What has Trump done right so far?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Had there been one who would have stimulated the economy and held down spending, sure! Unfortunately, that option wasn't available.

Yeah because the guy who spent the last 8 years doing that while you guys berated him for it couldn't run for a third term...


https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/ ... a-vero.png

Obama used the Porkulus year, the absolute highest level of expenditure ever as his new baseline. He spent more ever year of his presidency that any other year in history. More than any other bush year. The population grew only 8% in his term but his lowest year's expenditure was more than 8% higher tha Bush's penultimate year. The growth in expenditures was not, then, a function of increased population.

How hard is it to overspend less based on that obscene Bush final year? Not very. On top of that he stifled the economy to well below historic average in post recession recoveries.

I am glad we did not get a third term of that rubbish.

PeterZ wrote:I am glad we did get a third term of that rubbish.

...I thought he only had two terms...

Michael Everett wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I am glad we did get a third term of that rubbish.

...I thought he only had two terms...

Thank you for identifying my typing error.

Nullus anxietus

"If you're so very worried about the water levels, which Captains do you want in charge? The ones making the holes smaller, or the ones making the holes bigger? It's a simple enough question."

See, the numerical answer to this question would be Bush over Obama in absolute deficit and debt contribution terms. The dynamics of the system though, make any numerical comparison useless. Remember there are lies, damned lies and statistics...

That's why I preferred Trump over Clinton. Clinton promised more of the same: which I took as spending levels, economic policies, treaties, etc. And with most democratic politicians willing to accept "the new norm" of low GDP growth, that spelled more and more debt being piled on debt - with no end in sight. (BTW - had Clinton won I had every intention of becoming a hard core progressive socialist to 'get mine' while the getting was good.)

Trump appears to be trying a different approach based on growth. Which because of entitlements is the only politically palatable approach to even getting a handle on the debt. But it would take years of sustained growth to even dent the socialistic Ponzi schemes built into the system.

So basically right now, the only real hope is to hope it holds off until after death.

The Peace Dividend

There actually was a peace dividend started in Bush Sr's term and continued in the Clinton presidency that was reflected by a significant decline in defense spending - even with Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yeah because the guy who spent the last 8 years doing that while you guys berated him for it couldn't run for a third term...


https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/ ... a-vero.png

Obama used the Porkulus year, the absolute highest level of expenditure ever as his new baseline

Every president uses the last budget of his predecessor as his new baseline. So your complaint here is really "But Bush ran spending up HUGELY as the starting point for Obama's presidency!"

Which yeah, he did. Even if you *don't* count the final implosion year. Kind of the point. Glad to see you're completely missing it though.

Second... WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

You don't get to deal with that for free unless you believe in the Presidential Magic Wand. It is a freaking *miracle* that spending held where it did under Obama and they still managed to pull the economy out of its nosedive.

He spent more ever year of his presidency that any other year in history.

Except the one before he took office. Which is the entire point. Bush ramp spending UP. Obama bring spending back down WHILE dealing with the worst economic catastrophe in the better part of the last century. Which is EXACTLY what you just claimed you wanted to see... but when Obama actually did it all you give is grief.

More than any other bush year. The population grew only 8% in his term but his lowest year's expenditure was more than 8% higher tha Bush's penultimate year. The growth in expenditures was not, then, a function of increased population.

Considering that's a graph of per capita numbers.... duh?

How hard is it to overspend less based on that obscene Bush final year? Not very.

WHILE trying to prevent the total impending collapse of the entire economy and then repair all the damage that catastrophic near miss caused?

You try it. Do you actually HAVE a magic wand you aren't telling the rest of us about?

On top of that he stifled the economy to well below historic average in post recession recoveries.

Your own article cited in support refutes your claim.
I point this out AGAIN, since you seem to be adept at ignoring it.

CRC wrote:"If you're so very worried about the water levels, which Captains do you want in charge? The ones making the holes smaller, or the ones making the holes bigger? It's a simple enough question."

See, the numerical answer to this question would be Bush over Obama in absolute deficit and debt contribution terms.

Which is the exact same thing as saying "well Captain Bush who blew a hole in the side of the boat quit as captain 2 seconds later before all the water rushed in, then Captain Obama who took over after him had LOTS of water rush in while he repaired the giant hole.

So obviously I prefer Captain Bush in terms of water in the boat."


Is that, in fact your answer? You think the guy who ripped a hole in the boat is the better captain than the guy who fixed the hole?

The dynamics of the system though, make any numerical comparison useless.

No, they really don't. the numbers are actually quite simple. You just don't like what they say.

Trump appears to be trying a different approach based on growth.

It is just depressing that you think Trump is trying an approach based on anything whatsoever... he doesn't have the attention span to construct an approach based on anything. He just flails around making pronouncements between twitter outbursts and latching on to any good news to claim credit for it whether he had anything to do with it or not.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:How hard is it to overspend less based on that obscene Bush final year? Not very.

WHILE trying to prevent the total impending collapse of the entire economy and then repair all the damage that catastrophic near miss caused?

You try it. Do you actually HAVE a magic wand you aren't telling the rest of us about?

PeterZ wrote: On top of that he stifled the economy to well below historic average in post recession recoveries.

Your own article cited in support refutes your claim.
I point this out AGAIN, since you seem to be adept at ignoring it.

Dude, FDR managed 8.1% compounded annually for the first 8 years of his presidency after the Hoover fiasco (1933-1934). GDP rose from 0.862Tr in 1934 to 1.49Tr in 1941. I don't count the first year as it is part of the prior administration's budget. That was THE WORST financial catastrophe we have faced by any measure.

Obama didn't face anything nearly as bad and he managed only 2.1%. That qualifies as stifled as I have said over and over again. Does Bloomberg disagree? Sure. So what? The only President who did worse than Obama was GWB.

We can have as many opinions as you or I want to cite. Those opinions matter less than the hard numbers: Obama's average growth rates after his recession was worse than any other President except GWB. Compared to the recovery from the Worst financial disaster we have faced, his recovery was incredibly weak....One might even say stifled.

Is his decision to police the borders correct, just not his methods?