Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  7 months ago  •  90 comments

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




President Donald Trump’s stock market stacks up well against the majority of his presidential predecessors.

The   S&P 500   has returned more than 50% since Trump was elected, more than double the 23% average market return of presidents three years into their term, according data from Bespoke Investment Group dating to 1928.


The bellwether index gained more than 28% this year, well above the average 12.8% return of year three for past U.S. presidents.







106311521-157720646894312242019_presiden





“Year three has been by far the best year of the cycle with an average gain of 12.81%, and the playbook has stuck to the script in year three of the current cycle,” the firm said in a note to clients last month.





Despite the volatility from the U.S.-China trade war, 2019 has been a year of all-time highs for the major stock averages. The   S&P 500   crossed 3,200 for the first time ever last week, hitting its seventh round-number milestone of 2019. While business investment slumped due to uncertainty surrounding the world’s two largest economies, public market investors remained confident enough to put money into stocks.


Trump’s market got a boost from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the central bank, which lowered interest rates three times this year, the first time since the end of the financial crisis. The Fed slashed rates on fears of slowing growth at home and abroad. Trump was highly critical of Powell for not lowering rates more and faster, often mentioning the near $15 trillion in negative yielding government securities outside the U.S.

Markets were also helped by one of the tightest labor markets in history, with the unemployment rate currently at 3.5%, its lowest since 1969. And since Americans were working, they were also spending. The strong U.S. consumer held the economy up during some reported manufacturing contractions. Consumers also held strong amid a messy bond market, when shorter-term bond yields rose above long-term yields, causing the yield curve to invert, a phenomenon known to precede recessions. The curve has since steepened and is no longer inverted.

Trump’s third year is above average, but not the best of any past president. In 2013, former President Barack Obama’s stock market returned more than 32%, as the economy bounced back from the Great Recession.

Trump’s first year was about triple the presidential average, with the S&P 500 gaining 19.4% compared with the average 5.7%.

Businesses got help from Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul, with companies buying a   record   number of shares back with the extra money.

The sore spot for Trump’s record was year two. Trump’s market had a below average year in 2018, when the stock market suffered its worst December since the Great Depression amid the intensified U.S.-China trade war and a rate increase from the Federal Reserve. The S&P 500 fell 6.2%, compared with the average gain of 4.5%.


A strong fourth year?



If history is any guide, Trump is in for another strong year in 2020.

Stocks are up in year four more than 66% of the time and the S&P 500 returns an average of 5.7%, according to Bespoke.






Much of these stock gains will depend on how trade talks go with China. Earlier this month, the countries announced a “phase one” trade deal in which China agreed to buy billions in U.S. agricultural products and the U.S. agreed to cancel a round of tariffs. For the most part, stocks shrugged off the deal due to its lack of clarity and uncertain path to phase two.




While Trump is confident about a strong market next year, Wall Street is forecasting much more modest gains. The av erage S&P 500 target   for 2020 among analyst on Wall Street is 3,330, less than 4% higher than Tuesday’s close. Trump will need a 6% gain in the S&P 500 to beat the average presidential return.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Release The Kraken
1  seeder  Release The Kraken    7 months ago

Paul Krugman is likely on suicide watch. 

This is why your TDS does not matter, it's the economy stupid!

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Release The Kraken @1    7 months ago

Lol ..... Krugman got it wrong again ..... badly .... again!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.1  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  Sparty On @1.1    7 months ago

Middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017.

These surges in income, have occurred at exactly the time when many liberal economists and media talking heads were shouting “recession.”

These latest income numbers also squarely contradict the claims by Democratic presidential candidates.

https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/middle-class-incomes-surging-thanks-trump-policies

The democrat party's economic platform has been disproved as disastrous. The answer to stagnate wages among the working class was simple, get rid of the democrat regulatory abuse and cronyism.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.2  lady in black  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.1    7 months ago

My income did NOT surge by $5,000 and I'm middle class.  The tax cut for me was a bust

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.3  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    7 months ago

Well not everyone is good at capitalism. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    7 months ago
The tax cut for me was a bust

Well, take solace in the fact that you are just paying your fair share, right?

