with a repub house and senate. But even if she did, and even if we agree that would be anti-growth, just as we know that tariffs are now, the net effect of everything is unknowable (I've linked her proposals below - more complicated than simply raising corp taxes. She was going to, for example, tax financial risk. Depending on how implemented and in what environment, that actually could be pro-growth, if it discouraged over-leveraging). As it is now with Trump - great that the uncertainty Trump sows is just Trump being Trump, but that makes it no less "anti-growth". Same with Tariffs, even if you've personally determined this is a good time to do it.

Because the economy can bear it (in your view - people may have a very different view when the next recession comes, depending on circumstances). The economy didn't just suddenly become strong when Trump passed tax cuts. He inherited a very strong economy. You're angry about cherry picking from dems. You are doing no less of it.

Trump is taking a calculated risk with the way he hangs his hat on the the economy. Balz is right - a recession next year is by no means an impossibility. Let's suppose one happens next summer. Trump will be where Bush was in 1992, except at least Bush had just won a war. The sum total of all of Trump's accomplishments will have evaporated for just about everyone who cares about anything other than a conservative judiciary.

Better to be far more reticent about the role presidents play in the economy. It is very difficult to put a weighting on all these factors. Economics is a social science, not a physical one. It is data driven, but it's very subjective.