Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 25, 2018

Trump's economic preformance gets positive review from 51 per cent of U.S. adults, including 30 per cent of Democrats

That's an all-time high in the CNBC All-America Economic Survey

Unemployment is at an 18-year low and black unemployment is at an all-time low

Most Americans approve of how Donald Trump is handling the U.S. economy, according to a new poll. That's the first time the president has rallied a majority to his side on financial, investment and other pocketbook issues.

According to a CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 800 U.S. adults, 51 per cent approve of Trump's economic job performance. Just 36 per cent give him a thumbs-down. But his base of support on the economy now includes three in 10 Democrats, a number that will likely stun his political opponents as they consider the looming midterm congressional elections.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Jay Campbell, CNBC's Democratic pollster, told the net work that 'there is [a] component of [the] Democratic base that's willing to acknowledge the improving economy and willing to give Trump a certain amount of credit for it.'

A large number still disapprove of Trump on the economy but 30 percent of Democrats is not nothing.'

The president's first year was marked by job creation, sustained growth in America's Gross Domestic Product and an unemployment rate that has declined to 3.8 per cent – matching the all-time low.

Black unemployment hit 5.9 per cent at the end of May, the lowest number ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That means the gap between black and white unemployment in the United States shrunk to its smallest size ever.

Female unemployment inched down to 3.6 percent, the lowest level since 1953.

Part of Trump's economic plan is to emphasize in Middle America the potential long-term benefits of trade renegotiations.

Fifty-two percent of Americans approve of how he is handling that issue.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Oh noes, quick, someone print a story on how bad the Tax Cuts are!!!

-Priorities USA

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 04:33 PM | Reply

Most Americans don't pay attention to the economic fundamentals just their personal bottom line. Fact is pretty much every one in my social circle is doing pretty well right now so unless that changes suddenly the economy will work in trump and the republicans favor. It's awful hard to get worked up about politics when for the first time in years going on vacation and out to eat or to the movies is back on the table.

Now the one group I see hurting are millennials. Most all of the ones I know are in dead end jobs crammed 4 to a house to afford rent. A bunch of them are back in school for grad degrees but they are not hopeful.

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-25 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Millenials have every right to be pissed. Not everyone's family can afford $300/hr for a State University education. Even military service won't cover all the costs. Their elders are making slaves out of them. The 20-year-olds aren't stupid. They know what's going on, but have no clout to do anything about it.

When I went to College, two years' Community College and another two at University was doable. Not fun, but having a part-time job at 30 hours a week, living in rat and roach infested trailers, eating PB&J, bread and milk, you could graduate with a Bachelor of Science or Arts with less than $10,000 in loans.

If you'd been emancipated from your parents and been through military training, you still couldn't use your income as a basis for a Pell Grant. The University still wanted their financial information.

And it cost ~$25/hr for Community College and ~$50/hr for University with fees and laboratories back then. I checked what it was now for my family and my alma mater is $350 an hour. That's disgraceful for a State-funded University. Hoping kids and parents will shell-out $100,000 for a degree is asinine.

#3 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-25 04:51 PM | Reply

Oh noes, quick, someone print a story on how bad the Tax Cuts are!!!

Do you have any reason to believe they won't end up causing a recession like Reagan's did?

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-25 04:53 PM | Reply

Using a young person's hope against them like that is disgusting and needs to change. Fast.

#5 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-25 04:53 PM | Reply

Now the one group I see hurting are millennials. Most all of the ones I know are in dead end jobs crammed 4 to a house to afford rent. A bunch of them are back in school for grad degrees but they are not hopeful.

Agreed, my 29 year old nephew just left his job at an Internet Marketing Firm in SF to study for the GMAT, since he felt that it was a dead end.

Otherwise, people seem pretty upbeat (outside of the DR reverb room) about the economy.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 04:55 PM | Reply

#2 beat me to it.

Your average person would approve of anybody's handling of the economy because they only see the now and how it's affecting them.

Tell them that this play has been run before and it didn't end up with a touchdown? They don't want to hear it because god damnit tho ya are good now.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-25 04:56 PM | Reply

Otherwise, people seem pretty upbeat about the economy.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 04:55 PM | Reply

Trade war.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2018-06-25 04:56 PM | Reply

Juice the economy with tax cuts to big bidness and the wealthy elites and you'll get a few quarters of growth and fool some of the people some of the time. The rest know they will being paying for the enrichment of the few, plus interest, for decades to come.

