People who write headlines often do a crappy job. Here’s an example from The New York Times:
The Election Year Economy Is Everything Trump Could Hope For
Even if presidents have less sway over the economy than is widely assumed, perception can be important.
The headline implies that the economy is just about perfect. It’s not. As Steven Rattner points out:
T—- promised growth of “4, 5, 6 percent”, a tax cut that would raise workers’ wages significantly [and pay for itself!] and new trade policies that would again make the United States a manufacturing powerhouse. None of those things has happened….
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut explains the situation:
One of T—-‘s favorite tactics is taking credit for Obama’s economy. Democrats need to stop letting him get away with it. A quick thread debunking some of his favorite lies:
Obama created 227K jobs a month in his last three years in office. In T—-‘s first three years, it’s only been 191K per month.
Job creation numbers were 20% higher under Obama during that three-year span.
T—- DOUBLED the budget deficit, creating over $3 trillion in new debt.
Where did all this money go? Mostly to tax cuts for corporations and rich people. But instead of boosting the economy, business investment has actually fallen since the tax law passed.
Real wages aka what you can buy for the amount of money you take home, are actually doing worse under T—-.
They increased just 0.8% since T—- took office, compared with 1.3 percent over a similar period under Obama.
Trump’s self-inflicted trade war contributed to outright job declines last year in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indiana and New York.
Overall, the trade war with China cost America 450,000 jobs in 2019.
Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression and pulled America out of it.
T—- was handed a healthy economy and has made things harder for working families while juicing corporate profits.
Don’t let his lies try to tell you otherwise.
[It’s] worth talking about why the economy is growing. The answer is, it’s the deficit, stupid.
T—-‘s deficitpalooza is giving the economy as much stimulus now as it was getting in 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8%. Imagine what Obama’s economy would have looked like if [Republicans] and Very Serious People had let him run deficits that big.
And of course imagine if we were using that money to build infrastructure and help children, not give corporations more money to buy back their own stock.
[In 2009] some of us were tearing our hair out over the fact that the stimulus was obviously too small. But Obama and his inner circle insisted that it was inconceivable to [get around the filibuster by using] reconciliation to enact something bigger, because norms or something.
In the end Obama [and other Democrats] paid a heavy political price because recovery was too slow, thanks to inadequate stimulus; T—- is getting a dividend because nobody, including the bond market, actually cares about budget deficits. So many bad things have followed from Obama’s caution back then. The course of history could have been very different.
… Republicans hobbled the Obama economy in the name of fiscal responsibility, which they abandoned as soon as T—- came in. But how big a deal was that?
Absent [Republican] sabotage, we would have been down to 4% unemployment in 2014. Think how different everything would look if we’d done that.
Finally, a few words from Nancy Pelosi:
- Unemployment dropped from 10% to 5%
- Stock market went from 6,000 to 18,000
- Deficit was reduced by a trillion dollars
- The US gained more than 14 million private sector jobs.
[T—-] did not inherit “a mess”, he inherited a momentum.