Trump vs. Biden Part 2

[kalm]

The other day i saw a polling result indicating public opinion that Trump would be better on the economy than Biden. That is consistent with what I usually see. For some reason, people tend to think Republican President means better economy and more fiscal responsibility. I've always thought that makes no sense because, over my 1957 - present lifetime, that has not been my experience. So I decided to quantify it. I can provide links to the data i'm summarizing upon request.

I calculated average and median annual real GDP, Monthly unemployment rates, annual inflation rate, and annual deficit as a percent of GDP during the years of my life. I counted inauguration years as years under the party of the President inaugurated. 2021, for example, is a Democrat year as the Democrat was President during more than 11 of the 12 months. The results are below.

There is no way they suggest we have done better in terms of economics or fiscal responsibility when Republicans have been President during my lifetime. I am sure one could select different time frames and get somewhat different results. But I don't think one could be reasonable in selecting time frames and find results that support what tends to be the pubic perception in that regard. And I did not pick a time frame in an effort to make the point. I simply used my lifetime as the time frame because my perception, over my lifetime, has not been the we do better in those areas under Republicans. I got results consistent with my perception.

They say that because Trump actually had a national economic plan. All other decisions were based on his national economic plan and thus, simply focused on making America more prosperous.

You'd be hard pressed to find any GOPe or Liberal candidates that will bother to talk about those plans because the BIG money doesn't want that. They want Globalism. Gotta be able to send our manufacturing base overseas where they don't have to deal with those pesky unions and pay good wages.

Not even looking at numbers, I'd have to say Dems and Reps are pretty close to the same.

Globalism? You think Trump is really anti-globalism?

What was his official economic plan?

[GannonFan]

They say that because Trump actually had a national economic plan. All other decisions were based on his national economic plan and thus, simply focused on making America more prosperous.

You'd be hard pressed to find any GOPe or Liberal candidates that will bother to talk about those plans because the BIG money doesn't want that. They want Globalism. Gotta be able to send our manufacturing base overseas where they don't have to deal with those pesky unions and pay good wages.

Not even looking at numbers, I'd have to say Dems and Reps are pretty close to the same.

Globalism? You think Trump is really anti-globalism?

What was his official economic plan?

No one is really anti-globalism because you just can't be. You need to sell stuff to the rest of the world, the US market just isn't big enough. We can't make or source everything we need to buy here in the US, so we need to work with the rest of the world to get those things. The only real debate about globalism is how to win the trades - how to have the US make the most money out of all of this versus other countries making it off of us.

[SeattleGriz]

They say that because Trump actually had a national economic plan. All other decisions were based on his national economic plan and thus, simply focused on making America more prosperous.

You'd be hard pressed to find any GOPe or Liberal candidates that will bother to talk about those plans because the BIG money doesn't want that. They want Globalism. Gotta be able to send our manufacturing base overseas where they don't have to deal with those pesky unions and pay good wages.

Not even looking at numbers, I'd have to say Dems and Reps are pretty close to the same.

Globalism? You think Trump is really anti-globalism?

What was his official economic plan?

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through (tax cuts were a freebie though), but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

[GannonFan]

Globalism? You think Trump is really anti-globalism?

What was his official economic plan?

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through, but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Don't let kalmie fool you, I'm sure kalm and Trump disagree on millions of things, but the one area where Trump sounded exactly like kalmie was on economics and how to leverage the US position to dominate global trade. It was almost like Trump hangs out on these boards and just took kalmie's posts and used them as his own. I'm waiting for kalmie to finally file his lawsuit on Trump stealing his economic plan.

[SeattleGriz]

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through, but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Don't let kalmie fool you, I'm sure kalm and Trump disagree on millions of things, but the one area where Trump sounded exactly like kalmie was on economics and how to leverage the US position to dominate global trade. It was almost like Trump hangs out on these boards and just took kalmie's posts and used them as his own. I'm waiting for kalmie to finally file his lawsuit on Trump stealing his economic plan.

You hit the nail on the head with that. I remember reading about Mnuchin, Ross and a third guy always working trade deals. Maybe this was the first time I ever paid attention and thus makes it appear as if Trump was doing more, but those three were working trade deals hard core.

[kalm]

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through, but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Don't let kalmie fool you, I'm sure kalm and Trump disagree on millions of things, but the one area where Trump sounded exactly like kalmie was on economics and how to leverage the US position to dominate global trade. It was almost like Trump hangs out on these boards and just took kalmie's posts and used them as his own. I'm waiting for kalmie to finally file his lawsuit on Trump stealing his economic plan.

Let’s see if you can find the contradiction in your last two posts.

One of our customers sold timber, harvested from the Inland Northwest, to China. So a piece of timber was shipped across the ocean via fossil fuel burning freighter to be processed, manufactured into an end table and then shipped back across the same ocean to be sold for $79 at the Coeur D Alene Walmart by a mom working at the federal minimum wage and paying sales tax.

That must be what you mean by winning at trade.

‘Murica!

[UNI88]

Don't let kalmie fool you, I'm sure kalm and Trump disagree on millions of things, but the one area where Trump sounded exactly like kalmie was on economics and how to leverage the US position to dominate global trade. It was almost like Trump hangs out on these boards and just took kalmie's posts and used them as his own. I'm waiting for kalmie to finally file his lawsuit on Trump stealing his economic plan.

Let’s see if you can find the contradiction in your last two posts.

One of our customers sold timber, harvested from the Inland Northwest, to China. So a piece of timber was shipped across the ocean via fossil fuel burning freighter to be processed, manufactured into an end table and then shipped back across the same ocean to be sold for $79 at the Coeur D Alene Walmart by a mom working at the federal minimum wage and paying sales tax.

That must be what you mean by winning at trade.

‘Murica!

To his credit, trump wanted to put a crimp in that and bring better manufacturing back to America. And if he couldn't, he at least wanted a cut of the $79.

[UNI88]

Globalism? You think Trump is really anti-globalism?

What was his official economic plan?

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through (tax cuts were a freebie though), but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS. I do believe it improved a lot more under trump than it would have under Hillary but it very likely would have done well under Hillary as well.

The Fed used to be focused on leveling things out - keeping the highs from becoming booms and the lows from becoming busts - but they got away from that with COVID and we're paying for it now.

The trump tax cuts were unnecessary and the the long-term impact on the national debt will be greater than the short-term benefits. The best thing about the tax cuts was limiting SALT deductions.

[GannonFan]

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through (tax cuts were a freebie though), but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS. I do believe it improved a lot more under trump than it would have under Hillary but it very likely would have done well under Hillary as well.

The Fed used to be focused on leveling things out - keeping the highs from becoming booms and the lows from becoming busts - but they got away from that with COVID and we're paying for it now.

The trump tax cuts were unnecessary and the the long-term impact on the national debt will be greater than the short-term benefits. The best thing about the tax cuts was limiting SALT deductions.

And simplifying the forms. It didn't go far enough and it's still confusing now, but the idea that the vast majority of people should be able to do a one-page filing is the right way to go.

[kalm]

Let’s see if you can find the contradiction in your last two posts.

One of our customers sold timber, harvested from the Inland Northwest, to China. So a piece of timber was shipped across the ocean via fossil fuel burning freighter to be processed, manufactured into an end table and then shipped back across the same ocean to be sold for $79 at the Coeur D Alene Walmart by a mom working at the federal minimum wage and paying sales tax.

That must be what you mean by winning at trade.

‘Murica!

To his credit, trump wanted to put a crimp in that and bring better manufacturing back to America. And if he couldn't, he at least wanted a cut of the $79.

Exactly. It’s where he and Bernie were on the same page.

[UNI88]

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS. I do believe it improved a lot more under trump than it would have under Hillary but it very likely would have done well under Hillary as well.

The Fed used to be focused on leveling things out - keeping the highs from becoming booms and the lows from becoming busts - but they got away from that with COVID and we're paying for it now.

The trump tax cuts were unnecessary and the the long-term impact on the national debt will be greater than the short-term benefits. The best thing about the tax cuts was limiting SALT deductions.

And simplifying the forms. It didn't go far enough and it's still confusing now, but the idea that the vast majority of people should be able to do a one-page filing is the right way to go.

Absolutely true.

[SeattleGriz]

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through (tax cuts were a freebie though), but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS. I do believe it improved a lot more under trump than it would have under Hillary but it very likely would have done well under Hillary as well.

The Fed used to be focused on leveling things out - keeping the highs from becoming booms and the lows from becoming busts - but they got away from that with COVID and we're paying for it now.