And that in traditional GOP Starve the Beast fashion, the resulting recession will have to be cleaned up by the Dems, who will then be blamed for how that took.

Rinse, repeat.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 04:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

blamed for how long that took.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 05:00 PM | Reply

--Do you have any reason to believe they won't end up causing a recession like Reagan's did?

In what alternate universe?

"We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time.

www.nytimes.com

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-25 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you have any reason to believe they won't end up causing a recession like Reagan's did?

#4 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-06-25 04:53 PM

You have to stop drinking the Kool-aid that your media masters force feed you, even the Brookings Institute now admits that is a false premise, as today's economy is far different than in the early 1980s:

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn't pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.

As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan's signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993.

What the 1980s teach is that you can't look at taxes in isolation. The Fed's war on inflation pushed interest rates to nearly 20 percent and provoked a severe double-dip recession, one of the worst of the post-World War II era. Uemployment rose above 10 percent in 1982 and 1983. When the Fed cut rates, the economy took off. The tax cuts undoubtedly contributed to the boom and had little impact on the recession.

One lesson from this: Despite all the rhetoric over the economic effects of big tax bills, taxes are only one of many factors that drive the economy – and probably not as big a factor as you'd think when listening the debate when those bills are pending in Congress.

Brookings Institute: What we learned from the Reagan tax cuts.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 05:08 PM | Reply

#11

Reagan's own Budget Dirs reveal "The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent"

That only changed in the late 1970s, when high inflation drove up wages and pushed the middle class into higher tax brackets. Harnessing the widespread anger, Reagan put it to work on behalf of the rich. In a move that GOP Majority Leader Howard Baker called a "riverboat gamble," Reagan sold the country on an "across-the-board" tax cut that brought the top rate down to 50 percent.

According to supply-side economists, the wealthy would use their tax break to spur investment, and the economy would boom. And if it didn't – well, to Reagan's cadre of small-government conservatives, the resulting red ink could be a win-win. "We started talking about just cutting taxes and saying, 'Screw the deficit,'" Bartlett recalls.

"We had this idea that if you lowered revenues, the concern about the deficit would be channeled into spending cuts."

It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country.

As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

There was only one problem: The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession. Republican leaders in Congress immediately moved to reverse themselves and feed the beast.

"It was not a Democrat who led the effort in 1982 to undo about a third of the Reagan tax cuts," recalls Robert Greenstein, president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It was Bob Dole." Even Reagan embraced the tax hike, Stockman says, "because he believed that, at some point, you have to pay the bills."

www.rollingstone.com

Dullifidian has gone full modern GOP "What Deficits!" and "Hell no, we won't raise taxes, we'd rather have a recession!".

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 05:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"For the remainder of his time in office, Reagan repeatedly raised taxes to bring down unwieldy deficits.

In 1983, he hiked gas and payroll taxes. In 1984, he raised revenue by closing tax loopholes for businesses. The tax reform of 1986 lowered the top rate for the wealthy to just 28 percent – but that cut for high earners was paid for by closing tax loopholes that resulted in the largest corporate tax hike in history.

Reagan also raised revenues by abolishing special favors for the investor class: He boosted taxes on capital gains by 40 percent to align them with the taxes paid on wages.

Today, Reagan may be lionized as a tax abolitionist, says Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and friend of the president, but that's not true to his record. "Reagan raised taxes 11 times in eight years!"

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 05:11 PM | Reply

Thanks Dorky, glad you found a new source to endlessly spam from. However, I am going to go with the NYT and the Brookings Institute over Rolling Stone for my economic analysis.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 05:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#15

You mean you are going to ignore the actual history as told by Reagan's Budget Dirs and GOP Sen insiders.

But hey, Trump appreciates your support of their Alt History.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 05:14 PM | Reply

:After taking office, Clinton immediately seized the mantle of fiscal discipline from Republicans. Rather than simply trimming the federal deficit, as his GOP predecessors had done, he set out to balance the budget and begin paying down the national debt.

To do so, he hiked the top tax bracket to nearly 40 percent and boosted the corporate tax rate to 35 percent.

"It cost him both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections," says Chafee, the former GOP senator. "But taming the deficit led to the best economy America's ever had."

