Don't Expect a Return to the Trump Economy
If the former president wins the 2024 race, the circumstances he would inherit are far more challenging, and several of his policy ideas are destructive.

While the gap may be closing, polls tend to show that more Americans trust former President Donald Trump than Vice President Kamala Harris on economic issues. This sentiment is understandable, given the strong pre-pandemic economy during Trump's first term and the challenges of inflation and declining real wages under the Biden-Harris administration.
However, voters pinning their economic hopes on a Trump comeback might find themselves disappointed.
There's no denying that the Trump-era economy prior to COVID-19 was good. Low unemployment, growing gross domestic product (GDP), and a booming stock market were hallmarks of his presidency. In contrast, the Biden-Harris years have been marked by an erosion of American families' purchasing power.
Adding to voter skepticism about a Harris economy is the vice president's apparent lack of a clear pro-growth vision. She's flip-flopped on many issues while rarely talking to the press. It's difficult to know what she really believes about critical economic matters like health care and fracking.
When Harris has given specifics, they've been awful. That includes her anti–price gouging idea, which she has repeated many times, and her desire to hike corporate and capital-gains tax rates. She obviously believes growth comes from government.
However, I have to wonder whether a second Trump term would deliver the economic resurgence voters hope for.
The circumstances Trump would inherit are far more challenging than those he faced in 2017. Consider government debt. On the eve of the pandemic, outstanding public debt was too high—around $18 trillion—but paled in comparison to the current $28 trillion or so. There's no reason to trust Trump to cut spending or pass the necessary reforms, in part because he explicitly says he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, the two main drivers of our fiscal problems.
In addition, even with the economy booming during Trump's first term, he and Congress nevertheless managed to grow the budget deficit to nearly $1 trillion. It stands at nearly $2 trillion today and is projected to reach $2.8 trillion in 10 years.
Trump may believe he'll bring enough economic growth to wash away our financial troubles. But he's mistaken. The scale of the current debt and future indebtedness is so large that economic growth alone won't be enough. There is a lot of evidence that debt can act as a drag on the economy.
One of Trump's most pro-growth achievements was the 2017 tax cut package, perhaps only surpassed by his regulatory reforms. Some provisions are scheduled to expire after 2025, and Congress will probably make the extension worse than the original law. Democrats are pushing hard to raise child credits and other counterproductive tax breaks. With deficits so high, there will be simultaneous pressure to raise taxes in anti-growth ways.
With a willing Congress, Trump might manage to further lower taxes on corporate income and capital gains. But cutting taxes is unsustainable without cutting spending, and he's made the budget math even more daunting by recklessly promising to lift the cap on state and local tax deductions and exempt tip income, overtime pay, and Social Security income from taxation (amounting to trillions of dollars).
Trump could achieve lots of growth with a rigorous energy deregulation program, but that's a serious political challenge which requires discipline and a team he may not have.
Other Trump policy proposals would be destructive. He feels strongly that he'd have "a better instinct than, in many cases, people that would be on the Federal Reserve or the chairman" in setting interest rates. If he decides as president that he's the one who should control monetary policy, he'd be further politicizing what should be an impartial, methodical job, meaning serious trouble in the long run.
More bad news is Trump's just-announced wish to cap interest rates on credit card debt. Price controls proposed by Republicans are just as destructive as those proposed by Democrats. An economy can survive a lot of abuses from the government, but it's almost impossible to endure politicians' attempts to overrule supply and demand, which lead to serious shortages and other problems.
Awful, too, is Trump's proposal to impose across-the-board 10-20 percent tariffs, with a special 60 percent levy on Chinese goods. This would be enormously costly for consumers and damage relationships with our best and most loyal trading partners, denying Americans things we want and need.
The allure of returning to pre-pandemic economic prosperity is strong, but no administration can simply turn back the clock. Given some of the policies Trump is talking about on the campaign trail, he might have a harder time than people believe.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As usual Democrats get a pass. I mean look at that. The author is practically fawning over Harris. Fucking leftist.
Poor sarc. So binary.
Be fair, sarc is all about non
binarythinking.To be fair, he's not very bright.
He does ‘ascertain’ a lot of things though.
If you're posting in multiple articles with this same, tired take, doesn't your argument that others are calling out the authors as leftists become diluted?
Are you arguing with people in your mind like you accuse Jesse of doing all the time?
