Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

"An A- for the U.S. Economy, but Failing Grades for Trump’s Policies"

The president endorsed a bipartisan budget deal without any of the spending restraints previously demanded by Republicans.

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and BURGESS EVERETT

07/22/2019 07:32 PM EDT

Updated 07/22/2019 08:26 PM EDT

[...]

In fact, Trump is approaching the level of red ink from President Barack Obama’s first term, when Obama racked up trillion-dollar deficits four years in a row. Trump is on pace to do the same, starting with this year's yawning deficit of more than $1 trillion, according to budget estimates.

But there are huge differences: Trump has a growing economy with historically low unemployment and a soaring stock market, while Obama was battling a brutal downturn in the economy during the worst recession in 80 years, making it much harder to curb federal spending.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696

-

Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won’t They Say So?

‘We’ve been better for the economy over the last 60 years, and here are the numbers that prove it’ sure does seem like a pretty good campaign line.

Michael Tomasky
Special Correspondent
Updated 08.03.18 11:56AM ET / Published 08.03.18 9:40AM ET

[...]

Now, the report quickly notes that this isn’t just because Democrats are smarter economic managers. The main reason they cite, in fact, is “oil shocks.” That is, the big, unexpected oil controversies, like the 1973 OPEC embargo, just so happen to have taken place under GOP presidents. So Republican presidents had bad luck.

Well, fine. At the same time, three points. First, that particular embargo was imposed in response to a Nixon administration policy: its support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Now, any American administration of either party would have done that. But the embargo was announced on Oct. 17. In response, two days later, Nixon authorized $2 billion in additional military aid to Israel. In other words, maybe that particular Republican administration made that particular oil shock worse than it might have been.

Second, while the Democratic advantage surely involves some luck, it can’t be all luck, over the course of 67 years (Blinder and Watson’s time frame). And even if it was, in political terms, so what? The numbers are the numbers. You think if they were reversed, the Republicans would have forgotten to mention that the economy has been in recession four times as often under Democratic administrations as under Republican ones? The truth, according Blinder and Watson, is that the economy has been in recession 28 percent of the time under GOP presidents and 7 percent of the time under Democrats.

And third, the story is even broader. What about job creation? Is that any closer? No. These numbers come to us from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, a widely respected and cited source on economic facts and figures.

The period from 1961 up through 2017 covers 56 years. As it happens, the parties split presidential control during that time exactly evenly, 28 years each. In the Republicans’ 28 years, the non-farm job rolls added 31.5 million workers. In the Democrats’ years? Try 61.2 million. Essentially twice as many.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-economy-does-betterby-farunder-democrats-why-doesnt-america-know-this