Following the tax hikes of 1993, the economy grew at a brisk clip of 3.2 percent, creating more than 11 million jobs. Average wages ticked up, and stocks soared by 78 percent. By the spring of 1997, the federal budget was headed into the black."

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

According to a CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 800 U.S. adults,

800 people surveyed?

Well. That's enough for me!

Let's cancel all future elections and base the future of the nation on the opinions 800 people.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-25 05:22 PM | Reply

"It cost him both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections,"

Nothing like that happens because of one issue. Certainly it was a factor.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-25 05:32 PM | Reply

Waco caused him to lose both houses of congress.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-25 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 That was undoubtedly a factor. No-one likes to see 25 innocent children under the age of 6 burned to death. Whether Koresh had is people start the fire, or if it was something the Feds did makes no difference. The government has to be the adult in the room when kids are threatened by their guardians. They dropped the ball.

#21 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-25 05:43 PM | Reply

I thought naming his wife head of a major health care reform that went down in flames was a factor as well.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-25 05:59 PM | Reply

#22 After I read My Life by Bill Clinton, I came away thinking that President Clinton realized too late some of the decisions he'd made were misunderstood by way of misperceptions. His closest confidant told him the Republicans are hammering you because you're out to do good with your life and whatever is under your power and control. And they hate you for it. So they'll use any peccadillo they can to embarrass you.

Democrats have to be extra careful in the perception of how they look and are viewed by the public, or the opposition will use even the most mundane scandal to ruin you. He's an incredibly intelligent man from my reading of him.

I realize an autobiography is self-serving, but I came away with a positive view of him. Even reading it with my critical thinking cap on and set to maximum.

#23 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-25 06:10 PM | Reply

Corky you are once again talking about fundamentals. We are Americans and gosh darn it instant gratification is our mother freaking birth right.

Republicans get this so when they will pump the economy to ludicrous speed by whatever means necessary and get elected. Dems can do the right thing build a solid foundation all day long and it will be better for America, but it won't get them elected.

You can argue and explain all you want but bottom line if Americans will elect the dude who puts more money in their pockets NOW not 5-10 years from now.

#24 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-25 06:22 PM | Reply

Do you have any reason to believe they won't end up causing a recession like Reagan's did?

#4 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-06-25 04:53 PML FYI I give you the following:

The early 1980s recession in the United States began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. One cause was the Federal Reserve's contractionary monetary policy, which sought to rein in the high inflation. In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, stagflation began to afflict the economy.
Early 1980s recession - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

Early 1990s recession in the United States. ... The United States entered recession in 1990, which lasted 8 months through March 1991. Although the recession was mild relative to other post-war recessions, it was characterized by a sluggish employment recovery, most commonly referred to as a jobless recovery.
Early 1990s recession in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

There you go - Carter gave us an extremely bad recession whereas the one after Reagan was considered mild. really no comarison if you were alive in the late 70s and early 80s.

#25 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-06-25 06:50 PM | Reply

You have to stop drinking the Kool-aid that your media masters force feed you,

LOL you sound much smarter when you don't go all Faux News.

In any case, your answer is "this economy is different".

Which was all you needed to say.

Also, it's hilarious that after accusing me of drinking the Kool Aid you post info that completely supports my statement. The Reagen tax cuts were too big, but the Repubs then had enough sense and less ideology to raise taxes to fix it. The current crop lacks that sense as shown by their doubling down on tax cuts and huge spending even after it was a disaster under Bush II.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-25 07:02 PM | Reply

It doesn't support your position at all, in fact it blames the Fed for the recession and says that the Reagan tax cuts (both 1981 and 1986) had little to do with it.

But if telling yourself that makes you feel better, by all means keep it up.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 07:17 PM | Reply

Yeah because self-reporting by laymen is a great way to measure the economic health of a nation. Half the people that think the economy is in a good spot right now probably think "GDP" is a Mexican street gang that is here to rape them.

#28 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-06-25 07:42 PM | Reply

- in fact it blames the Fed for the recession and says that the Reagan tax cuts (both 1981 and 1986) had little to do with it.

No, it blames the Fed and says the tax cuts contributed to it. But why was the Fed doing what it was doing? Reagan's policies.

