BokJock wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:31 pm
Trump ball lickers really claiming that Obama didn't have a clusterfuck to fix when he came into office and that he went a long way to rectifying the mess?!?
Despite the facts to the contrary. Isn't it well established now that in percentage terms his economic growth numbers exceed even Trumps precovid numbers?
And an "economic" right winger bemoaning the fact that rich people got richer is just silly.
A clusterfuck? Yes. Went a long way to rectifying the mess? Meh. Would it really have been much different with McCain or Romney? Any different? I mean, "Trump's economy" was doing just fine pre-covid; this WaPo article has a rundown
that shows economic performance under each administration to be largely identical, slightly favoring Trump if anything. Which does suggest that economic performance cannot be quite so readily attributed to whoever's in office -- which is essentially my position.
The argument that you often hear is that there was steady growth under Obama, which is technically true, but it was slower than had been typical in the decades before his presidency (per wiki, but that's Fed data):
Economic growth, measured as the change in real GDP, averaged 2.0% from Q2 2009 to Q4 2016. This was slower than the 2.6% average from Q1 1989 to Q4 2008. Real GDP grew nearly 3% during President Bush's first term but only 0.5% during his second. During the Clinton administration, the GDP growth was close to 4%, slightly faster than the Reagan administration.
Trump was averaging 2.5% quarterly growth pre-covid. Job growth rate basically unchanged.
Some metrics were marginally better under Trump (wage growth), some were marginally worse (debt). In any case, I wouldn't credit Trump anymore than I'd penalize Obama. They both sign off on the same think tank-derived, committee-laundered policies. That's how it works.