Obama was terrible for economic growth

Thank you. I'm a hard-core arch-Conservative when it comes to everything that has to do with the economy. I don't bother to get into anything having to do with anybody's personal behaviors, except to say that if people have "issues" because of stupid, irresponsible decisions they have made in life, then I don't want any U. S. Taxpayer to be burdened with any of their expenses.

We'll see just how much of a Conservative that President Trump is when he rolls out his new Tax Plan next week! In order to meet the expectations of a genuine Conservative, his plan should get completely rid of all tax loopholes, tax shelters, exclusions, exemptions, and specify harsh penalties on every company that has money "parked" in foreign countries that should be repatriated into the United States, if they don't bring the money back and start paying taxes on it by 2018.

Really, that's what we need most. Make the U. S. Tax Code FAIR for a change, and things would change for the better almost immediately! Will it happen this way? I seriously doubt it! The minute he would make such a proposal, thousands of lobbyists would pour into the Capitol Building like an army of cockroaches, all determined to protect their clients' own treasured ways of NOT paying taxes....

 

that would be something new for a conservative, they have been all tax cuts for the rich up to this point, but we will see if Trump changes that, my guess... not

 

I've been ranting and raving about the horrible unfairness of the U. S. Tax Code for many years. I'm probably much more of a Libertarian than I am a Republican, but I vote Republican because Democrats keep on putting up candidates like Barack Obama and Hilarity Clinton (although I thought Bill Clinton did a reasonably good job overall after his first two years in office).

 

You do seem to be RW, I can understand. It's the lack of education. Home schooled?

 

https://hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president
Looks like obama was the 6th since WW2 to not achieve 3%.
I guess it's why you didn't post a link, and left the thread.



https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

If you want more. Take your pick.
https://www.google.com/search?q=b.+...ome..69i57.16446j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Yet, despite your claimed bragging of bush's economy, which include the largest crash this side of the great depression, obama and bush are near identical.

 

The strongly pro-business economic policies of the Republican administration of Calvin Coolidge, with his low taxes for the wealthy and total lack of business controls, for corporations or the stock market, led us into the Great Depression. The strongly pro-business economic policies of the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan, with its “trickle-down” philosophy, began the transition from having 80% of our nation’s wealth owned and controlled by 20% of the wealthiest few, to today’s reality of having 99% of our nation’s wealth owned and controlled by that now famous 1% of our richest elites, leaving 99% of our nation’s population struggling to live within the remaining 1%--a situation not unlike that in France in 1889, at the onset of the French Revolution. The strongly pro-business economic policies of the Republican administration of George W. Bush, pursuing the policies of both the Coolidge and Reagan years, removed all controls from big business and watched it plunge the nation into the Great Recession of 2008. Now we are renewing those failed economic policies and risking repeating these calamities under the leadership of Donald Trump. As Santayana said, “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

 

Sounds a lot like the present situation.

 

I'm not quite sure where the claim originates that there hasn't been an economic recovery. Both the employment statistics, stock market, corporate profits, and investor income have all been outstanding. There's only one economic category that's lagging and that's personal income but that's due to Republican economic policies that focus on employment compensation being based solely upon unopposed market forces.

Unopposed market forces will drive compensation to the lowest possible level and in the service sector, that comprises about 80% of all employment, the market has driven the "price for labor" below the "cost to provide the labor" resulting in poverty and the necessity for government welfare assistance. There are two ways to prevent this and they're both Democratic solutions.

First is the Free Market solution and that is to introduce an economic force that drives compensation up to counteract the downward pressure of the market. Organized labor (unions) that have enough lawful power to counteract the downward pressure of the market can produce that balance as was the case in the 1950's and 1960's. The Republican Party started stripping the unions of power with the passage of Taft-Hartley that reached it full impact under the Reagan Administration in 1981 when he invoked it destroy the Air Traffic Controllers union. The Republican Party's successful anti-union agenda has destroyed the Free Market solution to employment compensation.

The second is the Government solution that would be the imposition of a minimum compensation law that provides for a decent living standard. Minimum compensation includes more than just wages because it would also include coverage of other necessary expenditures that are better provided for as benefits in addition to wages. Health insurance and Pension/Retirement accounts would also be included for example. Republicans and successfully blocked minimum compensation laws that would provide a decent living standard.

 

Well now. Your judgement is "out to lunch".

 

It has LOTS of "meaning" especially after what has happened to it during the Democrats reign. And no the Rephblicans have not had control of Congress the last 7 years. They have had it for a little over 2 years.

 

The 2000/2001 slowndown recession began before he was even nominated.

 

The recession ended June of 2009 before any of the stimulus began to trickle out. And of course it failed to do as promised.

 

Maybe don't elect idiots? But that would require a populace to disregard the shiny distractions (electoral promises), and think.

 

And

And now you have an even bigger loser-in-chief who promised you the world and delivered nothing.

 

Then why did the Bush tax rate cuts eliminate taxes for millions at the bottom and shift more of the tax burden on the higher incomes?

 

Even if you compare Trump's first 100 days to obama's 8 years, Trump still wins hands down....and he is just getting started.

 

What has he won apart from an election? He has achieved precisely zero. Where's that 'day one' new healthcare scheme, for example? How are the tax cuts looking? The 'wall'? How many feet built so far? All of these were 'day one' promises that he sold you, the gullible public. And now he wants his own personal war.

 

I'm no big Trump cheerleader, Snake, but you're really being too hasty. Trump hasn't even been in power 100 days yet.... By contrast, the "news" media kissed Obama's ass until it DRIPPED all during his first 100 days, and he didn't do much of anything at all in that time frame.

The BIG thing to watch now is what changes he will make (not merely TALK about) to our wretchedly unfair U. S. Tax Code. Supposedly, we'll get to see his proposal in synopsis form next Wednesday....

I want to see complete elimination of ALL tax shelters, tax loopholes, tax exclusions, and tax exemptions, PERIOD. I do like the idea of three tax "brackets", generally, and I also want to see the forced repatriation of all the huge amounts of money that American corporations have stashed away offshore to avoid taxation in America.

I haven't been particularly thrilled by anything that Trump's done so far except for the installation of a decent Supreme Court Justice for the first time in quite a few years in this country. But, maybe he'll surprise us all now....

 

You do realize that we had NEGATIVE 6% growth when he took office? We were losing 600,000 jobs a month and the stock market was crashing - hitting bottom about two months after he took office.

It is crackpottery to claim this was just a bump in the road.

 

According to actual experts, most of which were originally Bush people, we would have spiraled into a 25 year global depression. And the entire global banking system would have failed.

 

That is complete nonsense. It was Allan Greenspan's policies that drove the crash and he admitted it during a congressional hearing.

This was a massive failure of the free market. Even Paulson - the biggest free market fanatic going - said so. Market discipline failed.

 

That's complete fact, the economy tanked after the Democrats took majority control of the Congress and then their policies and lack thereof did nothing to mitigate the damage or get us into a full blown recovery.

 

That doesnt' bely the fact that with the correct policies the Republicans helped to get us through the 2000/2001 slowdown recession and into a period of solid growth, full employment, rising incomes and a lower of the deficit to a paltry $161B. Then the next slowdown recession came and under Democrat policies we had a disaster.

 

Rome was not built in a day but how do you like Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch?