Perhaps you can come up with anything at all to dispute the information? Probably not though.
Well, I suppose you could have done the same thing that I did briefly and looked the Congressional Research Service information upon which the LA Times based its assessment to decide. Looks like a pretty accurate assessment to me, but what do I know...
No offense, but reading your posts tends to lead me to a conclusion that's anything anti-Trump is a great thing for you and others who hate the man. Just sayin'.
No offense taken. I think you may have me backwards. My antipathy for the President has to do with him. If his presidency was having great outcomes, I could be very happy for the outcomes and still dislike him. I never have liked his schtick and am appalled by it as President, it's really that simple. Excess self-aggrandizement, non-stop fallacious and misleading statements, apparent misogyny, lack of strategic goals, disinterest in actual problem solving are just not my cup of tea, nor do I believe they lead to a better country.
Yep, cheap money always looks great in the short term.
Things don't happen in a bubble. With any economic measure you're excited about, look at the trend over the few years prior to Trump taking over. You remind me of Sean Hannity, 6 days in to Obama's presidency talking about the Obama economy results with no mention of the crash that he came into, context escapes you.
Nope. Can't dispute them. CAN, however, dispute the cause. That is, it is a continuation of an economic turnaround that was going to happen regardless of who was elected and in the oval office.
Economic "booms" shouldn't be the aim. Sustained economic growth should be. "Booms" are followed by "busts". While they happen to some degree, the larger the Boom, the larger the corresponding Bust. Some would rather have a more stable economy. I don't care either way - it is what it is.
The economy (GDP) was growing steadily and consistently between 1.6% and 2.9% from 2010 to 2016. Trump's first two years in office were 2.2% and 2.9%. So. Come again?
I don’t think you understand how those numbers work.
Obamacare anyone? Huge new entitlement program, now somewhat defanged.
Obamacare was effectively a giant government stimulus to the health care industry, that's true. I have no idea how that's reflected in GDP, but it'd be interesting to discern "service based" GDP vs. "product based". I'm sure those numbers are out there, and our economy is becoming ever more service-based.
Weren't Trump's tax cuts similar in terms of stimulus? You understand that the Fed and the President are distinct, right? Fed actions aren't tied to the executive branch... or do you think Obama was the one ordering QE?
It's really hard to throw stones about increasing the federal debt, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. Neither party balances a budget; their priorities are just different. You think we should eliminate the entitlement programs, and I agree with some of that. Others think we should reduce defense spending, and I agree with some of that.
Agree completely. I just happen to value military expenditures over social programs in many cases, at least moreso than you do.
I don't think that's true. I think I'm just aware of the waste within DoD and think there's more there that's more easily addressed than there is in the social programs.
Along these same lines, I work with infrastructure improvement projects and the lock of common sense and the waste is ridiculous.
