Right now black unemployment is at the lowest level since WW2 and there is also 6.6 mil unfilled jobs. And for any smartasses that want to say it started under Obama (not you Tru) the last 6 yrs it was republican house and the last 4 yrs it was republican senate (check the unemployment rate the 1st couple yrs lol). Also the last 4 yrs of Bush era it was democrat house and senate. Just to get that straight. Getting ready to have a quarter of 4.8 GDP growth. Now where is the high black American high unemployment? Take a guess.
I'm not going too far into all this because as with immigration and gun control it's not the lane I get too interested in arguing about (short answer on my take: the players can do what they want if they're not hurting anyone, forced patriotism should never sit right with anyone, and the "they should use a different" venue argument misses the point in many ways) but I thought I'd pay a bit of attention to this paragraph.
You can't just cherry-pick the data you like because growth trends take time, and you're implying the Democrat-controlled congress caused the GFC and the resulting recession, which is outright false. There's a ton of literature out there about the kinds of moral hazard that was going on in the financial sector at that point (for a TL;DR version of that just watch The Big Short) and it would have happened no matter who the president was, though if you had to point the finger at one particular politician/group of politicians the Bush-era deregulations would be a place to start (but again it takes years for a bubble like that to burst). When recessions happen companies lay off workers, which leads to less spending and less corporate revenue and more cutbacks (ie, more job losses) in a self-perpetuating spiral. It takes a few years to fully play out because of recognition lags, decision lags and implementation lags among other things. When a government carries out a fiscal stimulus (like the auto bailout) it usually takes at least two years for the multiplier to fully play out for the same reasons (usually every dollar in government expenditure leads to two dollars in future GDP growth but it doesn't happen overnight). That's a long paragraph but it's a pet peeve of mine when people look at a trend and assume it started the day someone took office when the reality is that macroeconomic trends are way bigger and more complicated than that.
I'm not sure where you're getting 4.8% quarterly growth from but I'd be willing to bet $100 that doesn't happen (seriously, I'll send you my PayPal details if you want to take that up). Not even China at its peak - the fastest-growing economy in human history - managed that. An annualised rate of 4.8% also hasn't been seen since (ironically enough) the Clinton years. The closest I could find was some blog citing an obscure metric supposedly used by the Atlanta Fed that only factors in two components of GDP. I also see Trump hasn't been bragging about the stock market for a while. The stock market's a terrible indicator of economic health and a given president or congress has little to do with either but I just thought I'd point out that he's been taking credit for it while it's good and then gone radio silent when the trend shifts to volatility.
The other thing is that Trump did have a point when he said during the campaign that the unemployment rate was fake news. Albeit the implications of "fake news" were well off base, and more that unemployment is a very blunt metric that can miss a lot of nuanced points. He said on the campaign trail that the true unemployment figure was 22, 25, 28 or even 48 per cent (as opposed to the ~4% it was at the time he said it) and that's where he had a point. It doesn't factor in people who've given up on looking for work and dropped out of the market entirely or the number of people who aren't happy with the category of work they're in (casuals who'd rather be full-time, etc), and that's where more nuanced metrics do a better job. The labour market participation rate of men aged 25-54 is actually about 12% - the lowest it's been since the Great Depression - and the labour force participation rate has been trending downward since 2008 and stayed flat for the past five years or so. Trump's changed his tune about what he thinks of the official unemployment figure but basically every economic trend (good and bad) going on atm has been the same as it was during the recovery.
I know that has nothing to do with athletes kneeling for the flag and justice reforms, but any time anyone brings up economic data I tend to raise an eyebrow one way or another. Discussing solutions to the world's economic woes is another topic I'm fascinated by (I meant to bring up California trialing a UBI system a few weeks ago), but that takes a more nuanced approach than sticking to partisan radio headlines and soundbites and my demand for that tends to exceed the supply (lol).
