Strong Economy Is The Work Of Obama

[Indus]

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/04/am-joy-strong-economy.html


Turns out Drumpf doesn't deserve credit for the economy at all.. I still see the inertia Obama set.

 

[Bitek]

Yep.

Considering how much Republicans blew up the deficit, you'd think we see some bending of the needle.

 

[Indus]

If you try to knock down a building.. knocking down 1 pillar doesn't cause it to collapse.. but eventually if you knock out enough of them, you hit a point where the weight isn't supported anymore.

 

[glenn1]

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/04/am-joy-strong-economy.html


Turns out Drumpf doesn't deserve credit for the economy at all.. I still see the inertia Obama set.

You are mostly correct although at 1.5 years into the Trump administration it's impossible not to allow him some credit for current performance, the proper amount of which subject to debate. I'm generally in the camp of "presidents generally do little to make an economy better but can easily do things to make it worse, sometimes much worse."

 

[dank69]

You are mostly correct although at 1.5 years into the Trump administration it's impossible not to allow him some credit for current performance, the proper amount of which subject to debate. I'm generally in the camp of "presidents generally do little to make an economy better but can easily do things to make it worse, sometimes much worse."

Like blowing up the deficit for very little gain?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If you try to knock down a building.. knocking down 1 pillar doesn't cause it to collapse.. but eventually if you knock out enough of them, you hit a point where the weight isn't supported anymore.

That was my point about 15 years ago with two tax cuts and a war that cost north of $3 Trillion. "It's OK -- we can just borrow it." With roads crumbling, a declining public sector with libraries and local schools, no strategic choices at the federal level to wean from the petroleum and coal addiction, it just seemed to me someone wanted to waste more of the pie to deny more of its complement, and shrink the pie at the same time.

If you ever had to write a research paper on rational-expectations and the business-cycle, you'd come away impressed with how the economy moves in large part without much attributable directly to the Executive. I say that especially if you did the Time-Series analysis with some sort of software like RATS or GAUSS or SPSS, SAS, Stata, etc. It's called . . . "The Business Cycle."

That being said, we had prosperity in the '90s despite White House distractions over how the po-leece found Vince Foster's body on the GW Parkway, or whether Willie got his knob polished in the Oral Orifice -- Office.

Then there were the tax cuts, war and related burdens, ending in the 2007 "downturn." Then Obama, and now someone bent on actually wrecking what resulted of that.

 

[Greenman]

OBAMA 2020!

 

[umbrella39]

http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ce/kirshenblatt/kirshenblatt-water-carrier.htm

 

[BUTCH1]

The chetto claimed in 2105 that Obama's 5.2% unemployment rate was "fake", here he says it's actually closer to "42%", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVfNFJ9mUiE . What a colossal tool, even worse Obama had little choice but to ring up a $400 billion deficit to avoid GM, Ford, wall St, others going down and starting a tail-spin we might not recover from for decades. Trump, (like the moron he is) cut taxes, (mostly for wealthy), to push the deficit to $1.4 trillion in his tenure so far, this is slipping by the wayside in all the other myriad of scandals we see on a weekly basis but it's going to suck for whoever has to pay this off. A normal POTUS should only recommended drastic tax cuts and monster deficit's in times of dire need, by dong so in times of low unemployment there will nothing left when the inevitable crash happens down the road.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are mostly correct although at 1.5 years into the Trump administration it's impossible not to allow him some credit for current performance, the proper amount of which subject to debate. I'm generally in the camp of "presidents generally do little to make an economy better but can easily do things to make it worse, sometimes much worse."

I think it's important to realize that Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since 1929 & worked very hard to limit the damage. When GWB said "we could lose this sucker" he wasn't exaggerating.

 

[HomerJS]

You are mostly correct although at 1.5 years into the Trump administration it's impossible not to allow him some credit for current performance, the proper amount of which subject to debate. I'm generally in the camp of "presidents generally do little to make an economy better but can easily do things to make it worse, sometimes much worse."

Ok. Trump deserves credit for not yet fucking up the good economy Obama left him.

As of Aug 5 2018. Ask me again at the end of the year.

 

[darkswordsman17]

You are mostly correct although at 1.5 years into the Trump administration it's impossible not to allow him some credit for current performance, the proper amount of which subject to debate. I'm generally in the camp of "presidents generally do little to make an economy better but can easily do things to make it worse, sometimes much worse."

Well sure, he basically didn't do much his first year, and his tax holiday is providing a short term boost (exactly as expected, but then that's never been the argument against it, its the long term ramifications of it that is the issue; keep in mind that if he's having to do that just to try and keep up with Obama era economy, then WTF is gonna happen when the tax boosts are over, or we get into a war, or even just as the interest on our debt starts climbing and he can't keep squeezing the lower economic tiers?). Meanwhile his threats and work to dismantle most major trade deals and constantly threatening tariffs clearly is not going to benefit America (we've already seen us lose out due to refusing the TPP, and his idiocy has already led to countries bolstering deals with others to bolster trade between them because of at minimum uncertainty about trade with the US). Nor is it doing anything about companies moving production outside the US (still happening), nor is it increasing real wages, and they're tightening the screws on the middle class and below while doing pretty much nothing to address rampant problems (like actually doing something about drug price shenanigans, or school costs, or infrastructure, or...it goes on and on).

I'm in agreement that Presidents have more power to fuck it up than to positively affect the economy. I think Clinton gets too much credit for the 90s economy (which was a bit of a sham anyway as we saw when the dotcom bubble burst; have a hunch we're due for another similar due to all the investment in "startups"), the GOP doesn't get enough blame for the 2000s where they nearly collapsed it (via their stupidity of major tax cuts, instigating two costly wars, deregulation, and good old fashioned cronyism), and Obama doesn't deserve a ton of credit for just listening to economic advisors and following through (that only deserves credit because Republicans refusal to do that; he does deserve credit for keeping us from expanding costs via new war, and for making sure that the ACA was budgeted properly). We'll see where Turmp ends up, but all the signs are pointing to it being not a good place. And I don't know that we're going to find someone willing to be like Obama when it comes due. Plus there's looking to be a lot more chaos coming. And that's if Republicans don't do something incredibly stupid between now and when we get more rational politicians back in (if we do), which there's plenty of time for them to do that (and they've already admitted they're keen on doing that, be it a war, blowing money trying to stack their bullshit 50ft high along the Mexico border, or trying to destroy social welfare programs).

 

[compuwiz1]

Narratives drive voters, but hummm....
So, it's perfect time for someone who averaged a 1.6% GDP over his presidency, to claim credit for where we are now, right before the midterms. lol
Hate Trump all you want, as I do too, but history will set us straight on this and this economy will belong mostly to the orange baboon. If it is sustained, it's gonna make the puke look even better, in the history books.Yeah, I know it's an opinion. At the end of the term, we ask, are we better off than we were? We always ask ourselves that, after every president. We must find a way to tank the economy before the end of his term. I think California could do it best and should take the lead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/trump-economy-credit.html

 

[Flapdrol1337]

It's also the natural up and down.

Bit strange to cut taxes like the republicans have done. Basic economics says the government should spend extra in a recession and tax extra when the economy does well to act as a damper, so it doesn't crash as badly when the bubble bursts.

 

[Mai72]

Ok. Trump deserves credit for not yet fucking up the good economy Obama left him.

As of Aug 5 2018. Ask me again at the end of the year.

Oh, that's coming.

I think it's going to be basd. How bad. Real bad. Gotta give it time.

 

[Mai72]

It's also the natural up and down.

Bit strange to cut taxes like the republicans have done. Basic economics says the government should spend extra in a recession and tax extra when the economy does well to act as a damper, so it doesn't crash as badly when the bubble bursts.

We're living in odd times.

Trump is at the helm, and you only need to look at AC and his failed businesses to see where we are headed.

 

[compuwiz1]

We're living in odd times.

Trump is at the helm, and you only need to look at AC and his failed businesses to see where we are headed.

That's lame as shit. Out of over 500 businesses, 4 or 5 have failed. What, then would be the success rate? 95%, or more? I'm not defending the ass hat, but some of the shit you guys latch onto, is truly laughable and shows that you have no understanding of what makes an enterprise successful, or a failure. Now go google about how many successful companies have had entities fail and gone bankrupt. I won't wait.

 

[HomerJS]

That's lame as shit. Out of over 500 businesses, 4 or 5 have failed. What, then would be the success rate? 95%, or more? I'm not defending the ass hat, but some of the shit you guys latch onto, is truly laughable and shows that you have no understanding of what makes an enterprise successful, or a failure. Now go google about how many successful companies have had entities fail and gone bankrupt. I won't wait.

