You ARE trolling. I've been pretty adamant for years that the economic growth of this country is below average. I've also been pretty specific about why: a global depression that hasn't yet ended in most parts of the world, the addition of 2 billion more workers into the global labor market, a transitioning economy, the Baby Boomers aging out, poor infrastructure, etc. But what I've also been adamant about is that 2.02%, while below average, isn't statistically different than the US' historical average of 2.5%.
Oh, you mean that the stimulus worked? Nope, brah, still here. And, as before, it worked. It stopped the recession. There are dozens of reasons why the recovery wasn't like other post-WW2 recoveries - the biggest being that the world has just recently ended its depression.
Linking a country's growth rate to its President is, by and large, trolling. Barack Obama had little to do with the U.S. economy, for better or worse, and a one-year President like Donald Trump has had jack-all for effect. I will say, though, that crisis management matters -- and that W and Obama got all the big decisions right in late 2008/early 2009, and that most Trump supporters got all the big decisions wrong.
I didn't link it to a President, I said the 80s and 90s were economic boom times because Pizza Dude suggested otherwise. Nice to see you give W some credit for initiating policies that the PC&E board attributes to Obama "saving the economy". That is rare around here.
Are you talking corporate or income taxes? Because to my knowledge no one is talking about dropping the marginal income tax rate to 20%.
Que? I just saw this.... I thought we'd been through this a hundred times. The historical average (at least in the modern era) is like 3.2%. Barry's average is 1.2%. Blame it on whatever you like but his record is the worst since WWII. And JohnR, I don't need a lecture on Presidents and GDP after listen to blowhards like Dave and yourself during the Bush years.
1) No, the historical average is 2.5%. I have done the math so many times now. 2) If you include 2009 Q1, Obama is 1.5%. If you exclude q1 2009, it is 2.02%. Neither of those numbers are 1.2%. I have done this math so many times now. 3) The reason it is like pre-WW2 is because the recession he took office during most resembles the Great Depression. 4) He's black, VFish. Time to get over it. He was black, he was our President, and he won twice.
This reminds me of the time you came up with your own GDP calculations. Here are GDP #s by President from the NY Times: They are listed in reverse order of growth. Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%) George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%) George H.W. Bush, 2.1% Gerald Ford, 2.2% Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5% Richard Nixon, 3.0% Jimmy Carter, 3.2% Ronald Reagan, 3.5% Bill Clinton, 3.8% Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0% John F. Kennedy, 5.4% And IIRC the historical average is 3.2%. Trust me unless you want to look like a dumbass again.
Anyone see a pattern among the big GDP winners? They all benefitted from big tax cuts. Even a loser like George W. had big GDP gains after cutting taxes.
Bush II of course primed the economy with massive stimulus e.g. Massive Military escalation and security state, not to mention MBSs being the debt engine of consumer economy
Free unicorns! https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/tax-cuts-and-the-trade-deficit/?smid=tw-share Now, it’s just an accounting identity that current account + financial account = 0 — that is, $6.4 trillion in capital inflows means an extra $6.4 trillion in trade deficits over the next decade, more than $600 billion a year. Somehow, TF isn’t advertising that point, even though it’s an unavoidable conclusion from their analysis. What would adding $600 billion per year to the trade deficit do? Mainly it would come from manufacturing, although part of that would reflect indirect losses in service industries that supply manufacturing. So let’s say 60% comes from reduced value added in U.S. manufacturing. That’s more than 20% of U.S. value-added in manufacturing. So the U.S. manufacturing sector would be around 20% smaller than it would have been otherwise.
Give us the ideal VFish tax brackets if you would and explain how that would stimulate the horrific Obama growth and create millions upon millions of jobs (15% flat tax not an option in this exercise).
There's an exercise in futility, but only because no tax rate plan will create millions and millions of jobs in the long run.
The Great Recession was a financial/banking crisis as opposed to a "normal" recession. And the slow recovery from it was actually typical of the recovery from similar financial crises in other countries. It's too bad you can't acknowledge both that and the fact that when Obama became president, the economy was in complete free fall.
By creating lots of banking jobs in Panama, Bermuda and Ireland ... Oh, you meant the US economy? FIIK ...
surprise! surprise! 930522616980484097 is not a valid tweet id You're taxes and insurance premiums are going up!
Dem groundswell better get back to work explaining to congress that this is essentially a repeal of ACA.