Press trying to put the kibosh on President Trump's winning economy

The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell argues, along with the left, that President Trump's economic achievements are not all that impressive.  In her last column, she concludes:

Presidents get too much blame when the economy sours and too much credit when it improves. Not that you'd know this from Trump's boasts whenever some good news – even news that's not actually that good – rolls in.

While I generally agree with her statement that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for the economy, there are some problems with her reasoning.

When one president increased regulations as fast as he could, foisted high taxes on us, and always sought more power for the government, and the other president is trying to reduce regulations as fast as he can, cut taxes, and reduce the power of government, it can have a heck of a lot of impact.

President Obama's policies led to the slowest economic recovery in seventy years, despite massive government spending increases, huge injections of cash by the Federal Reserve, and punishingly low interest rates, which discouraged savings.

Today, I have read that the economy is growing at the fastest rate since 2005 (after Bush's tax cuts), and the first quarter showed the fastest personal income growth since 2007.  (It looks as though the tax cuts are trickling through.)

We had eight years of Obama to judge his policies, and the results weren't good.  Now we have had a mere one year to judge Trump's, and only four months after the tax cuts, so we will see.

It is telling to watch almost all Washington Post journalists and Democrats in their relentless attacks on Trump's tax cuts.  They fought giving money back to the people and businesses as hard as they could, and they do not want to see success.  They obviously don't want people to see the great impact of allowing people and businesses to keep more of their own money.

In December, the Congressional Budget Office said the tax cuts were going to cost $1.5 trillion over ten years.  By April, they were down to costing $1 trillion over ten years, and to get that result, somehow, they believe that permanent tax cuts for corporations and eight-year tax cuts for individuals will cause increased economic growth for only two years.  If they are off by $500 billion in three months, why would we trust their ten-year numbers?  When will these journalists admit that the projections were way off?

My guess is that economic growth under Trump's policies will greatly exceed growth under President Obama's policies.  When Rampell writes an article comparing Trump's results to Obama's already, it certainly shows tremendous bias on her part.

The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell argues, along with the left, that President Trump's economic achievements are not all that impressive.  In her last column, she concludes:

Presidents get too much blame when the economy sours and too much credit when it improves. Not that you'd know this from Trump's boasts whenever some good news – even news that's not actually that good – rolls in.

While I generally agree with her statement that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for the economy, there are some problems with her reasoning.

When one president increased regulations as fast as he could, foisted high taxes on us, and always sought more power for the government, and the other president is trying to reduce regulations as fast as he can, cut taxes, and reduce the power of government, it can have a heck of a lot of impact.

President Obama's policies led to the slowest economic recovery in seventy years, despite massive government spending increases, huge injections of cash by the Federal Reserve, and punishingly low interest rates, which discouraged savings.

Today, I have read that the economy is growing at the fastest rate since 2005 (after Bush's tax cuts), and the first quarter showed the fastest personal income growth since 2007.  (It looks as though the tax cuts are trickling through.)

We had eight years of Obama to judge his policies, and the results weren't good.  Now we have had a mere one year to judge Trump's, and only four months after the tax cuts, so we will see.

It is telling to watch almost all Washington Post journalists and Democrats in their relentless attacks on Trump's tax cuts.  They fought giving money back to the people and businesses as hard as they could, and they do not want to see success.  They obviously don't want people to see the great impact of allowing people and businesses to keep more of their own money.

In December, the Congressional Budget Office said the tax cuts were going to cost $1.5 trillion over ten years.  By April, they were down to costing $1 trillion over ten years, and to get that result, somehow, they believe that permanent tax cuts for corporations and eight-year tax cuts for individuals will cause increased economic growth for only two years.  If they are off by $500 billion in three months, why would we trust their ten-year numbers?  When will these journalists admit that the projections were way off?

My guess is that economic growth under Trump's policies will greatly exceed growth under President Obama's policies.  When Rampell writes an article comparing Trump's results to Obama's already, it certainly shows tremendous bias on her part.