Before the day is done someone, possibly Jesse, will be ranting about how Reason gives Harris a pass on everything.
So that's a yes?
Check out Incunabulum's comments below. Claims the article is a campaign ad for Harris because that's the only explanation a binary thinking retard can come up with to explain criticism of Trump's policies. Just like the Obamabots who shouted racism and the Trumptards who shout TDS. Two sides of the same retarded coin. You guys are as predictable as the tides.
You guys are as predictable as the tides.
Said the guy who says the same things every day.
Jesus Christ, you’re bitter.
Have you no joy in your life?
Shitposting and trolling the Reason comments and feeding his misplaced rage.
Did you ever stop beating your wife?
Oooh! Original!
Weren’t you arrested for assaulting some woman and her daughter that you falsely claimed were your wife and daughter during one of your alcohol fueled delusions?
We all know that you live in a garbage in an alley behind a bar.
I disagree, and see DeRugy’s article as balanced, though I do have one disagreement regarding:
“There’s no reason to trust Trump to cut spending or pass the necessary reforms, in part because he explicitly says he won’t touch Social Security and Medicare, the two main drivers of our fiscal problems.”
I disagree because I believe if Congress presented a bill that cut spending, Trump would sign it. Many people know, Trump included, that our current Congress is addicted to spending, and won’t even propose cuts unless they’re handouts to the other party. Trump is smart enough to not engage in battles he cannot win, and cutting spending is one of those battles. Look at how Speaker Johnson folds on budget bills. Consider the battle Trump had in 2016 getting the GOP to pass the tax cut they promised: the RINOs were against it even though they promised to do it while campaigning. Or consider DeRugy’s article from years ago pointing out how under GW Bush, the GOP raised spending more than when we have divided government.
The battle is between the political class, and the rest of us, and IMHO Trump sees it very clearly. I'm guessing he thinks his proposal to get the SALT deductions back into the federal tax code, will help him win (or maybe he sees it as less tax revenue for the feds which is short sighted), and the GOP won't write it into a bill, as it's clearly bad policy, except for the political class as it reduces competition among states for people and workers.
I agree that this was a balanced article and I agree that Trump cannot fix the damage he will inherit. And a lot of his proposals look like pandering. But. Harris is a demonstrable idiot. She has absolutely no knowledge or interest in economics. It is a fact that if elected she will do exactly what she is told to do by the MMT leftists that are in charge. The debt is unsustainable but added to that the regime is moving quickly toward all out war on multiple fronts. There is no way to finance that. This is the place where empires collapse. Trump can't take us back to 2019 but I trust his instincts far more than the alternative.
I disagree because I believe if Congress presented a bill that cut spending, Trump would sign it.
I disagree, based on his 1st term when he teamed up with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to get the votes needed to overturn the sequestration from 2011, the greatest achievement of the Freedom Caucus.
And when he signed an EO direction federal agencies to decrease costs by 10%?
And how did that work out?
We had concrete legislation limiting spending. He replaced that with a nebulous EO, that didn't produce cuts. 8 trillion added under his watch.
How much prior to the wu-flu?
Poor sarcjeff, so utterly incapable of a single, rational thought. I'm not sure even chronic alcoholism can fully explain your shit-for-brains takes.
Thumbs-up for reflexively complaining in advance of someone else’s supposedly impending reflexivity! This doesn't have the appearance of blithering stupidity at all.
who's your audience?
My guess is people who don't attack economists and economics itself when Trump's policies are shown to be a potential disaster.
That would exclude most of the people in these comments.
Even the author admitted the economy was great under Trump before the exogenous pandemic event (and the very endogenous deficit-spending spree that accompanied it and actually caused all the damage) came along. But no, nothing about Trump can be good or even okay/not too bad, because cheeto or some such thing.
If you want an example of attacking economics itself, Harris' blather about "price gouging" and proposal to combat it with price controls (including rent control) is the finest example in modern US domestic politics. I fully expect her to attempt to command the wind before it's all over.
Did you read the entire article? Yes the author says the economy was doing good during the first part of Trump's reign. Since then things have changed. Thanks in part to Trump, but mostly to Biden, the budget and deficit have ballooned. Trump currently promises to not cut entitlements, which are the main driver of the federal budget, while cutting revenue and increasing the prices of imports.
Are you defending that?
As far as Harris goes, the author uses the word "awful" to describe her plans.
