When does Obama no longer get credit for the economy?

I asked this on another topic, with just one response from someone who said "never"
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arly-four-years.538366/page-4#post-1069409893

Given the lackluster attention gained by the question, I thought I'd put it to a broader audience:

At what point - quarter and year - does Obama no longer get credit for the economy?

Just so we have it on record.

 

2009-2016

 

obama stopped getting credit for anything positive. He hated America and his presidency sucked.

 

I think that the impact of a president on the economy is pretty overblown.

But the first thing to answer this question is to make sure we have the same ideas on what "the economy" is.
What specific measurements are you thinking of when you talk about the economy OP?

 

Let's go with quarterly GDP growth.

 

However long Bush was blamed for negatives, Obama will be credited for positives.

Both parties blame bad results on the other side and take credit for good. The left has its gigantic hegemony in media backing and bleating out its claims daily. The nonleft has a few backwaters. Not hard to see who ends up "winning" the blame game as a result...

...until the net. All bets are off now as to who wins the "blame/credit game" going forward. Whatever happens in the future, I believe 2016-present will go down as when the left unwisely whored its massive media hegemony into irrelevance.

 

To clarify you mean quarterly Gross Domestic Product Growth?

If so, we will use GDP Quarterly Growth (lets abreviate to QG for short) as the benchmark for the economy.

My next question - when can it be said that a president has power over the economy? Some people contend that this is immediately when sworn in, while others wait until they have signed in their first budget, and I am sure their are other good places to start - where do you want this conversation to stand?

 

Both sides give waaaaaay to much credit to/place too much blame on the president for the economy. But one thing that Obama fans do tend to be right about is that most of the growth in economic indicators we've seen has been part of pre-existing trends. Whatever you try to give Trump credit for, try mapping out that metric over the past eight years or so. Now take away the years from the x axis and show that line graph to a Trump supporter and ask them where the upswing is -- ask them to point to the place on the line where things changed after Trump took over. Should be easy to do if Trump really did have such an impact, but they won't be able to do it.

 

I edited to Let's go with quarterly GDP growth, so yes.

This is the question I asked in the OP.

 

So...
At what point - quarter and year - does Obama no longer get credit for the economy?

 

IMO, no president should ever get credit for the economy, as I indicated in my post. But if you want to credit presidents, then the new president would get credit once there is a significant change in the trend, rather than growth following the same line as the trend that existed before he took office.

 

Actually, "credit for" and "power over" are 2 different questions, and I've seen quite fierce disagreements on the subject. For example, after the election, but before sworn in, people were crediting Trump with improving the economy. Others claimed that's preposterous.

To avoid that I want you to define when the president has power over (maybe influence would be a better word) the economy.

Once we have that we can establish baseline for the Obama Economy.

 

Similarly, no president should ever get credit for the economy - correct?

 

Theoretically, the President, with regulatory, trade and other policies, as well as legislation, has power over the economy when he takes office.
So...
At what point - quarter and year - does Obama no longer get credit for the economy?

 

I generally agree with this approach, that's why I want to nail down the frame of the discussion. There are some improvements though.

Lets say that a new president, day he gets sworn in, launches all ready nuclear missiles against everyone. That president would definitely be responsible for the economy for such an action, so you can't say that a pres should NEVER get credit.

The second part, about crediting presidents after changes to the trend is also tricky. Lets say the president gets into office and the same day a para dime shift in technology occurs. Suddenly the economy is rolling gang busters. Should the president get credit for that? I wouldn't.

SO maybe the best way to determine credit is to
1. Show a change in baseline.
2. Provide evidence to support the change in baseline is caused by the president.

(forgive me if thats what you meant, i find that the key to good discussion is nailing down the details as early as possible, and so tend to be more verbose)

 

Ok for this discussion we'll use when the president takes office.

Edit *If there is such a spot* off the top of my dome that would be when the tax reform was signed into law. That would be a good place to look, and where my gut puts the beginning of the "Trump Economy".
Even though I still feel that, baring military action, or treasonous incompetence the impact of the president is overblown on the economy.

A more thoughtful analysis would need to:
1. Establish a change in baseline.
2. Be able to provide evidence that supports that the change in baseline was caused by the actions of the president.

 

That was December 2017, with changes starting on January 1 2018.
So, its fair to say Obama does not get credit for the economy after the end of Q4/2017.
Thank you.

 

I think he has to die in order for the dems to stop giving him credit. Unless another democrat is elected for president. Takes another democrat to get rid of the credit obama gets.

 

And, of course, he will never get the blame.

 

I think that is about as good an answer as any. Trump's fiscal year began October, 2017 if that helps.

 

Yup, fair enough spot for casual conversation/ discussion.

Your welcome btw, and thanks for answering my clarifying questions.

 

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in nearly four years in the second quarter as consumers boosted spending and farmers rushed shipments of soybeans to China to beat retaliatory trade tariffs before they took effect in early July.

President Donald Trump, who ahead of Friday's release of the gross domestic product report had promoted the notion that second-quarter growth would be robust, declared victory.

"We have accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions," Trump told reporters. "These numbers are very, very sustainable."

Gross domestic product increased at a 4.1 percent annualised rate also as government spending picked up, the Commerce Department said in its snapshot of second-quarter GDP. While that was the strongest performance since the third quarter of 2014, it was not the best since the recession ended in mid-2009.

 

There's a lot of factors that are unknown and we can't assess the reach of Obama's disasterous policies. For now I don't see any reason to give him credit. The stock market has been booming since the Trump tax cuts. But, there's still a chance it can crash due to the irrational exhuberance created by Obama's bailout.

The stock market had been hitting unsustainable highs and was on the verge of crashing for years during Obama's presidency. Trump had been very vocal about it and he may one day be proven right. If that's the case, Obama should be fully responsible and be jailed for the bailout. But there's a chance that the tax cuts stimulated the economy enough to keep it going. If that's the case we'd know that Obama's policies cannot trump good economics.

 

At this point it is not obams
Of course he did not have the option of goosing the economy with the huge trump deficits

 

As a foreigner, Clinton got lots of credit on the US economy. I think he was a disaster personally, but he was spoken about that way. The financials hated him, but popular opinion and the general media had him down as being great for the economy. He could do no wrong.

Never really heard of Obama spoken about that way.
My guess is a bit of a non event economically.


Trump kicks arse according to the financials here. Popular opinion and the general media here however seems to be the opposite. He can do no right.