The economy crashed under George W Bush, largely caused by reckless activity in the investment banking markets after successive deregulations since the Reagan administration (Republicans and Democrats.) Obama inherited the crash, and used Keynesian economics on a breathtaking scale to invest money into the economy, securing jobs and communities while also building up infrastructure. This is basically the same tactic used by previous presidents since the 1920s when faced by recessions (including Republicans up until the Thatcherite/Reaganomics ideas of the 1980s), although Obama/Biden did it to a greater extent I believe. By the end of the Obama presidency that investment started to pay off when the commercial sector started to flourish and employment started to grow. This is the economy that Trump inherited.Damselbinder wrote: ↑3 years agoOkay
"the economy grew under Trump" does not mean "the economy shrank under Obama". The one does not logically imply the other.
You... do understand that, right?
It is true that the stock market under Trump has set record breaking highs. The stock market under Obama also set record breaking highs. Indeed the stock market has set a record breaking high at some point under every president since Reagan, except George H W Bush (the first Bush.) Yup, even under George W Bush (the second Bush) the stock market managed to break records in between 9/11 and the financial crash that bookended his term in office.
What you have to understand is that economies take years to turn around, longer than a single four year term in office. So, the recession or boom of one president was nearly always caused by his predecessor. The growth of the economy continued under Trump, but it didn't significantly change course from what it was doing in the final months of Obama.
Obama stimulated economic growth by borrowing heavily and investing in jobs and infrastructure (more efficient energy, better Internet, etc.) Trump's plan to continue to stimulate the economy was to borrow heavily and fund tax cuts (short term cuts for the majority, perminent cuts for the very wealthy.) Some economists claimed that the cost of the cuts would more than pay for themselves by boosting the economy just like Obama's investment, but without the need for government to get involved with directing where the money went. Other economists disagreed and thought that Trump's tax cuts would just add significantly to the national debt without paying for themselves with economic growth. Based on data up to January 2020, the plan seemed to be falling short of Republican hopes, but the argument is now academic as Covid-19 then went and wrecked the economy so we'll never know what would have happened between January and election day in November.
R5