By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-optimism-tax-cut-bonuses-trump-credit/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25918/economists-reveal-which-president-they-credit-us-ryan-saavedra

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

So are you gonna pull a "but that's....." ?

Link 1 is an editorial not written by an economist.
Link 2 is behind a pay wall so I can't read it.
Link 3 just refers back to Link 2.
Link 4 just refers back to Link 2.

What I could of those links suggests they see a continued trend of what's been going on for years.  Do they claim an uptick from the trend, yes, yet still see it as being part of the same trend the economy was already on. 

I personally don't like giving a president credit for an economy to begin with given that Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank typically have much to do with it. Is the economy doing great?  Yes.  Was it already doing great?  Yes. 

o_O.Q said:

we are talking about roughly the same era in history obviously 

But you still see the fallacy in your argument.  The population of blacks right now is higher than it was under any previous president so of course it would be expected that more would be employed.  Now if you are talking about unemployment rate, that's different.

 

What a cop out. Plenty of buts indeed. Articles typically come with sources/links. You didn't look at anything.