Looking at this, and taking out the COVID quarters of Q1 2020 through Q2 of 2021, Trump had 3 quarters above 3% and no negative quarters; Biden had 4 quarters above 3% and 2 negative quarters. One of Biden's over 3% GDP quarters was after 2 straight negative GDP quarters.
Bi Party politics . That is how you get things done Regan also did it.
The economy was fantastic before Trump? The prior 2 quarters were 2.2% and 2%.
You said Trump inherited a fantastic economy. The last 8 characters of your post (now in bold) say otherwise.Business Cycle Dating
www.nber.org
2 negative quarters is not a recession although that is a popular belief. No recession was declared by the NBER due mainly because unemployment levels were at historical lows.
Why do you want to discount Obama's record on GDP by cherry picking. Stop being disingenuous. In 2013, GDP was over 3% for 2 quarters. in 2014, 5.2% and 4.7% in Quarters 2 and 3. First quarter of 2015 GDP was over 3.3%. In 2017, GDP for the year was 2.5%. Unemployment was at historical lows. Trump never had a year over 3%. And if Trump had the best economy off all time like he and his supporters like to say, Obama's economy was actually better and Trump took over that economy. Let's not forget Obama took over an economy from the Great Recession. Obama'a annual GDP was 2010-2.7%, 2011- 1.6%, 2012-2.3%, 2013- 2.1%, 2014- 2.5%, 2015-2.9%, 2016-1.8%
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
it would have been better if people just bleached their insides!To be clear, I called it "disastrous mismanagement," because it was. I'm not sure how you read all this and come to a different conclusion.
The Trump Administration and the COVID‐19 crisis: Exploring the warning‐response problems and missed opportunities of a public health emergency - PMC
This article examines the Trump Administration's inability to mount a timely and effective response to the COVID‐19 outbreak, despite ample warning. Through an empirical exploration guided by three explanatory perspectives—psychological, ...
Some excerpts:
"Trump's early fixation on the country and city where the virus manifested (Wuhan) may well have contributed to his White House's apparent neglect to consider and attempt to head off alternative pathways for the virus to reach the US, for example, via Europe. Trump's “leaky” China travel ban would turn out to be something of a Maginot line that the incoming virus handily circumvented."
"Six weeks later, Trump applied travel restrictions to parts of Europe as well. We now know the virus was already silently spreading in the US, and Trump's poorly designed and implemented orders may have exacerbated the spread by causing legal residents to rush home."
"Even after Trump was persuaded by his experts (Coronavirus Task Force members Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as CDC head Dr. Robert Redfield among others) to take more comprehensive measures and announced his “15 Days to Slow the Spread” campaign (March 16, 2020) and then extended it for another 30 days (March 29, 2020), denial and wishful thinking soon undermined his resolve. Already in April, as cases surged, he started publicly to question the need for his measures, falsely stating that “t is going away” (White House, 2020f) and, in May, he claimed that “with or without a vaccine, it's going to pass, and we're going to be back to normal” (ABC News, 2020)."
"In recognition of this organizational complexity, the Obama Administration built on the Bush‐era plans by creating an NSC “Playbook for Early Response to High‐Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents” (Executive Office of the President, 2016), which it passed on to the Trump Administration. The playbook provided a detailed 69‐page guide with clear instructions and procedures to facilitate a smooth all‐of‐government response to a pandemic. The document identified the involved actors, cataloged available resources, and offered a list of specific questions that should be asked and decisions that should be made at multiple levels in the federal government.
The Trump Administration opted to shelve the NSC playbook and, in 2018, shutter NSC's Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense—which created the playbook and previously had the responsibility for supporting the White House's pandemic response (Diamond & Toosi, 2020). The Trump Administration replaced the playbook with its own set of plans centered on the revised 2018 Pandemic Crisis Action Plan (PanCAP) (FEMA, 2021). However, the 2019 HHS's Crimson Contagion influenza pandemic simulation revealed the Trump administration's arrangements to be woefully unprepared for the challenge. HHS found it difficult to serve as the lead federal agency, other federal agencies were confused about who was in charge, federal interagency coordination performed poorly, and participating states were frustrated with processes for securing resources (New York Times, 2019, p. 55). All of these problems played out in real‐time when the Administration was actually faced with responding to the rigors of the COVID‐19 pandemic."
"After China's initial January 2020 announcement, a suite of measures, along the lines outlined in the response playbook, should have been launched. However, even after cases were confirmed in the US and the WHO had declared a global health emergency, the Trump Administration's response was sluggish and largely ad hoc. When it came to the steps recommended in the 2016 playbook—to move quickly to detect outbreaks, take measures to limit the spread of disease, scale‐up logistics to help with the shortfall of critical resources such as personal protective equipment, and coordinate a unified all‐of‐government response—the Trump Administration lagged at every juncture or failed to deliver."
"Early on, Trump and some of his closest aides saw urgent warnings about the coronavirus from figures such as HSS secretary Azar as alarmist (Lipton et al., 2020). In a White House where officials that presented favorable news were rewarded, and those who delivered unwelcome news were shunned or risked punishment, Trump incentivized officials to highlight the rosiest scenarios in briefings (Diamond, 2020). From the start, Trump made it clear that he wanted the coronavirus case numbers to be as low as possible, emphasizing appearances over situational awareness."
"From that point on, throughout the summer, and until election day, Trump would frame the COVID‐19 crisis as a fading problem that was soon going away; blame China for failing to stop the “China virus;” tout false remedies such as hydroxychloroquine; undermine state mitigation measures and encourage protestors by tweeting “Liberate Minnesota,” “Liberate Michigan,” and “Liberate Virginia;” question the need for wearing masks; make strange statements such as suggesting COVID‐19 could be treated by injecting disinfectants; and tell the public and his officials that he wanted testing to be slowed down because more testing would find more cases (Shear et al., 2020c; ABC News, 2020; Rucker & Dawsey, 2020; Woodward, 2021)."
"The framing contests and agenda politics that played out in the White House help illuminate why Trump and his Administration neglected proven methods of fighting a pandemic drawn from lessons that dated back to 1918 about instituting nonpharmaceutical measures and clearly, consistently, and accurately communicating to the public about the necessary measures to fight the pandemic (Barry, 2009)."
"However, despite favorable circumstances—sufficient early warning, substantial capacity, a venerable center for disease control and prevention, vast resources, high‐quality laboratories, and world‐leading scientific expertise—the Trump Administration demonstrated incompetence in responding to and managing the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak.
The US, although it represents just 4% of the world's population, accounted for over 20% of all confirmed COVID‐19 cases and deaths worldwide that took place on Trump's watch (Johns Hopkins University, 2022). This outcome was not inevitable. With a timelier, focused, scientifically informed, and sustained whole‐of‐government response, it has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of COVID‐19 deaths could have been avoided (Redlener et al., 2020; Woolhandler et al., 2021)."
To be clear, I called it "disastrous mismanagement," because it was. I'm not sure how you read all this and come to a different conclusion.
The Trump Administration and the COVID‐19 crisis: Exploring the warning‐response problems and missed opportunities of a public health emergency - PMC
This article examines the Trump Administration's inability to mount a timely and effective response to the COVID‐19 outbreak, despite ample warning. Through an empirical exploration guided by three explanatory perspectives—psychological, ...
Some excerpts:
"Trump's early fixation on the country and city where the virus manifested (Wuhan) may well have contributed to his White House's apparent neglect to consider and attempt to head off alternative pathways for the virus to reach the US, for example, via Europe. Trump's “leaky” China travel ban would turn out to be something of a Maginot line that the incoming virus handily circumvented."
"Six weeks later, Trump applied travel restrictions to parts of Europe as well. We now know the virus was already silently spreading in the US, and Trump's poorly designed and implemented orders may have exacerbated the spread by causing legal residents to rush home."
