Here is Trump's latest case of trying to take credit for things that he had nothing to do with.
Of course, FOX News neglected to include that telling graph in their coverage.
"Somebody please inform Jay-Z that because of my policies, Black Unemployment has just been reported to be at the LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED!"The graph here clearly shows that the vast majority of the unemployment rate drop occurred under the Obama tenure. And more importantly that the rate of drop has slowed during the Trump first year. CNBC WH Explains Jay Z Tweet
Of course, FOX News neglected to include that telling graph in their coverage.
It would much more accurate to say that Trump has not screwed up the economy yet. And we are thankful for that...
- So back to Trust and Truth, are we attacking Trump for noting his error?
- Or did he tweet this silliness to keep his name on the front page?
Either way Van Jones and Jay Z are happy for the free publicity.
Another interesting link...
55 comments:
Also obvious: the vast INCREASE in black unemployment came under Obama. Do you get credit for breaking something and then gluing it back together again?
Aren't you dizzy from spinning?
Painfully obvious: the vast INCREASE happened during the Great Recession, which Obama did not cause.
Moose
Also painful And obvious: the Great Recession lasted longer and recovered far more slowly under Obama. Remember the promise that unemployment would not go above 8% if Obama's stimulus were enacted? What happened next??
"the Great Recession lasted longer and recovered far more slowly under Obama."
And the Obama expansion has lasted longer than any in history. Although we've started to see a downturn now after a year of Drumpf.
Moose
Moose,
I am with you on this one. If I were Jerry I would be falling down by now. :-)
Obama did not break anything and the stimulus plans were the work of Bush, Obama and Congress. They all new it was needed ASAP.
Though I do believe that Obama's starting point being so low did wonders for a lack luster Presidency.
Fact Check Obama Term
I am more concerned that we will repeat the Bush presidencies.
He staved off the naturally reoccurring recession in the early 2000's by reducing taxes. People became way too over confident and made bad financial decisions.
Then when the normal cyclical recession fit in 2008 it was twice as painful.
Without occasional down turns it seems we humans forget to save for a rainy day and to live below our means.
"Remember the promise that unemployment would not go above 8% if Obama's stimulus were enacted? What happened next??"
The Obama stimulus was enacted at a point when the BEA estimate of GDP growth in Q4 2008 was -3.9%. When the actual numbers came in, it was -8.9%. The stimulus actually delivered the number of jobs advertised, the problem was that the economy was much worse than was believed.
Excuses, excuses. If we are going to blame the sitting President and his policies for everything, good and bad, we're going to suffer from dueling statistics until the cows come home. The better way to look at it, in my opinion, is to ask what specific policies did the President promote (not just what Congress forced him to sign), that caused the desirable results (or undesirable, depending on what you are trying to prove.) In this case, we are comparing 8 years of Obama with one year of Trump, so it is not remotely "fair," and I know Democrats are eager to ascribe Trump's success to his "luck" in following Obama. Just like Obama blamed his first six years on Bush.
I am not blaming Trump for anything except his being a braggart who claims invalid things.
"Somebody please inform Jay-Z that because of my policies, Black Unemployment has just been reported to be at the LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED!"
As you note, Trump accomplished almost nothing in 2017 that would have driven down unemployment and yet he clearly claims he did.
Let's see what is happening later this year.
The reality is that Trump is unable to just "shut up" and get to work...
If Jay Z or anyone says something that hurts his feelings, he immediately has to react and respond. It is a sign of immaturity.
your reality, perhaps. From where I sit there are dozens of accomplishments that I can "blame" on Trump alone, like executive orders and court appointments. And I think his brash style is one of the keys to his being so successful. it may be a "sign of immaturity" to you, but there are many pundits who think his tweets are "playing the haters like a cheap violin."
So you think any of the accomplishments listed above justify this silly tweet?
"Somebody please inform Jay-Z that because of my policies, Black Unemployment has just been reported to be at the LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED!"
Especially when we know the rating is falling more slowly since Trump took office?
And Trump even chose to lie about viewership of the SOU...
The man simply can not help himself...
Politifacts Check
"Just as I promised the American people from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history."
It is False that the tax-cut package passed in December is the largest cut ever, as Trump has repeatedly claimed.