The trump tax cuts were unnecessary and the the long-term impact on the national debt will be greater than the short-term benefits. The best thing about the tax cuts was limiting SALT deductions.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. No, "the economy was going to boom anyway" about it. Trump delivered.

[UNI88]

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS. I do believe it improved a lot more under trump than it would have under Hillary but it very likely would have done well under Hillary as well.

The Fed used to be focused on leveling things out - keeping the highs from becoming booms and the lows from becoming busts - but they got away from that with COVID and we're paying for it now.

The trump tax cuts were unnecessary and the the long-term impact on the national debt will be greater than the short-term benefits. The best thing about the tax cuts was limiting SALT deductions.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. No, "the economy was going to boom anyway" about it. Trump delivered.

Wow, the adulation for trump, the wannabe god amongst men, is through the roof. I didn't realize that the Jewish/Christian God included an exemption for trump in the 3rd Commandment.

FTR, it's basic economics that there are economic cycles.

[SeattleGriz]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. No, "the economy was going to boom anyway" about it. Trump delivered.

Wow, the adulation for trump, the wannabe god amongst men, is through the roof. I didn't realize that the Jewish/Christian God included an exemption for trump in the 3rd Commandment.

FTR, it's basic economics that there are economic cycles.

Of course, and Trump just happened to be that perfectly lucky stiff that was President when the economy veered to vibrancy all by itself.

[BDKJMU]

I've said this before, but if we had a presidential candidate that was bonafide left economically and center-right culturally they could mop the floor with Joe Biden or Donald Trump. People here may not want someone like that but that's the reality. The $15 federal minimum wage would trigger a gag reflex from the Republicans in congress but it won by almost 20 points in Nebraska where many state-wide races don't even have Democratic challengers. Most GOP voters don't care about keeping Amazon's taxes as as much as they want a culture warrior.

Instead, the Democrats promote people like Gavin Newsome that runs a state with the highest rate of homelessness and poverty and has serious discussions about trying to give millions of people a high-six figure sum of money for things that no living person's grandparent's are old enough to remember. Meanwhile these same Democrats say people in small towns and rural areas just aren't reachable because they're a bunch of racist racists that care more about their medical bills than the number of female Fortune 500 CEOs.

Of course, no donors are going to back any such candidate so we're stuck voting for whoever we hate less.

There’s no need for a federal min wage. States should be allowed to set their own, as they can now/ A higher min wage drives up inflation. Just look at the cost of living in the states that have a $15 or more one vs the ones that just have the current federal $7.25. And that will lead to calls for a $20 min wage. Heck it already has in some places. Then eventually $25 in the 2030s or 2040s. No matter how much you raise it, there willl always eventually be calls for a higher one.

[UNI88]

Wow, the adulation for trump, the wannabe god amongst men, is through the roof. I didn't realize that the Jewish/Christian God included an exemption for trump in the 3rd Commandment.

FTR, it's basic economics that there are economic cycles.

Of course, and Trump just happened to be that perfectly lucky stiff that was President when the economy veered to vibrancy all by itself.

trump shares that honor with Bill Clinton. Those two are similar in so many ways.

[houndawg]

A year and a half is a geological epoch in politics. I'm reminded how pollsters, and SG, assured us that abortion wouldn't be an issue, even after Dobbs. They weren't asking the right questions; being opposed to abortion wasn't the question, the question should have related "do you want to lose the option of abortion" and enough Republicans get them that the answer was obvious to most everybody except for the incels.

i'd have to expend more effort than I want to right now to find posts I made about it but I did interpret polling back then to indicate abortion would be a big issue in the mid terms. it was not showing up as the TOP issue but it was up there. Now, I will say that polling understated it. We found that out when Kansas held its referendum. Polling showed it was close; which in itself was remarkable in a state as red as Kansas is. And, as we know, the "pro choice" side won by 18 percentage points.

I was assured by a couple of people here that abortion was no higher than fifth on the list and wouldn't be an issue.

[houndawg]

The other day i saw a polling result indicating public opinion that Trump would be better on the economy than Biden. That is consistent with what I usually see. For some reason, people tend to think Republican President means better economy and more fiscal responsibility. I've always thought that makes no sense because, over my 1957 - present lifetime, that has not been my experience. So I decided to quantify it. I can provide links to the data i'm summarizing upon request.

