Are President Trump's polices and efforts actualy doing this well?

[dan_bgblue]

https://www.nysun.com/national/trump...economy/90850/

[CitizenBBN]

the problem is the national media continually spews how evil Trump is and fails to mention the accomplishments of the administration. If this were Obama they'd be going door to door to tell people. They are all in for the liberal cause, facts be damned.

And Trump is as likeable as a porcupine at a nudist colony, but the results are real.

[UKHistory]

Economically speaking the numbers say some really good things are happening in the country.

That is undeniable. I have sat in on initial meetings where de-regulation at the highest levels was being discussed and initiated. There was a mad dash to reduce regulations and an equally important effort to educate new appointees on what is not a new regulation but a clarification of an existing one that needs to remain.

I would love to see an analysis of where the deregulation really benefited the economy. Specifically which regulations being lifted or amended sparked the growth.

I also want to see if there is a way to better gauge how the tax cut played a role as well as just the mood of the market.

Trump's election made a lot business people happy. High spirits and optimism creates a climate to invest as much as anything.

I also would like to see if there is a way to determine was the quick fix that has long term negative repercussions for fiscal solvency and the impact environmental, climate related impacted.

Economic growth has been better than naysayers. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Some policies under Obama were showing positive economic growth. But the growth under Trump has been higher.

And of course will tariffs negate the growth?

I am not an economic expert so I can't tell. Both parties are so entrenched they would not be able to be as objective as necessary for a thoughtful discussion. But it is a correct statement that there have been good things happening economically.

[CitizenBBN]

Policy will have an impact, some quicker than others, but the President's most powerful economic tool is his ability to inspire confidence itself. That is a powerful economic weapon.

Trump has done that, Obama could not. Of course Obama wasn't going to be able to when he was leading the march of government for 8 years, b/c people aren't quite that foolish most of the time.

Trump has also rolled back regs at what is by Washington standards a very strong rate. That helps.

The Tax cuts were a big help. a Shot in the arm both economically and in building confidence.

The trade war will hurt in the short term, but the race is on to see if Trump can win it before next November. It's the right course of action in the long run as we need to have a level playing field and we don't have one right now, but it's a political gamble.

Honestly prior to Trump one can argue neither Obama nor Bush II or really any President since Clinton has actually even HAD an economic policy. They've proposed budgets but mostly we've just had ongoing endless continuing resolutions instead, and none has really addressed core economic issues. They've passed regs and spent like madmen, that's about it.

Trump is still willing to spend like crazy, which is bad long term, but if he can fix some trade issues that can help correct some of the issues.

If trump Can win another election the Chinese will buckle for sure, and a new NAFTA and possibly a trade deal with a free Britain could really bolster our position economically.

[UKHistory]

Presidents get credit for a lot whether they are truly responsible or not. Clinton got a big boost from the dot com boom.

At the same time a certain amount of the economic collapse of the housing market was to due to de-regulation. As with climate issues, politicians are woefully ignorant on big economic theory and just as they need to rely on scientists, they need to adhere to economists.

The huge spending explosion under the recovery act hurt the deficit by a lot (as did Gulf War II) but it is hard to say without that infusion of cash what would have happened.

Trump's roll back of regulations was at an unbelievable pace--a 20 plus ratio to 1 in terms of abolishing regs to adding a new one.

For better or worse, a second term Trump will have the most significant impact on the Federal government since FDR.

[UKHistory]

I go by his own statements and the behavior of his appointees. LBJ, Clinton, Nixon, Obama and others have demonstrated arrogance and weaknesses in either domestic or foreign policy or on a personal level.

I don't need the press to tell me what Trump is doing or saying that is dangerous--he is his own minister of propaganda.

I have read history and seen how autocrats work. MSNBC, porn for liberals, doesn't have to indoctrinate me against Trump. Trump indoctrinates me against him.

the problem is the national media continually spews how evil Trump is and fails to mention the accomplishments of the administration. If this were Obama they'd be going door to door to tell people. They are all in for the liberal cause, facts be damned.

And Trump is as likeable as a porcupine at a nudist colony, but the results are real.

[CitizenBBN]

We can discuss the housing boom, and we probably agree more than we disagree.

I wouldn't say it was due to de-regulation so much as it's due to government involvement and politicians being in bed with the Mortgage Brokers and Realtors. The way the housing market is set up the government basically covers the backs of the mortgage brokers and banks, and have eliminated every incentive to actually scrutinize loans, Esp. on the individual level.

I live in that world, have since I was a kid, and if anything made me an anti-government anti-power Libertarian it was watching how government has operated in the residential mortgage market. Under the guise of proper oversight they actually stack the deck for those who donate the big money to the right people.

It's a long analysis. I once broke the whole thing down focusing on the FSLIC debacle in the 1980s, got an entire class worth of credit for the thesis, but we're heading for another one, and will continue to have them as long as the market incentives are aligned the way they are now.


But back to the point, if Trump can win a second term he can reshape our trade with China and, if he's got any sense, create hegemony against them in the Pacific.

Of course he could go off the rails and muck it all up. Call it a 50/50 bet given his temperament. But at least he's willing to finally address the problems with China.

personally I would love for him to really go off the rails (which would make you think the NATO thing was nothing lol. ) and abandon the "one nation" policy, recognize Taiwan as a separate country and fold them into a pan-Pacific defense treaty with Japan and South Korea and others.

The Chinese would lose their minds, but they won't go to all out war over it, and it would severely hedge their aspirations in the region.

[CitizenBBN]

I go by his own statements and the behavior of his appointees. LBJ, Clinton, Nixon, Obama and others have demonstrated arrogance and weaknesses in either domestic or foreign policy or on a personal level.

I don't need the press to tell me what Trump is doing or saying that is dangerous--he is his own minister of propaganda.

I have read history and seen how autocrats work. MSNBC, porn for liberals, doesn't have to indoctrinate me against Trump. Trump indoctrinates me against him.

Except he's done not a single thing you can point to that is autocratic. The only thing there is him calling out NATO allies for their failure to live up to their obligations, and rattling his saber at them a bit.

That's hardly "autocratic". Reagan called them out too, was he an autocrat?

I don't think you buy into the MSNBC level of nonsense, but for reasons I haven't been able to fathom you do see Trump as a threat unique in American history in some way. I really don't get it.

OK he uses over the top language, but like with NATO he hasn't done anything to actually disband the alliance, and quotes from at least one senior NATO official praised him for finally getting some economic results from some deadbeat nations.

No they don't like it, but international diplomacy, even with longstanding allies, isn't a popularity contest. Britain sometimes breaks with us on issues, France does it a lot, and they criticize us publicly for our stances and have my entire life. Does that make their leaders "autocratic"?

If you judge Trump by the same standards as other leaders he's yes crass and un-diplomatic, but even his criticisms of allies isn't really out of line with other nations. They criticize us and each other as well.

There's just no "there" there with Trump. After all the dire warnings of his bringing imminent doom on us all for about 4 years now, with absolutely nothing dire happening, you'd think people would look around and realize maybe it's just not the case.

Trump is obnoxious but his actual policies and actions are well within the bounds of any previous administration. nothing outlandish has happened, even including these so called scandals. Clinton committed perjury, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Obama had several scandals that were well buried by the media.

Call me when he does something actually seriously bad, like LBJ sending 52,000 Americans to an early grave. Compared to all the useless wars and regime changes and other things Presidents have done Trump doesn't even rate a footnote in terms of his "autocratic" behavior. Starting wars and toppling governments without the consent of Congress, that's autocratic.

[UKHistory]

I am all for taking on China in every way we can to check their global aspirations.

Just tell the People's Republic of China that the chang ki chek is in the mail.

[ukpumacat]

I have posted this before on here and I will again because it would REALLY help our (America;s, not this Board) political discourse if we acknowledged this fact:

In many ways, the GOALS of the Republican and Democratic party are different. Its not just the policies of attaining the goals ...its the goals themselves.
And of course, depending on which side you are on tends to blind you to the other sides.

This is why so many often end up so frustrated.

I only bring that up because as a Republican, its easy to see Trump's policies and say, "Look at his accomplishments!". But those are only accomplishments if you share his same goals.
For those that do not share those goals he is an utter failure (similar to the way Rep's saw Obama).

"Its the economy, stupid" just doesn't cut it anymore for a few reasons:

1. A good economy is not always the top priority for a Democrat (nor is it always for a Republican. Example: If Obama had of created the greatest economy in American history Republicans still would have disliked him for his health care policies, etc).
2. Most people have now realized that a good economy is less dependent on the current President and more dependent on economic cycles, war, etc.
3. Most people realize that there are so many metrics of measuring the economy that we tend to focus on the ones that further our own narrative.

But, back to goals. It simply doesn't cut it for a lot of Dems (and independents) that EVEN IF the economy is good...that's not nearly enough.
Women's Rights. Immigration. The Environment. Universal Health Care. Etc Etc.

These are core issues for Democrats that Trump is a complete failure (in their eyes) on. It doesn't matter how good the economy is...its not enough.
Again, it wouldn't be enough if the next Dem President had a booming economy but took away guns, established Medicare for all, Regulated everything. Chose Pro-Choice Justices, etc etc. Republicans still wouldn't like them (nor would many independents).

It will make no difference whether Trump focuses on the economy in the next election (and for the record, I would prefer our economy to be good when we have a President I disagree with on almost everything else...ha). The truth is that it will come down to some very specific differences in GOALS.
How do the independents feel about the other issues? That's really the question because it will determine the election.

How do they feel about immigration? Health Care? Guns? Environment? Women's right to choose?

That will determine who our next President is. Not the economy.

[CitizenBBN]

The economy isn't the only factor, but it's consistently one of if not the #1 ranked factor in every poll of voter issues.

but here's how that works with people mentally: if it's bad, it's the #1 issue and people vote on it, when it's going good and they are otherwise generally fat and happy they worry about those other issues.

So a good economy won't get you a win, but a bad one will sure be huge in handing you a loss.

the GOP missed its chance to do ANYTHING on those other issues for 2 years, and paid the price, and yes I think will continue to do so. then the Dems will get their shot, and pay attention to everything except the economy, and it will go south, and then voters will go back to the GOP. That's the dance.

The clear issue Trump needs to get out ahead on somehow is medical care. The environment won't matter, people who put that in the top 2-3 wont' vote for him if he ended all pollution with a wave of his hand, but lots of independents and average Joes will vote based on health care.

[ukpumacat]

Btw, not everyone is so giddy about the economy:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6091440079001/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/econo...ort/index.html

[CitizenBBN]

I'm expecting a recession. First the media is cheering for one and doing everything possible to make one happen, and that has a big effect.

Second, the trade war, which is the right idea, will take a toll.

Third, we've had strong expansion, most of the slack in demand has taken up, so we're due for some pause.

but the fundamentals are way better b/c of Trump's confidence building, and if he can win the trade war within the next 12 months things will really take off.