 2-3% is the new normal.
We will see how Trump fares in that regard

[OaklandA's]

Obama never saw a 3% yearly GDP under his reign. He also stated 2-3% is the new normal.
We will see how Trump fares in that regard

That's true, but Obama did have individual quarters that were very high - 2011 Q4: +4.6%; 2014 Q2: +5.1%; 2014 Q3: +4.9%. Trump has now had one quarter of +4.2%, and is acting like it was something unprecedented. The rest of Trump's quarters are +1.8%, +3.0%, +2.8%, +2.3%, and +2.2%.

Obama achieved fairly steady 2-3% GDP growth while bringing the deficit down from $1.413T in 2009 all the way down to $438B in 2015. As I said in Post #424, it's easy to boost GDP if you don't mind exploding the deficit. But is it a good trade-off for the country when the economy is already doing pretty well?

[nots]

That's true, but Obama did have individual quarters that were very high - 2011 Q4: +4.6%; 2014 Q2: +5.1%; 2014 Q3: +4.9%. Trump has now had one quarter of +4.2%, and is acting like it was something unprecedented. The rest of Trump's quarters are +1.8%, +3.0%, +2.8%, +2.3%, and +2.2%.

Obama achieved fairly steady 2-3% GDP growth while bringing the deficit down from $1.413T in 2009 all the way down to $438B in 2015. As I said in Post #424, it's easy to boost GDP if you don't mind exploding the deficit. But is it a good trade-off for the country when the economy is already doing pretty well?

4 of Obama’s 8 years saw GDP growth of 1.7% or less (2009, 2011, 2013, 2016). For such a large stimulus, those numbers aren’t great.
Again, we will see how Trumps numbers stack up.

[onejayhawk]

Stimulus packages are useful when the economy is in a recession, like in 2009. Look at the GDP Growth numbers from that era:

2008 Q3: -1.9 %
2008 Q4: -8.2%
2009 Q1: -5.4%
Stimulus Bill Passes in February 2009
2009 Q2: -0.5%
2009 Q3: +1.3%
2009 Q4: +3.9%

Somehow I doubt that we will see as dramatic a rise in GDP Growth from Trump's tax cuts as we did with the stimulus bills.

Of course not. As you say, we are missing the recession and the start of the recovery.

The question is whether the Stimulus helped or only lined Democratic donor's wallets. We know it was a very slow recovery but it has also been a long one. So, I stand by the statement.

J

[Teenwolf]

So what do folks think of Taylor Swift's Bredesen endorsement in Tennessee? MoveOn is saying she caused a 65K registration boost in the first 24 hours. Fairly significant bump for a close race! #SwiftVoters

Less crucial, but still worth exploring... isn't it interesting that PR firms are recognizing the progressive shift of millennials, and corporations are increasingly making political statements that align with the left? Nike's Kaepernick ad... Bezos giving $15/hr... now Swift... it seems increasingly like these corporate entities are banking on a left political position providing a PR boost. Very interesting.

[DMT]

So what do folks think of Taylor Swift's Bredesen endorsement in Tennessee? MoveOn is saying she caused a 65K registration boost in the first 24 hours. Fairly significant bump for a close race! #SwiftVoters

Less crucial, but still worth exploring... isn't it interesting that PR firms are recognizing the progressive shift of millennials, and corporations are increasingly making political statements that align with the left? Nike's Kaepernick ad... Bezos giving $15/hr... now Swift... it seems increasingly like these corporate entities are banking on a left political position providing a PR boost. Very interesting.

Guess Kanye didn't get that memo.

[TS Garp]

So what do folks think of Taylor Swift's Bredesen endorsement in Tennessee? MoveOn is saying she caused a 65K registration boost in the first 24 hours. Fairly significant bump for a close race! #SwiftVoters

Less crucial, but still worth exploring... isn't it interesting that PR firms are recognizing the progressive shift of millennials, and corporations are increasingly making political statements that align with the left? Nike's Kaepernick ad... Bezos giving $15/hr... now Swift... it seems increasingly like these corporate entities are banking on a left political position providing a PR boost. Very interesting.

I read a piece (from the Washington Post, I believe) which stated that celebrity endorsements generally have very little impact but this one might move the needle given how targeted it was and that the race is so close. I was on bandcamp today and noticed this on the top of the page:

Fewer than 1 in 5 young people voted in the last midterm elections, and less than 4 in 10 eligible voters overall. The current government would like to keep it that way. Register here to vote.

[revo]

So what do folks think of Taylor Swift's Bredesen endorsement in Tennessee? MoveOn is saying she caused a 65K registration boost in the first 24 hours. Fairly significant bump for a close race! #SwiftVoters

Less crucial, but still worth exploring... isn't it interesting that PR firms are recognizing the progressive shift of millennials, and corporations are increasingly making political statements that align with the left? Nike's Kaepernick ad... Bezos giving $15/hr... now Swift... it seems increasingly like these corporate entities are banking on a left political position providing a PR boost. Very interesting.

I think you may have misread......her endorsement did see a large influx of new voters -- 65k after her comments, as you said -- but that was nationwide. Only 2k of those were in Tennessee.

https://moneyish.com/ish/this-is-how-many-people-registered-to-vote-after-taylor-swifts-endorsement/