I calculated average and median annual real GDP, Monthly unemployment rates, annual inflation rate, and annual deficit as a percent of GDP during the years of my life. I counted inauguration years as years under the party of the President inaugurated. 2021, for example, is a Democrat year as the Democrat was President during more than 11 of the 12 months. The results are below.

There is no way they suggest we have done better in terms of economics or fiscal responsibility when Republicans have been President during my lifetime. I am sure one could select different time frames and get somewhat different results. But I don't think one could be reasonable in selecting time frames and find results that support what tends to be the pubic perception in that regard. And I did not pick a time frame in an effort to make the point. I simply used my lifetime as the time frame because my perception, over my lifetime, has not been the we do better in those areas under Republicans. I got results consistent with my perception.

They say that because Trump actually had a national economic plan. All other decisions were based on his national economic plan and thus, simply focused on making America more prosperous.

You'd be hard pressed to find any GOPe or Liberal candidates that will bother to talk about those plans because the BIG money doesn't want that. They want Globalism. Gotta be able to send our manufacturing base overseas where they don't have to deal with those pesky unions and pay good wages.

Not even looking at numbers, I'd have to say Dems and Reps are pretty close to the same.

Same crowd that demonizes the very people they need to keep wages down for Americans.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't say Trump was anti-globalist. I said he had a national economic plan that was more focused on Making America Great Again than establishment candidates.

The interesting piece to me is that I don't think Trump was able to get any big measures through (tax cuts were a freebie though), but was still able to get the economy going like it hadn't been in a long time. Tells me America can be turned around if we limit the exfiltration of money and resources.

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS.

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

[JohnStOnge]

i'd have to expend more effort than I want to right now to find posts I made about it but I did interpret polling back then to indicate abortion would be a big issue in the mid terms. it was not showing up as the TOP issue but it was up there. Now, I will say that polling understated it. We found that out when Kansas held its referendum. Polling showed it was close; which in itself was remarkable in a state as red as Kansas is. And, as we know, the "pro choice" side won by 18 percentage points.

I was assured by a couple of people here that abortion was no higher than fifth on the list and wouldn't be an issue.

Well, I don't know if I want to go through the effort to find old posts but I was definitely in the ''dog that caught the car'' camp. I think it was clear from early on that the Dobbs decision was going to hurt the Republicans among female voters.

[JohnStOnge]

Blast from the past in the form of a graphic I've used before. This is a graph showing US Real GDP growth for the years 2009 - 2020:



As I've typed before: There is no way any objective person could look at that and say, if they were looking at that without knowing who was President when, that something happened between 2016 to 2017 to change the pattern that had been in place since 2010. Yes, 2017 was higher than 2016. But 2015 was higher than 2017. The variation is completely consistent with what had been going on. This idea that there was this definite change after Trump took office is just not there. This continued insistence of believing that Trump changed the economy for the better is just not supported by the data.

[kalm]

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS.

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

And he also increased federal spending while giving massive tax cuts…skyrocketing the debt.

Two Santa Claus theory.

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS.

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

Yeah, those deficits didn't help at all.

FY 2017: $671 billion
FY 2016: $1.42 trillion
FY 2015: $326 billion
FY 2014: $1.09 trillion
FY 2013: $672 billion
FY 2012: $1.28 trillion
FY 2011: $1.23 trillion
FY 2010: $1.65 trillion
FY 2009: $253 billion (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion)

[UNI88]

Yes, trump helped juice the economy and he deserves credit for that. But those things are also cyclical and the economy was likely to improve regardless of who was POTUS.

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

Your rudimentary knowledge of economics is on par with my rudimentary knowledge of scientific field research. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it and then you look for and present data that supports your OPINION.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

As i've typed many times before, Trump did not juice the economy. The economy was pretty much the same economy as it was under Obama. i've provided numerical evidence of that assertion many times before but I will do it again. Here are some numbers:



No. Trump does not deserve credit for juicing the economy because the economy did not change. We just basically continued in the economy that was in place under Obama. That is what the numbers say and it's not even reasonably debatable.

Your rudimentary knowledge of economics is on par with my rudimentary knowledge of scientific field research. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it and then you look for and present data that supports your OPINION.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what do you disagree with about his post? I’d sincerely like to see a counter to his numbers and assertions.