Trump's broken economic promises

Yep, lowered taxes. Mostly for the wealthy, and he blew a $1 trillion hole in the deficit to do it because Republicans never, ever pay for their tax cuts. And he did it at an economically stupid time -- we're already at or near peak employment, so adding $1 trillion to the deficit gets us minimal bang for the buck, and saddles us with huge interest payments for years to come.

So he exploded the deficit in order to provide a windfall to the wealthy, at a time when it will have the least positive impact on the overall economy. And all you can say is "Hey, lower taxes!"

If you think we're in any danger of establishing actual socialism in this country, you're nuts.

#1, not an economic issue.

#2, what are you talking about? EVERY STATE IN THE UNION restores voting rights to felons in some form. There are only 12 states that you might consider hard-core about keeping felons from voting: they permanently revoke voting rights for certain crimes, and/or require felons to jump through significant hoops to regain the right to vote.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

Um, what? Please provide credible evidence to support your claim.

Because Obama (unlike Trump) released his tax returns, you can see EXACTLY how he made his money.

#1, Obama is only worth about $40 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

And BTW, he and Michelle were only worth about $24 million when he left office.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/life/president-barack-obamas-net-worth-as-he-leaves-the-white-house/

#2, you can see from the second link above that he earned it through his book deals and investments. No mystery involved. Unlike with Trump.

 

Where they openly stating how they wanted a recession to boot out Obama?

 

If Trump's GDP wasn't improved over Obama's, we wouldn't see this level of improvement. It's kinda sad the way Obama spent two terms blaming his performance on Bush, and now after he is out, he is trying to claim credit for Trump's presidency.

But, good thing is that all these folks have move from dependence to independence, hopefully it becomes a lifetime pattern.

 

What do you mean, the "chart doesn't found the claim"? It most certainly does.


And as far as Trump's claims (and criticism of growth under Obama), they were legion:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/tru...deliver-promised-3percent-growth-in-2018.html

And he reiterated it after taking office:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-4-gdp-growth-promise-2017-1

I guess it depends on what you view as "significantly greater". It averaged 2.2% under Obama, over a much longer time frame, while he steadily reduced the budget deficit. It averaged 2.6% in Trump's first two years.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

But the basic point -- that Trump promised a level of growth he has not reached -- remains.

And as a side note, let's add a few things:
1. Obama steadily reduced the annual deficit during his time in office, which reduces GDP growth in the short-term.
2. Trump, by contrast, goosed the economy in 2018 by exploding the deficit.
3. So which approach was more responsible? Especially because deficit spending at the peak of a recovery is literally the OPPOSITE of what economics says should happen.
4. It's not hard to find a two-year run under Obama that looks EXACTLY like Trump's first two years. 2014-15, for example. So it's hard to claim that the first two Trump years represent some sort of major break with the Obama years.

Oh, come on. We're coming up on the end of his third year in office, and not only has he made no progress on reducing the DEFICIT, much less the debt, he has done the OPPOSITE -- exploding the deficit in order to cut taxes for the wealthy. The deficit for these year will be nearly $1 trillion. The deficit for next year will be OVER $1 trillion.
https://www.apnews.com/f26c8c00b2eb4f98b84cd69

At this point, it's impossible to eliminate the debt on Trump's timeline.

The national debt as of April 2019 was $22 trillion.
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/usa-national-debt/

Add in the deficits listed above (half the deficit for FY2019, and the $1 trillion for FY2020), and you get $23.5 trillion or so.

Our annual GDP is $19.4 trillion. So in order to retire the debt in the next five years, we would have to pay off about $4.7 trillion a year -- 25% of our entire economic output, and more than the entire federal budget.

So no, it's not dishonest to call that one a broken promise. He is doing the opposite of what would be needed to meet the promise, and at this point it can't be done without wrecking the economy -- and he has given ZERO indication that he's even THINKING about doing something like what would be necessary.

Here's a video of a campaign speech he gave in Manchester, N.H. in June 2016:


Start listening at 10:40 or 10:50 for context; his claim comes around 11:10, where he says that if he is elected, you will see a huge drop in the trade deficit.

You know, with most of these I didn't bother with detailed cites because they are common knowledge. Apparently not to you, though.

Here is Trump at a campaign speech in August 2016:
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...al-country-this-election-is-the-last-shot-for


Speaking in Abingdon, Va., in front of miners who held up bright yellow “Trump digs coal” signs, the GOP nominee continued his outreach to the workers and vowed to protect their jobs.

“It is the last shot for the miners,” Trump said. “Hillary will be a horror show, and I’ll be an unbelievable positive,” he continued. “The miners will be gone if she’s elected.” ...

