TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS: Here's how they compare with Obama's, Bush's, and Clinton's

[AUFAN78 3,926]

An interesting, perhaps surprising comparison.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-first-100-days-how-compare-obama-bush-clinton-2017-4/#more-laws-fewer-words-1

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Looks great to me. I give him an A and glad he is the POTUS.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Played over twice as much golf as the three previous guys combined.  Damn.  That's impressive.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

What jumps off the page is how much economic recovery Clinton and Obama had to do compared to GW Bush and Trump.  The economic messes inherited from Reagan/ G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush are quite striking when put into this form.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Played over twice as much golf as the three previous guys combined.  Damn.  That's impressive.

Agreed and my personal favorite stat. Admittedly, I am an avid golfer and get it done (business) on course. 

But i was surprised by the following as well: During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000. 

[au75 75]

[TitanTiger 20,510]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Agreed and my personal favorite stat. Admittedly, I am an avid golfer and get it done (business) on course. 

But i was surprised by the following as well: During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000. 

Something he has had nothing to do with.  No president accomplishes enough in the first 100 days to make that much of a dent in unemployment numbers.  It's a lagging indicator meaning that the figures you're seeing now are a result of things done months before.  It's true of all presidents.  Not to mention, he and Obama came into office under very different circumstances.

[RunInRed 16,471]

...

There are few things President Trump loves more these days than signing executive orders

Candidate Trump, your thoughts? (A+ reel, @maddow) pic.twitter.com/WGVolX7eHE

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 26, 2017

[RunInRed 16,471]

Any one remember this?

 

 

[TexasTiger 13,005]

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Agreed and my personal favorite stat. Admittedly, I am an avid golfer and get it done (business) on course. 

But i was surprised by the following as well: During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000. 

To what do you attribute that difference?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Something he has had nothing to do with.  No president accomplishes enough in the first 100 days to make that much of a dent in unemployment numbers.  It's a lagging indicator meaning that the figures you're seeing now are a result of things done months before.  It's true of all presidents.  Not to mention, he and Obama came into office under very different circumstances.

It actually says as much in the article:

"Presidents inherit economic circumstances, including unemployment rates, which are a lagging indicator.  Clinton took office at the tail end of a modest recession, while Bush came in at the end of the '90s boom. Obama's term began amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And Trump entered the Oval Office as the long, slow recovery from the Great Recession finally began to show signs of economic normality — the March unemployment rate, the most recently published in the first 100 days, was at a postcrisis low."

"As with the unemployment rate, the initial unemployment claims metric reflects the economic conditions facing a new president. During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000."

[homersapien 11,431]

On 5/2/2017 at 7:43 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Agreed and my personal favorite stat. Admittedly, I am an avid golfer and get it done (business) on course. 

But i was surprised by the following as well: During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000. 

Uh, Obama was elected as the worst financial / economic crisis since the great depression was just getting rolling.

Trump has obviously benefited from following the recovery.

[WDavE 332]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Uh, Obama was elected as the worst financial / economic crisis since the great depression was just getting rolling.

Trump has obviously benefited from following the recovery.

Who and what do you blame the crisis on to begin with?

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Uh, Obama was elected as the worst financial / economic crisis since the great depression was just getting rolling.

Trump has obviously benefited from following the recovery.

Let's see...the recovery was made possible by $10 Trillion in additional national debt that was mostly financed by nearly zero interest rates and softened by adding 20 million people to food stamp roles. 

Trumps problem ( or it would have been HC's problem) is to figure out how to deal with the debt when the Fed starts uncapping interest rates which has already gotten under way.

"The interest payments alone are expected to hit $227 billion this year, more than double to $480 billion by 2019 and more than triple to $722 billion by 2024".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/26/cbo-interest-on-federal-debt-will-triple-over-coming-decade/?utm_term=.484f2b17ddc8

Obama's short term legacy looks pretty good but the next generation is likely to suffer greatly when a major percent of federal revenue will be going to the holders of US government debt.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Let's see...the recovery was made possible by $10 Trillion in additional national debt that was mostly financed by nearly zero interest rates and softened by adding 20 million people to food stamp roles. 

Trumps problem ( or it would have been HC's problem) is to figure out how to deal with the debt when the Fed starts uncapping interest rates which has already gotten under way.