In inflation-adjusted dollars, the recent tax bill is the fourth-largest since 1940. And as a percentage of GDP, it ranks seventh.
___
"The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of American people."
We rated Trump’s claim False. While lottery applicants are randomly selected, they must meet education and work experience requirements. They must also be vetted by the United States government before being allowed to come to the United States.
"After years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages."
We rated Trump’s claim Mostly False. By the most common measure, wages did go up for the first three quarters of Trump’s presidency, but they fell in the fourth, wiping out all the gains on his watch and then some.
His assertion also ignores that wages — by two different measurements — began their climb during the final years of Obama’s presidency.
___
"We have ended the war on American Energy and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world."
We rated this claim Mostly False. The United States remains a net energy importer, a situation that’s not expected to change until midway through the next decade.
When it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal and refined petroleum products predates Trump.
Whoops. African-American unemployment increased by 0.9% in January, going up to 7.7%, meaning it has now fallen 0.1% during the Trump Administration.
Have it your way; Trump is a blatant and frequent liar. Who cares? The lies are what we want to hear, certainly true in principle, and he is moving things in the right direction despite ceaseless and nasty opposition. The reason he is being attacked so vehemently on his character flaws (supposedly) is to prevent him from doing what is best for the country and to preserve the miserable status quo of high taxes, excess regulation, poor security, unrestricted immigration, racial animus, etc., etc...
In short, you can fault Trump personally, but there is no PRINCIPLED opposition. It's all political. "Sad."
I am not sure why others fault Trump, however I do it because:
- he keeps escalating topics and attacking when he should not.
- he lies blatantly when he should not.
- he is on his third wife and he cheated on her.
- his campaign personnel communicated with Russian operatives
- he in a rally asked Russia to release emails
- he said he will be the working President and instead he golfs and vacation more than the previous Presidents
- etc
My question is the same as always...
How can a moderate lying womanizer be so popular with the religious right Conservatives?
I mean I am a pragmatist, so I can note his flaws and still support his policies.
But those Religious Right folks are supposed to value character and purity much more than me.
So a pussy grabbing porn star cavorting President should be a stretch for them. And yet they seem able to deny reality very well.
Stormy Daniels Interview
Denial or Not
Evangelists can be very pragmatic with their politicians. Polls prove it. If a sexual harasser succeeded in limiting abortion and getting Obamacare repealed, but a straight arrow sat and pontificated in the opposite direction, which should a pragmatic evangelical prefer? Just that simple, and evangelists are NOT as simple as you imagine.
As for Stormy, she's got herself in a bind. If she indeed has an NDA, proving her claims, she should have produced it and has not. We can assume she is a liar and grandstanding. But if she DOES in fact have it then making the statements she has violates that agreement and exposes her to at least civil liability. Her Kimmel appearance would seem to confirm the former as the truth of the matter.
I would say that it is hypocritical, not pragmatic. Though Graham rationalizes by insisting that Trump is a changed man...
Part of Stormy's NDA is that she can not admit there is an NDA...
The good news for her is who want to sue her in open court???
Though that would make for some great tabloid fodder.
Hypocritical is when you act in a way contrary to your stated values. If my value is that I want lower taxes and regulations, strict constitutionalists on the court, and end to nonsense like Fighting Climate Change and Obamacare, it seems that electing and supporting Trump is perfectly consistent. I did not vote for a saint or role model-- not his job.
If she cannot admit it, why is the crux and proof of her story is that it exists? If she violates the contract she would not have to be sued, she would be in open breach and the penalties would attach. Just one more distraction. Can we pass immigration reform now?
Sorry... If you preach honesty, marriage vows, humility, etc and then cheer on a lying, cheating braggart for personal gain... That seems pretty hypocritical.
hypocritical: behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
It is like if a peace lover cheered on the "Punisher" for killing bad guys outside of the law.
"personal gain"?? it is a totally selfless act to want what is best for the country as a whole. Remember it is liberals and Democrats who believe everybody should vote their own self interest – that is, to vote themselves goodies from the public treasury – and are then surprised when people choose the candidate that offers them LESS government interference in their lives.
we do not elect paragons of virtue to high office; they do not exist, and that is not the job we hire them to do, or shouldn't be.
Best for the country...