The history is there for all to see, laid out by Reagan's own Budget Dirs.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 07:54 PM | Reply

It doesn't support your position at all, in fact it blames the Fed for the recession and says that the Reagan tax cuts (both 1981 and 1986) had little to do with it.

Ok you're correct.

Doesn't that also mean the monetary policy is what boosted the economy and the myth that it's tax cuts is also shot to hell with that analysis??

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-25 08:29 PM | Reply

Yeah because self-reporting by laymen is a great way to measure the economic health of a nation.

How dare you synopsize Corky's incredibly timely and current (2011) Rolling Stones article like that!

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 08:30 PM | Reply

in fact it blames the Fed for the recession and says that the Reagan tax cuts (both 1981 and 1986) had little to do with it.

Does "fed" mean something other than "federal government"?

Because. If not. Reagan was the hard of the federal government. Executive branch anyhow.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-25 08:31 PM | Reply

In this context, Fed means Federal Reserve.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-25 08:34 PM | Reply

But why was the Fed doing what it was doing? Reagan's policies.

Gee, in what alternative universe was Reagan POTUS in the 1970s?

Paul Volker, Carter's choice for Fed Chief, raised the rate to 20% the day Reagan was inaugurated, Reagan and his economic team pushed the Fed to lower it throughout his presidency (in defiance of Reagan, after it had been lowered by 4 points Volker raised it back to 20 in mid 1981 and almost got thrown out of the Fed) and by the time Reagan left office it was down to 6.5%

Bet you won't find those facts in the Rolling Stone Business Review.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 08:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sorry, for the spelling Nazis, that should be Volcker.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 08:45 PM | Reply

#30

The point is that it was both monetary policy and the tax cuts, as a package (as I conceded the 1981 cut was too much and was corrected) among other things that boosted the economy in the 80s to the highest peacetime recovery ever.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 08:47 PM | Reply

#31

lmao... Still Pres of the Lawyers Without Arguments Hair Club for Men.

- Volker, Carter's choice for Fed Chief, raised the rate to 20% the day Reagan was inaugurated,

Of course he did. He knew what was coming.

If you want to see a good economy, look at Clinton's not Reagan's or Bush's or the disaster Trump is brewing.... which is the point you want to obscure.

In other words, if you want a good economy, elect a Democrat.

Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

www.forbes.com

Even Forbes can't hide the facts.

Your Dear Leader is the same old GOP Starve the Beast, Wreck the Economy and Run Away stratagery in a new orange bottle.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 09:06 PM | Reply

Deflection noted, Dorky...none of that had anything to do with Reagan's economic expansion.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 09:09 PM | Reply

From Nulli's article from the NYT in 1990:

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth.

The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period. According to a recent study, net asset values - including stocks, bonds and real estate - went up by more than $5 trillion between 1982 and 1989, an increase of roughly 50 percent.

Under President Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered dramatically, from 70 percent to 28 percent. This policy change was the prime force behind the record breaking economic expansion. Interest rates and inflation also fell sharply and, so far, have stayed comfortably low - a further indication of the power and pervasiveness of Mr. Reagan's economic policies. The stock market. Perhaps the key indicator of an economy's booms and busts is the stock market, the bottom line economic report card. And here the record has been striking. During the period from 1970 to 1982, the stock market barely moved. The Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks inched up about 35 percent during that entire period. But starting in late 1982, just as Reaganomics began to work, the stock market took off like a giant skyrocket. Since then, the Standard & Poor's index has soared, reaching a record high of 360, almost triple what it was in 1982.

There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars. The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.

Now go put on another pantsuit and re-read "What Happened?"

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 09:13 PM | Reply

And congrats on the Forbes article, it is much more current (2012) and has this disclaimer:

"The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer."

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 09:15 PM | Reply

#38

Thread is about Trump's handling if the economy.

Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

RoC says, "Ignore the History! Gimme some Trumponomics!"

- 1990

lmao! As if we haven't learned anything since then. OK, obviously you haven't. Enjoy the coming Trump Recession, it'll be even better than the Bush Recession! You guys are on a roll!

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-25 10:15 PM | Reply

Sorry that you prefer opinion over facts, Corky, but if that makes the pantsuit fit better...

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-25 10:51 PM | Reply

-opinion over facts,

Reagan's own Budget Dirs provide expert opinion, but you prefer rwing Tinkle Down "economics".

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-26 11:48 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort