4 ms·
He's not wrong.
by s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
He's not wrong.
- rootusrootus 8y agoActually, he is.
- collyw 8y agoBy what measure?
- ionised 8y agoThe effects of economic policies of one president typically aren't felt until the term of the next president. The (specific and limited) growths you are seeing are a result of Obama-era policies. Trumps will start to show after he's left office most likely.
- collyw 8y agoSounds like the excuse of a sore looser.
- rootusrootus 8y agoObjective ones. It's popular to try and start measuring from the moment he was elected, which is obviously disingenuous. But if you want to have any shot at objectivity, you look one year after he took office, or put another way, when his first budget takes effect. You might also give him credit for any legislation he signed, regardless of when it took effect (e.g. stimulus legislation signed shortly after taking office to try and respond to the 2008 crash). Objectively, Obama's years were great. Also, if you feel tempted to use GDP as some measure of Trump's success, remember that the impending tariffs bumped inventory purchasing up dramatically, which artificially increases short-term GDP at the expense of long-term. That's a trap to avoid. If everyone were being honest, congress has more control over the budget than anyone else, and the greater economy kinda works on it's own schedule rather than a president's, so I would be hesitant to over-attribute success or failure to any one president. That said, Democratic administrations of the last few decades tend to do better fiscally, primarily because an ongoing GOP priority is to use public debt to transfer wealth to high net worth individuals.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoThe growth is due to cuts in regulations and taxes. Both of which Trump spear-headed. How do you explain away the record breaking employment statistics?
- ionised 8y agoThe growth and employment numbers were already rising when Trump became president, so how would his tax cuts be responsible for this? Plus, cuts in taxes for the wealthy have been tried numerous times before and not produced economic growth, so why would these ones be different?
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agohttps://twitter.com/WhiteHouseCEA/status/1039233346436562945 https://twitter.com/WhiteHouseCEA/status/1039233346436562945 The corporate tax cuts and de-regulation allow businesses to expand. This results in higher employment and wages. And it wasn't just a tax cut for the wealthy, most Americans received a lower tax rate, the exception being some deductions like state tax (which was arguably unfair to states that don't have an income tax). The corporate tax cut put us on a fair playing field with the rest of the world, allowing businesses to come back home (that and the one time tax on bringing money overseas back). https://twitter.com/WhiteHouseCEA/status/1101587623305465857 https://twitter.com/WhiteHouseCEA/status/1101587623305465857
- Eire_Banshee 8y agoYeah, say what you want but economically we are doing pretty good, relatively.
- ionised 8y agoRelative to what?
- collyw 8y agoObama's economy.
- ionised 8y agoLike I said above, economic reforms aren't really felt until at least a term after they were enacted. Obama's first term was feeling the effects of George W. Bush's administration (and later a financial crash to deal with, resulting from decades of regulation loosening by administrations from both parties). To address your other trollish and deliberately antagonistic reply above, I would be a sore loser if I had any skin in the game, but I'm not American, so I don't particularly care which plutocrats you guys want to put into office. If you want to go on a political rant to someone, you're better directing it another American.