Liz Peek
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
Screenshot 2024-09-06 at 8.12.37 AM
September 6, 2024

Sorry, Goldman Sachs — Trump will be better for the economy 

Liz Peek Articles

Democrats and their media allies are celebrating a report from Goldman Sachs concluding that the economy would be worse off under a second Trump administration than under Kamala Harris. 

Given that voters consistently rate Donald Trump more highly than Harris on their respective handling of the economy, this was a breakthrough for the left. Never mind that the much-hyped report concluded that the election of Harris and a Democratic “sweep” would result in only a “very slight boost” to 2025 GDP. Or that the reasons for the Harris edge are unpalatable, unsustainable and, essentially, idiotic.

Sorry, Goldman Sachs, but any leader who has specialized in increasing regulations, plans to significantly hike taxes, routinely bashes Big Business for profiteering and wants to break up America’s leading companies, like Google, can possibly foster a positive environment for growth.

The Goldman Sachs analysts argue that Trump’s tariffs on imported goodswill raise costs to consumers, which could “help spur an economic slowdown” and “likely cost the gross domestic product about 0.5 percent in growth, a negative headwind that would persist throughout 2025.” So, one year’s minor impact. (Not to mention that 60 percent of U.S. CEOs in a recent survey think a recession is imminent, if not already underway.) 

Meanwhile, the folks at Goldman Sachs see Trump as likely to oversee a slowdown in illegal immigration. To them, this means lower job growth. “Under a President Harris, job growth would be 10,000 a month higher than if Trump wins with a divided government and 30,000 higher if the GOP controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.” 

I have written in the past about the Biden-Harris economy teetering on a wobbly foundation of excessive federal spending and illegal immigration. Astonishingly, the Goldman Sachs analysts propose that the U.S. cannot grow satisfactorily unless the migrant floodgates remain open. This is extremely odd, given that our country had been managing quite well for years before Biden and Harris threw the floodgates open.  

The excitement about the Goldman report was brief, perhaps because the media decided the central economic booster — unpopular ongoing illegal immigration — was not going to sit well with voters. Or maybe it was because investors remembered that last year, Goldman had confidently predicted $100 per barrel oil by Election Day (today’s price is $69 per barrel). 

Hey — everyone makes mistakes.

Or maybe the report died quietly because everyone with a pulse knows that Trump’s policies are better for businesses than those few that Harris has volunteered, and that prosperous companies hire and invest, while those battling a hostile government do neither. 

Trump has proposed to lower the corporate tax rates to 20 percent from 21 percent; at times he has even mentioned a lower number. Critics on the left claim that the Trump tax cuts only benefitted big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and swelled our budget deficits, but that is simply not true. When businesses pay less to Uncle Sam, they can pay more to workers and spend more on research and innovation.  

Not only did the 2017 tax cuts boost growth, according to a report released last spring by the House Budget Committee, but they also raised revenues. “The Trump tax cuts resulted in economic growth that was a full percentage point above CBO’s forecast, and federal revenues far outpaced the agency’s predictions,” the report says. “In fact, under Trump tax policies in 2022, tax revenues reached a record high of nearly $5 trillion, and revenues averaged $205 billion above CBO predictions for the four years following implementation of the law.”

The committee also noted that the poverty level fell to its lowest rate in 50 years and unemployment rates for minorities and those without a college degree hit all-time lows. In addition, the report states “real median household income rose by $5,000, and wages went up by nearly 5 percent. Americans earning under $100,000 saw an average tax cut of 16 percent. And while the tax burden on low-income families went down, the top one percent saw their share of federal taxes go up.”

One way to assess how the economy might prosper under another Trump term is to look at business and consumer confidence levels, which were higher under his presidency than under Joe Biden’s.

The Small Business Confidence Index issued by the National Federation of Small Businesses rose in July to 93.7, posting its best performance since 2022. However, as the association notes, the July tally marked the “31st consecutive month below the 50-year average of 98.”

Small-biz confidence was similarly depressed during Barack Obama’s presidency. When Trump took office in 2017 it stood at 93.9. At the end of his first year in office, it reached 105.8 and stayed above 100 until COVID hit. Despite that disaster, confidence bounced back, ending at 101.4 in November 2020. 

After Biden’s election it sagged again. It has never since risen above 100. 

How about consumer confidence? That too, was markedly higher under Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration, despite the enormous handouts given to citizens and non-citizens alike by this spendthrift White House.  

In August, the University of Michigan index stood at 67.9, even as Americans became more optimistic about inflation subsiding. The high point under Biden-Harris was 88.3 in April 2021, before inflation took off and also before the catastrophic pullout from Afghanistan revealed the depths of White House incompetence. 

Under Trump, optimism was consistently above 90, topping 100 on several occasions, until COVID hit, but even then it fell to levels substantially above those experienced under much of the Biden-Harris term.

Some enterprising reporter should ask the Harris campaign, and the analysts at Goldman Sachs, and all the press blasting the Trump presidency: If Trump’s policies were so terrible, why do so many people think they were better off during his presidency? Why were small-business owners and consumers consistently more upbeat than they have been during the Biden-Harris years? 

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4864694-goldman-sachs-trump-economy-harris

Published in The Hill

Biden-Harris can’t lead and it emboldens our enemi Presidential debate: Surprising things Harris, Trump need to do to win over voters or risk losing it all

Related Posts

Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AM

Articles

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Articles

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Articles

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Recent Posts

  • Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AMDOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment
  • Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliensDemocrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens
  • Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agendaRepublicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda
  • Screenshot 2019-06-26 07.54.58What Kamala Harris buzz is telling us. Read between the lines, America

Tweets by Liz

Unable to load Tweets

Follow

Liz on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Liz Peek

19 hours ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
I am alternately peeved and sympathetic with Chip Roy, Ralph Norman and the others who torpedoed Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. But after reading the fine print this morning and realizing that reforms to Medicaid don’t kick in until 2029 !!!! I am disgusted. I get that states need some time to adjust to a change in rules regarding Medicaid eligibility – maybe a year or 18 months — but do they really need four years? No, they do not. The extended timeframe is an obvious play to put political repercussions off until after the midterms. Legislators from swing districts fear losing their seats because able-bodied adults lose their free ride. They want to put off any change as long as possible.
On the other hand, those vulnerable legislators will almost certainly get canned if the 2017 tax cuts don’t get extended and Trump’s agenda crashes. We need both to get the bill passed, and to make it tougher.
The conservatives calling for bigger spending cuts are completely correct. Just ask Moody’s, which in recent days downgraded U.S. debt. Imagine, the United States of America has lost its triple-A status. (The other two major ratings agencies had already made this downgrade.) This would be a wake-up call except that most of our country is asleep, lulled into a false sense of complacency by hours spent on Tik-Tok or watching the NFL. We all need downtime, for sure, but we also need to pay attention to what’s happening with our country’s fiscal outlook. It isn’t good. Even the Fed, no friend to the Trump administration or to fiscal austerity, has announced it will cut staff and overhead. Of course, why the Fed has a headcount of 24,000 is a mystery. How can they employ so many people and still get it wrong most of the time? This is the group that never spoke out against Biden’s reckless spending; it’s quite the switch.
Simply put, the country endorsed a huge surge in government spending to compensate for the wrong-headed directives during Covid that shut down schools, businesses and churches. The government under Trump wanted to keep Americans employed and the economy ready to rebound, which it did. Biden kept the spending at max level, refusing to let a crisis go to waste. Democrats in Congress and the Fed went along, spurring the highest inflation in decades.
Now we have to go back to the trend-line pre-Covid spending; the bill on the table doesn’t do that. Republicans must do better if they want to keep the majority.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 31
  • Shares: 4
  • Comments: 11

Comment on Facebook

Right on, as usual! Thanks for all your clear-headed messages.

We need a balanced budget amendment! Deficit spending needs to end!

Just sick of BOTH parties. Neither are there for the Working Americans. BOTH parties responsible for the theft going on. Repubs should have read the bills that gave away money..

Nailed it

Liz Peek Well written, my friend!

Convention of States is looking better everyday.

Honestly you should be somewhere in Trumps administration Liz.. Just sayin

As much as I want a win on the BBB, I’m torn. I find it very difficult to believe that they can’t find more to cut spending

Is TERM LIMiTS in this big beautiful bill? Everything else is.
If not, why not?
Past time to cut the deadwood and get “servants” of We the People seated who will do the job more responsibly..

Following.

CUT MORE SPENDING!!!

View more comments

Liz Peek

2 days ago

Liz Peek

What happened to DOGE???
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

DOGE chief has been thwarted at every turn — by judges, Democrats and their media allies, even Republicans.

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 5
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 2

Comment on Facebook

The Uniparty doesn't want their gravy train turned over.

Democrats are Americas virus.

Liz Peek

4 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
John Hawley, Senator from Missouri, is out with a blistering attack on Republicans in Congress who want to “cut” Medicaid spending. He declares those in favor of Medicaid reforms contained in the House bill “a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing” who are not on board with working-class Americans and who want to “build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor”. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/opinion/josh-hawley-dont-cut-medicaid.html
What rot. Working Americans of all classes are sick and tired of an ever-growing amount of their hard-earned taxes going to fund those who are not working. This is not a Wall Street issue- it’s a fairness issue. Though some groups say most Medicaid recipients are working, that is not true. A study by AEI showed that “In December 2022, 44 percent of non-disabled working age Medicaid recipients without children worked at least 80 hours” per month, compared to 72% not receiving Medicaid. Focusing on “prime working ages of 25 to 54, the share working at least 80 hours was 51 percent among Medicaid recipients and 84 percent among non-Medicaid recipients.” So why would 49% not be working?
Here’s the problem: the Medicaid changes that GOP legislators want to make don’t target “the working poor”, they target able-bodied men and women who are not working, and who historically would not have qualified for Medicaid benefits. Only when Obama rescinded the work requirements for Medicaid did the program blow up entirely and become the drain on the fiscal purse that we see today. As he states in his op-ed, Hawley’s problem is this: “Today [Medicaid] serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.” Hawley, who was elected last fall by a 14-point margin, fears he’ll lose ground with those million recipients if he embraces fiscal common sense. Or maybe he fears losing the support of healthcare professionals, who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/josh-hawley/summary?cid=N00041620
Our country has seen a long-term decline in able-bodied men working. The labor participation rate for that group is 89.1% which sounds high until you realize that it was 97.1% in 1960. That’s a huge slide, with troubling implications for U.S. productivity. If you believe, as I do, that work is healthy, it is also bad news for the individuals who are, at least in some cases, gaming the system.
Instead of railing about sincere efforts to reform an out-of-control entitlement, why doesn’t Hawley turn his attentions to improving job opportunities and training in his state? Or attracting more employers? And, where are his ideas for cutting federal spending, which is too high and which is hurting our nation? Some $50 billion in Medicaid outlays funds fraud or constitutes “improper payments.” What is Hawley doing to confront that?
Maybe I would be more impressed with his arguments but for his having published his screed in the New York Times- is that the most efficient way to speak to working-class Americans? Bernie Sanders probably thinks so, and so does Josh Hawley.
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Sen. Josh Hawley – Campaign Finance Summary

Fundraising profile for Sen. Josh Hawley – Missouri

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 4
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 2

Comment on Facebook

We have to end the idea that working for McDonalds at the counter is the end game career wise. It’s what you do in high school and college to pay your bills. If you want to be in that industry, you need to think manager then owner as that is the career.

Uniparty in action. They are there to Take money, not help The People.

LOAD MORE

Tags

AGENDA AIR FORCE BIG GOVERNMENT BORDER WALL CHINA CLINTON CONGRESS CYBERWAR DEMOCRATS DRAIN THE SWAMP E-VERIFY ECONOMY ELON MUSK FILLIBUSTER FREEDOM CAUCUS FREEDOM WATCH GOP GORSUCH GRADUATION HACKING HEALTH CARE HILLARY IMMIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE KUSHNER MEDIA MIDDLE EAST MOODY'S NUNES NYC OIL RAND PAUL STOCK MARKET SUPREME COURT SUSAN RICE TAXES TAX REFORM TECHNOLOGY TED CRUZ TERROR TRUMP TURKEY WALL STREET WEATHER WELLESLEY
[themify_map address="233 78th Street New York, NY 10032" width=100% height=250px zoom=14]
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
©2017 LizPeek.org. All Rights Reserved.
Site by Steeplechase Strategies