stat used to try and paint a deceptive picture. Oh no! We fell as a % of GDP! While ignoring that revenues went up and are growing at a faster rate than before cuts. That's kind of how it's supposed to work. The rate of revenue goes down, but gets offset by growth in that very GDP (and resulting higher employment, higher wages, reduced drains on Govco services, etc). So duh, the % of GDP goes down when you're intent is to grow the GDP to offset the reduced rates.

Additionally, I take issue with the disingenuous (and perhaps just morons) that pretend this would've just continued in a straight line regardless of what POTUS Hillary would've done. Yes POTUS' get too much credit and too much blame, but you don't see the same GDP growth without the same pro-growth and pro-business policies. Even more so if you go in the opposite direction. It's as if they have no clue about incremental growth relative to where you are on the scale. Hint to them, UE will not drop another 5 pts from 3.5%, just like Bronco won't add 8 more wins like he did over the last three years.

But absolutely your concerns about what to do when that recession inevitably hits are valid, and I couldn't agree more. I've often been critical of the spending under Trump, especially the first two years when they controlled both houses, as it's one of, if not my biggest criticism. And would like to see more ability to move interest rates as a tool, although I would think that has more to do with what is going on with other economies (and their interest rates), and is being used as criticism by the same folks that had no issue when they were at or just above 0 for the 8 yrs of growth (from much worse starting points) they want to use as an ever continuing measuring stick.