It was not just Obama - Red had congress for most of Obama's term. At lease these guys reduced the deficit - as opposed to the Princesses with credit cards we now have at the helm.
There is literally nothing factual in your statement. I mean, seriously. If Obama was trying to destroy the economy, how do you explain it's massive turnaround under his watch?
David Garrow is an excellent biographer, though I haven't read the Obama book, so I can't comment on specific claims in it. That said, he's a card-carrying socialist, so calling him a "fellow traveler" to a moderate like Obama is a pretty big stretch.
Trump claiming credit for the economy is like a climber hauling a rock to the top of Mt. Everest, placing it at the peak, then claiming to have built the tallest mountain in the world. As others have noted, one would hope to see the economy continue to expand, given Trump's $1 trillion in deficit spending. Yet Trump supporters are over the moon about the former and can't be bothered to talk about the latter. Strong economy is good. Goosing the economy with $1 trillion in deficit spending when we were already at full employment was inefficient, wasteful and stupid. Claiming credit for the whole thing while standing on the shoulders of giants is just petty self-aggrandizement.
Quote: Take into account government inefficiencies, and every dollar the government spends to stimulate results in some fraction of a dollar in actual growth. False! Read; Impact on Economies - The Interstate Highway System https://interstatehighway.weebly.com/impact-on-economies.html The Interstate has had a tremendous impact on local and national economies. Every $1 spent to build the Interstate has returned an estimated $6 of economic growth - a 500% rate of return. The US Interstate Highway System: 40 Year Report www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm While the economic and social benefits of the first 40 years of the interstate highway system are clear, the gargantuan load of automobiles, light trucks, buses, and commercial vehicles has taken a …
How? Every one of those expenditures is paid for by monies taken AWAY from the GDP. The government has no revenue source other than that it reduces the economy by way of taxes. Then, considering how inefficient government is, that "stimulation" results in a net economic reduction.
Presidents historically are judged by the economy of the country during their presidency. Historically, this has been an accepted measure. Hell, the left likes to do it with Bush and the recession. But now suddenly, Trump doesn't get credit. Come on.
You realize both of those studies are counting the cost of the highway, and ignoring all of the private sector dollars invested, right? If a corporation invests 20 million on a warehouse next to the interstate, the statistics are counting that investment towards the economic impact while ignoring the private investment. The 20 million dollar warehouse contributed to economic growth, the dollar for dollar cost of the highway itself did not.
Quote: Every one of those expenditures is paid for by monies taken AWAY from the GDP Every?????? False! Here's my rationale; I will soon buy a $1 trillion short term Treasury bond, 3% coupon rate, thus, a huge sum of money I rather invest than spend, and for anyone's info, Uncle Sam will use this money to finance its FY2019 deficit, thus, spend it efficiently or inefficiently. However, if I would hide this money under my mattress, I would actually take money away from the GDP. In other words, NOT every government expenditures is paid for by monies taken AWAY from the GDP.
I don't give credit to people who believe; We have record revenues We have an employment record.....157+ million employed Historically, we have the best economy We only have a spending problem Every country are taking advantage of the U.S. A trade deficit with XYZ Country is micro/macroeconomically a bad thing etc., etc., etc. In other words, I don't give credit to people who insult my intelligence.
I agree presidents have historically been judged like that. Not by me, however. Even under Obama, I routinely pointed out that presidents have limited control of the economy, and it makes little sense to either blame or credit them for it.
Had we relied on the private sector to build the interstate highway system, we would still be travelling on dirt roads.
So they will use dollars, that you diverted FROM the economy, to invest in government programs with an interest rate (bond rate) with inefficiencies reducing the GDP growth value. If you were to take those same dollars, and invest them directly, we would see the same growth minus the loss from inefficiency.
I think you are equating your opinions and your intelligence, presuming that your opinions are factual. If you can't handle people having opposing opinions, that seems like a you problem. As far as all of your points above: Federal revenues: Unemployment Rates: Federal Expenditures Vs. Outlays: NATO defense spending: Maybe these facts don't align with your opinions, and that is ok. But they certainly align with others opinions, including mine.
I agree, however; we can't pretend that the economy is cruising along in-spite of Trump. Does he get credit for all of it? No. But certainly he gets some credit.
That isn't the point of the discussion. The point is, government spending (though at times necessary) is one of the most inefficient ways of accomplishing goals and actually results in economic losses.
In reference to the GDP, Uncle Sam's spending = Total outlays - Transfer payments - Interest payments FY2019 estimated outlays; 4.53 trillion minus FY2019 estimated Transfer Payments; $3.1 trillion FY2019 estimated Interest Payments; $470 billion = $1 trillion left over for procurement of goods and services, and salaries FY2019 estimated Defence spending; $720 billion NOTE: Republicans have long been chanting; Military spending is good for the economy...….AGREE or DISAGREE? And for your info; Components of GDP Explained #3 Government spending was $3.18 trillion in 2018. That's 17% of total GDP. It's less than the 19% it contributed in 2006. In other words, the government was spending more when the economy was booming before the recession. That's exactly when it should have been spending less to cool things off. Slower spending now is a result of sequestration, which was also timed poorly. Austerity measures shouldn't be used when the economy is struggling to recover. The federal government spent $1.23 trillion in 2018. More than 60% was military spending. State and local government contributions fell a bit to 10%. Although this spending rose a bit since 2017, other sectors of the economy grew faster. https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015
https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf No it doesn’t, Dutch. The ARTICLE does.
Quote: If you were to take same dollars..... I understand what you're saying, however, your "if" will never be substantiated because REALISTICALLY, Uncle Sam will end up borrowing $1 trillion, and spend it.
You are incorrect. The government cannot create growth; it can only hinder it. Trump only gets credit for being less of a hindrance.
I disagree. The government always create growth GDP = Consumer spending + Business investment + government spending + Export-Imports. Components of GDP Explained 3. Government Spending Government spending was $3.18 trillion in 2018. That's 17% of total GDP. It's less than the 19% it contributed in 2006. In other words, the government was spending more when the economy was booming before the recession. That's exactly when it should have been spending less to cool things off. Slower spending now is a result of sequestration, which was also timed poorly. Austerity measures shouldn't be used when the economy is struggling to recover. The federal government spent $1.23 trillion in 2018. More than 60% was military spending. State and local government contributions fell a bit to 10%. Although this spending rose a bit since 2017, other sectors of the economy grew faster. https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015 ------------------------- NOTE: Government spending = procurement of goods and services, and salaries
Of course! By the way, Republicans have been saying for years that military spending increases economic growth, and today, they're saying "government cannot create growth"