"Even after Trump was persuaded by his experts (Coronavirus Task Force members Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as CDC head Dr. Robert Redfield among others) to take more comprehensive measures and announced his “15 Days to Slow the Spread” campaign (March 16, 2020) and then extended it for another 30 days (March 29, 2020), denial and wishful thinking soon undermined his resolve. Already in April, as cases surged, he started publicly to question the need for his measures, falsely stating that “t is going away” (White House, 2020f) and, in May, he claimed that “with or without a vaccine, it's going to pass, and we're going to be back to normal” (ABC News, 2020)."
"In recognition of this organizational complexity, the Obama Administration built on the Bush‐era plans by creating an NSC “Playbook for Early Response to High‐Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents” (Executive Office of the President, 2016), which it passed on to the Trump Administration. The playbook provided a detailed 69‐page guide with clear instructions and procedures to facilitate a smooth all‐of‐government response to a pandemic. The document identified the involved actors, cataloged available resources, and offered a list of specific questions that should be asked and decisions that should be made at multiple levels in the federal government.
The Trump Administration opted to shelve the NSC playbook and, in 2018, shutter NSC's Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense—which created the playbook and previously had the responsibility for supporting the White House's pandemic response (Diamond & Toosi, 2020). The Trump Administration replaced the playbook with its own set of plans centered on the revised 2018 Pandemic Crisis Action Plan (PanCAP) (FEMA, 2021). However, the 2019 HHS's Crimson Contagion influenza pandemic simulation revealed the Trump administration's arrangements to be woefully unprepared for the challenge. HHS found it difficult to serve as the lead federal agency, other federal agencies were confused about who was in charge, federal interagency coordination performed poorly, and participating states were frustrated with processes for securing resources (New York Times, 2019, p. 55). All of these problems played out in real‐time when the Administration was actually faced with responding to the rigors of the COVID‐19 pandemic."
"After China's initial January 2020 announcement, a suite of measures, along the lines outlined in the response playbook, should have been launched. However, even after cases were confirmed in the US and the WHO had declared a global health emergency, the Trump Administration's response was sluggish and largely ad hoc. When it came to the steps recommended in the 2016 playbook—to move quickly to detect outbreaks, take measures to limit the spread of disease, scale‐up logistics to help with the shortfall of critical resources such as personal protective equipment, and coordinate a unified all‐of‐government response—the Trump Administration lagged at every juncture or failed to deliver."
"Early on, Trump and some of his closest aides saw urgent warnings about the coronavirus from figures such as HSS secretary Azar as alarmist (Lipton et al., 2020). In a White House where officials that presented favorable news were rewarded, and those who delivered unwelcome news were shunned or risked punishment, Trump incentivized officials to highlight the rosiest scenarios in briefings (Diamond, 2020). From the start, Trump made it clear that he wanted the coronavirus case numbers to be as low as possible, emphasizing appearances over situational awareness."
"From that point on, throughout the summer, and until election day, Trump would frame the COVID‐19 crisis as a fading problem that was soon going away; blame China for failing to stop the “China virus;” tout false remedies such as hydroxychloroquine; undermine state mitigation measures and encourage protestors by tweeting “Liberate Minnesota,” “Liberate Michigan,” and “Liberate Virginia;” question the need for wearing masks; make strange statements such as suggesting COVID‐19 could be treated by injecting disinfectants; and tell the public and his officials that he wanted testing to be slowed down because more testing would find more cases (Shear et al., 2020c; ABC News, 2020; Rucker & Dawsey, 2020; Woodward, 2021)."
"The framing contests and agenda politics that played out in the White House help illuminate why Trump and his Administration neglected proven methods of fighting a pandemic drawn from lessons that dated back to 1918 about instituting nonpharmaceutical measures and clearly, consistently, and accurately communicating to the public about the necessary measures to fight the pandemic (Barry, 2009)."
"However, despite favorable circumstances—sufficient early warning, substantial capacity, a venerable center for disease control and prevention, vast resources, high‐quality laboratories, and world‐leading scientific expertise—the Trump Administration demonstrated incompetence in responding to and managing the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak.
