Economists agree who is responsible for booming economy

[LoAmmi]

Yes, but the point he won’t address is that it’s the OBAMA budget which impacted 2017, up until October at least...

Of course not.

 

[Gene2memE]

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Did anyone else here actually look at the survey? Or is this just another case of arguing headlines without any actual intellectual leg work being performed? I ask, because the Hill opinion piece and the actual reporting by the WSJ and its data team bear little, if any, actual resemblance to each other.

The WSJ survey asked economists to rank whether actions taken by the Trump administration in its first year were strongly positive, positive, neutral, somewhat negative, strongly negative across five areas (stock prices, GDP, employment, long-term growth and stability). The survey shows economists view the current administration's actions are most strongly positive for the stock exchange (about 88% have a positive view), and most strongly negative for long term financial stability (about 34% have a negative view). Generally, the view is that the actions taken have had a net positive impact on the economy.

At no point are economists asked to CREDIT anyone, either the Trump administration or its predecessor, with responsibility for the current state of the economy. In fact, the WSJ article accompanying the data, explicitly points this out, with the following commentary:

“We have to be cautious about giving Trump too much credit for the economy’s strength,” said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. “Job creation and business capital spending were on the rise prior to his presidency. The jury is still out how much more his actions moved the economy forward.”
​

In addition, there is a video accompanying the WSJ article that explains that the performance of the economy under Trump is solid, but not exceptional, and that the president does not get "credit" for the performance due to A) the "static" generated by the continual controversies of his own making, B) the fact that some headline economic indicators, such as wage growth, is still lagging, and C) the general lag in changes to attitudes towards who is responsible for economic performance by the US public (this was true for Obama).

​

Honestly, does no one engage in basic fact checking and critical source analysis here? We have one side touting claims with little or no bearing in relation to the published information, and we have the other engaged in simple negation.

Its another fine example of how the US political discourse - and that of Western democracies more generally - has become hijacked by partisanship and tribalism, as its far easier to just reflexively argue against the other side than to look behind the headline or the opinion piece and investigate what's really going on.

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, but the point he won’t address is that it’s the OBAMA budget which impacted 2017, up until October at least...

When will you address my inquiry regarding how it can be because of Obama when the President has rolled back much of Obama's regulations on businesses.

 

[Allandavid]

When will you address my inquiry regarding how it can be because of Obama when the President has rolled back much of Obama's regulations on businesses.

Ok....101...

The budgetary decisions made by governments determine deficits/surpluses and their impact on debt. You spend more than you receive and you’re in deficit and the overall debt increases. Got that...?

Good. So, the greatest single impact on the deficit for 2017 was the budget framed for that year. Ok so far...?

Right. Presidents release their budgets in February and those budgets are enacted for the year commencing October in that year, through to October the following year. Is the Mathematics confusing you...? No...? Good.

So, if you are impressed with the deficit performance of the US during 2017, you should congratulate the president who framed the budget for that year, at least up until October....and that was President Obama...!

 

[cow451]

When are going to answer the questions about the debt levels which you claim fell during 2017...?

Relax. That answer will come with the example of how Trickle Down worked somewhere.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I would actually agree that Trump is responsible for a booming economy. He certainly has sparked confidence in at least our short term future.

It's important to remember though, that we even have an economy thanks to the efforts of the Obama administration. Keep in mind that it is easier to keep a growing economy going than it is to reverse a crashing economy and then bring it back to life and start growing once again. I give more credit to the Obama administration for the situation we are currently in than I do Trump but if this growth continues throughout his term, I am more than happy to give the credit for the continued growth to Trump and his policies.

 

[hislegacy]

Fiat Chrysler to invest more than $1 billion in Michigan plant and give $2,000 bonuses in response to tax reform

Fiat Chrysler the latest in giving bonuses and investing 1,000,000,000 in Michigan in response to tax reform.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Did anyone else here actually look at the survey? Or is this just another case of arguing headlines without any actual intellectual leg work being performed? I ask, because the Hill opinion piece and the actual reporting by the WSJ and its data team bear little, if any, actual resemblance to each other.

The WSJ survey asked economists to rank whether actions taken by the Trump administration in its first year were strongly positive, positive, neutral, somewhat negative, strongly negative across five areas (stock prices, GDP, employment, long-term growth and stability). The survey shows economists view the current administration's actions are most strongly positive for the stock exchange (about 88% have a positive view), and most strongly negative for long term financial stability (about 34% have a negative view). Generally, the view is that the actions taken have had a net positive impact on the economy.

At no point are economists asked to CREDIT anyone, either the Trump administration or its predecessor, with responsibility for the current state of the economy. In fact, the WSJ article accompanying the data, explicitly points this out, with the following commentary:

“We have to be cautious about giving Trump too much credit for the economy’s strength,” said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. “Job creation and business capital spending were on the rise prior to his presidency. The jury is still out how much more his actions moved the economy forward.”
​

In addition, there is a video accompanying the WSJ article that explains that the performance of the economy under Trump is solid, but not exceptional, and that the president does not get "credit" for the performance due to A) the "static" generated by the continual controversies of his own making, B) the fact that some headline economic indicators, such as wage growth, is still lagging, and C) the general lag in changes to attitudes towards who is responsible for economic performance by the US public (this was true for Obama).

​

Honestly, does no one engage in basic fact checking and critical source analysis here? We have one side touting claims with little or no bearing in relation to the published information, and we have the other engaged in simple negation.

Its another fine example of how the US political discourse - and that of Western democracies more generally - has become hijacked by partisanship and tribalism, as its far easier to just reflexively argue against the other side than to look behind the headline or the opinion piece and investigate what's really going on.

I figured this would be the case. I tried to check, but WSJ has one of the more robust paywalls and I couldn't (and frequently can't) get around it.

 

[Hank77]

Apple accelerates US investment and job creation

Seems Apple is repatriating a load of cash:

Apple, Returning Overseas Cash, to Pay $38 Billion Tax Bill

Apple also told employees Wednesday that it’s issuing stock-based bonuses worth $2,500 each following the new U.S. tax law, according to people familiar with the matter
​

The iPhone maker will begin issuing stock grants to most employees worldwide in the coming months, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The move comes on the same day Apple said it would bring back most of its cash from overseas and spend $30 billion in the U.S. over the next five years, funding an additional technical support campus, data centers and 20,000 new employees.

Funny, someone in the White House said this would happen.

Now if this happens, it's good news. Hopefully that will be a trend.

 

[hislegacy]

Now if this happens, it's good news. Hopefully that will be a trend.

The count is over 125 companies so far.

 

[Gigimo]

And the tax cuts aren’t free?

The budget (a few handout programs) will have to be trimmed to make up for it for now, but eventually the amount of money the government receives will go up cause more people will be working.

 

[KCfromNC]

Writes the guy that can’t say one positive thing about the president

The subject isn't my lack of support for the president, it is that you seem to be very selective in assigning credit to leaders for economic gains during their administration.

 

[KCfromNC]

It sure can’t be worse than doubling it in eight years.

It actually tripled under Reagan instead of doubling, but I'm not sure why you'd bring him up.

 

[KCfromNC]

The budget (a few handout programs) will have to be trimmed to make up for it for now, but eventually the amount of money the government receives will go up cause more people will be working.

And because the temporary tax cuts going to individuals go away, don't forget that part.

 

[cow451]

The budget (a few handout programs) will have to be trimmed to make up for it for now, but eventually the amount of money the government receives will go up cause more people will be working.

Unemployment is already very low, so it is a sketchy notion that the increase in workers an wages will cover the new debt.

 

[Almost there]

Because it's just an opinion piece from a conservative propaganda site.

Ad hominem.

 

[AirPo]

Ad hominem.

No, try re reading the posts in context.

 

[Almost there]

No, try re reading the posts in context.

"About the man"

That is what ad-hominem attacks actually are. Your post was this:
Because it's just an opinion piece from a conservative propaganda site.

Your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand and was, quite literally "about the man". It is textbook ad-hominem. If there had been more to your post to demonstrate that the post was inaccurate, at least it would have had some credibility. But as posted it is just ad-hominem, plain and simple.

 

[AirPo]

"About the man"

That is what ad-hominem attacks actually are. Your post was this:
Because it's just an opinion piece from a conservative propaganda site.

Your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand and was, quite literally "about the man". It is textbook ad-hominem. If there had been more to your post to demonstrate that the post was inaccurate, at least it would have had some credibility. But as posted it is just ad-hominem, plain and simple.

I'll give you a Mulligan on this one. Re read the posts, posts as in plural. What was the question being answered?

 

[hislegacy]

38,000,000,000 in the tax coffers from Apple.