So in your warped reality you believe it is in the best interest of the country to maintain and add to a $20 Trillion national debt so that you can have a personal tax cut and a larger stock portfolio?
Now if the GOP had gone after spending and government waste you may have had an argument... Unfortunately they chose instead to hand out money to their donors.
Which truly is the definition of personal gain.
I prefer to believe in the minor miracle that a tax cut would create enough economic growth to "pay for itself," rather than the complete impossibility that Democrats would vote for any cut to spending whatsoever, or for a reform of entitlements that are driving the deficit.
The Miracle seems to be failing so far
As it failed in the 1980s and 2000s.
Did cutting taxes cause revenues to drop and increase the deficit, or did cutting taxes increase revenues but Congress overspent? Two sides to the deficit, you know. And I point out that one influence the President has over economic matters is spreading optimism and the notion that economic growth is driven by economic freedom rather than government control.
Well spending has not changed in a real way for ~6 years...
Remember back when the GOP House kept blocking domestic spending increases and the DEMs kept limiting defense spending increases.
So any deficits in the next few years are on Trump and crew. They have bitten off a quite a problem.
Hopefully the DEMs can constrain the GOP's desire to spend more on the military.
Yes, let us curb the one Constitutionally prescribed role for the federal government while spending endlessly on things they not only should not be doing but do not do well at all. besides, while defense spending is 53% of "discretionary spending", discretionary spending is only 29% of the total budget, meaning that defense spending is less than 1/6 of the total budget. According to Pareto's law, we should be ignoring that one and looking in the other 84% if we need budget cuts. Every time this discussion comes up I keep asking why the entire budget is not "discretionary"? If Congress does not get control of entitlement spending soon, 100% of tax revenue will be going to entitlements, and that simply makes no sense mathematically, economically or even politically.
The tax cuts had to happen because they were hurting everybody, more or less. I am hoping that Trump's brash style brow beats Democrats into giving up their belief and political advantage in giving away everything to everybody, especially if they take a shellacking in November. It needs to happen.
I proposed means testing Social Security checks and Medicare services... However you did not seem to like that budget cutting...
I mean why are wealthy people getting in essence "welfare checks and services" from the government?
I do not like means testing Social Security and and Medicare services because these are services that people supposedly paid for and are therefore entitled to receive. That they are so structured that vast sums must be pulled from the treasury to fulfill the promises made should not be cause to break those promises.
I also do not like "cutting" those payments unless by that you mean simply phasing out both programs and replacing them with private options. And it would drastically reduce the deficit.
Oh come now, the law is very clear... The government does not owe us anything, we have no "accounts" and this "discretionary spending" should just be cut immediately.
The reality is that anyone who is accepting SS checks and Medicare services is accepting welfare payments that are mostly funded by the current workers.
Now are the Conservatives really willing to refuse their welfare payments? :-)
most conservative Social Security reform plans I know of start with the premise that "promises must be kept." Now, if the reality is that government owes us nothing in exchange for all of our SS taxes, then it truly is a Ponzi scheme and ought to be ended. And if it is spending more than it's taking in, which it is, then it is not an entitlement and ought to be ended. All conservatives want to do is to phase it out over time without breaking the promises made to current or near-term beneficiaries. It is neither sustainable nor honest, just politically very difficult to do in the face of hyperbolic rants from doom-saying Democrats.
It isn't a Ponzi scheme... It is just welfare for old people, widows and orphans...
I was taught from the beginning to plan my finances in case it disappeared some day.
From Merriam Webster:
"Definition of Ponzi scheme
: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks."
Ponzi schemes fail because eventually there are not enough new entrants into the scheme to pay them all, exactly what is happening. How is Social Security any different, except it is operated by Congress rather than a con man?
Just because you planned wisely does not mean that others can not, nor that government can plan wisely on their behalf.
See Ponzi schemes are:
- secretive
- greed based
- encourage more and bigger risks
In this case the risks have been well communicated for decades.
We pay in not because we are greedy and have a choice. It is simply required.
The payroll tax rate has been the same for a long time.
You do have one thing right though. The risk keeps growing as we get closer to 2034.
If this is a Ponzi Scheme, it is the most detailed one in history.
and because it has been known for so long, and in fact was created as a Ponzi scheme, somehow makes it NOT a Ponzi scheme? the only reason it has survived so long because the government mandates Our participation, regardless of the known and growing risk.
