SocialD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 716
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
“average annual growth rate during the current business cycle remains the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949″
"In addition, Barack Obama remains solidly on track to be the only president in all of U.S. history to never have a single year when the economy grew by at least 3 percent. Every other president in American history, even the really bad ones, had at least one year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent."
Barack Obama Is On Track To Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth - Monetary Watch
So there are a lot of things that affect growth. taxes jobs and regulations are the main component.
So what do we look too out of Hillary and Donald..?
On taxes per the Tax Foundation ( and agreed upon my FactCheck )
"On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would see a reduction in after-tax income of 1.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see the largest decline in after-tax income: 2.7 percent."
So all taxpayers would see some reduction in their after tax income.
As to Donald
"It is true that Trump has called for tax cuts that would result in lower taxes at all income levels, though the biggest cuts would come for the wealthiest taxpayers, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation."
As for Jobs
Per yahoo finance -
"The Democratic presidential nominee claims that during her first 100 days in office, she’ll introduce and sign into law “the biggest infrastructure and jobs program that we’ve had since World War II.” That was also true of the huge stimulus program that President Obama signed into law in 2009, during his own first 100 days in office.
Clinton’s plan would amount to $300 billion in spending on transportation projects spread over five years, or roughly $60 billion per year. That $300 billion would come from new taxes on the wealthy, so, in theory, it wouldn’t add to the national debt.
The 2009 stimulus package included nearly $800 billion of spending, but only about $150 billion of that was for infrastructure."
According to this Treasury/Economic advisor study 90% of infrastructure jobs help the middle class. it also has a lot of good info on infrastructure such as the us is doing mediocre on it and actually spending on infrastructure has steadily declined since Eisenhower years.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf
As for Trump a dollar amount on spending hasn't been set but Business Insider points out that he also has been pro infrastructure rebuilding throughout his campaign and in addition to mentioning bridges and roads , he also mentions airports as being in disrepair.
So per Bus Insider -
"A win by either candidate would therefore appear to be good news for construction companies, equipment manufacturers, and materials firms."
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton infrastructure spending - Business Insider
So the last item is Trade.
No sense in going into heavy detail its either Hillary's plan of continuing what we have for the most part... which is huge trade deficits and inequitable trade agreements. Or Donald who has it right on redoing trade agreements but has been protectionist and may hurt trade.
With the former its surely bad.. with the later it could be bad.
WSJ has a comparison on all matters foreign including trade here -
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Foreign-Policy Issues - WSJ.com
Bottom line is as we currently have the worst recession recovery since ww2 and the worst growth ever in an administration. So you have a choice of continue the bad or roll the dice with a wild card.
Sorry that was long but I wanted to have a point to it all and not just throw up a knock Obama thread.
"In addition, Barack Obama remains solidly on track to be the only president in all of U.S. history to never have a single year when the economy grew by at least 3 percent. Every other president in American history, even the really bad ones, had at least one year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent."
Barack Obama Is On Track To Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth - Monetary Watch
So there are a lot of things that affect growth. taxes jobs and regulations are the main component.
So what do we look too out of Hillary and Donald..?
On taxes per the Tax Foundation ( and agreed upon my FactCheck )
"On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would see a reduction in after-tax income of 1.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see the largest decline in after-tax income: 2.7 percent."
So all taxpayers would see some reduction in their after tax income.
As to Donald
"It is true that Trump has called for tax cuts that would result in lower taxes at all income levels, though the biggest cuts would come for the wealthiest taxpayers, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation."
As for Jobs
Per yahoo finance -
"The Democratic presidential nominee claims that during her first 100 days in office, she’ll introduce and sign into law “the biggest infrastructure and jobs program that we’ve had since World War II.” That was also true of the huge stimulus program that President Obama signed into law in 2009, during his own first 100 days in office.
Clinton’s plan would amount to $300 billion in spending on transportation projects spread over five years, or roughly $60 billion per year. That $300 billion would come from new taxes on the wealthy, so, in theory, it wouldn’t add to the national debt.
The 2009 stimulus package included nearly $800 billion of spending, but only about $150 billion of that was for infrastructure."
According to this Treasury/Economic advisor study 90% of infrastructure jobs help the middle class. it also has a lot of good info on infrastructure such as the us is doing mediocre on it and actually spending on infrastructure has steadily declined since Eisenhower years.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf
As for Trump a dollar amount on spending hasn't been set but Business Insider points out that he also has been pro infrastructure rebuilding throughout his campaign and in addition to mentioning bridges and roads , he also mentions airports as being in disrepair.
So per Bus Insider -
"A win by either candidate would therefore appear to be good news for construction companies, equipment manufacturers, and materials firms."
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton infrastructure spending - Business Insider
So the last item is Trade.
No sense in going into heavy detail its either Hillary's plan of continuing what we have for the most part... which is huge trade deficits and inequitable trade agreements. Or Donald who has it right on redoing trade agreements but has been protectionist and may hurt trade.
With the former its surely bad.. with the later it could be bad.
WSJ has a comparison on all matters foreign including trade here -
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Foreign-Policy Issues - WSJ.com
Bottom line is as we currently have the worst recession recovery since ww2 and the worst growth ever in an administration. So you have a choice of continue the bad or roll the dice with a wild card.
Sorry that was long but I wanted to have a point to it all and not just throw up a knock Obama thread.