Do you take that as a defense of Democrats?
Poor, broken sarshitstick.
If Trump were an untested nobody like Harris, I'd be worried about his talk of tariffs and such. But since both have been in office, albeit just VP in Harris' case, I am doing what many voters are doing--comparing their actual records. Trump had a good economy until covid hit. Harris and Biden have been in office for almost four years, starting three years after covid, and have rip-roaring inflation, a major war in Europe and another one brewing in the Pacific. If you don't know much else, you know things were good with Trump and bad with Biden/Harris. Which is the author's point.
Had Trump won the election things wouldn't be that much different. At best he wouldn't have signed as many spending bills, but that's about it. Everything else would be pretty close to it is now. Well, except for his popularity. That would be in the shitter.
Wait so Trump would sign the IRA, which was a climate change bill. Or would he give out more trillions for covid to cronies that wasn't needed.
The FED came out and said illegal immigrant is causing unemployment. We would have just as many illegals under Trump right?
Really, everything would be just as horrible right? You can't admit that it's the current leftist policies.
You spelled "Pump" wrong.
Boehm had an article a year or so back that admitted that Trumps spending increases were near record lows prior to 2019. 70ish percent of the growth was from SS, health, and interest on the debt. Items he didn't control.
Everything with you is about attacking Trump, and getting blackout drunk.
okay, but without the snark who's the audience? I don't know anyone who wouldn't already understand the literal conclusion:
no administration can simply turn back the clock.
I told you who the audience is: People who understand economics.
That would exclude partisans on both sides.
people who understand economics are less educated for reading this. no offense to Ms. DeRugy
You can understand economics or be a partisan of the duopoly. Can't do both. They are mutually exclusive.
Tell that to Paul (cant make a correct prediction or evaluation to save his life) Krugman
People say he was a good economist in the 90s. Since then he's become a partisan. As I said, mutually exclusive.
dude total applause for arguing past my point every time. I'm good with that.
I must have missed it. Try making it a different way.
Are those the same economists that said inflation wouldn't happen, and then it would be transitory.
Do they fall into the same expert category that said Trump would get us into WWIII? Funny how no major wars started while he was president. Funny how 3 of the last 4 presidents presided over Russia invading a neighboring country.
Trump sounds like an idiot pretty often, but has a history of positive results. That compares well against people that also sound like idiots, but have a history of disaster.
We are now all better off than we were four years ago.
So September 2020 with the masks and lockdowns and arrows and six foot lines on the floor? Yes admittedly we are better off.
Masks were for the compliant sheep.
Turns out the Trump economy was pretty good?
The President can only do so much. A 435 Congressional and 33 Senatorial turnover would cause initial chaos, but get rid of the infection before you can apply a cure.
If the Speaker, regardless of party, suggests a CR, they should immediately be removed. Do your da** job and pass proper appropriation bills.
""The President can only do so much."'
Something the fans of presidents and would be presidents fail to understand.
"The President can only do so much."
What about with a phone and pen?
Or a cigar.
With spending even less.
Impoundment Act and a change in OMB under Obama that changed appropriation language from May spend to shall spend.
Our problems won’t be solved by elections or the courts. We’re way past that now. People are finally waking up to that. Hopefully there will be enough people to solve the democrat/neo Marxist problem before it’s too late.
LMAO...
"But cutting taxes is unsustainable without cutting spending"
"Awful, too, is Trump's proposal to impose across-the-board 10-20 percent tariffs"
A sure sign of TDS.... Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
And a $1T [R] deficit is sure a big difference from a $10T [D].
In the aftermath; that would be called CUTTING spending by 1/10th.
Import taxes account for around 1% of federal revenue.
Their purpose is not to bring in money to the federal government.
Their purpose is to raise prices on imports, especially cheap Chinese shit.
So you're defending a regressive tax (that means it disproportionately harms the poor) that doesn't raise much revenue.
“Import taxes account for around 1% of federal revenue”
… and what does that tell you about Domestic Taxes?
“Their purpose is to raise prices on imports”
Raise them 1% while the other 99% is via Domestic Tax collection.
So your ?fair-share? sits at 1% importers to 99% domestic.
Yet just the national defense department runs 14%.
If people want to be in the international trade market I think they should have to pay most of the National Defense bill as well as any other Treaty negotiating parts of the government.
Your comment makes no sense. Taxes on imports are paid by the people who buy them. They are "domestic" taxes.
LOL.... Like I said; Damned if he does (raise taxes) damned if he doesn't (cuts taxes). Maybe Trumps Tariffs are actually an effort to start balancing (fair-share) the tax bill that Democrats just keep racking up endlessly.
Nobody said he should raise taxes. The author said that lowering taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible. In that context it should be fairly obvious that by “taxes” they mean “revenue” which doesn’t include tariffs. He could eliminate all tariffs and it wouldn’t put a dent in the federal budget. However when he raises them it puts a big dent into most household budgets.
So cutting taxes is irresponsible.
And raising taxes (tariffs) puts a big dent into household budgets.
What does cutting taxes do to household budgets?
Tell me you didn't just repeat the exact same TDS contradiction.
Are you braindead?
Cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible. That's like taking a voluntary pay cut without cutting expenses, and putting the difference on you grandkids' credit card.
Tariffs are not a revenue generating tax. They're a political tool. They're also regressive. So raising them doesn't help the federal budget, while it does harm household budgets.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
LIE #1: Tariffs are not a revenue generating.
LIE #2: raising them doesn’t help the federal budget
Display of Blatant ignorance.....
While it does harm household budgets.
And what do Domestic Taxes do? Help household budgets?
And a topping of self-projection name-calling.
Tariffs account for around 1% of federal revenue. They’re negligible.
The fact that you don’t understand economics, math, or multisyllable words doesn’t make that a lie.
Why do you think foreign traders should be tax-exempt while domestic traders picks up the entire F’En revenue bill?
Because you get your rocks-off on taxing US manufacturing to death?
Why do you think foreign traders should be tax-exempt while domestic traders picks up the entire F’En revenue bill?
You’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of who pays import taxes. Tariffs on China are not paid by China. They’re paid by YOU when you buy stuff from China, or stuff made from things imported from China, in the form of artificially inflated prices.
So when you demand and promote tariffs, your demanding and promoting higher prices (inflation) for things that YOU buy.
1% They’re paid by YOU when you buy stuff from China.
99% They’re paid by YOU when you buy stuff Domestically.
And yet you continue to insist 1% is just too much and bad policy.
And the 99%? Is what? Not killing domestic trade?
You don’t understand how tariffs work and you’re determined not to learn. I give up.
Paraphrased, "Tarrifs only work when they're Bad Trumps-Tarrifs."
I know exactly what you're trying to teach; I'm not buying.
I’m not a fan of tariffs regarding of the administration. Nor do I oppose all tariffs. Just the protectionist ones.
Trump catches shit for this because protectionist tariffs are central to his campaign.
He brags about tariffs as if they punish the producers, when it’s the consumers who pay tax, or settle for an inferior domestic product at an inflated price.
Ironically there would be no ‘protectionist’ narrative had domestic not been saddled with Democrats (Bidens) spending bill.
You keep using that word “domestic”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
domestic [adj] - relating to a person’s own country
As-in the creation and trade of goods that happens entirely within one's own country.
As per your own evaluation; The national debt is getting taxed (paid for) at a disturbingly UN-fair divide of 99% by Domestic-trading markets and 1% by International-trading markets. The only way that could be comprehended as 'fair' is if 99% of all products in the nation are domestic-made.
Course it's already known to be un-fair when Domestic Manufacturing is getting taxed at an 80% rate and importers are crying because they aren't entirely exempt from tax.
Then maybe your precious fucking democrats in Congress could force a budget with real spending g cuts down his throat?
Oh wait, your precious democrat have done, and will do, just the opposite, but it’s all Trump’s fault, right?
Drunk piece of shit.
Democrats? Cut-Spending? LOLOLOLOL...
What's funny is sarc got fucking angry when I pointed out his sole focus on tariffs while ignoring the 1.7T in regulatory costs under Biden Harris. Almost like sarc doesn't understand economics and is only here to point at Trump to protect Democrat failures.
Binary thinking plus strawman, with an ad hominem on top! You rule! Nobody fellates fallacies quite like you.
Except Tony.
How did you ‘ascertain’ that?
Trump tariffs are horrible. Yet Biden kept them.
Poor sarc thought Reagan never issued tariffs. They only became bad to him under Trump lol.
