6 ms·

He ended up reversing the steady gain we've had in manufacturing jobs since 2010, albeit indirectly, because he botched the response to covid. https://data.bls

He ended up reversing the steady gain we've had in manufacturing jobs since 2010, albeit indirectly, because he botched the response to covid. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The argument against his covid response was in not using more aggressive lockdowns. Which is the thing that increases unemployment. You seem to be arguing that more lockdowns, which increase unemployment in the short term, would have reduced unemployment in the short term (i.e. the period measured in that data).
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  If you have a more aggressive lockdown, you can control the disease instead of letting it rage unabated for months. Trump’s covid response has been an unmitigated disaster for businesses.
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  uniform lockdowns that were widely enforced for 2 weeks and then followed by masks, social distancing, and hand washing would have been more effective, and harmed the economy less.
  - klipt 6y ago
    But that will never work if your population thinks even wearing masks is "oppressive"
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful. Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental. https://fortune.com/2020/02/26/coronavirus-covid-19-cdc-budget-cuts-us-trump https://fortune.com/2020/02/26/coronavirus-covid-19-cdc-budg...
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. This is what Australia did. Except that some of the measures they used may have been unconstitutional in the US, and Australia is an island. The US has 4500 miles of porous borders with other countries. And covid spreads asymptomatically, so the only way to get to where Australia is now is to get the number of cases down to basically zero. Which you can't do if you get 40 more from Mexico every week. Notice that Australia is basically the only country that has managed to succeed with this; western Europe is doing little better than the US. > Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental. This is fake news. The budget cuts were proposed (as a starting point for budget negotiations with Congress) but never actually enacted: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coronavirus-claims/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coron... > Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful. For that you can thank CNN. They were writing a national story every time Trump would appear on camera without a mask, even if he was giving a speech to a camera with no audience or was in a room with entirely people being covid tested every day. This predictably led to Trump supporters defending him and it becoming a partisan issue. It also didn't help that the CDC was disparaging mask use early on, ostensibly in order to preserve PPE for medical professionals, which gave everybody plenty of ammunition to fight about it once CNN had made it partisan for no good reason.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day. It may be inaccurate news, but calling it fake is needlessly hyperbolic. The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21C3N5 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21C3N5 Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were still missteps. Doubling down on something after someone calls you out doesn't make them responsible for your actions.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The argument against his covid response was in not using more aggressive lockdowns. Which is the thing that increases unemployment. You seem to be arguing that more lockdowns, which increase unemployment in the short term, would have reduced unemployment in the short term (i.e. the period measured in that data).

cycrutchfield 6y ago
If you have a more aggressive lockdown, you can control the disease instead of letting it rage unabated for months. Trump’s covid response has been an unmitigated disaster for businesses.
appleflaxen 6y ago
uniform lockdowns that were widely enforced for 2 weeks and then followed by masks, social distancing, and hand washing would have been more effective, and harmed the economy less.
- klipt 6y ago
  But that will never work if your population thinks even wearing masks is "oppressive"
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful. Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental. https://fortune.com/2020/02/26/coronavirus-covid-19-cdc-budget-cuts-us-trump https://fortune.com/2020/02/26/coronavirus-covid-19-cdc-budg...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. This is what Australia did. Except that some of the measures they used may have been unconstitutional in the US, and Australia is an island. The US has 4500 miles of porous borders with other countries. And covid spreads asymptomatically, so the only way to get to where Australia is now is to get the number of cases down to basically zero. Which you can't do if you get 40 more from Mexico every week. Notice that Australia is basically the only country that has managed to succeed with this; western Europe is doing little better than the US. > Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental. This is fake news. The budget cuts were proposed (as a starting point for budget negotiations with Congress) but never actually enacted: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coronavirus-claims/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/democrats-misleading-coron... > Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful. For that you can thank CNN. They were writing a national story every time Trump would appear on camera without a mask, even if he was giving a speech to a camera with no audience or was in a room with entirely people being covid tested every day. This predictably led to Trump supporters defending him and it becoming a partisan issue. It also didn't help that the CDC was disparaging mask use early on, ostensibly in order to preserve PPE for medical professionals, which gave everybody plenty of ammunition to fight about it once CNN had made it partisan for no good reason.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day. It may be inaccurate news, but calling it fake is needlessly hyperbolic. The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21C3N5 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21C3N5 Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were still missteps. Doubling down on something after someone calls you out doesn't make them responsible for your actions.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago