Trump's economy

[Yowza]

Experts are saying that the election will come down to who voters think will best be equipped to rebuild the economy.

Obama/Biden inherited a poor economy from George Bush, burdened by years of war and the 2008 financial collapse, they were able to turn it around with gradual growth while also improving air quality and the environment. As vice president, Biden oversaw the $800 billion stimulus package passed in 2009 to help the economy rebound, encompassing more than 100,000 projects.

While Trump took office eight years later amid an improving economy whose upward trend continued through his first three years in office. However, Trump had the stimulus of a tax cut bill that increased the deficit by trillions. In essence, it was borrowing from the future to stimulate the current economy. Is that true growth? He even said that he doesn't care about the future economy and the debt because hit wouldn't be his problem when it comes to matter.

Furthermore, Trump removed air and water quality regulations to help manufacturing and the fossil fuel industry by decreasing public health. Some may like that trade off, but Obama/Biden were able to stimulate economic growth while also successfully balancing the regulations. Trump has constantly demanded interest rate cuts from the Fed. If his economy was so strong, the Fed should be increasing rates. Did he really need low rates to help his economy grow?

Trump relied on gimmicks to prop up his economy, sacrificing future budgets, public health and the independence of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden were able to recover and build an economy that was largely in disarray once already. It seems obvious who is the better choice to do it again.

 

[shortylickens]

have you not read ANY other thread here on Anandtech?

 

[woolfe9998]

have you not read ANY other thread here on Anandtech?

That was his first post. So it's entirely possible he hasn't.

 

[nickqt]

Experts are saying that the election will come down to who voters think will best be equipped to rebuild the economy.

Obama/Biden inherited a poor economy from George Bush, burdened by years of war and the 2008 financial collapse, they were able to turn it around with gradual growth while also improving air quality and the environment. As vice president, Biden oversaw the $800 billion stimulus package passed in 2009 to help the economy rebound, encompassing more than 100,000 projects.

While Trump took office eight years later amid an improving economy whose upward trend continued through his first three years in office. However, Trump had the stimulus of a tax cut bill that increased the deficit by trillions. In essence, it was borrowing from the future to stimulate the current economy. Is that true growth? He even said that he doesn't care about the future economy and the debt because hit wouldn't be his problem when it comes to matter.

Furthermore, Trump removed air and water quality regulations to help manufacturing and the fossil fuel industry by decreasing public health. Some may like that trade off, but Obama/Biden were able to stimulate economic growth while also successfully balancing the regulations. Trump has constantly demanded interest rate cuts from the Fed. If his economy was so strong, the Fed should be increasing rates. Did he really need low rates to help his economy grow?

Trump relied on gimmicks to prop up his economy, sacrificing future budgets, public health and the independence of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden were able to recover and build an economy that was largely in disarray once already. It seems obvious who is the better choice to do it again.

The last Republican President who wasn't clearly incompetent was Bush Sr., who I disagreed with on almost every policy, but he wasn't an idiot picked to sign whatever Republicans dumped onto his lap.

He was effectively thrown out of office because he wasn't pig-headed enough for Republican voters - and that was when Republican voters hadn't been mindfucked by 25 years of outright radical right propaganda. Limbaugh has been shitting directly into their skulls for 30 years...they're permanently lost.

So, I mean, yeah, You're right.

None of any of this should be a surprise if you've been paying attention for the past 30 years.

 

[darkswordsman17]

OP, I do like you pointing to them managing the economy while also working to improve environment. I think you can take it further. We could stimulate the economy by actively doing more of that. Put the mining industry to work cleaning up their messes. I forget how many superfund sites there are, but it'd be able to provide long term stable jobs that would absolutely be improving things, and would let those workers stay in those areas. Plus it'd give us an idea of the costs of that stuff so we could then start to tax industries for their externalities (which wouldn't just be fossil fuels as people are wont to point out, batteries require special elements and lots of mining is done to get those).

 

[Blackjack200]

OP, I do like you pointing to them managing the economy while also working to improve environment. I think you can take it further. We could stimulate the economy by actively doing more of that. Put the mining industry to work cleaning up their messes. I forget how many superfund sites there are, but it'd be able to provide long term stable jobs that would absolutely be improving things, and would let those workers stay in those areas. Plus it'd give us an idea of the costs of that stuff so we could then start to tax industries for their externalities (which wouldn't just be fossil fuels as people are wont to point out, batteries require special elements and lots of mining is done to get those).

I get it, sort of like a jobs program. Like the New Deal. Only, greener, for the environment... can anyone think of a good name?

 

[HomerJS]

Experts are saying that the election will come down to who voters think will best be equipped to rebuild the economy.

Obama/Biden inherited a poor economy from George Bush, burdened by years of war and the 2008 financial collapse, they were able to turn it around with gradual growth while also improving air quality and the environment. As vice president, Biden oversaw the $800 billion stimulus package passed in 2009 to help the economy rebound, encompassing more than 100,000 projects.

While Trump took office eight years later amid an improving economy whose upward trend continued through his first three years in office. However, Trump had the stimulus of a tax cut bill that increased the deficit by trillions. In essence, it was borrowing from the future to stimulate the current economy. Is that true growth? He even said that he doesn't care about the future economy and the debt because hit wouldn't be his problem when it comes to matter.

