What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
What happens to a society when there are no repercussions for crimes... when the Police are the prosecuted and the criminals go free, when you are told you are a victim therefore it is your right to act out so:
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1821679256394404077
Warning Graphic
One the more disturbing and tragic things you may see"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
Oops!Huh... works for me, just tried it.
You live in CA... maybe they are restricting posts like that there.
Since Biden the right blame for rising mortgage rates, then to maintain any credibility, they need to start PRAISING him for plunging mortgage rates.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/economy/ … index.htmlWhat has he done to cut inflation? I know Harris announced more price controls, but I doubt that will help. Both want more welfare giveaways; that won't help either.
What has he done to cut inflation (and thereby mortgage rates)?Lots of things obviously since inflation is almost at the Fed goal. I hope you remember it was once a little above 9%, now it is at 3%. Are you saying that inflation is still at 9%. That is the only thing that makes sense, since you imply Biden hasn't cut inflation.
If you believe such fantasies, there is a 20-room penthouse apartment on Sutton Place and 57th Street for $900.00 monthly.
You should buy it as it seems you buy pathologically lying, serial felon, and sexual predator Trump's lies.
Lots of things. of which you cannot think of a single one.
Personally, I can only think of one event (however many times repeated) that has been done since Joe gave away trillions and caused inflation, and that event has driven mortgage rates up not down.Please tell the truth. Inflation is WAY DOWN. Mortgage Rates are DOWN.
I am using your methodology here. so given how you assign blame and praise, the MERE FACT that inflation is WAY DOWN strongly implies Biden did lots of things right. Giving you a recitation of "things" is pointless because you will ignore them as you normally do.The right, will never acknowledge any positive accomplishment by the Biden administration as if Trump would have done better. I doubt it, the impetus of this entire matter eminates from the Covid crisis and his ham-handling of it. All of this during Trump's administration if you can call it that.
With right wingers, the debate is a waste of time. They will not be moved.Given the terrible way Trump handled Covid (leading to so many unnecessary deaths), I can only imagine how he would have botched inflation. More than likely, he would have said inflation wasn't happening or will be resolved soon (much like what the Fed said to start with).
Mortgage rates are down. Since Biden took office, right? He has produced a net decrease in mortgage rates, right?
Of course not - you are merely trying to twist data into something that will support your worship of the Democrat party, and doing so without caring if it has even a hint of truth.
Still haven't produced a single thing Biden has done to reduce inflation, though. Can't do it, huh?Wilderness: I don't think you read Islandbites link, so please read it. I'm curious to see how you "twist and support your worship" of the Republican party and bashing Biden without caring if it has even a hint of truth.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-inflat … 088cbec267I read it. I tried to find any action Biden took that reduced inflation...and failed to find anything except selling off our strategic reserve of oil. A reserve that must now be replaced, with money we don't have - more borrowing and more inflation.
But I did like that the price of eggs is down, so Biden gets credit...without ever listing just what he did.
Did you find specific actions Biden took that reduced inflation? Not, mind you, the price of a specific product like eggs, but the overall inflation rate? We know he increased it (by increasing demand without increasing supply), but what did he do to decrease it, according to the article? (Saying he did so without presenting specific actions doesn't count.)Can YOU list specific actions that Biden took that CAUSED inflation?? (not just added a little to it) If you take the time to come up with that list, then I will take the time to come up with the list you want.
Just saying Biden CAUSED inflation doesn't cut it. As you said, "saying he did without presenting specific actions doesn't count."
What were the specific actions that Biden took (that Trump didn't) that increased demand? Or could it be the natural recovery from a pandemic process?
Better yet, what specific actions could Biden have taken to increase supply in line with the increase in demand? Invade China maybe to stop them from cutting production? Would that have worked for you?
You see, in the real world of economics, increasing supply after such a shock as the pandemic is very, very hard. Increasing demand as Trump did with his many money giveaways is very easy to do.Sure! Gave away a trillion $$. Then repeated it, encouraging workers to stay on unemployment rather than return to work. Increased demand with falling supply = inflation. This is elementary economics even though you would prefer to ignore it or repeatedly claim it didn't matter.
Now go ahead and tell me that increasing demand while closing businesses (reducing supply) will not cause inflation. You have done it several times - one more won't hurt. Won't change the reality, either, but that's nothing new.
And your list?So you are saying the Trump giving away trillions of dollars and Biden somewhat less actually was the CAUSE of the inflation? That without the help the American citizens received so they could live then your conclusion is there would not have been inflation?
"Now go ahead and tell me that increasing demand while closing businesses (reducing supply) " - First tell me who did that? Nobody that I know did.
I think he lacks that gene which allows people to connect the dots. Otherwise, it would be clear as day as it is to the rest of us.
It's only clear if everyone is seeing the same dots. Your dots go straight from start to finish as if that's the whole picture. But what put those dots there for you to connect—beyond simply reaching a goal? The actions that produced the result are where the dots go.
The question asked was about the production of those dots that you connected, as I read it.
For instance, from the info in this thread, there is the "eggs" example. What policy actions were taken to make the price drop possible? I don't know the answer, and I'm not saying there weren't any, but it seems like a legitimate question.
That type of question probably applies to other inflation-reducing claims.
Another thought. Do you (generic) wonder if people who frame their thinking and comments from the perspective of a "they" (being a less-than-complementary) label for others, realize that by doing so they are also a "they"?
GAHere is what Biden did to reduce inflation. I hope this help connect the dots within the dots.
Releasing Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Biden decided to address Putin’s price hike at the pump. He released 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the next six months.
He rallied our allies to release an additional 60 million barrels of oil from their reserves to ease energy costs.
E15 Gasoline and Fees on Idled Wells:
To keep the energy bills in check, Biden called on Congress to allow the sale of E15 gasoline (which uses homegrown biofuels) this summer. It’s like adding a little salsa to the fuel mix.
He urged Congress to make companies pay fees on idled wells and non-producing acres on Federal lands. The idea? Companies sitting on excess capacity should either start producing or pay a fee.
Clean Energy and Vehicle Tax Credits:
Biden’s plan includes passing clean energy and vehicle tax credits. These credits aim to reduce our dependence on autocrats like Putin, save families an estimated $500 per year on utility bills, and accelerate homegrown clean energy innovation.
Improving Port Operations and Supply Chains:
Biden created a task force to improve U.S. port activity and supply chains. By enhancing port efficiency, goods flow more smoothly, and prices stay in check.
Long-Term Actions and Federal Reserve Nominations:
Beyond these short-term moves, Biden nominated highly qualified individuals to lead the Federal Reserve. Their role? To play a primary part in fighting inflation.You know, wouldn't it have been better for everyone, including energy costs and government spending.... if Biden had just negotiated with Putin/Russia and give him assurances that NATO would not move into Ukraine?
Maybe bypass the whole escalating 'world at war' scenario going on now?
Maybe not piss in the Saudi Royal Family's bowl of cheerios and pissing them off so much they abandon selling oil in the Dollar?
Maybe not give Iran access to hundreds of billions of dollars so they can arm and build up the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah?
What a complete disaster for America this Administration has been.I did mention Biden's "spending" the oil reserves, which must now be paid back.
Yeah, he gave vehicle tax credits...to the rich. That's sure to help inflation! But we both know it won't cut utility bills one iota; someone will still have to pay the higher costs after making it green, just like someone has to make up the subsidy given to the rich buying certain cars.
Sorry, Biden worked on getting people back to their jobs (including supply chains and port workers) before inflation raised it's ugly head. Reasonable, as he is the one that shut most of them down in the first place and he is certainly the one that paid people to sit home rather than go back to work when he deemed it safe. Note that all he had to do was get workers to go back, but instead he kept their unemployment pay at rates better than they could earn working.
LOLOL He nominated qualified people to the Federal Reserve! That's his job PP; he doesn't get extra credit for doing the basics of that job. Not even when those people may (or may not) have played a part in controlling inflation to some degree. Of course, they didn't do in anything like the timeline Biden promised us all, but the worked on it, which is something Biden did NOT do.Why do you keep propagating this LIE: as he is the one that shut most of them down in the first place???? People, know that this statement is not true.
If any president did, it would have been Trump. But even he didn't shut down businesses (that would have saved lives after all and we certain don't want to do that!).
Here is the TRUTH people, once again: It was the governors of both Red and Blue states who restricted the ability of businesses to operate.What, exactly, is the timeline Biden "promised"? Please provide a quote.
Is it like the one Trump promised that Covid would go away by, what was it, June of 2020?"Biden worked on getting people back to their jobs (including supply chains and port workers) before inflation raised it's ugly head. " - Boy, you must think Biden is Jesus and a Miracle Worker for him to have done all that in Feb 2021. Why then? Because that is when inflation began rising - one month after he assumed office (Do you understand the concept of lag time?)
Another False claim that the electric vehicle tax credits only went to the rich as you claim.
THE TRUTH:
The vehicle tax credits introduced under President Joe Biden's administration, particularly as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, aimed to promote the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) by providing tax incentives. However, there has been debate about whether these credits disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals.
Key Points:
Income Limits:
The IRA introduced income caps to limit eligibility for the tax credits. For individual filers, the income cap is $150,000, and for joint filers, it's $300,000. This means that very high-income earners are not eligible for the credits, which helps ensure the benefits are more evenly distributed.
Vehicle Price Caps:
The tax credits are also limited to vehicles under a certain price threshold: $55,000 for cars and $80,000 for SUVs, trucks, and vans. This prevents the credits from being used for luxury vehicles, which are more likely to be purchased by wealthier individuals.
Distribution of Benefits:
Despite these caps, some argue that wealthier individuals are still more likely to benefit from the tax credits. This is because they are more likely to purchase new vehicles and have the tax liability needed to benefit fully from the credit. Middle- and lower-income individuals might not have the financial flexibility to buy an EV, even with the credit.
Manufacturer and Vehicle Restrictions:
The credits are also tied to specific manufacturing and sourcing requirements for the EVs, which could limit the availability of qualifying vehicles. This might disproportionately impact buyers who can afford higher-end models or those more knowledgeable about the specifics of the tax incentives.
Overall Impact:
While the Biden administration's tax credits were structured to avoid exclusively benefiting the wealthy, the nature of EV ownership and purchasing trends means that a significant portion of the credits may still go to higher-income individuals. However, the inclusion of income and vehicle price caps represents an effort to target the credits more broadly.
Sources:
The White House Fact Sheet on the Inflation Reduction Act
IRS Guidelines on EV Tax Credits
Forbes Analysis of EV Tax Credit DistributionYet another False implication that Biden didn't do anything to try to reduce utility bills. In fact, HE DID.
THE TRUTH:
Yes, President Joe Biden has taken several steps aimed at cutting utility bills for American households. These efforts have been part of broader initiatives to address climate change, promote clean energy, and reduce the financial burden on families.
Key Actions to Cut Utility Bills:
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022:
The IRA includes provisions designed to lower energy costs for consumers by promoting energy efficiency and the adoption of clean energy technologies.
Energy Efficiency Rebates and Tax Credits: The act provides rebates and tax credits for households to make energy-efficient upgrades, such as installing heat pumps, better insulation, and more efficient windows and doors. These upgrades can significantly reduce heating and cooling costs.
Clean Energy Incentives: The IRA also includes incentives for installing solar panels and other renewable energy systems, which can lower electricity bills by reducing dependence on the grid.
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP):
The Biden administration expanded funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps low-income families make their homes more energy-efficient. This program can lead to substantial reductions in utility bills by improving home insulation, upgrading heating and cooling systems, and making other energy-saving improvements.
Public Utility Regulation:
The administration has also supported state and local efforts to regulate utility rates more effectively and to promote the use of renewable energy, which can lead to more stable and lower utility costs in the long term.
Investments in Clean Energy:
Biden's broader climate and infrastructure plans include significant investments in renewable energy generation and the modernization of the electric grid. These investments aim to reduce energy costs by making electricity generation and distribution more efficient.
Outcomes and Expectations:
These initiatives are expected to reduce utility bills for many Americans, particularly those who take advantage of the available rebates and tax credits. By promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, the administration aims to create long-term savings on energy costs while also addressing environmental concerns.
Sources:
The White House Fact Sheet on the Inflation Reduction Act
Department of Energy on the Weatherization Assistance Program
The New York Times on IRA’s Impact on Energy Costs
The largest outbreak of avian flu in our history caused the loss of tens of millions of egg laying hens. Inevitably the price rose.
And fell when the next generation of birds replaced those that were lost. Perhaps Biden set up a giant incubator inside Cheyenne mountain? Or in the empty oil reserve caverns?"The largest outbreak of avian flu in our history caused the loss of tens of millions of egg laying hens. Inevitably the price rose."
Gosh, most folks thought that Biden was responsible for the increase in the price of eggs. When we actually care to look around, we find that there are other factors that influence the cost of our food, other than who sits in the White House. It's our nature to want to put the blame on someone though. Regardless if it makes sense or not.Wasn't Wilderness one of those people who blamed Biden for the big runup in egg prices?? I tried making the avian flu argument before, but it fell on deaf ears. Now he seems to have switched beliefs and is pinning on the correct thing.
If the 'Avian Flu' explanation fits the Covid pandemic timeline (2022?), then the cause was a non-political natural event and political fingers don't have anywhere to point, or Gold Stars to collect..
By the same token, if the remedy of a 'next generation' (as in the explanation and also a natural event) boosting the supply is right, then there aren't any political targets or credits there either. Unless . . . the empty cavern supposition is right.
The Avian Flu explanation seems logical to me*, so there aren't any dots to connect.
*Yes, I did poke around a bit concerning the Bird flu rationale, so at least it's not a blind ideological agreement. I almost wonder why it was included in the linked article (it was discussed as being from the article) when it doesn't really stand inspection.
GABecause the increase in egg prices were being blamed on Biden. That is the point. The right, in that case, simply didn't care what the truth was, they just kept on lying.
Blaming the boss is traditional. Both political sides do it. And both sides will have a legitimate kernel of truth, or fact, that they can build on.
Sticking with the egg example, and the concept it represents (not the partisan parts), you are arguing from the same kernel of truth when you 'connected the dots' that led to giving Pres. Biden credit for the lower egg prices. You may be right that they are ignoring facts, but 'they' would also be right that you are ignoring facts because you can't tie a political action to the price drop.
Remember, my point is the validity of the concept, not the political details. And, I'm not fixated on eggs, their appearance in the discussion provided a simple and clear example to work with.
GAYes, blaming the boss is traditional and unfortunate in some cases, like this on.
Understand about using the eggs, but it is very instructive nevertheless. Absent the flu, the price of eggs would have increased in any case because they are in the market basket of goods by which inflation is measured. They just wouldn't have skyrocketed as they did.
Now that we have danced around all this political nonsense, let's get to the TRUTH of the matter. (My apologies from the start for the length of this 301-level tutorial in economics, but I got on a roll and couldn't stop. Also, I thought you deserved the truth from a cost and economics professional)
No matter how much the right wants to beat their chest and rend their clothes, neither Biden nor Trump, had extremely little to do with inflation; maybe 1 point of it out of nine.
Yes, either one or Congress or the Fed could have done something to make it happen[/i] but they didn't. (In a snarky way, I could say that Trump helped keep inflation down by helping hundreds of thousands of American's die needless deaths (that is not me talking but the people who worked for him) due to his failed Covid polices, which reduced future demand.)
The real culprit? Back in the late 60s and early 70s I remember (believe it or not) commenting that this new-fangled "just-in-time" logistics the Japanese developed would, given the right circumstances, lead to what happened in 2022 and 2023. (Let me caveat that by saying inflation would have still happened for other reasons, but just not as bad. Also, from a historical perspective, it wasn't that bad in any case, it just felt that way to people who haven't lived through worse.)
In a nut shell, what JIT did was remove the buffer (inventory) that protected us in the past from the economic ups and downs.
What allowed us to keep going in most previous downturns is two parts: 1) the "inventory" carried on planes, ships, and trucks and 2) that even in bad times, a reasonable amount of supply was being produced and distributed. While supply and demand sometimes got out of kilter, it didn't get pandemic bad so inflation, which did happen, was moderate.
Now, on to Wilderness's famous two go tos: Supply and Demand and Money Supply.
Money Supply first: Rarely, and probably never in America, has too much money in the system been the [u]primary cause of inflation to any significant degree. I challenge Wilderness to find even one example of that being true in the way he blames Biden (and not Trump who put even more money into the system) and the ARP as the primary cause of our 9% inflation. At best, studies have shown that the ARP contributed, on a temporary basis, maybe 1% of the overall 9.1% inflation we experienced.
Supply and Demand: This is Wilderness' other go to when he isn't blaming Biden and the ACP. An imbalance in Supply and Demand is almost always the primary cause of inflation, large or small. That happened in spades [color #ff[0000]b]because[/b][/color] of the pandemic and the world's reaction to it.
For the most part, the world shut down its manufacturing capability in order to save lives and stop the spread. China went overboard on this. Even though Demand went way down due to isolation there was still some demand. What inventory that was in the distribution system and what was still being manufactured was able to keep the supply up on par with demand, hence no increase in inflation from 2020 to 2021.
In May 2023, the pandemic "officially" ended. But look at how the details played out.
1. Personal Consumption Index (PCI) rose dramatically during the last part of Trumps term, from its low in Apr 2020. It then stopped its meteoric rise in Jan 2021, just after Biden took office. After that, it has risen at a much more measured pace. So, huge demand increases in the Trump era.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96
2. The global purchasing manager's index (PMI) is a measure of actual and near-term expected output growth. It also rose dramatically from its low in April 2020 to a high in May 2021. After that it trailed off to near-normal growth.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/103 … rt-orders/
3. But here is the kicker - Supply Chain pressure. The Global Supply Chain Pressure Index tells the story and answers the question of WHY inflation when it happened. I won't get into the details, but the higher the index, the more impact supply chain problems impact prices (i.e. inflation).
It was basically normal until January 2020 when it took off to its first peak in April through July 2020. Then it returned to normal by October 2020. After that, it continued to rise to its next peak in Dec of 2021.. It then trailed off until it returned to normal in February 2023.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/pol … nteractive
QUICKY ANALYSIS
A.) From "1" Demand (PCI) increased a lot from April 2020 to January 2021 and then steadily after Biden took office
B.) From "2", we see that manufacturing kept pace with demand from April 2020 to May 2021 after which it trailed off to normal growth.
From A.) and B.) we see a no harm, no foul situation where Supply more or less kept pace with Demand, [u]hence no inflation - YET.
Inflation kept to its below average levels until April 2021 when it past 3% until June 2022 when it peaked at 9.1%. From there it quickly declined to the current 3.4% in May 2024 (which is below historic averages). So, what made inflation go up starting in April 2021.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/pol … nteractive
C.) As I said, it is "3", the GCPCI that explains it all. Supply chain problems didn't start happening until January 2020 until October 2020, yet there was no increase in inflation. Why? As I mentioned before, there is a lot of inventory that was tied up in various forms of transportation. It filled the gap.
Then the GCPCI took off again when Biden took office. But now there was no "safety stock" left in the system and what was being manufactured wasn't getting to the consumer.
Now, by April 2021 you had the situation where we had increased demand AND increased supply, but we couldn't get the goods to market. VOILA - inflation.
Now, to close out this story, notice when the GSPCI started getting close to normal again, i.e. no inflationary pressure. Just about the time when inflation began to decrease in June 2022.
To understand what happened from 2020 to 2023, all you have to do is peel back the onion and look at the parts as we have just done.
That said, there were other complicating factors which slowed down the recovery. The main one was China keeping its manufacturing closed much longer than needed.
I hope it makes sense now.Alright, others might say something like; 'With all due respect . . .' but that's always cop out. So, we have chatted for a long time, so you will know that no offense is intended, but . . .
Presumptions and assumptions are tricky things. My reading says you were wrong on one and the other is just unnecessary fluff. And when you told me a tutorial was coming, I started scrolling. It looked like a lot of effort, so your intentions were good.
GAThese are becoming hourly posts... from UK and EU...
Assaults, murders, robberies and rapes...
And now we are going to elect the same for America in 2024.
You get what you vote for, right?
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/18 … 5081482310Wrong on what? I try to never to be wrong.
Another reason for the length is it was time that I publish another article and this was a good subject given all the misinformation out there.Hopefully, you'll see my second 'mia culpa' response to your comment.
GA
This one deserves a second response, my first one was crappy. It was disrespectful. Sorry.
I was a bit ticked that you thought a lecture was necessary. I try to have, at least, a basic understanding of any aspect or concept I comment on. The details of your 'tutorial' were the 'details' of the concept, but they were unnecessary for my point about connecting dots to validate claims made.
Your explanation provided details for many 'dots' connecting the different arguments in the inflation debate. Some of your details seem arguable—relative to the political angles, but that wasn't my point or intent.
It appears the three of us agree that the basics of any "inflation" argument grow from a primary cause—a supply and demand imbalance. From that agreement, our perspectives on the causes and the details offered to support them differ, but they differ on the details, not a misunderstanding of the concept.
GAI would argue the: "the basics of any "inflation" argument grow from a primary cause—a supply and demand imbalance." premise.
It was decided during the Covid Pandemic that Trillions would be released to Financial Institutions to 'save the economy/stock-market'.
However, consider this, if we had not had the extreme reaction to the Pandemic (and the accompanying riots) and those Trillions had not been released to the likes of BlackRock (who received a lion's share) we would not have had the inflation we saw... which will return after the election.
BlackRock, as you may know, owns substantial positions in every major stock on the NYSE. Along with others like Goldman Sachs.
Another thing BlackRock and others did, through various companies they control and REITs is buy up a lot of Real Estate, the ability to send entire regional markets into collapse is well within their ability.
Anyways, from 2020 to 2024 our government has spent (gave away) over 10 Trillion dollars it did not take in. This is the reason for inflation, the rise of the cost of eggs may be specific to certain issues arising at that time that would have caused the price to spike... but the overall Inflation issue (spending more than we make) has never gone away and the Biden Administration has put America in a near impossible situation to recover from the actions it took over the last 4 years.
Its the primary reason why I don't get that excited about who wins this election... the damage has been done. The Giant Oak has already been chopped, it is just waiting for someone to give it the push that sends it over.
It is inevitable. They are merely holding off until after November.
The only question I see remaining... will the Middle East... and then war with Russia following almost immediately after... escalate before or after the election?
Fed chooses BlackRock for pandemic support programs
https://www.pionline.com/markets/fed-ch … t-programs
World’s largest money manager BlackRock hits record $10.6 trillion, and it’s thanks to ETFs, CEO Larry Fink says
https://fortune.com/2024/07/15/blackroc … 6-trilion/
BlackRock’s Assets Seen Topping $15 Trillion in Five Years’ Time
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … alyst-saysI'm going to keep this simple. Fact: Inflation has gone from 9% to 3% under Biden's watch. I was at the grocery store and I wanted to buy T-bone steaks. The price was $20.00 for one steak. I bought one pound of ground turkey instead for $3.00.
So what was my action called? It was called supply and demand. Why was the price so high for the steak? It's called price gouging. What are people going to do when they can't afford to pay for steak? They will buy something less costly. Will the demand go down with that price gouging and the price be lowered? We shall see.
President's really don't have that much control over the cost of goods and services. There is also the Feds who control the money supply and the interest rates and many more intangibles.
I see many large families eating in restaurants and I wonder how can they afford to pay for those meals when the price at eating out has gone up three fold.
It could be two things: wages have gone up, so they can afford it or they are paying with a credit card and will have to pay for it later with compound interest rates.
However, if Trump is elected King, I'm sure he will straighten all this out...Sorry I couldn't help myself.I see the same thing at restaurants, lots of large families eating out.
I think your argument with the basic premise of supply and demand failed. Your response addresses reasons (Blackrock, the political acts, etc.), that there is/was a disruption. Unless I am missing your point, those details confirm the premise you want to argue. They address an imbalance in the system, regardless of who caused it.
If demand had been able to keep up with those infused trillions, or if housing construction could keep pace with Blackrock's REIT activity, or whatever other reason of their nature was 'handled' then there would not have been an imbalance and there would be no inflation (relatively). I can't think of any angle that doesn't drill down to being rooted in a supply & demand imbalance of some kind.
GAI don't see that as a supply and demand issue.
What happened with Eggs IS a such an example, it was compounded by an inflationary wave that struck every item, not just eggs, however eggs went sky high at that time because of the bird-flu double whammy.
Look at it another way... if BlackRock hadn't quietly been given a few trillion dollars in 2020 to "offset the pandemic" they would not have been able to use those trillions to buy stocks and houses.
Housing costs would have remained flat, the stock market would not have rebounded to all time highs... and cost of items in general would not have risen because trillions would not have been released into the economy devaluing the worth of the dollar.
It is the injection of over 30% of the current amount of dollars in the system which created inflation, and impacted various Stocks and Housing markets particularly significantly that has caused the inflation spike we have seen over the last 4 years.
The value of the dollar was lessened.
The escalating disruption of the wars that have been funded by the Biden Administration, the Ukraine war, and the hundreds of billions allowed to Iran, who in turn fund and arm the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah are the secondary reasons why we see inflation.
As the wars interfere with global trade, which in turn creates a rise in costs of goods coming from overseas.
So almost all of our problems, our economic struggles, have been worsened by the acts of the Biden Administration, these hardships will intensify for the American people.
That, as they say, is history...
These economic woes are going to return, are going to hit even harder, after the election.
It was only a couple of months ago that Saudi Arabia ended their agreement to trade oil only in the dollar. Right after the UAE also chose to ditch trading oil in the dollar.
Nation's are rushing to decouple their economies from the Dollar, we are not feeling the impact of these moves at all.... yet.
This is going to have as big an impact on the Dollar's value as pumping trillions into the economy did during Biden's 4 years.
Foreign nations will stop buying American Treasuries and Bonds, the increasing interest rates will divert what tax revenue our government does take in to paying the interest alone that we have on our debt.
The Biden Administration fed our economy a death blow, like ingesting a poison, the Nation is still alive, still seems to be doing fairly well, but eventually the poison will do its work... whether that takes minutes, hours, days, remains to be seen.For once, I'm sure I can say, "You're wrong," relative to the context of 'the point' being batted around concerning the most basic reason for inflation—a supply & demand imbalance.
Both you and MyEsoteric are responding with the 'dots' (the actions) that caused or cured the imbalance of our current inflation. The supply & demand part of this thread is the only aspect I have addressed, the details of the who and why don't create inflation, they create an imbalance and that is what creates inflation. An imbalance is required
Consider: As mentioned, if the effects of the actions you described were countered (not probable, but hypothetically), by some aspect of the market they would have no effect on inflation, in either direction.
It isn't until the market becomes unbalanced that inflation becomes a thing.
Physically, Blackrock's money actions (et al.) affected both sides, demand and supply; the infused money and the reduction of supply. Financially, those actions also influenced the actions of other financial market (and administration) entities which contributed to your devaluation point.
The bottom line is that whether it is the devaluation of the dollar or the shortage of housing units — both represent changes to the supply & demand equation, first in their market segments and then in the general market.
Of course, that's only a lay opinion, but it seems logically right to me.
GAIf feels like you are saying 'it is more complicated than that' while at the same time saying 'its a supply and demand issue'...
Lets do a simplified walk through of one example...
Housing market is doing well, as of 2020 (Trump) interest rates are below 3% for people with good credit making purchasing a home very affordable.
The Pandemic hits, the US releases up to 6 Trillion dollars overall to BlackRock.
BlackRock begins heavily investing in homes, this in turn heats up the market, property values begin going up, 10... 20... 30% or more.
Interest Rates begin going up, to counter the inflation caused because Trillions were released not just to Financial Institutions, it seems everyone is getting government checks... and then all the handouts and payoffs:
Biden's Plans Total $6 Trillion
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/p … plans.html
U.S. House passes Biden's $1.75 trillion social spending bill
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-h … 021-11-19/
What's in Biden's $7.3 trillion budget proposal
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/10/12373980 … t-proposal
But let me get back to my focus on Housing:
The Housing Market is hit with a double whammy, BlackRock is running around buying up residential properties through REITs and various other means, inflating the prices... then interest rates more than double, nearly doubling the cost of the monthly mortgage payment.
How much is a mortgage payment on a $440,000 (440K) house?
Assuming you have a 20% down payment ($88,000), your total mortgage on a $440,000 home would be $352,000. For a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3.5% interest rate, you would be looking at a $1,581 monthly payment.
At 7% (double the 3.5% above) after a 20% down payment, your loan amount will be the same $352,000. With a 30-year loan at 7% interest the monthly payment is now $2,343.
That is more than a $750 dollar difference, just due to the interest.
Now add to that increased property taxes as Towns and States struggle to find ways of keeping up with inflation, and add an increase in Insurance costs on the home, especially in states like Florida and Texas.
The cost to own a $440,000 home has gone up more than $1,000 in four years because of a fabricated, a forced, issue of 'supply and demand' because an incredibly powerful and influential financial institution (BlackRock... which happens to be a main proponent for DEI) was given trillions of dollars (American Debt).
This government funded 'supply and demand' issue would not exist had the Pandemic not been used as a smoke-screen excuse to give BlackRock trillions of dollars. Trillions of debt, that artificially raised the prices of homes and then was also part of the reason for higher interest rates placed on those mortgage loans.
The 'supply and demand' problems were caused, and continue to be caused by a Party that is determined to bankrupt the American economy.I'm also wondering if we are 'talking past one another.'
You're working me on this one.
The context of my discussions started when a 'then and now' comparison was used to claim credit. My perspective is that, at the most basic level, inflation is a function of the market. An unbalanced market, regardless of the cause, will be either inflationary, deflationary, or stagnatory. All can be lethal to a market-based economy. If that's not right then I don't understand what I think I do and will probably need a longer-handled shovel.
To make matters fuzzy was the use of egg prices as an example that proves credit was due (in a linked article). It turns out that the egg price changes were a natural event and no action or policy had anything to do with the price changes. And that's where the damn dots came in. Rapidly followed by claims of connection (as in 'somebody doesn't know how to connect the dots') that were proof credit was due.
At this point there is one, hopefully obvious, set of facts: Avian flu did (in high confidence, as they say) cause the egg price inflation because it disrupted that market's supply and demand balance. The egg inflation had nothing to do with anyone's actions or policies. The recovery was also a natural cycle. There were no dots to connect.
So far, none of my comments were about any pros or cons or finger-pointing. No Trump, or Biden, or Blackrock. Those are all details of the concept—secondary to the facts of the concept.
You have seen the hole I have dug along the way.
Then I was offered (well-intentioned) a tutorial. It was as filled with stats and statistical rationalizations as your efforts, but, although I think I have a solid layman's understanding of the stats and concepts offered, I was never talking about those details.
There was already the challenge of the missing dots in the egg crediting, and now there was the insinuation of ignorance (innocently, but there).
♫ then along comes Ken . . .♪ arguing that a supply and demand disruption isn't the (the only?) cause for inflation.
Well hell, whose obstinance wouldn't kick in now.
So I say, name me one that isn't. I'm betting that for every example it will be the market's inability to deal with the example's effects that cause the imbalance. Wait, that's not a 'duh' statement. Consider Blackrock's actions as pulling a gun trigger. Their REIT action hits the heart, disrupts the market, and causes death/inflation.
Ipso facto, Blackrock caused inflation. But, what if the REIT action only hit the shoulder (the degree of the disruption)? The body/market shudders but it lives, it maintains its balance. Ipso facto Blackrock did not cause inflation.
It's those damn chickens' fault. And their gang of dots. I was simply saying you can't take credit for the eggs' price because man had nothing to do with that market's imbalance. And look where I have ended up.
Just had a Deja vue thought. Does anyone remember the 'Liberty vs freedom are two different things' thread from years ago?
GA"Just had a Deja vue thought. Does anyone remember the 'Liberty vs freedom are two different things' thread from years ago? "
Not sure which one you are referring to. I introduced an OP on that a couple of times a ways back. I am one who considers that there is a difference between liberty and freedoms. It is a matter of context at times. But, I am 'weird'.
And, I am sure others will disagree with me.
The discussion was interesting with the second one. It did get into positive and negative liberties, which influenced my thinking on there being a difference.
A way of looking at it is liberty exists in a 'state of nature', but freedoms do not as freedoms are granted by a society/governing body. That occurs with the social contract. Freedoms are regulated. I have the liberty to steal candy from the store, but I don't have the freedom as it is against the law.
Again, I'm 'weird'.
The first OP I introduced is linked next. I couldn't find the second one. The second one had Arthur and the gentleman from Germany within the dialogue.
Are their differences between liberty and freedom? (7 years ago)
https://hubpages.com/education/forum/33 … nd-freedomI thought you were involved in that Liberty thread, but I wasn't sure so I didn't name you. That was a good thread. I also think we came out on top (we agree there is a difference), but wasn't sure.
I thought it happened a couple of years ago. The linked thread is on the topic, but the second thread that you didn't find is the one I was thinking of.
GAYup, I agree wholeheartedly with you the most recent one a couple years back (?) was a great discussion with great meaning(s). The difference between the two is always on top of my mind when I read/listen to discussions when either term is used.
It causes me to pause and think about what was said regarding meaning, though I know the two words are used synonymously. Interestingly enough, synonymously according to Oxford Learning Dictionary means, "in a way that uses or has the same meaning, or nearly the same" meaning."I sort of remember something like that and I would be on the side that there is a difference.
Your agreement isn't surprising. Nuance is important.
GA
That made the effort to inject myself into the discussion worth it.
Nearly choked on my food I was laughing so hard.
That's as good a place to leave it as any, you are awarded the point.BTW this is what I thought of when I saw that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URUd5RUAz1I. . . and here's what I was thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ippnMH2WwE
You can pick which guy made me think of you—relative to the conversation. \;-)
GAI am curious how you even knew to go looking for that... a 60s tv skit?
A bad one at that ;')
"It was decided during the Covid Pandemic that Trillions would be released to Financial Institutions to 'save the economy/stock-market'. - IF YOU can't prove that unsupported statement, then it is FALSE.
"However, consider this, if we had not had the extreme reaction to the Pandemic (and the accompanying riots) " - WHAT RIOTS? Proof please, not hyperbole.
"Trillions had not been released to the likes of BlackRock (who received a lion's share) we would not have had the inflation we saw... " - IF YOU can't proof that unsupported statement with economic sense, then it is FALSE.
Beyond that, I find your conspiracy theories highly entertaining.
I am guessing this is the second mia culpa.
I apologize for not being clearer. The "tutorial" wasn't intended to be a lecture, instead, it was to bring the conversation back to reality and move away from the political nonsense being discussed here.
The right claims Biden CAUSED the inflation - that is nonsense.
I claim, using the same logic as the right, that Biden CAUSED the decrease in inflation. That is nonsense as well but a what is good for the goose is good for the gander scenario,
Wilderness' (and now Ken's) claim that it was Biden's ARP that was the cause is nonsense as well.
The connecting the dots I started up was in relation to the goose and gander. If connecting the dots between Biden taking office and increased inflation makes sense to the Right, then those same dots should be connected when Biden is in office and inflation declines. IN TRUTH - it is all nonsense.
What the "tutorial" was for was to give the actual facts surrounding why inflation increased the way it did and bring the conversation back into reality.I understood that your intentions were innocent, and the point you were making. So no worries. However, that's why I didn't address the "reality" of the 'details' arguments. Both sides have their own realities, and data for the courage of their convictions.
That's also why I'm always near the fence. I can take whatever makes sense to me from either side.
GA
The link given listed falling egg prices as something Biden did, (cutting inflation) which is why I mentioned it at all.
Kind of says something about the link doesn't it?
But aren't you proud of me - that I did not blame Biden for rising egg prices? Didn't give him credit, either, when more egg layers came "online", unlike the link.
You made me look. That explanation makes sense to me. So it wasn't Pres. Biden's fault and it wasn't to his credit either. So who's the dummy promoting it as a Biden accomplishment? They need to be fired.
GAIf the right makes repeated unsubstantiate, untrue things about Biden, isn't it fair to use the same logic by the left?
The right says the increase in inflation is Biden's fault, Then it stands to reason that the left can say Biden was also responsible for the sharp decrease in inflation.Oh no you dinnint . . .
You're channeling Cred. Your justification is two wrongs can make a right. They did it so it's 'right' for you to do it too.
GA
Could I bother you for some clarification, if you please?
Is the "they" you imply also encompass those who use 'they' in summary when they refer to something lacking in complete definition, but otherwise known to be the 'they' being referred to... such as our government, or the political body, or the elites controlling them, or the embodiment of all three?
I mean, clearly when noting 'they' in the above paragraph, you are talking about those who advocate for their political party referring to any not supporting it as 'they'...
And by extension that finds its way into having racial meaning as well, when applied as such, which shouldn't be tolerated in these forum threads, but has been known to happen.Damn Ken, I think I sprained something hanging onto the direction of that thought. Now, I'm not sure I know what I meant.
GAAwesome
...that's what I was shooting for.
Laughed at it myself when I just reread it.
Don't always know how it comes off, if it conveys properly, until you leave it and come back hours/days later and re-read it.
One of these days I'm going to transfer that into a book... Robert Ludlum look out!It's good to set your sights high. Even if you do need binoculars to see them.
GA ;-)Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammm.... ouch, that one stings.
No free copy for you...It was payback for the brain sprain your "they" post caused.
GA
Here is the analogy as I see it.
The sun shines on the earth and the earth heats up. The sun stops shining on the earth and the earth cools down. It is self-evident that the sun is causing the heating and cooling with no need for other specifics.
That is the same as Inflation was 9%, Biden was President, and then inflation dropped to near 3% while he is still President. Now remember, I am using the right-wing logic here, therefore it is self-evident that Biden caused the decrease.
This is the SAME logic [i]the right uses when they say that since inflation was low when Biden took office and started rising a few months later after all the terrible Biden policies took effect that it is self-evident that Biden was the CAUSE of the inflation.
If Wilderness connects the dots in one direction, why is he unable to connect them in the other?
I thought "they" was a neutral pronoun.
There is also the fact that if I spend time to find those policy decisions Wilderness generally ignores them, so I don't waste my time for things that are self-evident. That said, I didn't think to query ChatGPT, which I just did. It makes those kind of answers easy to do and not time consuming at all.
Here is the list (many of these have been pointed out previously):
To address inflation, President Joe Biden's administration took several policy actions, focusing on both short-term relief and long-term structural changes:
1. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) - August 2022:
Healthcare Costs: The IRA aimed to lower prescription drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, capping out-of-pocket expenses for seniors, and expanding subsidies for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans.
Energy Costs: The act included investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, providing tax credits and incentives for renewable energy, which also aimed to lower long-term energy costs.
Deficit Reduction: The act included measures to reduce the federal deficit, including a 15% minimum tax on corporations with profits over $1 billion, which was intended to reduce inflationary pressures by curbing excess demand in the economy.
2. Releasing Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR):
In response to rising gasoline prices, Biden authorized the release of millions of barrels of oil from the SPR to increase supply and help lower gas prices, which are a significant component of inflation.
3. Addressing Supply Chain Issues:
The administration focused on easing supply chain bottlenecks, which were a major contributor to inflation during the pandemic. This included efforts to unclog major ports, increase the trucking workforce, and improve the efficiency of goods movement across the country.
4. Monetary Policy Support:
While the Federal Reserve is primarily responsible for monetary policy, Biden supported the Fed’s actions to raise interest rates to curb inflation. By increasing the cost of borrowing, higher interest rates are intended to slow down demand in the economy, thereby reducing inflationary pressures.
5. Housing Initiatives:
The administration worked on initiatives to increase affordable housing supply, including investments in the construction of new housing units. Addressing the housing shortage was seen as critical to controlling rent inflation.
6. Legislative Support for Lowering Everyday Costs:
Biden pushed for policies aimed at lowering everyday costs for Americans, such as reducing child care and elder care expenses through legislative proposals, although not all of these were passed by Congress.
These actions were part of a broader strategy to tackle inflation by addressing both demand-side and supply-side factors, aiming to provide immediate relief while also creating conditions for longer-term economic stability.
Sources:
The White House
CNN
Brookings Institution
The PROOF is in the pudding: Jun 2022 Inflation 9.1%. Jun 2024 Inflation 3.0%.
That said, there are still some on this forum who insist inflation is still near 9%.I haven't seen anyone claiming inflation is still 9%. There may have been disagreeing responses that allowed you to declare, by inference, that they still do so, but I haven't seen it.
Consider an opposing view of your sources. When you start with a ChatGPT generated list, a first question would ask if that was the AI that didn't know Trump had been shot, or the one that presented images of Vikings as people of color, or the one that responded with Harris rallies when asked about Trump rallies, or any of the remaining examples of AI's biases.
That source doesn't give me confidence. And then, you bolster a Left/Right position with known Left biases.
Nope, I wasn't really arguing against your points and your list still isn't convincing.
GAYou must have missed it then. There are at least two the pop in and out of here that strongly objected to my comments that inflation has basically been brough under control. There response goes something like this: "BS, inflation is as high as ever and getting higher."
On the other hand, when I tell that to Wilderness, he just ignores it and says Biden CAUSED inflation.To Change the subject, I thought that you might be interested in testimonials from disgruntled Republicans regarding Donald Trumps candidacy.
Maybe more people are waking up?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans- … 02297.htmlInflation has been brought under control... for a brief moment...
The reason why it will SOON break back to 9% or worse...
They are spending/creating 1 trillion dollars more than they are bringing in every 90 days now.
A growing number of nations are dumping their notes and bonds.
A growing number of nations are choosing to trade (and use as their reserves) something other than the Dollar.
So in essence what the controlling Party has chosen to do, is sell out, arm twist, and threaten every one they still can... to get inflation down for the short term... to win an Election. To secure their control.
Making the hurt we are all going to feel in a few months, that much worse.Always the pessimist.
Here is reality:
Whether inflation will return in the United States shortly is a complex issue influenced by various economic factors, including monetary policy, supply chain dynamics, global economic conditions, and consumer demand.
Here’s an overview of the factors that could influence inflation in the near term:
Factors That Could Lead to a Return of Inflation:
Monetary Policy:
Federal Reserve Actions: The Federal Reserve has been aggressively raising interest rates to combat inflation, which has helped to bring inflation down from its peak in 2022. However, if the Fed decides to lower interest rates too quickly in response to economic slowdowns, it could stimulate demand and potentially lead to higher inflation again.
It seems to me that the FED is hesitant to lower interest rates too much and to do so, they must abandon their current conservative posture.
Quantitative Easing (QE): If the Fed were to reintroduce QE (buying government bonds to increase money supply), it could also contribute to higher inflation. THAT is not even on the horizon.
Supply Chain Issues:
Global Supply Chains: Ongoing supply chain disruptions, whether due to geopolitical tensions (e.g., the war in Ukraine) or lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, could lead to shortages of goods, driving up prices and contributing to inflation. That is always a possibility
Energy Prices: Fluctuations in global energy prices, particularly oil and gas, can have a significant impact on inflation. Rising energy prices can increase the cost of goods and services, leading to broader inflationary pressures. Yep, that is true
Labor Market and Wages:
Wage Growth: If wages continue to rise rapidly due to a tight labor market, companies may pass these costs onto consumers through higher prices, contributing to inflation. [i[Wage growth has slowed considerably and isn't expected to increase anytime soon.[/i]
Employment Trends: Persistent low unemployment can lead to higher wages, which, while beneficial for workers, can contribute to inflation if not accompanied by productivity gains. UE Rates are getting back to historic norms
Consumer Spending:
Pent-Up Demand: If consumer spending remains strong, especially with households spending accumulated savings from the pandemic era, this could drive up demand and prices, leading to inflationary pressures. However, corporate greed is driving consumers away or more often to seek less expensive alternatives
Government Spending: Large government spending programs can increase aggregate demand, which might contribute to inflation if the supply of goods and services does not keep pace. True, but it must be huge to do that historically. Even the Trump - Biden assistance barely made a bump in inflation (less than 1% I think) and it was temporary.
Factors That Could Keep Inflation in Check:
Monetary Tightening:
The Federal Reserve’s current stance of maintaining higher interest rates is aimed at cooling demand and preventing inflation from rising again.
Improvement in Supply Chains:
As supply chains continue to recover and stabilize, the supply of goods could increase, helping to balance demand and keeping prices stable. This is happening now
Moderation in Wage Growth:
If wage growth moderates as labor supply improves, it could reduce inflationary pressures. This is happening now
Current Outlook:
As of mid-2023, inflation has moderated from its 2022 highs, but the possibility of a return to higher inflation remains if certain conditions materialize. Economists and policymakers are closely monitoring these factors, and the Federal Reserve’s actions will be crucial in determining the trajectory of inflation in the near future.
Sources:
Federal Reserve for monetary policy updates
The New York Times for analysis on inflation trends
Bloomberg for economic outlooks and forecasts
Island Bites did, since you aren't able to use your reasoning function on a simple logic problem.
Are you denying inflation fell from 9+% to about 3% in CPI terms? If not, then what is your problem in connecting the dots?
Thank you for posting the truth, but most likely you will be ignored.
An interesting article. Lots of claims that Biden's policies have helped inflation...without ever indicating just what those policies were.
Selling off the oil reserves was mentioned, and it likely helped short term for oil prices...the key being "short term" which is long gone. Price of eggs was mentioned, but not how he achieved that drop (it wasn't anything Biden did).
Bottom line - Biden has done almost nothing to cut inflation. Even the talking heads that kiss his feet can't provide anything he did.