The US, although it represents just 4% of the world's population, accounted for over 20% of all confirmed COVID‐19 cases and deaths worldwide that took place on Trump's watch (Johns Hopkins University, 2022). This outcome was not inevitable. With a timelier, focused, scientifically informed, and sustained whole‐of‐government response, it has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of COVID‐19 deaths could have been avoided (Redlener et al., 2020; Woolhandler et al., 2021)."
Does anybody credible actually believe this? Any public health experts out there signing onto the "Let it rip through our population" argument?
Well, if Trump had a great economy, Obama had a better one. Would you prefer another adjective?
That’s a BS straw man. Crime is under reported amongst illegal alien populations. And if you don’t arrest and prosecute, how do you know? More difficult to find them in the community. Any LEO would laugh in your face.
No, just that you not lie that he inherited a "fantastic" economy. It was a normal economy.
How is it a straw man? You're making a claim about the prevalence of immigrant crime, and I sent you a link that shows that studies done over the years refute your claim.
I think the NYPD knows what they are talking about. All of those “studies” don’t take into account factors that I stated.
Agree worst decision of his Presidency, I think he was pressured by the left wing and listen.
So if Obama had a normal economy, then Trump had something below average of an economy. However, you want to term the adjective, Trump’s economy was worse than Obama. Also worse than Biden’s.
Changing the goalposts again, I see.
Price gouging is such a stupid term, there is no price gouging, it's a rationalization out of the Warren playbook to cover up their massive spending that finally broke the inflation camel's back.
Large corporations used increasing inflation post-covid as justification to jack up prices. But they raised prices more than necessary, accelerating inflation while they raked in record profits. Then they dumped a lot of their profits into share repurchases, further accelerating inflation by share price manipulation. Consider the Tyson example below:
www.levernews.com
A completely partisan Bernie Sanders-inspired website, LOL. Now we know exactly where you are coming from.Large corporations used increasing inflation post-covid as justification to jack up prices. But they raised prices more than necessary, accelerating inflation while they raked in record profits. Then they dumped a lot of their profits into share repurchases, further accelerating inflation by share price manipulation. Consider the Tyson example below:
"Tyson Foods more than doubled profit margins between 2021 and 2022 after hiking prices for beef, pork, and chicken by upwards of 30 percent. The company — which is currently being investigated by the federal government for child labor violations and paid $10.5 million to settle allegations of price fixing in Washington state — claims it raised prices because it needed to offset increased costs in labor, transportation, and grain for animal feed.
But data from earnings reports, reported first by More Perfect Union, paints a different picture: While increased operation costs set the company back $1.5 billion dollars in 2022, price increases expanded profits by $2 billion, meaning consumers covered Tyson’s inflation costs plus shelled out $500 million more. That year, Tyson repurchased $702 million of its own shares and raised dividends by 4 percent."
Big Food, Big Profits, Big Lies
While blaming inflation for rising prices, the country’s biggest food and restaurant companies are raking in billions and showering shareholders with payouts.
Lol even though the bill was great for the country, you didn’t like it because it was horse trading for UKraine. Biden got the funding for Ukraine without it anyway. Now we still don’t have an immigration bill. It’s an issue that is at the top of your concerns. Yet you excuse Trump for not doing the right thing for the country.
Trump wasn't good after the 2020 election but you still feel the statement "peacefully and patriotically protest" was a call to violence.
it just means address all the companies that are artificially raising their prices citing inflation, supply chain, etc.
You want to pick out three words of the entire speech to excuse his incitement? Looking at the whole of the speech it is certainly was a call to violence. You want those three words to excuse doing nothing as the insurrectionists looking for Pelosi and to hang Mike Pence?
You have been wrong on CoVid the entire time it was happening. You thought it would kill a few thousand no more. You thinkn being told to wear a mask is losing your freedom. You are out of your mind. What you advocate is actually anarchy in the name of freedom. Vaccine mandates have been going since small pox in the early 1900's and approved by the Supreme Court.
No, you see, it just hasn't happened yet. It's a slippery slope.
are you thinking this is before or after the currency is switched to digital coins?
Good interview with Bill Bratton yesterday on WOR. Essentially said the crime problem in Central Park is almost exclusively migrants and it’s twofold in that judges keep releasing them after being caught.
