>>> You and I both know that the Fed, not Trump nor Obama, gets the credit for the current boom so let's get real.
>
>Npot sure how you draw that conclusion- and when even Fake News attributes it to the tax cuts, there's going to be some substance coming out.
>

>>>If that's to be the case then the deficit should reflect it.
>
>Don't want to go all socialist on you, but what's the value of a job for anybody who wants one? What's it worth to have 200K workers back in jobs in August?
>

Check this out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/business/middle-class-financial-crisis.html
You're ignoring one of the key reasons that Trump was elected - massive dissatisfaction with the distribution of the fruits of the recovery.
The tax cuts, if anything exacerbate the gap between winners and losers.
Yes, more people are working but as I've pointed out elsewhere, homelessness is increasing.
In nearby Trenton, soup kitchens are overflowing.
What's wrong with that picture?





>So you refuse to accept CNBC's attribution to tax cuts, but you merrily attribute an earlier boom to preceding tax increases?
>
Nope. I'm pointing out that taxes going up or down can lead to booms - or busts- so there must be other factors.


>Clinton reigned at that time and as you might predict, the GOP chicken-littled that the tax increases would bring the skies atumbling down, just as contemporary Democrats predicted that tax cuts would only benefit the rich. They were both wrong,


>It's not a matter of afford, of course NY can afford the cost of as little as $19B or as much as $40B over time, depending who you ask. But you're paying for decades of voters rewarding political cowards who delivered stirring speeches but deferred spending to get re-elected.

The spending was deferred because these was no money to pay for it.
Trump can sell a condo in NYC for more than $20 million, but the subways don't work.
The answer seems pretty obvious to me.