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.5  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    7 months ago

Work hard, be irreplaceable to your employer creating obvious value, ask for a raise.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.6  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    7 months ago

Mine did I suggest a second job when you can't make ends meet.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.7  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  MUVA @1.1.6    7 months ago

The economy is good, it's a fact. Who's to blame for success or failure?

256

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.8  MUVA  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.5    7 months ago

That's too hard it's easy to complain hard work is hard and not for everyone.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.9  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @1.1.2    7 months ago

Fixed income?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.7    7 months ago

Donald Trump comes out tomorrow and says he is issuing an executive order that will take away all private ownership of guns, and is making all recreational drug use a felony with a 10 year minimum prison sentence, and is banning the use of motorcycles. 

I presume he is still your guy because you are making more money since he took office. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.11  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    7 months ago

Is that all you have, some delusional what if?

The economy is on fire, Millions have been raised out of poverty and wages are rising. Everything you have always hoped for is happening. 

It may be time to admit the regulatory cronyism under the Obama administration actually had a negative effect on all of the economic issues you've expressed the last few years.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.12  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    7 months ago

No, she is paying for those massive corporations and the elite who don't pay.  They use the infrastructure and benefits of the country and don't pay jack and the rest of us pay for it in taxes and cuts to programs they benefits from (but the elite and corps don't).  Fair share implies those who grab the spoils pay, but they aren't.   They also socialize their costs, so another 'free pass' for the top!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.13  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    7 months ago

What if he makes all guns  legal  and drug use decriminalized. I have a better one what if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it ass when it jumps. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.11    7 months ago
Is that all you have, some delusional what if?

Your basic 'argument' is that no one should object to a president who presides over a good economy. 

If Trump came out with an order to ban guns he would be impeached from the right, wouldnt he? even though those who would be impeaching him are making money.  

Everything doesnt revolve around money. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.15  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.14    7 months ago
Everything doesnt revolve around money.

Gee I thought with your dozens of income inequality articles and concern for the poor it would be an important issue to you. Obviously not. 

You just want your party in power and will support what ever bad policy they impose and defended at all costs. It seems really dishonest but to each their own.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @1.1.12    7 months ago
No, she is paying for those massive corporations and the elite who don't pay. 

I suggest you write or call your reps and get them to change the laws you don't like enforced.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @1.1.13    7 months ago

It's not my problem if you dont understand analogies. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.1.18  Jasper2529  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.11    7 months ago
The economy is on fire, Millions have been raised out of poverty and wages are rising.

Exactly. Anyone who is lower or middle income/class claiming that they haven't personally seen improvements in their lives is doing something wrong or prevaricating.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @1.1.12    7 months ago
No, she is paying for those massive corporations and the elite who don't pay.  They use the infrastructure and benefits of the country and don't pay jack and the rest of us pay for it in taxes and cuts to programs they benefits from (but the elite and corps don't).  Fair share implies those who grab the spoils pay, but they aren't.   They also socialize their costs, so another 'free pass' for the top!

[deleted]

"Massive" corporations employ people who they pay and those people pay taxes.  Were it not for the employer, those people would not have any income to pay taxes on.

Those same "massive" corporations also factor in any taxes that they might be responsible for into the prices they charge for the product and/or service they provide, so in the end, you and others, like myself, pay those taxes.   So, knowing that, if they were responsible for more taxes, they would simply factor THOSE taxes into their prices and you would still be paying them, but the difference would be that you would be paying more for the same product or service you got the day before for less.

What obviously escapes you and many others is that the government does not have a financial problem that more taxes would resolve.  Every time they get a penny more, they find a way to spend a dollar.

The government simply has a spending problem in that politicians have made more promises that they can't afford.  They continually kick the can down the road hoping that someone sometime in the future will have the balls to do what they themselves don't have.  MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS.

[deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.20  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.14    7 months ago
If Trump came out with an order to ban guns he would be impeached from the right, wouldnt he?

Nope.  It would be challenged in court and ultimately shot down in the SCOTUS.

Now, I can assure you that he very likely wound not be re-elected.  But, that's something I don't think we need to worry about.  It would sate your wildest wet dreams though.,

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.22  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @1.1.6    7 months ago

Did I say I couldn't make ends meet...NO I did not....I have a great job, make great money, I get yearly raises....but once again, the tax cut is shit.  

I love how all you assume you know me personally...you know where you all can go don't you.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.23  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @1.1.8    7 months ago

Once again, you don't know me personally so [Deleted]

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.24  lady in black  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.7    7 months ago

You don't have a clue, you think you're being funny but you're not. 

[deleted] so I will just put you on my ignore list so.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @1.1.23    7 months ago
but once again, the tax cut is shit.  

Well, what we do know is the tax cut wasn't "shit" for many so one CAN assume your main problem with it is that it came during the Trump administration.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.26  lady in black  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.25    7 months ago

Wrong....the tax cut is shit for most.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.27  Ender  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

Now there is talk about more tax cuts.

It is almost like they want to intentionally bankrupt the country. Same old song and dance. They want to 'starve the beast' so to speak. And as always, the first things to get cut will be social services

They want long term pain for short term gain.

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.29  MAGA  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

That’s not accurate.  Most people received real total tax reductions in 2018 vs 2017 for comparable income levels.  The doubling of the per child tax credit, the individual head of household or married tax deduction and the rate cut of 3 points from the prior year benefits almost all tax payers.  If you live where your mortgage is over 750k and or where state and local taxes are much higher than the national average for such, that might have eaten into your tax cut.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.30  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    7 months ago

Must be some pretty powerful stuff you're smoking there JR!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.31  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  lady in black @1.1.24    7 months ago

You can ignore all you want but the economy is amazing and the people you vote for had nothing to do with it.

Echo chamber engage!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.32  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.14    7 months ago
Your basic 'argument' is that no one should object to a president who presides over a good economy.

It's fine to object to something about a president, but the fact is people have priorities. If you asked most people would they rather have a strong economy or a president with nice manners, most will pick the strong economy.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.33  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

Interesting that Obama extended Bush era tax cuts and added several of his own, and the liberal left hardly uttered a word, but Trump does so and it is a outright mortal sin. Outrageous and hypocritical!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.34  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

You speak for most? Because most are earning more money. Based on what you've said, you're not most. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.35  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

I make really  really good money and the tax cuts are great.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.32    7 months ago
If you asked most people would they rather have a strong economy or a president with nice manners, most will pick the strong economy.

The only thing wrong with your comment is that it is not reality.  Why not rejoin reality? 

Either the economy is not as strong as you think, or most people don't choose the strong economy over an honest president, because Trump has NEVER had a majority of Americans supporting him. 

Why are Trump supporters so delusional?    When you look at this forum, every day we see some remark about how "the people" like Trump. 

When you dont have 50+ percent approval, you dont have "the people", you have "some people". 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.32    7 months ago

My guess at this point is that Trump will lose, probably fairly badly in the popular vote.  I base this on the polls, which have never shown him with majority support, on the 2018 midterms, which were an open rebuke of Trump, the results of numerous elections around the country since 2016 which have shown Trump backed candidates either losing or unexpectedly struggling, and on Trump's inability to increase his base, because he cannot control his behavior. 

There is no doubt that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US. If the independents split , all the Democrats have to do is get out their vote. Enthusiasm against Trump will likely spark a tremendous turnout for the Democrat candidate.  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.38  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    7 months ago

What if all the rural whites the tens of millions of them that don't usually vote come out to vote for Trump what then? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.39  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @1.1.38    7 months ago

The election may come down to whether more people who voted for Trump in 2016 have seen enough of his shit, or more people who voted against him in 2016 have grown to appreciate his offbeat charm. 