Low unemployment, growing gross domestic product (GDP), and a booming stock market were hallmarks of his presidency
Since:
LOWER unemployment (all time low)
HIGHER GDP growth (Trump worst GDP growth since Hoover)
HIGHER stock market (by large margins)
The myth of that "great Trump economy" lives on.
What about your NAMBLA membership dues index?
deductible in Minnesota.
Wouldn’t be surprised if that chapter’s motto is Ballz to the Walz
But maybe not in DogDick GA
Pedo Jeffy (Current NAMBLA CEO) let’s Pluggo pays his membership dues with dark web sourced child pornography.
And the real Myths
– that “Biden-inflation” = Market growth instead of lost USD value.
– that a product-less Government Spending = GDP growth.
– that Lost Job Participation rates (welfare-leaches) = a nation working.
All taxes, be they tariffs or income taxes, are losses to the economy. I've yet to hear much in the way of clear and convincing evidence that the cost to the economy from marginally higher tariffs is greater than the cost to the economy of marginally higher income taxes.
What I suspect is at play here is the relative distribution of the tax burden. For people in blue collar manufacturing, tariffs probably have a lower net cost than higher income taxes, due to gains from diminished competition. For professional service workers, on the other hand, tariffs are nearly all cost. De Rugy seems to prefer income tax hikes.
Indeed; Gov-Gun THEFT is a net-negative to any economy.
...because 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
Trump promised not to touch Security for the Socialists (SS) and Socialist Healthcare. The [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] that is bankrupting the nation.
As well as being entirely UN-Constitutional and treasonous to a real USA.
HUGE mistake.
And that’s why the road to self-destruction seems impossible to get off.
Someone needs to campaign on … If you have ‘needs’ you’re too lazy to *EARN* either go to your local welfare office and beg like the beggar you are or get them in prison. I don’t see any point in coddling people who find the needs so important they need to STEAL.
The public needs to rise up and remove the democrats and RINOs directly.
Today's headlines in my local daily:
Trump
Harris:
And last but not least, the sitting President of the United States, commander in chief of the armed forces, carrier of the nuclear codes and leader of the Free World, J Biden:
And my vote for the worst political cartoonist in the Western Hemisphere, so awful the Times closed comments on his page... not one, but TWO time Pulitzer-winning cartoonist, David Horsey, author of “Drawing Apart: Political Cartoons from a Polarized America.”.
Thoughts arrive like butterflies. But he chases them away.
Do you think the irony of the yellow brick road on the left dawns on him or no?
With some cackling, a house with two shriveled feet sticking out from under it, and a brainless scarecrow shuffling around... maybe some gold appointments and neon lights above the Trump door... I think it could be a fair depiction.
I take it the big yellow cat is just a skeleton hidden off to the side somewhere by the mostly peaceful immigrants to Oz.
>If the former president wins the 2024 race, the circumstances he would inherit are far more challenging, and several of his policy ideas are destructive.
So we should all vote for Harris? Because we haven't had 3+ years of her destructive policies already?
*ALL* of her policy ideas are destructive. Well, they're not *her* ideas - she doesn't seem to have any - but the policies of the far-Left apparatchiks she surrounds herself with.
But yeah DeRugy - Orangeman bad.
So we should all vote for Harris?
Hooray for binary thinking!
Cue the binary thinking gaslighters to say I don’t know what binary thinking means!
"It's Binary thinking to infer Chase Oliver has no chance of winning", sarcasmic.
...and that's why you get called a Leftard.
Maybe you'd like to just give Chase Oliver the win out of equality?
It's binary thinking to take criticism of Trump's policies as praise for Harris'.
Touche. Minus the 5-Harris vs 18-Trump mentions.
Trump has been building policies for the last four years. Harris has got bupkis. Naturally the one with more to talk about gets more mentions.
Even if that wasn't the case, seeing "This Trump policy sucks" and reading "Kamala Harris is awesome" is the very definition of binary thinking.
“Cue the binary thinking gaslighters to say I don’t know what binary thinking means!”
We said that you don’t know what gaslighting means and that the right/left binary is an establishment myth.
In your alcohol-induced haze you seem to have mixed them up... again, Sarckles.
Yes, you say lots of lies.
Count: 8 and 9
Incorrect use: 7 and 8
Nonsensical use: 1.
Gaslight count: 11347
Incorrect use: 11347
What's hilarious is Leftists like De Rugy said the same thing last time around.
And again Reason - stop telling us why we should *vote against* Trump. We know, you hate Trump.
But you haven't given us any reason to vote for, originally Biden (indeed, when you wrote about Biden *after* you supported him being elected it was universally negative) and now, Harris.
Why should we vote for Harris, DeRugy? Tucille? Sullum? Brown? Anyone? Anyone? Abortions? Is that the reason? Because the President can't do anything about abortions.
Good luck. Per Rick James’ cartoon above they’ve spent the last 7.5 yrs. yelling “Learn to code!” at all the deplorables and then scratching their head as to why more people aren’t voting for the “Eat bugs, own nothing, sleep in pods. Be happy and mostly peaceful.” – ‘No, I wasn’t advocating or advising, just extrapolating from the data.’ leadership.
"It's difficult to know what she really believes about critical economic matters like health care and fracking."
For you maybe; not for anyone who remembers the last three years.
She believes in total government control of everything.
Nor for anyone who looks back at her past political positions on fracking ( wanted to end it), gun control ( all in favor of it including supporting warrantless searches of lawful gun owners homes), raising taxes (supports), open borders ( wanted to end deportations and end ICE) and censorship ( has in the past called for censorship). Of course we have been told that she has flip flopped on most of these issues ( making belief of her current positions dubious at best). But has she really flip flopped? Most of the statements that supposedly say she has flipped her positions on the issues haven't come from her but from unidentified campaign spokespeople which gives her plausible deniability if she were to be elected to change back to her old positions and say she hasn't broken any campaign promises.
No one really expects to return to anything; time marches on.
But we know what the differences are between the democrat economy and the republican economy.
One is better for personal freedom than the other.
Unless personal freedom includes buying stuff across political boundaries.
As per your own 1% statement.
Unless personal freedom includes buying stuff within political boundaries without paying 99% MORE than paying across political boundaries.
And anyone has to wonder why China junk is so cheap.
I’d encourage you to learn some basic economic terms, like regressive taxes for example, except you’ve already said that you prefer willful ignorance because economists tend to be critical of Trump, making them all leftists.
Sarcasmic's "basic economic terms" lesson for the day.
1% of federal revenue comes from the importing market.
But that's too much because............................. Trump Bad.
And that's why they are always Trumps Tariffs and not Biden's.
And that concludes all the "basic economic" learning from sarcasmic.
Even worse because he still refuses to tell us this mythical figure that never used tariffs.
On top of that he continued to call unilateral trade restrictions as free trade. China is able to manipulate markets, commit theft, impose costs on our domestic supply without any consequences.
He also doesn't get the concept of supply shift. Consumers can choose other suppliers to avoid tariffs on Chinese goods.
I’ve expressed disagreement with Biden’s protective tariffs as well.
Difference between us is I oppose protective tariffs on principle, regardless of who. You defend Trump policies and, like a good projecting binary thinker, attack critics with accusations of supporting the other guy.
LOL... Oh yeah; That's why they are always Trumps Tarrifs. /s
Give me a break with the self-projection.
Stop lying Drunky. Just go and pass out in your piss soaked alley.
That’s why you never credited Biden while I consistently criticized him for tariffs. Not a peep from you. You justify the man, which is why you remain willfully and intentionally ignorant of the economics.
I’ve always said Trump tariffs bad, Biden tariffs bad too.
It’s you and your buddies who defend Trump tariffs while being deafeningly silent about Biden.
You can’t credit him because that’s praising the enemy. You can’t criticize him because that would criticize Trump policies.
So you are silent.
That's cute. It literally took me a whole thread to get you to say one single thing "Biden increasing tariffs are bad too" on the (note:) one and only one Reason article that actually cursing Biden on Tariffs. Wish I would've bookmarked it.
The reason nobody wants to praise Biden for raising Tariffs is because Biden and Democrats *are* the VERY reason Tariffs (as well as Taxes) have to be raised. Yet even in the face of raising both Tariffs and Taxes he just want's to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND MORE. Trump actually used Tariffs to 'fair-up' Tax/Tariffs by cutting taxes. Did Biden do that?
Did the clown nose come with the big floppy shoes?
Unfortunately, making purchases of Russian made goods is challenging though to be fair to Biden-Harris, that crap started under Obama-Biden.
Even without sanctions (not the same at tariffs), the market for Russian goods would be tiny because they mostly suck. If that wasn’t the case there would be a black market.
