'via Blog this' The New York Times column asks the questions if the recent impressive job numbers should be credited to Donald Trump , our current President. They do a nice job of providing a fuller context as to what can influence an economy to perform well to do badly, apart from what actions The White House can take. In less than a hundred days office, there have been no real policy initiatives put forth and put into action that could have resulted in 235,000 jobs or so being added to the job market last month. Sorry, but the slew of executive orders he issued in his first couple of weeks would not have had this large an impact on employment numbers, if any. The upshot of this Upshot, so to speak, is that although one cannot cynically dismiss any positive effect of Trump on the economy, the new robust job statistics are not fantastically improved over employment growth rates from recent months. Perhaps he will unleash the animal spirit of bosses who might suddenly go crazy and expand their work force as they hadn't before. More convincing are the long term effects of actual policies put into place by the Administration. Much as Trump supporters want this added to his win column, these stats should more credited accurately to Obama and his team , who oversaw 75 months of job growth. It remains Obama's recovery. This is where those who appreciated vetted facts and not spin or magical thinking must be alert; Trump inherited a strong economy from the Obama Administration, he inherited a very strong one, robustly recovering from eight years of policies, economic and political, from the George W. Bush administration before him. As many think, the decisions Trump has made as President seems like nothing less than the acts of a man in a rush to destroy something vital and thriving.