That's what I referenced, but they all jumped down my throat that obama did that

Tall order, try and see if they can think back to 2017-2020, even though they are clearly retarded

Then ask if they were spending more or less than now with basic necessities

After a bit of coaxing i got ChatGPT to summarize a realistic analysis of TRUMP / KAMALA economic recovery plans. Any one of these sections could be expanded into great detail, let me know if you have any questions.

Trump’s Plan: Core Strengths Restoring Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs: Trump’s plan prioritizes bringing back U.S. manufacturing and creating jobs domestically. By implementing targeted tariffs, the plan discourages reliance on artificially cheap foreign imports and incentivizes companies to produce within the U.S., strengthening supply chains and creating stable, high-quality jobs.

Incentivizing Business Growth and Investment: Trump’s approach includes tax cuts specifically designed to encourage new domestic production. This policy is based on the principle that any revenue from new investment is beneficial, and a surplus to the revenue not collected if that investment never occurred. It stimulates economic growth organically, rather than through continuous government funding. Lower tax burdens also help make U.S. businesses more competitive globally.

Revenue Generation through Tariffs: The plan’s strategic use of tariffs creates a direct revenue stream that can offset the cost of tax cuts, support infrastructure, and reduce dependency on deficit spending. Tariffs act as a self-funding mechanism that, while protecting key industries, also contributes to the federal budget.

Reducing Dependency on Subsidies and State-Run Programs: Trump’s plan focuses on fostering a market-driven economy rather than relying on subsidies for specific industries. This approach encourages industries to become self-sustaining and competitive rather than dependent on government funding.

Kamala Harris’s Plan: Core Weaknesses Reliance on Subsidies and Green Energy: Kamala Harris’s plan is heavily focused on green energy, which, currently requires substantial taxpayer support to be viable, or require government forced green energy mandates which drive up energy costs. Without sustainable demand, this approach risks creating industries that depend on constant government subsidies, draining public funds without long-term economic gains, and increasing energy costs.

Centralized Economic Control and Bureaucratic Expansion: Harris’s approach expands government control over the economy, adding regulatory and administrative layers that increase costs for businesses and reduce economic efficiency. This model aligns more closely with a centrally planned economy(communism / socialism) which can stifle innovation and growth.

Short-Term Job Creation, Long-Term Fragility: While green energy and infrastructure spending create jobs in the short term, these jobs are not sustainable without ongoing public support. Furthermore, focusing on select industries without addressing underlying economic inefficiencies risks creating temporary employment rather than long-term economic resilience.

Ignoring Core Issues of Trade Imbalance and Regulatory Burden: The plan does not directly address the trade imbalances or regulatory barriers that have driven U.S. businesses offshore. Without correcting these foundational issues, the U.S. remains dependent on foreign goods, with high domestic costs that weaken competitiveness.

Why Trump’s Plan is Superior Focuses on Core Economic Strength: Trump’s plan targets the root issues that have eroded the U.S. manufacturing base and weakened domestic competitiveness—trade imbalances, regulatory burdens, and the need for a level playing field.

Prioritizes Long-Term Economic Stability: By encouraging self-sustaining industries, the plan reduces the risk of dependency on government funding. Tax incentives and tariffs create a balanced approach that drives growth without compromising economic sovereignty.

Increases Resilience and Self-Sufficiency: Trump’s plan seeks to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign production and aims to establish supply chains that are resilient to external shocks. This enhances national security and economic stability, which is critical for long-term prosperity.

In conclusion, Trump’s plan offers a more sustainable model by fostering a competitive, market-driven economy with a focus on self-sufficiency, whereas Kamala Harris’s plan relies heavily on subsidies, centralized control, and short-term job creation. The fundamental strengths of Trump’s plan make it better suited to drive lasting economic growth and stability, addressing the real issues that have challenged the U.S. economy.