Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

Thanks Obama.

3 days after Trump took office:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/budget-deficit-trump.html?mtrref=www.google.com

Federal Debt Projected to Grow by Nearly $10 Trillion Over Next Decade

So you're saying Trump is cutting $1.8T from what Obama projected? Seems like a start.

 

You mean like when Reagan took office?

Elon Musk saved the auto industry, not anyone else.

 

You deflect when presented with the truth refuting your misstatements. What does Musk liking Trump have to do with anything other than your deflection? It is you who are denying the facts.

Obama's "recovery" was one of the worst in US history. Weak GDP growth, millions leaving the work force, unable to find work. Massive increases in reliance on food stamps, and even the stock market was weakly above it's pre-crash highs by the time Trump took over.

 

"worst recession in our history" is not true. Things were WORSE when Reagan first took office. Much worse.

Hundreds of banks and S&Ls actually collapsed during the Reagan and GHW Bush terms, too. Reagan bailed out the auto industry, back then, too. And Social Security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963

The Reasons Behind the Obama Non-Recovery
It wasn’t the severity of the Great Recession that caused the weak recovery, but government policies.


The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that it was accompanied by a major financial crisis. Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn.

In our paper, “Rare Events and Long-Run Risks,” we examined macroeconomic disasters in 42 countries, featuring 185 contractions in GDP per capita of 10% or more. These contractions are dominated by wartime devastation such as World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) and financial crises such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many are global events, some are for individual or a few countries.

On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized.

Arguing that the recovery has been weak because the downturn was severe or coincided with a major financial crisis conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a larger decline predicts a stronger recovery. Moreover, many of the biggest downturns featured financial crises. For example, the U.S. per capita GDP growth rate from 1933-40 was 6.5% per year, the highest of any peacetime interval of several years, despite the 1937 recession. This strong recovery followed the cumulative decline in the level of per capita GDP by around 29% from 1929-33 during the Great Depression.

 

Most pro Obama economists, you mean.

They were wrong, the results proved so. SCHOLARLY Analysis of fact disproves the claim.

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, led the charge. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," he said. It was an excuse to massively spend money on what turned out to be worthless stuff. Unless you were a bank, then you got shit piles of taxpayer money to buy other banks with. Or an auto workers union member, because Obama shafted the people who poured their life savings into the company stock and gave GM to his constituency (the unions). It was a terrible abuse of government and power.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman was cheerleading the massive borrowing and spending, only because the interest rates were cheap. Only an idiot would listen to that guy. Seriously. The cost of borrowing isn't fixed. Interest rates have already gone up on the massive debt the previous administration ran up.

 

They gave Obama one, and Yassar Arafat, too. So yeah, they are a bunch of idiots. Or politically motivated.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since-wwii/index.html

Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsin...ma-and-the-dems-dismal-recovery/#50c59926cb0e
Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
Debunking Obama's Fiscal Record
Some see Trump's predecessor as having returned fiscal discipline to Washington. They're wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth

We rate Roskam’s claim Mostly True.

 

Yes. Continue using your news sources. They're terrific!