How GDP Growth Under Trump Compares To Clinton, Obama And Other Presidents
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Wayne Duggan October 29, 2020, 7:10 AM
With the presidential election less than a week away, Americans are weighing the two presidential candidates and choosing which is best for the country over the next four years —if they haven't already voted.
One way they can do that is by looking back on the first term of President Donald Trump and comparing the impact his policies have had on the country to previous administrations.
Scroll to continue with contentAd
Trump's GDP Numbers: Trump has campaigned as the best choice for the U.S. economy. Trump often uses the stock market as a scorecard for his policies, but the best representation of the real U.S. economy is gross domestic product.
Here's a look at annual U.S. GDP growth during Trump's presidency. The 2020 estimate comes from the Federal Reserve:
-
2017: +2.3%
-
2018: +3%
-
2019: +2.2%
-
2020: -3.7%
Related Link: Historically, Stocks Perform Better When Sitting President Is Reelected
How Trump Compares: Overall, U.S. GDP growth has averaged about 0.95% during Trump's first term in office. Here's a look at how that GDP growth stacks up to his predecessor, President Barack Obama:
-
2009: -2.5%
-
2010: +2.6%
-
2011: +1.6%
-
2012: +2.2%
-
2013: +1.8%
-
2014: +2.5%
-
2015: +3.1%
-
2016: +1.7%
In his eight years in office, U.S. GDP growth averaged 1.62% under Obama, about 70% higher than Trump's growth rate.
Here's a look at average GDP growth rates under the last six U.S. presidents:
-
Jimmy Carter (D): 3.25%
-
Ronald Reagan (R): 3.48%
-
George H.W. Bush (R): 2.25%
-
Bill Clinton (D): 3.88%
-
George W. Bush (R): 2.2%
-
Barack Obama (D): 1.62%
-
Donald Trump (R): 0.95%
In his first four years in office, Trump has had by far the lowest average U.S. GDP growth rate of any of the last seven U.S. presidents.
Overall, U.S. GDP growth was highest under Clinton and Reagan in this group. GDP growth was lowest under Trump and Obama.
Benzinga's Take: The stock market is a leading economic indicator, and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSE: SPY) is up 19.8% in the last six months.
That positive price action suggests GDP growth is on track for a rebound in 2021, but the question for Americans is whether rebound will occur with Trump or President Joe Biden.
Tags
Who is online
470 visitors
Trump oversaw the worst growth rate in fifty years...
You're conveniently forgetting the pandemic and the disastrous lock downs brought to us by mostly Democrat governors and mayors
Surprised?
??? I wanted trumpsters to ignore all pandemic protocols and be last in line for the vaccines.
If the former occupant of the White House hadn't ignored and downplayed and allowed his benefactors the opportunity to profit off the impending pandemic - there would have never been any wide scale lockdowns and no tanking of the economy - thanks to the former occupant of the White House.
People in hell probably want ice water, too.
So what?
Pure speculation......................
No, the truth.
All this falls into the big fat pig lap of the former occupant of the White House and his criminal enterprise of an 'administration'
Prove it.........................
No, that's not it. The figures published in the article show Trump's average GDP growth during his term was 2.8 pct. The article is depending upon a financial charlatan's trick of looking at the rate of change in GDP growth. That measures how much GDP growth increased over time and is an oversimplified measure of inflation. The overall economy did not collapse under Trump; even during the pandemic.
Also note that the way GDP is calculated has been revised serval times which affects what is reported for past Presidents. It's also likely that another financial charlatan's trick has been employed to use inflation adjusted dollars which skews everything. It's easy to make economic performance of past President's look better by rigging the analysis. Economists lie and that's a fact.
The figures published in the article show that the economy during the Trump administration remained strong with low inflation. While the article doesn't include the numbers, what that suggests is that the buying power of wages improved while the Trump administration was in office.
Keep in mind that under Trump taxes on businesses were lowered but taxes on the rich were raised by a small (but not insignificant) amount. That translated to lower inflation and increased buying power for wages. And the numbers that are ignored in the article show that decreasing taxes on businesses boosted employment while increasing taxes on the rich did not harm the economy.
Trump's approach for Federal support and regulation of the economy worked very well and shouldn't be ignored or disparaged.
No need. It's true.
Do you just make it up as you go along?
So you have no proof.
No need. It's true.
Did you know that poverty decreased while Trump was in office? Or has that become an unimportant measure of how the economy is performing?
The pandemic... Yes the pandemic if not for the pandemic likely trump would have been reelected and trump's overall GDP growth numbers would have been better as well.
Unfortunately for trump and his followers trump himself blew it.
trump's handling of this pandemic sealed his fate.
IMO: trump overestimated his own power and underestimated the power of this virus and it's quick effect on the American people's lives.
trump kept proclaiming "It will just disappear" instead trump disappeared.
The american people want and need truth to live our lives by, that's why we have so many laws against deceit and fraud.
IF trump would have recognised and treated this pandemic with truth, honesty and the respect it deserves trump likely could have held onto the presidency.
trump trumped trump
the only way it could end.
Nah, Trump said it isn’t a big deal and nothing to worry about, so the pandemic couldn’t have been a factor, he just sucked at managing the economy like he does at everything else.
Or alternatively the pandemic is a big deal and you are admitting that he is a liar of disastrous proportions and that his pathetic handling of it had a pretty damn negative effect on the US economy.
Take your pick, either way Trump is a piece of dog shit.