"The interest payments alone are expected to hit $227 billion this year, more than double to $480 billion by 2019 and more than triple to $722 billion by 2024".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/26/cbo-interest-on-federal-debt-will-triple-over-coming-decade/?utm_term=.484f2b17ddc8

Obama's short term legacy looks pretty good but the next generation is likely to suffer greatly when a major percent of federal revenue will be going to the holders of US government debt.

 

So here's the question:  What should he have done?  Allow the U.S. to dip into a full blown depression?  He inherited the problem and, with Congressional approval, did what was needed to steady the economy which obviously included the auto bailout (don't get me started on this one).  I understand the national debt is a problem during election years, but nothing in the budget being passed this week will alleviate any of that burden.  And said budget is being passed with primarily Republican support, nor have you heard a word snice election day from Republican leadership or the President about fixing the debt issue.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

So here's the question:  What should he have done?  Allow the U.S. to dip into a full blown depression?  He inherited the problem and, with Congressional approval, did what was needed to steady the economy which obviously included the auto bailout (don't get me started on this one).  I understand the national debt is a problem during election years, but nothing in the budget being passed this week will alleviate any of that burden.  And said budget is being passed with primarily Republican support, nor have you heard a word snice election day from Republican leadership or the President about fixing the debt issue.

A good part of that first trillion dollars disappeared into the economy and nobody knows where it went...and as Obama learned (and about everyone else knew) there was not such thing as shovel ready jobs. 

And...as for the debt issue, the biggest joke of the past decade is that some Dems have suddenly found religion on the need for debt control after helping run up 10 trillion in debt with danged little to show for it other than the rich seemed to get richer.   

There was no budget passed this week...just an agreement to supplement the existing budget.....the government is still operating on the Obama budget that was more or less passed last fall but not adequately funded to meet the obligations of the government.   Trump's FY does not start until Sept so guess we will learn more about then.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It actually says as much in the article:

"Presidents inherit economic circumstances, including unemployment rates, which are a lagging indicator.  Clinton took office at the tail end of a modest recession, while Bush came in at the end of the '90s boom. Obama's term began amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And Trump entered the Oval Office as the long, slow recovery from the Great Recession finally began to show signs of economic normality — the March unemployment rate, the most recently published in the first 100 days, was at a postcrisis low."

"As with the unemployment rate, the initial unemployment claims metric reflects the economic conditions facing a new president. During the first 100 days of Obama's term, about 640,000 people on average per week were applying for benefits. Under Trump so far, that average number has dropped to a more manageable 250,000."

Thanks for at least reading and understanding the article. This was not a pro-Trump piece.

[GordoAU 87]

Yawn, I give him a B-. Not a fan of Trump but he is better than Obama was and better than Hillary would have been. I graduated from here with an econ degree and follow politics religiously. People have got to stop acting like Obama was so good and talking about golf. Good God. The unemployment rate is skewed right now due to many people leaving the work field. People that only use unemployment as an issue do not understand how it works. Unemployment is only showing people currently looking for work. The amount of people in a steady job currently is very low and that is due to Obama's administration being very liberal with welfare and other government programs. Obama's policies sound nice but cannot be sustained and Trump is much more realistic. I have things I despise about Trump such as foreign trade but he is an upgrade from both Obama and W. 

[homersapien 11,431]

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

Let's see...the recovery was made possible by $10 Trillion in additional national debt that was mostly financed by nearly zero interest rates and softened by adding 20 million people to food stamp roles. 

Trumps problem ( or it would have been HC's problem) is to figure out how to deal with the debt when the Fed starts uncapping interest rates which has already gotten under way.

"The interest payments alone are expected to hit $227 billion this year, more than double to $480 billion by 2019 and more than triple to $722 billion by 2024".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/26/cbo-interest-on-federal-debt-will-triple-over-coming-decade/?utm_term=.484f2b17ddc8

Obama's short term legacy looks pretty good but the next generation is likely to suffer greatly when a major percent of federal revenue will be going to the holders of US government debt.

 

How is the next generation going to benefit from the "Great Recession, part deux" which will be the inevitable result from rolling back those "burdensome financial regulations"?

Obama did what he could.  And he at least tried to put safeguards in place to prevent it from happening again.

[homersapien 11,431]

Anyone who thinks Trump is going to make future generations lives better instead of worse is either not paying attention or is totally clueless to start with.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

A good part of that first trillion dollars disappeared into the economy and nobody knows where it went...and as Obama learned (and about everyone else knew) there was not such thing as shovel ready jobs. 

And...as for the debt issue, the biggest joke of the past decade is that some Dems have suddenly found religion on the need for debt control after helping run up 10 trillion in debt with danged little to show for it other than the rich seemed to get richer.   

There was no budget passed this week...just an agreement to supplement the existing budget.....the government is still operating on the Obama budget that was more or less passed last fall but not adequately funded to meet the obligations of the government.   Trump's FY does not start until Sept so guess we will learn more about then.

The same could be said about Republicans too.  Not a word was said about the debt while it increased year-after-year during the Bush 43 administration.  In truth, neither party gives a damn about the debt.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

59 minutes ago, GordoAU said:

Yawn, I give him a B-. Not a fan of Trump but he is better than Obama was and better than Hillary would have been. I graduated from here with an econ degree and follow politics religiously. People have got to stop acting like Obama was so good and talking about golf. Good God. The unemployment rate is skewed right now due to many people leaving the work field. People that only use unemployment as an issue do not understand how it works. Unemployment is only showing people currently looking for work. The amount of people in a steady job currently is very low and that is due to Obama's administration being very liberal with welfare and other government programs. Obama's policies sound nice but cannot be sustained and Trump is much more realistic. I have things I despise about Trump such as foreign trade but he is an upgrade from both Obama and W. 

B- Wow! So as an Economic Major, what do you see that causes you to assign such a lofty grade after 100 days?

[AU64 10,122]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

The same could be said about Republicans too.  Not a word was said about the debt while it increased year-after-year during the Bush 43 administration.  In truth, neither party gives a damn about the debt.

Hard to argue with that....though the trajectory ramped up substantially the last 6 or 7 years.   I was indoctrinated in Keynesian economics during my time at AU....and even Keynes suggested a government should run a surplus in "normal times".....  yet during this most recent great recovery, we continued to run a huge deficit year after year... and worst still in my view, the Fed made money almost free to banks and the government which encouraged even more debt...and of course, a good part of those deficit funded expenditures resulted in nothing tangible to the benefit of the country and citizens. 

At least if the proposed infrastructure project gets passed, there is a chance that when it's done, the country will enjoy better roads and other infrastructure.  At this point, US highways are an embarrassment compared to most of the western world.  Transportation money has been misused and squandered on major projects like the "Big Dig" which was supposed to cost $2.5 Billion and eventually ran to about $15 Billion. 

But yes....Dems and GOP are about equally wasteful....more interested in buying votes and servicing their major donors.

[GordoAU 87]

46 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

B- Wow! So as an Economic Major, what do you see that causes you to assign such a lofty grade after 100 days?

I like his dealings with China, going in the right direction to defund bad programs such as PP, working with private business for jobs instead of using government, giving access to pipelines, plans for eliminating useless regulations, I could go on. He's not great and has some massive flaws such as the wall, tariffs and not cutting government spending nearly fast enough but his first 100 days have not been bad. 

[GordoAU 87]

43 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Hard to argue with that....though the trajectory ramped up substantially the last 6 or 7 years.   I was indoctrinated in Keynesian economics during my time at AU....and even Keynes suggested a government should run a surplus in "normal times".....  yet during this most recent great recovery, we continued to run a huge deficit year after year... and worst still in my view, the Fed made money almost free to banks and the government which encouraged even more debt...and of course, a good part of those deficit funded expenditures resulted in nothing tangible to the benefit of the country and citizens. 

At least if the proposed infrastructure project gets passed, there is a chance that when it's done, the country will enjoy better roads and other infrastructure.  At this point, US highways are an embarrassment compared to most of the western world.  Transportation money has been misused and squandered on major projects like the "Big Dig" which was supposed to cost $2.5 Billion and eventually ran to about $15 Billion. 

But yes....Dems and GOP are about equally wasteful....more interested in buying votes and servicing their major donors.

More of an Austrian Economist myself, Keynes believed in basically throwing money at problems to stimulate production. That's pretty insane.