So based on this what would give people the idea he was enough of a success that would qualify him to be President?

 

[HomerJS]

Narratives drive voters, but hummm....
So, it's perfect time for someone who averaged a 1.6% GDP over his presidency, to claim credit for where we are now, right before the midterms. lol
Hate Trump all you want, as I do too, but history will set us straight on this and this economy will belong mostly to the orange baboon. If it is sustained, it's gonna make the puke look even better, in the history books.Yeah, I know it's an opinion. At the end of the term, we ask, are we better off than we were? We always ask ourselves that, after every president. We must find a way to tank the economy before the end of his term. I think California could do it best and should take the lead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/trump-economy-credit.html

So you are telling us that chart which is a FACT will mean nothing? People would rather believe Trump's alternate reality?

 

[compuwiz1]

So you are telling us that chart which is a FACT will mean nothing? People would rather believe Trump's alternate reality?

No, but the mouse in the house gets the cheese. By the logic of some here, we might as well throw current success back to Bush. Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

[compuwiz1]

So based on this what would give people the idea he was enough of a success that would qualify him to be President?

A business that has a 98% success rate is not a failure, no matter how much you hate the person running it. BTW, that didn't qualify him to be President. The rules for running for President are pretty loose, always have been. You sound like a kid, who is pretty wet behind the ears, still. Mickey Mouse could be President, if he won enough of the electoral votes. Would you like mouse, or clown? lol

 

[zinfamous]

It's also the natural up and down.

Bit strange to cut taxes like the republicans have done. Basic economics says the government should spend extra in a recession and tax extra when the economy does well to act as a damper, so it doesn't crash as badly when the bubble bursts.

that sounds like elitist learnin!

 

[Meghan54]

A business that has a 98% success rate is not a failure, no matter how much you hate the person running it. BTW, that didn't qualify him to be President. The rules for running for President are pretty loose, always have been. You sound like a kid, who is pretty wet behind the ears, still. Mickey Mouse could be President, if he won enough of the electoral votes. Would you like mouse, or clown? lol

Well, in all honesty, since the vast majority of Trump's "businesses" are simply licensing deals for his name, I'd be shocked if those failed to show a profit.

On the other hand, we have multiple "real" businesses that Trump and his family ran, such as the bevy of casinos in Atlantic City he owned (all of which went bankrupt while every other casino owner/operator was turning profits), Trump Air (which his lending banks took from Trump because it was being mismanaged so badly), etc., etc.

I'd think being profitable from licensing deals is no indication of business acumen at all, given Trump's history in ruining real, actual businesses under his care/ownership/operation.

 

[BUTCH1]

Narratives drive voters, but hummm....
So, it's perfect time for someone who averaged a 1.6% GDP over his presidency, to claim credit for where we are now, right before the midterms. lol
Hate Trump all you want, as I do too, but history will set us straight on this and this economy will belong mostly to the orange baboon. If it is sustained, it's gonna make the puke look even better, in the history books.Yeah, I know it's an opinion. At the end of the term, we ask, are we better off than we were? We always ask ourselves that, after every president. We must find a way to tank the economy before the end of his term. I think California could do it best and should take the lead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/trump-economy-credit.html

Yea, but one can hardly blame Obama for the huge mess the economy was in as he started his fist term. Oh, it was the Bush policy of deregulating banking that led to the entire real estate disaster. The point is, even if you want to credit Trump more for the current upturn it's impossible to justify a $1.4 trillion deficit spending since he took office. Most of that resulted in rich getting richer but hey, it's all good, plenty of peon jobs for the masses and they can always apply for food assistance. This is why the Wal-marts/Amazons/ many large Co's are so bad for America, all they do is send their employees for government aid while stockholders do very well indeed. Not really on Trump's shoulders for sure, but he's adding to rather than helping out that situation.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's also the natural up and down.

Bit strange to cut taxes like the republicans have done. Basic economics says the government should spend extra in a recession and tax extra when the economy does well to act as a damper, so it doesn't crash as badly when the bubble bursts.

That's evil soshulist economics, boy! Who cares what happens to the little people on the free market capitalist rollercoaster, anyway? Fuck 'em! Losers!

The big boys make money on the way up & clean up when it falls down because they're the only ones with any money left. Ask Mnuchin.