Please feel free to consider it a Ponzi scheme...
I just see it a normal insurance arrangement...
Unfortunately the manager is not increasing premiums as the forecasted costs increase...
Fixing it is easy:
- Raise the payroll tax rates
- Remove the payroll tax cap
- Reduce the payouts
- Stop giving benefits to wealthy people
It really is not so different from the GOP tax bill... They have chosen to lower the "cost of living in the USA" by borrowing from future generations... It is terribly irresponsible and selfish, however many GOP folks support it.
fixing it is easy, I agree. All we have to do is to raise the interest rate on all of those US government bonds in the trust fund from the current mandated 3% to a mandated rate of 99%. Or better, enact the FAIR tax (with its many other benefits) and Social Security reform is "free."
See... So many options and no political will...
agreed. apparently, Trump is not a politician.
Please remember that Trump promised to not touch SS or Medicare...
Just like all those other politicians.
One can recognize the practical politics of a situation without accepting that the train is on the wrong track. I continue to believe that Trump is first and foremost a problem-solver, but that politics puts severe constraints on the solutions available to him. SS and Medicare remain the "third rail of politics" and apparently need to go completely belly up before liberals will admit there is a problem. At which point they will blame Republicans.
I am happy you believe that. Personally I think of him as a used car salesman. He will say whatever he needs to at any point in time whether he believes it or not.
Ah, but to what end? Results matter more than intentions, and rhetoric matters even less. After all, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" has not worked out very well-- the rhetoric both belied the intent and ran contrary to the reality of results.
And Trump promised repeatedly that he was going to cut government spending... And yet he just signed a massive spending increase bill...
And as for "draining the swamp", it seems swampier than ever...
Now some good things have happened... But your endless habit of defending him when he is inconsistent or caught lying is interesting.
Ah, but I claim that my rosy glasses make me happier than those who choose to say nothing can possibly go right.
Am I concerned about this massive spending increase? Absolutely. But Trump has already blamed the Democrats for all the wastefulness that "we all know" is there. And that we need more Republicans. I'm hoping he gets his wish.
Well you were miserable for 8 years during Obama's term.
I am sure they can survive for years with Trump.
Yes apparently Trump is not as effective of a negotiator as he thinks.
Though he is very competent at blaming others when he fails. :-)
Yes, I was, and it was based on what actually happened, not fevered imaginings as is the case today.
as for "blaming others when he fails," Who was it that passed that awful budget deal? It certainly wasn't Trump. Is he right to blame Democrats for forcing excess spending into the bill?
I'm really curious. What do you think will be required to get some fiscal sanity into the federal budget, and how long will it take?
Oh come now... The GOP controlled Obama's action for 6 of his years. It was pretty painless/
Trump signed the tax plan and budget bill. He owns them...
Fiscal sanity will not occur until Conservative voters are willing to pay taxes and cut spending.
And Liberals are willing to cut spending and hold irresponsible people personally accountable.
In other words, when hell freezes over and/or our country fails catastrophically.
Remember the old saying paraphrased: Our Union will end when people start voting their pocket book, instead of voting for the good of the Union.
See, that's where I have a problem. Democrats are constantly surprised that Romney's "48%" of people getting a government check do not reliably vote Democrat. They sometimes vote for what they think is good for the country rather than for personal gain. And most Republicans will vote for a candidate that understands fiscal responsibility, promises it, and then doesn't do it. It is as if when people get elected they cease caring about government spending.
Part of it is there is no such thing as a "tax expenditure." That implies all money belongs to government and you should be grateful they let you have some back. The problem is spending, first, last and always. One keeps hoping for a balanced budget amendment, as 39 of 50 states do. Or changing the law allowing the Federal Reserve to print money and turning that back to Congress, per the Constitution. That would prevent the issuing of new debt.
This thing is going to come apart soon anyway, if interest rates rise. How big do you think Congress will let the deficit get before taking action?
Well if the Dems take over because of the GOP incompetence, they will start by raising taxes again which would be a great start.
If the Baby Boomers and my generation want all this spending, the least they can do is pay for it. Not pass it on to our kids.:-)
Post a Comment