“Their jobs have been taken away, and we’re going to bring them back, folks. If I get in, this is what it is,” Trump said, pointing to the “Trump digs coal” signs.


Coal employment has been flat under Trump. He has not brought the jobs back.

Um, read my post again. I did not conflate anything. The first three sentences discuss jobs, as that is what Trump promised. The last two sentences discuss the manufacturing recession, because a recession is a bad sign for employment in a sector.

As for what he promised, it's in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention:
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12253...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript

America has lost nearly-one third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported by bill and Hillary Clinton. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. Or frankly, any other country. Never ever again.

I am going to bring our jobs back our jobs to Ohio and Pennsylvania and New York and Michigan and all of America and I am not going to let companies move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences. Not going to happen anymore.

BTW, the speech also contains a reference to how he is going to "fix" the trade deficit.

Read it again. He promised to greatly increase oil production. But oil production has simply continued increasing at the same rate it was, for reasons that long predate Trump. Since he has not "greatly increased" oil production, it is a broken promise.

Because I back up everything I say and post in good faith. You, by contrast, question even commonly known things, and accuse me of being dishonest at the drop of a hat.

 

Um ... The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years, and still control the Senate. Try again.

 

Huh. That surely explains why 60% of us believe a recession is likely, and a strong plurality believe Trump's policies are increasing the chance of it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9f3408-d2d7-11e9-ab26-e6dbebac45d3_story.html


The Post-ABC poll finds 43 percent of Americans say Trump’s trade and economic policies have increased the chance of a recession in the next year, more than double the 16 percent who say his policies have decreased the likelihood of a recession. Another 34 percent say Trump’s policies have not made a difference.

 

Over Obama's final nine full quarters he averaged 2.0. Over Trump's first 9 full quarters he has averaged 2.7 or a 1/3rd better.

Obama "reduced" while Trump "exploded"?

Let's check the numbers:

Trump's been President for 963 days and over that period the federal debt has increased by 2,585,452,944,378.90
Over Obama's final 963 days the federal debt increased by 2,422,432,013,487.30, a bit less in nominal terms, but a bit more in inflation adjusted dollars.

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/...tYear=2014&endMonth=09&endDay=10&endYear=2019

 

But there were no shovel ready jobs during Obama's first 963 days.

So where did the money go ?

But Obama still can be proud of his legacy of "cash for clunkers."

 

If Russia wasn't A Huge Part in Trumps world ...............

there wouldn't be a Russian investigation that resulted in multiple guilty convictions

Trumps main problem he isn't working hard enough for All Americans

Golf, TV, division , name calling is Trumps main Focus .................. not Leadership

 

I said "deficit" not "debt". Obama steadily reduced the annual budget deficit. Trump has exploded it.

 

60 votes are needed in the Senate to get anything done.

 

What recession ??? Are recessions the result of polls ???

 

President Obama inherited a economy had lost nearly 3.6 million jobs in 2008 and was shedding jobs at a nearly 800,000 per month

The economy that Trump inherited was 75 months of continuous job growth
and yet in a good economy Trump is borrowing a Trillion $

 

All the “so called” jobs created by Obamanomics were people going back to work at a very slow rate due to the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

 

It does not found the claim because it doesn't. You claimed that GDP growth under Trump has been about the same as Obama. That is factually incorrect, especially in a measure where tenths of a percent are meaningful, average growth under Trump has been significantly more. Then instead of linking an actual year over year GDP % growth graph, which you know full well demonstrates your claim to be false, you posted a general GDP trendline. Another poster called you on it and you ignored them. I called you on it and your are doubling down. DISHONEST.

Moreover, neither of the new links you have posted have a single direct quote of Trump promising anything, but rather PARTISAN third parties falsely referencing promises that are NEVER DIRECTLY CITED.

Stating (para), "there's no reason why we should not be planning to grow at 4-5%" is not a "promise."

In a primary debate, if Jeb says "we can grow at 3-4%" and Trump replies "why not 5 or 6?" that's NOT A PROMISE.

You and yours have a transparent, childish, polar habit of calling statements of your political opposition "lies" that aren't lies and calling other statements "promises" that are not in fact promises. Some... few... RW posters and pundits across media did that during the Obama years, but there is no equivalence remotely possible. It is SOP with the LW instead of discussing actual policies and issues in the Trump Administration.

You, personally, have a transparent, terrible habit of posting stacks of partisan slant in a single thread (see all the partisan LW blog compilations "This week in Trump" during the campaign... which proved counterproductive, yet here you go again, see also this thread) that cram fallacy-laden disparate topics into one single thread. You aren't fooling anyone with this, you aren't interested in engaging in any reasoned, adult political discussion when you or other posters with similar "careers" to yours do it, and based on election results, voters aren't buying it either.

Rest of post is more of the same from you, and dealt with also in subsequent posts, so not worth more time. You "didn't bother" with detailed cites because THEY DON'T EXIST. Your own trade deficit and coal quotes don't contain what reasonable people would consider promises. The "continuing trend" on oil production as stated doesn't evidence some broken promise of Trump's, you know that full well, yet double down. That's why you have no credibility.

 

You may have detected a pattern.

 

Obama is the past and Trump is the present. I appreciate the additional GDP growth for roughly the same debt rate. What to do in Afghanistan, frankly, is probably the biggest decision he is making right now. That's a big one, and when you are the President you seldom get do overs.

 

It's the debt that has real world impact. That is the debt that must be serviced. The Debt for the Trump Presidency and the equivalent period of the end of the Obama presidency are quite similar. To describe one as "reducing" and other as "exploding" when in terms of real world impact they are nearly indistinguishable is just silly.

And with Trump's superior GDP performance, I believe the Nation's debt, as a percentage of GDP, has even improved.

Over Obama's final two years the debt as percentage of GDP grew by 2.89 percentage points, a period which you described in favorable terms.



Now over Trump's first two years, we see something different. Rather than 2.89 percentage points of deteriorate, we actually see 0.12 percentage points of improvement.

 

I see. Your complaint is that I showed real GDP over a long time period; not the percent change in GDP over a shorter time period. And that somehow makes me dishonest?

The third link in the post you are responding to was EXACTLY THAT: a table of annual GDP growth percentages.

Um, what? CNBC is a financial news site, not a partisan source. It quotes Trump saying 5-6%, and quotes Mick Mulvaney saying 3% was the basis of Tump’s budget. Trump hasn’t hit either number.

And Business Insider quotes the WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE.

You’re response is to claim they are both making it up. That’s crazy.

So in your world, a candidate can repeatedly criticize current growth and say he would do much better if elected, but unless he says “I promise”, he’s not actually saying anything he can be held accountable for later. Interesting..

I find it amusing that you seem to have never heard about things called “roundup stories”. I also find it amusing that you think this thread is just a random collection of topics, when it clearly is, as I stated, a look at Trump’s economic promises and how they stack up to reality. This is a common and non-controversial approach to discussion.

LOL! And here we come to the real reason for your hysterical attack on my first point: you don’t want to have to address the rest of the post.

LOL! When you demanded them, I provided them. How can you claim they don’t exist?

You have no idea what reasonable people think, because you aren’t one.

On the trade deficit, for example, Trump went on at length about how big it was, and how it would keep getting bigger. Unless he was elected, in which case it would drop sharply. That’s a promise, to normal people.

 

I already posted a list. Easiest for you to understand would be his bringing back coal jobs. Bringing back manufacturing. And of course his GDP claim of 4%.

And of course you can actually believe that Trump fulfilled his campaign promises if you are willing to To so without any actual proof and the willingness to ignore any actual data to the contrary.

 

I did since you repeatedly pretend that the increased in spending by the one year Democratically controlled Congress somehow miraculously caused the derivative driven financial collapse and the Bush recession.

 

And here I thought he was elected to solve the immigration problem, or stop North Korea from getting nukes, or getting the GDP to 4%.

 

No what I said is you cannot find one single economic metric that has significantly changed slope or direction since Trump was elected. That of course excludes the national debt. Look up the meaning of an economic metric and then give it a go if you dare.

 

Wow, that’s quite the heroic spin effort there.

Context matters. How much a President adds to the debt depends, in part, on how large a deficit they start with and the economic conditions they operate under.

Which is why the deficit is the proper measure. It’s what the president as control over. Whether it grows or shrinks, and by how much, is the important thing.

The deficit, quite properly, went up during the recession. As the economy recovered, Obama — quite responsibly — worked to reduce the deficit, even though doing so necessarily reduced GDP growth. He got the deficit down to $585 billion by 2016.

Trump inherited a nearly fully recovered economy. The thing he should have done — in accordance with both economic theory and fiscal responsibility — was continue reducing the deficit. Then you could have crowed about that.

Instead, he exploded the deficit, driving it back up above $1 trillion a year. No matter how you try to spin that, it’s bad — and deeply irresponsible.

 

Democrats are blocking the wall which is the first step, NOKO already has nukes, he has gotten the gdp to 4%. He also is renegotiating the so called "free trade" deals which have taken advantage of US citizens.