Furthermore, Trump removed air and water quality regulations to help manufacturing and the fossil fuel industry by decreasing public health. Some may like that trade off, but Obama/Biden were able to stimulate economic growth while also successfully balancing the regulations. Trump has constantly demanded interest rate cuts from the Fed. If his economy was so strong, the Fed should be increasing rates. Did he really need low rates to help his economy grow?

Trump relied on gimmicks to prop up his economy, sacrificing future budgets, public health and the independence of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden were able to recover and build an economy that was largely in disarray once already. It seems obvious who is the better choice to do it again.

We have a choice. The guy on the team that brought back a broken economy vs the guy who bankrupted most of his businesses and ran corrupt charities and corrupt education institutions.

Now...let...me...think!!

BTW - Welcome. Hope you have a thick skin

 

[compuwiz1]

We have a choice. The guy on the team that brought back a broken economy vs the guy who bankrupted most of his businesses and ran corrupt charities and corrupt education institutions.

Now...let...me...think!!

BTW - Welcome. Hope you have a thick skin

Do you think you get to tell that big of a lie and not get called out? Out of 500 entities, 6 have gone bankrupt. That is not "bankrupted most of his businesses". In fact, that is a huge success rate. It means that over 95% of the businesses did not go bankrupt, or the majority didn't. You are the epitome of partisan, disingenuous propaganda. Nice job, slickster!

 

[Indus]

Do you think you get to tell that big of a lie and not get called out? Out of 500 entities, 6 have gone bankrupt. That is not "bankrupted most of his businesses". In fact, that is a huge success rate. It means that over 95% of the businesses did not go bankrupt, or the majority didn't. You are the epitome of partisan, disingenuous propaganda. Nice job, slickster!

Name and link the 500 businesses then or I call you a LIAR!

 

[Vic]

Republicans will just blame the Democrats for the economy like they did after 2008 and like they always do.

 

[soundforbjt]

Name and link the 500 businesses then or I call you a LIAR!

He doesn't own them outright, that total includes investments, naming use, etc.

 

[compuwiz1]

He doesn't own them outright, that total includes investments, naming use, etc.

I don't give a shit, what I care about is the statement that he bankrupted most of his businesses. 6 is not most and bonehead knows it.

 

[Indus]

I don't give a shit, what I care about is the statement that he bankrupted most of his businesses. 6 is not most and bonehead knows it.

I don't give a shit about what you say when you can't even name it

 

[woolfe9998]

OP was of course correct, even if some thought his point overly obvious. I will add another dimension to this: this "pump and dump" strategy that the GOP has in relation to the economy has to it an additional, hidden political advantage. The GOP POTUS of course cuts taxes and deficit spends to give the economy a sugar rush.

If he's lucky like GWB, the rush lasts past his re-election. If he's unlikely like GHWB and Trump, it crashes before re-election. Either way, they get to leave behind their next political hit job on the democrats, like that little landmine your pet left in the closet for the new tenants. Simultaneously blame the democrat for the bad economy they left behind, while wailing about the deficit spending necessary to fix it, which they also left behind. It's a win-win!

Evidently this flim-flammery still hasn't seeped into the cerebral cortex of certain homo sapiens native to this part of the world.

 

[m8d]

We have a choice. The guy on the team that brought back a broken economy vs the guy who bankrupted most of his businesses and ran corrupt charities and corrupt education institutions.

Now...let...me...think!!

BTW - Welcome. Hope you have a thick skin

You forget to add that Trump raw dawgs pornstars.

 

[hal2kilo]

OP was of course correct, even if some thought his point overly obvious. I will add another dimension to this: this "pump and dump" strategy that the GOP has in relation to the economy has to it an additional, hidden political advantage. The GOP POTUS of course cuts taxes and deficit spends to give the economy a sugar rush.

If he's lucky like GWB, the rush lasts past his re-election. If he's unlikely like GHWB and Trump, it crashes before re-election. Either way, they get to leave behind their next political hit job on the democrats, like that little landmine your pet left in the closet for the new tenants. Simultaneously blame the democrat for the bad economy they left behind, while wailing about the deficit spending necessary to fix it, which they also left behind. It's a win-win!

Evidently this flim-flammery still hasn't seeped into the cerebral cortex of certain homo sapiens native to this part of the world.

Don't let the rush of bothsides hit you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't give a shit, what I care about is the statement that he bankrupted most of his businesses. 6 is not most and bonehead knows it.

aw, he mad. Tell us, how do you feel about people who can't get loans? Furthermore, give us your full review of liars

 

[fskimospy]

aw, he mad. Tell us, how do you feel about people who can't get loans? Furthermore, give us your full review of liars

Also, Trump has had far more business failures than 6. Things like Trump Steaks failed and then just disappeared, never entering bankruptcy. The Trump Shuttle was a massive failure too but its assets were purchased by another airline after defaulting on its debts, it just never entered bankruptcy while he owned it.

Again, it appears fairly likely his life’s work has netted him approximately the same success as if he had done nothing at all and just invested in an index fund. He’s a terrible businessman.

 

[IronWing]

The vast majority of those 400 entities (I have not heard that there are 500 though he may have spun up more since becoming president) are shell LLCs designed to protect Trump from personal liability when the businesses that actually do something tank (because Trump is a deadbeat bum).