tRump is running a high-risk economic experiment (that could go badly)

[ffr]

pResident Donald tRump is beginning his second year in office with a high-risk strategy: Juicing the U.S. economy at a time when it already looks pretty healthy. As his latest budget, released Monday, makes clear, tRump wants growth of 3 percent — or more — a year for the next seven years, a feat that hasn't happened since Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s.
<snip>

"This is a joke," said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "I would love if we had 3 percent growth for two years, let alone seven years, but we have an aging population and there is no plausible story I can tell where we're on a path toward sustained economic growth at that level."
<snip>

"The stock market gyrations we're seeing now might be a foreshadowing of some kind of downturn," said Kristina Hooper, chief global strategist at Invesco. "It seems likely before the end of 2019, we will probably see some kind of economic slowdown."

Increasingly, Wall Street banks and independent economic researchers are starting to flag doubts about the health of the Trump economy...
<snip>

In a further strike on the Trump economy, Goldman Sachs said the president's deregulation push is having little to no effect on the economy. "Overall, our results suggest that non-financial deregulation has had a limited impact on the economy to date," the bank wrote in a report over the weekend.
<snip>

Trump's budget assumes borrowing rates for the 10-year Treasury bonds will remain low, even as growth picks up and unemployment falls further. The budget predicts the popular 10-year U.S. Treasury bond will have a 2.6 percent yield this year. At the moment, the yield is over 2.8 percent, meaning borrowing costs are higher than the administration wants. - Chicago Tribune

It's important to remember, that Reagan juiced the economy by running record deficits during years of economy expansion, whereas, Bill Clinton was the only president in modern times to run budget surpluses during his tenure of economic expansion.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was ultimately rejected by every Republican in Congress. They all voted against the bill. Liberal Vice President Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate and liberal President Bill Clinton signed it.

So let's get some facts straight here about who the last president was to run a budget surplus and who was responsible for them. It was liberal Bill Clinton and the 1993 liberal democratic congress who were responsible for replacing record deficits with record surpluses, which thanks to the conservative supreme court by a vote of 5 to 4, was handed to the conservative republican George Bush in 2000. He in turn squandered the record surpluses given to him and tacked on another $6T in deficits, ending up with $10.8T it total public debt.

George Bush inherited ~$4.8T in surpluses due to the previous eight years of sound fiscal responsibility under democratic Bill Clinton. And, according to the CBO in 2000 & 2001, the entire U.S. public debt would have been paid off because of Bill Clinton's 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act. However, GWB squandered it with a tax cut for the rich and other spending items. Then in the last throws before death spiral, the markets began their violent gyrations up and down, the prelude to the realization of a near complete collapse of the U.S. economy, financial systems, real estate market, stock market, and millions of jobs lost. Remember Toxic Assets? That's a term used to describe deregulated assets allowed and pushed by conservative republicans.

Sound familiar? It should.