So you feel Trump would have done fine as long as nothing disrupted the momentum of Obama's economy? As soon as something went wrong, Trump couldn't handle it.
Have you noticed that whenever the economy takes a beating, it is during a Republican administration, and whenever the economy starts recovering it is during a Democratic Administration?
These numbers are basically useless without including who controlled the House and the Senate during various administrations.
A voice of wisdom and reason....a rare thing hereabouts.
I at one time did a study from Eisenhower through Obama, Democrats came slightly ahead over that period but it was certainly not conclusive. There are far too many external factors (rest of the world) to come to any decision.
Debt to GDP ratio 1953-2013, the numbers game … the score: Democrats 2 – Republicans 0 – 1 tossup.
It took roughly $1.36 in new debt to create $1 of GDP in Jan. 1953. As of Mar. 2013 it takes over $3.57 in debt to generate a single dollar of additional GDP.
Per President
Rep. Eisenhower 53-61: 1.36 to 1.49 … +.13
Dem. Kennedy 61-63: 1.49 to 1.50 … +.01
Dem. Johnson 63-69: 1.50 to 1.46 … -.04
Rep. Nixon 69-74: 1.46 to 1.55 … +.09
Rep. Ford 74-77: 1.55 to 1.54 … -.01
Dem. Carter 77-81: 1.54 to 1.61 … +.07
Rep. Reagan 81-89: 1.61 to 2.26 … +.65
Rep. Bush 1 89-93: 2.26 to 2.34 … +.08
Dem. Clinton 93-01: 2.34 to 2.71 … +.37
Rep. Bush 2 01-09: 2.71 to 3.81 … +1.10
Dem. Obama 09-13: 3.81 to 3.57 … -.24
What can we construe from this?
1: 1953 to 1981 saw a change from $1.36 to $1.61 for a modest rise of $0.25 over the span of 28 years with +$0.21 under a Republican President and +$0.04 under a Democrat.
2: 1981 to March 2013 saw a change from $1.61 to $3.57 for an increase of $1.96 with +$1.83 under a Republican and +$0.13 under a Democrat.
3: When we include the ‘Golden Years’ of 1953 to 1981 the numbers show a total change of $2.21 with an increase of $2.04 under a Republican and $0.17 under a Democrat.
4: From best to worst- Obama (-.24), Johnson (-.04), Ford (-.01), Kennedy (+.01), Carter (+.07), Bush 1 (+.08), Nixon (+.09), Eisenhower (+.13), Clinton (+.37), Reagan (+.65), Bush 2 (+1.10).
5: 3 Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush have seen an increase of $2.19 and yet the one President, Obama, who has seen a decrease of $0.24 in the Debt to GDP ratio, is chastised as an economic failure.
PER House of Representatives
Rep. 53-55: 1.36 to 1.38 … +.02
Dem. 55-95: 1.38 to 2.38 … +1.00
Rep. 95-07: 2.38 to 3.35 … +.97
Dem. 07-11: 3.35 to 3.62 … +.27
Rep. 11-13: 3.62 to 3.57 … -.05
What can we construe from this?
1: Under 44 years of Democrat control we see an increase of $1.27 for an average increase of just under $0.03 per year. (To be fair? If one removes the ‘Golden Years’, the average increase will be just under $0.06 per year.)
2: Under 15 years of Republican control there is an increase of $0.94 for an average increase of just over $0.06 per year.
PER Senate (Bal. indicates a balanced Senate of +or- 2 votes.)
Bal. 53-59: 1.36 to 1.40 … +.04
Dem. 59-81: 1.40 to 1.61 … +.21
Rep. 81-87: 1.61 to 2.16 … +.55
Dem. 87-95: 2.16 to 2.38 … +.22
Rep. 95-01: 2.38 to 2.70 … +.32
Bal. 01-05: 2.70 to 3.12 … +.42
Rep. 05-07: 3.12 to 3.35 … +.23
Bal. 07-09: 3.35 to 3.81 … +.46
Dem. 09-13: 3.81 to 3.57 … -.24
Last construing for the day …
1: Under 12 years of a balanced Senate of we see an increase of $0.92 for an average increase of $0.077 per year.
2: Under 34 years of Democrat control we see an increase of $0.19 for an average of increase of $0.006 per year.
3: Under 14 years of Republican control we see an increase of $1.10 for an average of $0.079 per year.
4: If one wants to bitch about my balanced Senate go right ahead, it will not change the score card.
Data for control of the 3 Branches of Gov. taken from:
Debt to GDP data taken from:
There are 3 types of statistics, those that are true, those that are lies and my favorite, those that are balderdash ... and all of them are cherrypicked.
... and there's the statistical smokescreen...
When lots of different methods show that the economy is healthier with Democrats, the most likely explanation is that... the economy actually is healthier with Democrats.
So the facts here simply show that the claims of Trump being so much better for the economy were just a lot of hot air as were most of Trumps rhetoric and lies. He took over the recovering Obama economy and road it till the pandemic which, while no one should completely blame him for, did happen on his watch and clearly his mishandling of it led to a far worse impact on our economy and hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their lives. If he had done nothing but be honest with the American people and taken the pandemic seriously and given those same words of warning he gave to Bob Woodward and the small group of Wall street investors to the American people while also recommending mask wearing and social distancing right from the start I have no doubt we would not have seen the kind of economic crisis and half a million dead Americans. The only conclusion I can draw is that even if you were a Trump fan, the reality was that he wasn't worth it even if you loved him and were enamored by his cult of personality. The known cost definitely outweighs any supposed benefit.