I think its the former. He's going to lose more votes that he received in 2016 than he is going to gain from those who opposed him in '16. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.40  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @1.1.26    7 months ago

Wrong, the tax cut IS NOT "shit" for most.    The only "shit" here is the TDS driving this discussion of "shit."

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.1.41  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.18    7 months ago

Evidently TDS can be financially devastating.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.42  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.39    7 months ago

I was thinking  of all the racist you and others purport to living in the shadows of rural America remember only half of the citizens vote every time it only takes about 5% of them and he wins the popular vote and the electoral college. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.43  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    7 months ago
My guess at this point is that Trump will lose, probably fairly badly in the popular vote.

As long as President Trump wins the Electoral College votes again, your projection is as usual meaningless.

Enthusiasm against Trump will likely spark a tremendous turnout for the Democrat candidate. 

I'm sorry JR...  I simply have to make the following corrections to your hope:

Enthusiasm against Socialists will likely spark a tremendous turnout for the Republican candidate. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.39    7 months ago
I think its the former. He's going to lose more votes that he received in 2016 than he is going to gain from those who opposed him in '16. 

Wishful thinking John but it ain't gonna happen.   Not unless you run someone better than is on Dem ticket right now.   And that ain't gonna happen.   The DNC won't let it.

What amazes me is how many Dems are so butt-hurt by Trump it appears they would prefer to go back to stale economic times a Dem would likely bring.   It's either that or they are too stupid to realize most Dems want them down and out, under their thumb and on government cheese.

Amazing!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.45  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.39    7 months ago

Not even considering how many people have see the shit the left has invented/created that will drive voters away from the progressive leftist liberal Democrats! It's a double edged sword John.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.1.11    7 months ago
Millions have been raised out of poverty

For democrats, therein lies the problem. Their base is shrinking.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.47  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.36    7 months ago
When you dont have 50+ percent approval, you dont have "the people", you have "some people". 

So, by that logic, Obama had even "less people" because his approval rating is lower than Trump's this time in his presidency.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.48  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    7 months ago
I presume he is still your guy because you are making more money since he took office. 

Isn't that what folks are really on this planet for ?

Making Money ?

We could always go back to the barter system, but wow, would that leave mucho peoples out of the equation, since they really don't supply anything more than shit in the first place.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.49  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.36    7 months ago
The only thing wrong with your comment is that it is not reality. . . . Either the economy is not as strong as you think . . .

You're not staying on point. I guess "moving the goal posts" would be an appropriate description. I say this because I want to make sure we keep talking about the same thing. Remember that I was responding to:

Your basic 'argument' is that no one should object to a president who presides over a good economy.

So any disagreement we might have over whether or not the economy is actually doing well is a separate issue. The fact remains that if voters think a president is good for the economy - or even if they think he's the guy least likely to screw things up economically - they will vote for him even if there is some other thing about him that they don't like.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2  Sunshine    7 months ago

My rate of return on my 401k is great this year...higher percentage than what is quoted in the article.  Other investments I have up too.  It has been an excellent year.  

Why anyone wants the US to fail is disturbing.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2    7 months ago

Why anyone would want Trump to be president is more disturbing. 

Trumpster crackpots act as if the US was a third world country before Trump took office and saved everyone. It is beyond bizarre. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.1.1  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    7 months ago

You have a field of candidates running that hasn't proposed a single policy that would improve this already exceptional economy. Don't complain about people who support a good economy, call your favorite candidate and tell them to support economic policies that actually help the working class.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    7 months ago
Why anyone would want Trump to be president is more disturbing. 

You prefer people to not have jobs, I understand.  Perhaps if it was you who went through some horrible financial difficulties in the Obama years, you would feel different.  Except selfish people do not care about how others are going to live and prosper.

In my area we have 2500 new good paying jobs coming next year and although you don't give a shit, those who live in this area do.  

I can't stand reading your stupid shit anymore. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.3  lib50  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.1    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.2    7 months ago

Sunshine, was the US a third world country when Bush II and Obama were president? 

It does appear that the economy is slightly better than it was before Trump took office,  which is a natural progression during an economic recovery.  Had Clinton won, or if Jeb Bush or Cruz were president now it is highly likely we would have a roughly similar economy as we have now.  Trumpsters fall into the misperception that only he can do this. It's pretty silly.  Particularly given the fact that he is massively unfit to be president of the United States, psychologically, intellectually, and by his lack of character. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.1.6  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    7 months ago

I was a big fan of Bill Clinton's economy too. I remember when he told us, "The Era of Big Government is over". That was the last time we enjoyed prosperity under a Democrat. Sadly no democrat could win a primary saying such things.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.7  Sunshine  replied to    7 months ago
None of the [deleted] are electable or worth a damn

And they weren't last election either, yet some idiots still voted for one.  

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.1.8  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.7    7 months ago

There is a lot of dishonesty on this forum. For years we are bombarded with articles demanding we help our poor, raise income and when those things actually happen they are miserable and unhappy about them.

Kind of sad when politics are more important than economic prosperity for the average American.

Que the recession is coming economic denier crowd...3 2 1.....

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.9  Sunshine  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.8    7 months ago
There is a lot of dishonesty on this forum.

Yes there is, a lot of bullshit coming from the sanctimonious crowd.

Well they can have the site.  

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.1.10  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.9    7 months ago

I thought i'd never see the day rich liberals on tv begging for recession and their not so rich minions online hoping too. Then of course the fake attempts to spin economic data to sell the nonexistent doom and gloom.

Hard to sell big government and entitlements when everyone has a job and is earning more money.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.6    7 months ago
That was the last time we enjoyed prosperity under a Democrat.

The economy then crashed a decade later, under a Republican.  When a Democrat again took office the situation was stabilized and began to slowly improve. At the start of Obama's presidency some economists said it could take up to 10 years to overcome the effects of the 2008 crash. 

Had McCain won in 2008 is it your argument that things would have been so much better?  What is the evidence of that? 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.1.12  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.11    7 months ago

McCain was a protectionist, interventionist and supporter of crony corruption like Obama.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.12    7 months ago

The Great Recession of 2008 and all the bank bailouts were because of lack of regulation on the banksters which they took advantage of with all their subprime mortgage shenanigans. Had the proper rules against over leveraging been in place on Wall St. the crash never would have happened. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.6    7 months ago

To be fair, Clinton was driven toward that middle by a Republican dominated congress.   It was really the last time the Executive and Legislative branches worked together and compromised.

The fact that doesn't happen anymore should piss everyone off.   We're all getting screwed and too many drones on both sides don't have the mental faculties to make the connection ..... it's pretty sad to say the least

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    7 months ago

And make no mistake about it, both parties and multiple Presidents of both parties, have their fingerprints all over that mess

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.16  MAGA  replied to    7 months ago

Whatever you said about the dumb democrats currently running for President had to be pretty darned good.  👍

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.17  MAGA  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.7    7 months ago

All too many such....It will be fewer this time.  

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.18  MAGA  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.9    7 months ago

Indeed there is....Just win the election for Trump and let em whine 🍷to their hearts content while we laugh 😂 and offer some cheese 🧀 to go.  And no, don’t give them the echo chamber ❄️they seek.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.19  MAGA  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.14    7 months ago

Trump offered compromise to house democrats on a variety of issues.  Just wait until next June when the Supreme Court approves executive order countering Obama’s on DACA and right before the democrat party convention he reissues that eventual citizenship offer for original DACA recipients in exchange for all the border security he seeks.  Would they turn that down again knowing the original DACA is gone? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    7 months ago

Ironic that it is primarily the progressive liberal left that insists on calling him such. Many on the left just cannot stand or stomach the idea that those on the right do not share their particular political views or their undisguised hatred of anything conservative or right leaning. I myself am not particularly fond of a lot of what Trump says or does. I am just a lot less fond of the brand of progressive leftist  liberalism so prevalent in the Democratic party these days.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.8    7 months ago

Only because the folks doing the whining and complaining cannot give credit to one of their own...

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.22  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    7 months ago

If people would have paid the money back they barrowned the crash wouldn't have happened.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  MAGA @2.1.19    7 months ago

Trump has not come even close to level of compromise that Clinton was forced into and accepted.   But then again it wouldn't matter if he did.   Congressional Dems hatred for Trump is too great, much greater than anything towards Clinton in that era.   They will NEVER compromise with Trump.   Not in any substantial way.   No way

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Sunshine @2    7 months ago
Why anyone wants the US to fail is disturbing.

Like Maher and others hoping for a recession? Yes, it's very disturbing to know that some so-called "Americans" hope that hard-working Americans will fail.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3  Sparty On    7 months ago

I don't know about you folks but i'm still waiting for my Obama phone .....

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Sparty On @3    7 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
4  TᵢG    7 months ago

Although every PotUS has been praised and chastised for the economy under his watch, there really is very little that a PotUS can do to make a strong economy.   Short of being favorable towards business (which Trump is) the economy is far too complex and multidimensional.  Economists dream of a day when they have the clear answers on how to make an economy work.   

A PotUS can, however, cause harm to the economy.   Taxation and high interest rates is probably the prime example of a spending killer.   High energy (and thus prices) is another.   So for those PotUS' who have had the good fortune of a good economy during their watch we can at least say that they did not do anything to screw it up.   But to give them credit for a healthy economy is like giving credit to a doctor for an unexpected (and unexplained) awakening from a long coma.

The last PotUS to have the good fortune of being in office during a boom was Clinton.  He is still riding that wave of glory.   Now, the lucky recipient is Trump.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4.1  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  TᵢG @4    7 months ago

Obama regulated more than all previous presidents combined. Most of the regulations picking winners in various sectors of our economy crippling their competitors and industries.

The Trump administration has been systemically removing them along with remaining Bush administrations cronyism too.

Normally I'd agree but there is substantial data to support crediting the obvious culprit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1    7 months ago
TiG @4A PotUS can, however, cause harm to the economy. 

An easy way to harm the economy is to impose disincentives to expansion / consumption.   Although the economy was well into recovery during Obama's term, it goes to Trump's economic credit to remove disincentives (at the expense of credits in other areas such as renewable energy, environmental concerns, etc.).

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4.1.2  seeder  Release The Kraken  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    7 months ago

Obama's economy was the slowest recovery in history and it comes as no surprise with the implementation of his massive crony regulatory agenda. He told us in the future we should never expect more than 2% GDP. He couldn't have been more wrong.

Regulation has become a plunderous reward by elected presidents in our modern history. President's regulate in various segments of our market to give their donors and friends a competitive advantage regardless of the viability of their company or technology.

His cronies experienced prosperity while the rest of us enjoyed high unemployment and stagnate wages. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.2    7 months ago

My point was that the economy was recovering (due largely to the natural dynamics) before Trump took office.   I was not defending Obama but rather noting that Trump does not get credit for turning the direction of the economy from downturn to upturn.   I agree with the economic benefit of Trump removing restrictions on supply and demand while noting that this carries problems in other areas such as the environment (which is why, in part, Obama introduced his restrictions).

My point remains that a PotUS can do very little to improve upon an economy (but can certainly harm it).   Our economy (as a system) was improving under Obama and it is very likely that anyone elected in 2016 would be in the fortunate position of presiding over a growing economy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    7 months ago
My point was that the economy was recovering (due largely to the natural dynamics) before Trump took office.

Extended zero % Fed interest rate, bailouts and quantitative easing ARE NOT "natural" economic dynamics.   Debatably necessary perhaps at the time but certainly not natural.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.4    7 months ago
Extended zero % Fed interest rate, bailouts and quantitative easing ARE NOT "natural" economic dynamics.  

I do not recall claiming that they were.   I do recall writing this:

TiG @4.1.3 - My point was that the economy was recovering (due largely to the natural dynamics) before Trump took office. 

IMO the big wheel of the economy had recovered from 2007 and was heading upward.   It is impossible to isolate specific human actions from the natural dynamics but we know from history that human beings have very little control over improving an economy (but we can do damage).   We can tweak with our limited tools but the economy still operates largely on natural (and very complex) dynamics.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    7 months ago
I do not recall claiming that they were.

I don’t recall saying you did.

Calling years of a zero % Fed rate, massive bailouts and quantitative easing “tweaks” is disingenuous at best.    They had significant effect on the economy and undoubtably sped up a recovery that would have taken much longer, if at all, without taking such drastic steps.    Few economists without an agenda would disagree with that.

The question remains what effect it will have in the long term.    There is zero doubt that it kicks the can down the road to paying the piper.

Only time will tell on that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.6    7 months ago
Calling years of a zero % Fed rate, massive bailouts and quantitative easing “tweaks” is disingenuous at best.  

I disagree; it is not disingenuous for me to recognize these as minor controls within a massively complex system operating on its own volition.   You apparently think we have significantly more control over the economy.   I disagree.   If human beings had the level of control over the economy that you seem to be implying then we (worldwide) would not have crap economies for years / decades (review the Japanese economy as an example).   The reason we do have economic downturns and the eventual recoveries is because our tools 'adjust' and 'influence' and are substantially too weak to be considered 'controls'.    Thus, in terms of controlling the economy,  describing our tools as tweaks seems appropriate to me.   

You seem to be reinterpreting my point into:  'all economic tools accomplish nothing'.   That is not what I implied nor is it what I meant.    I think I summarized my point clearly in my prior post:

TiG @4.1.5 ☞ We can tweak with our limited tools but the economy still operates largely on natural (and very complex) dynamics.

'Tweak' does not mean 'accomplishes nothing', rather it means that our ability to control relative to the volition and complexity of our economy is very weak.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    7 months ago

Well, we can agree on one thing.   That we disagree completely on this topic.    Absolute disagreement.   

None of what I mentioned are considered “minor” adjustments in any reasonable study of US economics.    Not even close.    And please, don’t try to redefine the meaning of “tweak” in this context or any context for that matter.    Any viable dictionary in the world defines it as a “minor” adjustment.    No one claimed it meant “accomplishing nothing” so that attempted redirect goes nowhere either.

And like I said, none of the items I mentioned were minor.    Not even close actually no matter how hard you try to rationalize that they were.

Now you can have the last word.   Have fun!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.8    7 months ago
 Any viable dictionary in the world defines it as a “minor” adjustment.

Yes, a tweak is a minor adjustment.   That is exactly how I used the word.   

And like I said, none of the items I mentioned were minor.   

My point is that they are minor compared to the complexity and volition of an economy.   (Wrote this quite a few times now.)   I offered you what should be an obvious example:  Japan.   If our tools were anything more than adjustments (minor influences) on an economy then Japan could have exercised its version of the tools to correct its economy.   So why have they not done so?    What is up with Greece?   Why not just spin the proper dials and keep the economy on track?   If human beings can do major adjustments then what is stopping struggling nations from doing so?   

Nowadays with a global economy we are dealing with substantially more complexity and a greater degree of international forces.    Do you really think that economists think they have control over economies?   Or do they debate endlessly over which tweaks would most likely influence the economy towards a desired result?    We are like insects biting a dog to influence its behavior.   You seem to think economists are holding a leash.   We can only hope to have such security ... maybe in the future.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
devangelical
Just Jim NC TttH
bccrane
Texan1211
Sunshine
Sean Treacy


54 visitors