Kudlow Hits Back At Obama Claiming Credit For ‘Economic Miracle’
I'd love to say this to Our (former) Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...):
"You didn't build that... somebody else built that..."
This schmuck cannot stay out of the limelight, and just can't resist twisting the truth. Remember his statement that the new normal was 2 percent GDP growth? Remember his statement that manufacturing jobs would never return (and some have)? Etc. Obama belongs in the trash heap of history for the damage that he inflicted on the country during his eight years in office.
"You didn't build that... somebody else built that..."
This schmuck cannot stay out of the limelight, and just can't resist twisting the truth. Remember his statement that the new normal was 2 percent GDP growth? Remember his statement that manufacturing jobs would never return (and some have)? Etc. Obama belongs in the trash heap of history for the damage that he inflicted on the country during his eight years in office.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
It doesn't make them untrue.
But in order for Obama to claim credit for this economic growth, he must believe that he DID do something. Maybe a participation trophy is in order for Our (former) Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...)
One more time now, with feeling:
https://youtu.be/9Ty7WU872Lk
Obama ran his presidency thinking government knows best. That is demonstrated over and over - from his campaign (remember Joe the Plumber?) to his presidency. By March 2016, the beneficiary role grew by almost 25 percent from Obama's grand entrance to the White House in 2009. Same percentage growth for Medicare. Food Stamp recipients grew by one third over his terms. And who can forget Obamacare! "We have to pass it so we can see what is in it". What a classic Pelosi moment. All of this is income redistribution. From my pocket to someone else's, and I have no say about it.
Many more examples of Obama policy failures, but it is too depressing to think about them, so I'm going to end this post..
I didn't either, for the reasons in my post below and the reasons you state.
"I wanted to see was fewer government rules and regulations that stifled the opportunity for business growth."
I want only rules that prevent law suits and not rules designed to stifle competition. Suppose companies are leaking chemicals, noise, or something else that's devaluing neighbors' property. I want rules that prevent the law suits and just set a reasonable standard. What I hate are rules design to protect a company, like when a huge company invests in some safety equipment or testings and then lobbies to make the gov't force competitors, who can't afford the expense, to do likewise.
"I wanted to see no further income redistribution from my pocket to others' pockets. "
Marginal taxes have been bobbing around the same values for a long time. Rates went up to where they were in the 90s, but it hasn't caused my family to significantly change how much we set aside for quarterlies. I'm lucky if I estimate within 10% how much to send. So while you're correct taxes fluctuate and it affects the economy, I haven't seen a major change in tax policy in my life, or at least since I started making enough to pay significant taxes.
BTW, the recent tax cut was great IMHO because it cut rates and simplified things. I would support it wholeheartedly if the gov't had also initiated small across-the-board spending cuts instead of increasing gov't spending.
"His policies were responsible for the slow recovery"
I don't think we should use fiscal policy to affect the economic cycle, but to the extent we do use it, I think it's a blunt instrument. You just borrow money, and it primes the pump. The best way is probably and across-the-board tax cut. But it doesn't make that much difference. It's the borrowing that does the trick. It's like the hair-of-the-dog treatment for the shakes of alcohol withdrawal. Any alcohol will do the job, until it wears off and you need to do it again.
I do not think the president of the US should do anything to affect the economic cycle, including accelerating the recovery, except making inspiring speeches.
That being said, when the bond crisis hit, the financial industry convinced Presidents Bush to support bailout measures and President Obama to support huge borrowing. The loose fiscal and monetary policy made up the deleveraging in the financial industry and kept unemployment from going higher. Proponents of this (not I) think it's worth 1 trillion dollars of debt to prime the pump, generation > 1 trillion dollars of wealth that would have been lost with production capacity sitting idle, with consumers too cautious to spend causing companies not to hire, making consumers cautious to spend, in a vicious cycle. I actually agree with that much of it, but the problem comes with the economy expands and we can't stop borrowing. We were still borrowing $400 billion/yr at the end of Obama's administration, even though the economy was in expansion. Then in a fluke, the electoral college gave us a clown for a president, who increased borrowing to near $1 trillion a year even though the economy was expanding faster than ever. There's no room for more fiscal stimulus during the next recession. For this reason, I do not want politicians using fiscal policy to influence the economic cycle.
I actually wrote letters urging my representatives to scale back bailout and stimulus measures, but I got no sign from staffers I had any influence. I was in the minority.
"Besides printing money"
A nitpicking point: The Fed did QE, not President Obama. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, though, because monetary policy (and having the reserve currency of the world) made the fiscal stimulus possible. So it's sort of fair to say "Obama printed money". Of course, there is a bigger deficit with Trump as president, and President Trump openly urged the Fed to pursue loose monetary policy, so we have to say Trump prints money too, using the same rule.
"I've outlined what I saw him do (or not do) from my perspective, and I don't believe it is refutable."
I'll post a reply to that original comment.
I literally laughed out loud at this. If I understand the context you're talking about President Trump, who's best skill is being a clown, a train wreck people can't look away from. I suspect in the future we'll find out he was an addict of some sort. People on his staff have openly said we should ignore what he says and focus on what his administration does. His supporters figure maybe it's okay he entertains the rubes with his carnival huckster act while turning over actual policy to think tanks. That makes some sense, but I am concerned that if there is an actual conflict an enemy might perceive, rightly or wrongly, that we don't really know who's in charge. I hope I'm wrong about that. If we really need a president that commands respect, i.e. the opposite of making people feel embarrassed for him as they would watching a drunk in a job over his head, we're in deep trouble.
Just like all good wagon pullers.
Maybe this stimulus will in a Fast and Furious way jog your memory. It has Bhengazi along time since that $1,500,000,000 cash landed in IRAN. IRS weaponized against political opponents . Using FISA to Spy
on your political opponents. His and Hillary's use of a compromised private server.
,He is improving our trade disasters, increased US competitiveness. Next on his agenda is the Federal Reserve Cabal.
I will never be convinced otherwise.
You can say that again. He did the exact opposite. After Obama, the country is more divided than ever in my lifetime.
Load more comments...