Is this a no true Scotchman? There was a market and the Russian manufactured goods I have are of fine quality.
Like what?
Last thing I bought that I know was made in Russia was a set of EL84s.
Maybe some steel cased ammo.
AKMs and SKSs made there are excellent examples with only Bulgaria and East Germany equivalents being peers.
Obama-Biden put on sanctions prohibiting my ability to make legal purchases across political boundaries despite the USC prohibiting the US govt from infringing on my right to do that.
The second Act Blue donor that attempted to assassinate Trump was using an ostensibly black market SKS though it is unclear from which nation in which it was manufactured given the Bubba treatment it received.
For folks that had or have 545x39 rifles, Obama-Biden prohibiting folks from buying Russian made ammo (across political boundaries) significantly decreased the supply of the ammo resulting in its increased price.
You could have just said “Guns”. Ohh you were making a political statement about Trump. Right. Because everything is about him. I mean Him, right? Don’t want to tread on your religious toes. Got to get your proper pronouns right.
Wow. Lol.
Sarc once told us he never owned a gun, now he buys Russian ammo.
"Don't Expect a Return to the Trump Economy."
Oh, yeah.
The Harris economy will blossom with rent and price controls, higher taxes, more laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions on trade.
After all, history has shown socialism and their onerous laws regulating business has been such a contributing factor in successful, wealthy and prosperous nations.
Just ask anyone who escaped Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea.
When Harris has given specifics, they've been awful. That includes her anti–price gouging idea, which she has repeated many times, and her desire to hike corporate and capital-gains tax rates. She obviously believes growth comes from government.
However, I have to wonder whether a second Trump term would deliver the economic resurgence voters hope for.
Ok, so here's the thing. Trump may not be 'good' on these issues. Sure, I can let that point fall.
The fact is that Kamala manages to be more ignorant. She is pushing idea's that will for sure crash the economy.
So on one hand you have a typical politician that's mostly in favor of the status quo when it comes to economic issues. Then on the other hand you have a radical retard that wants to crash the economy on purpose or through sheer retardation.
I notice that while you mention Kamala's idiot ideas, you then go on to castigate Trump. Curious.
The only way to make this case without being a total retard yourself is to acknowledge that Kamala is lying about her policy agenda or too ineffectual to get it through. Neither is a sane positive case for her.
I guess it's easier to criticize Trump for his mostly status quo opinions than it is to pen an article about Kamala trying to outright destroy the United States intentionally, or it's just a given that Democrats are so out of touch and insane that they actually believe they can pursue those policy goals without destroying the entire country.
After all, you wouldn't want to appear partisan by noticing her outright batshittery...right? Is that how this works? Somehow, bashing Trump for the status quo is not partisan but noticing the insanity of Kamala is partisan?
We're through the looking glass, folks.
.. or it’s just a given that Democrats are so out of touch and insane that they actually believe they can pursue those policy goals without destroying the entire country.
Sadly, that is the case.
So it’s time to destroy them. They will never ever stop. So it’s them or us. And I think we all prefer Americans over democrats.
>There is a lot of evidence that debt can act as a drag on the economy.
Wow, looks like that PhD really paid off. Thanks for enlightening us peasants.
Trump inherited a good economy in his first term. He did little to improve the economy. The 2017 tax cuts were unnecessary and simply added to the debt. His administration spent but appear to have gotten little for the money. While the pandemic was certain to cause economic problems Trump lack of leadership made things worse. Trump seems to have little sense of how to handle the economy and if elected he will not have a stable economy like last time. I can only see chaos and recession should he again be President.
D-
Isn't that funny. FDR had 12!!!!!!!!!! 12-F'En YEARS to 'fix' the previous Republicans Economic Chaos (as you describe it). What did it get us? The Greatest Depression the nation has ever seen.
You Democrats have a real problem with accepting any responsibility for anything. And that criminal mentality goes a lot farther and deeper than the nations over-all economy. Even in your own personal lives you're always trying to shovel off your F'Ups on everyone else.
You need to check your facts. The Great Depression started in October 1929 and FDR was not inaugurated until March 1933. The last three Republican administrations ended in recession and the last Democrat administrations end in recovery.
Or correctly stated …..
The last three Republican administrations ended in recession and the next Democrat administrations started the Great Depression.
“Roosevelt spearheaded unprecedented federal legislation and directed the federal government during *most* of the Great Depression”
“The economy hit bottom in the winter of 1932–1933; then came four years of growth until the recession of 1937–1938 brought back high levels of unemployment.”
You call that Fixing?
The only thing FDR did was borrowed like nobodies business to create an UN-Constitutional Socialist “New Deal” that would predictably be the very reasons behind the Crash of 1987, 2008 and 2020 and the very bankruptcy and failing of the USA.
Or in simple terms; Just charge it on the credit card.
Democrats have never fixed anything; they just BORROW and STEAL more.
You’re even dumber than I thought you were if you actually believe that bullshit interpretation of events.
trump economy
no such thing
There was the Obama economy that trump inherited, then screwed up
the tax cuts that help balloon the deficit
trump economy
yeah, before the pandemic,
well, you don't get to ignore the biggest botch of his term because it is inconvenient
Agree.
Stop samefagging, you Marxist bitch.
BS Lies.
- Obama spent more in his 1st term than Trump ever did even with the Cares Act.
- Obama 2nd term was powerless due to a Full [R]-Congress.
- The only thing electing Trump did was create an [R]-trifecta his first two years where deficits were only $100B more than the last.
UNTIL.......... Democrats took the House and Trumps deficit went up again with DEMOCRATS bill (the Cares Act).
Only to pull a double-dip after getting a [D]-trifecta.
You don't get to ignore the obvious [D] spending just because it's inconvenient to your [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire building tactics.
GDP growth
straight line from Bush recession up until traitor trump blew the pandemic
no improvement under trumpski
just more debt
Traitor Trump? No. Traitor Obama, traitor Biden, traitor Harris? Yes.
Unless youre referring to your allegiance to Marxism.
Trump's talent for propaganda far outweights his management of the economy. Inheriting a strong economy, he kept it going until his mismanagement of the panemic led to disaster. Here's what Pew Research found in 2018: "today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers." Meanwhile, Trump was spending unprecedented amounts in racking up deficits during "good times." And he set up food inflation by prohibiting foreign competition in fertilizer so that MOsaic, with a new monopoly, was able to raise prices by 400%, which started the big food inflation run up...Trump, as with the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, set it up so it would not (being a recipe for disaster) take place until after the election, which he expected to lose. So the tariffs he enacted on fertilizer did not take place until a month after Biden took office. Biden, in his stupidity, did not repeal them until recently so they forced prices up for 3 yrs.......and now Biden has arranged to raise them again.
Back to Trump, wages did not gain, GDP rose prepandemic by 2.5% compared to the 3.2% gain under Obama in his last 2 years, an the debt soared, an economic crime in good times. But Trump has brainwashed the public into thinking times were good.....tho their buying power was flat and about to get worse with Trump's tariffs. Wages have not quite cought up with inflation but that is coming: "Since the beginning of the post-pandemic inflation surge in Jan. 1, 2021, prices have risen 20.0 percent, compared with a 17.4 percent increase in wages over the same period, Bankrate’s second-annual Wage To Inflation Index found." Without Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods (most of which are not produced in the US so it was purely a sales tax on Americans)and fertilizer, wage gains would be what they were under prepandemic Trump: flat. Meanwhile Trump is talking of a 20% tariff on ALL imports, which is the same as a 20% sales tax, which would send inflation, now down to 2.5% (the historical average is 3.8%) soaring, and of course tariffs that are on good are not in competition with American production are simply new taxes on those least able to afford them.
Where did you come from? You obviously copy pasted a bunch of things that are distorted bullshit , and that you can’t possibly understand.
So (30 seconds) Harris is worse, but (next two hours) Trump is still baaaaaaad ...
The Trump Vance economic policies will destroy a number of industries - agriculture, construction, landscaping, food processing will see their workforces decimated as Trump scapegoats them by kidnapping them and throwing them in contraction camps. He will destroy FEMA and the small business administration which small businesses and families rely on during natural disasters. His tariff plan will raise prices for producers and consumers in a form of a sales and value added tax and bankrupt many of our exporters. His plans will create a Trump mafia state where he as The Don will control the State for his and his family’s personal benefit. His goal is to enslave all of us and stiff us like he has done with workers and contractors for decades. The Trump state will transform America into feudal nightmare taking us back centuries into an era like Czarist Russia.
If you love freedom and free enterprise do not vote for Trump and John Donald Bowman (Vance).