Of course they are but the reasons behind them aren't. Those are matters of opinion and are subject to political spin and distortion which even his greatest supporter will acknowledge are arts that Trump frequently employs.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Let’s see if he gets any credit IF he’s re-elected and IF these figures continue to improve.
The dark arts of spin and propaganda (or lying and exaggeration) are here to stay.

Presidents have very little to do with economic cycles, although that doesn't stop them claiming credit when positive or blaming others when negative. They tend to preside over them rather than dictate the strategy which creates them. So although there is always a time lag between any impact that impact is marginal.

Hogwash? Well then this piece must be. It comes from the conservative leaning National Review and although from 2017 is still relevant:=

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

"Some" can equal "very little". It all depends on the circumstances. As the piece you referenced makes clear Presidents cannot act alone. They need to bring Congress with them and the make up of Congress varies.

The primary point I am trying to make is what the article I referenced supports. That Trump's constant claims are bs and that the electorate have a long history of believing them as they want them to be true.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (28 Dec 2019 9.39pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The whole concept is so incredibly disingenuous as to be stunningly appropriate for the person making the claim.

I lived through watching Labour's economy of 79 be radically altered within years by Thatcher and because some numpties write nonsense at 'national review' this means that apparently wasn't a reality.

This guy links to an article written before Trump passed his tax reform and it includes the absurd line:

'But he will crow about that 3.3 percent GDP growth last quarter, and will insist that it is the result of his policies. Which of those policies, I wonder? He may get his tax cut, but, for the moment, Trump has done almost nothing of substance on the economy, and what his administration has done — a bit of excellent regulatory reform — is unlikely to affect growth dramatically in the short term.'

The author's objectivity on Trump? Well this author's latest article for this site is headlined, 'Trump Isn’t a Nazi. He’s a Failure.'.....Sums it all up.

Anyway I went looking for the evidence this guy puts forward for his view that politicians don't have dramatic affects on economies? I went looking for it....it's pathetic, it's in the last paragraph it's absolutely nothing but opinion.....duh Bush couldn't have predicted 9/11.....Jesus!

Of course global events have an affect on all governments, of course trends matter. However political power shapes the business environment and affects confidence. It doesn't matter which party is in power, it matters who the person is and what their policies are.....the argument that it's a binary is reductionist folly and a strawman template.

The economic policies of a President matter.....it's as simple as the nose on your face......Some of us just have longer noses than others and have zero objectivity.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Dec 2019 2.38am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course not.

The sycophantic self serving Republican Senators are every bit as much to blame.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.