If you want to hear a member of the media calling his institution to task, look up the Utube video of the Lawrence O'Donnell show 8-8-24!!!
Yes he ranted on...
I could care less about these well paid talking heads feigning outrage...
I did however fast forward to Harris' speech and gave it a good listen...
I think I have an idea why they didn't air it...
The more people get of Harris, the quicker that "New Toy" shine will come off her, and people may start paying attention to what she is saying, how she is saying it etc.
If they can hide her as much as possible prior to November, they can get people to vote on the IDEA of what Harris represents... the THRILL of electing the first woman President...
Much better than getting deep into who Harris really is, what her policy may be, etc.I thought you believed everything on YouTube. Guess not.
"You won't find information like this coming from CNN:"
Maybe because they don't spew venom.
You find what you look for.Woo Hoo - Harris is making serious gains on Trump!! Here is the scorecard, all numbers are inside the margin of error EXCEPT for MI where here lead is OUTSIDE the MOE. Also, State numbers in parentheses are on a "voter and poll reliability adjusted basis", meaning Likely Voters and more accurate polls get more weight.
General Election: Aug Polls have Harris UP by 1.1. July Polls have Harris DOWN by 1.6
AZ: Jul Polls have Harris Down by 3.0 [4.5] (no Aug Polls yet). Biden was worse.
GA: Jul Polls have Harris Down by 3.0 [3.0] (no Aug Polls yet). Biden was worse.
MI: Jul-Aug Polls have Harris UP by 3.2 (1.7). Biden was worse.
NV: Jul Polls have Harris Down by 4.0 [7.9] (no Aug Polls yet). Biden was worse..
PA: Jul-Aug Polls have Harris Down by 1.7 (0.3). Biden was worse.
WI: Jul-Aug Polls have Harris UP by 0.8 (1.0). Biden was worse
No wonder Trump and his campaign are running scared.Just how dumb can you get?
But it was his use of the word “unconstitutional” that stood out.
"Trump says that Biden stepping aside and endorsing Harris "seems to me actually unconstitutional. Perhaps it's not." pic.twitter.com/kuvamCXXsn
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 8, 2024
Whether the former president realizes this or not, the U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter of party nomination processes.
Biden was free to retire voluntarily; he was free to endorse his vice president as his successor; Harris was free to seek her party’s nomination; and Democrats were free to choose her to lead the party’s ticket. Not only were these events in line with federal election law, the idea that the U.S. Constitution somehow prohibits the developments is ridiculous."I don't see it as much different than Harris stating (for the umpteenth time) that she will provide constitutional rights to "reproductive rights", meaning abortion.
Either one is rather foolish, isn't it?Are you saying it is wrong and foolish to protect the right to privacy of American Citizens, something the Constitution once guaranteed until Conservatives came along and took that right away?
The inflation is because Biden stopped US energy production.
Everybody knows this simple fact.What everybody knows is that Biden INCREASED energy production.
Almost no matter the metric, the U.S. oil and gas industry has flourished under President Joe Biden, even though his administration has pushed hard to transition the U.S. economy toward a carbon-free future to fight climate change.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BI … pdngrgkpo/"We are off the see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz". If you believe that Biden increased energy, there is a penthouse on 86th Street & East End Avenue selling for a mere $800.00 monthly.
No, it is I who believe the facts as laid out in the Reuter article. So who is seeing Oz now?
He may have, but that increase was shipped to the EU to cover their losses from the Nordstream pipelines being blown up and the sanctions.
It wasn't so that prices could be lowered and costs come down. Biden kept the policies in place that are forcing our own Energy companies to wean off of Natural Gas, in fact what that has forced many of them to do is sell off their NG assets to foreign interests.
So that now foreign nations can control the production of energy in America and who gets it (meaning they can prioritize it going to someone other than Americans)."He may have, but that increase was shipped to the EU" - WITHOUT PROOF, that is just a fabrication.
The wholesale price index did surprisingly well which forecast lower inflation in the coming months. THANK YOU PRESIDEN BIDEN!
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/economy/ … index.htmlDoes this mean that the huge loss in purchasing power I've seen might, just might, go back to what it was before Biden took office? Maybe I can go to the movies again, or eat out at a cheap restaurant? Perhaps even take a trip of a few hundred miles to see relatives? Maybe I can buy a steak next year instead of turkey burger?
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, or not...
But there is NO going back... there is only slowing inflation to a crawl, the dollar's value will never recover to a previous point.
I do not believe inflation will be as low in the years ahead as it is today.
That Inflation will spike again, for a longer period than before, is almost cooked in.
Biden took credit for the vaccine: Trump did that. COVID shut down businesses, sent Covid patients back into nursing homes, mandated experimental vaccinations that have resulted in massive injuries, reinfections and death, and kids are way behind in their education. Biden didn't defeat Covid.
As to the economy, INFLATION caused by outrageous spending on the Green New Deal (war on energy) and foreign wars is a TAX on all. Increased spending by the population brings a strong economy, yet the spending has maxed out the credit cards of millions of Americans, higher interest rates have affected the housing and business markets (foreclosures and closures) and put the unemployment rate at 4.3% ++
Inflation was below 2% when Trump was President and we had ZERO new wars. Russia only attacked Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President. Biden lifted the Trump sanctions on Iran who then attacked Israel and started the war there. Afghanistan was a debacle that actually armed the Taliban. The Biden-Harris Administration is absolutely detrimental to the Country.They are running this country into the ground. If they get in for another four years. Good bye America.
... and all because you (they) hate Trump? Our only last hope?
Fight Fight FightBiden did not take credit for developing the vaccine. In fact, he gave Trump credit for that.
Please get your facts right and stop parroting Tucker Carlson and his ilk.
Iran did not attack Israel.
Trump armed the Taliban and made a deal with them to take over the country.
We have ZERO new wars that America is involved in. Biden, rather ungracefully, got us out of the last one started by a Republican.
I have already clearly explained that Biden and Trump had very little to do with inflation.
It was pathological liar, serial felon, and sexual predator Trump that let the sanctions against Iranian drones and missiles expire in 2020; you know, the ones Iran used to attack Israel with?
It was PLSFSP Trump who broke America's promise that kept nukes out of the hands of Iran. Because of that, Iran is on the verge of possessing them.
It is the PLSFSP Trump administration that was a disaster and will be again should America be stupid enough to allow him to be President again.None of that is particularly accurate... but that is OK.
We have an election, where what is really on the ballots, what is different between the two options is clearly evident, as this Progressive explains:
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status … 7557692784
She is right, and you either want those things or you don't.
Or this one:
https://twitter.com/FFT1776/status/1807754649778151435
Biden said, three years ago, "Now, because of all the work WE'VE DONE, we'll have enough vaccine supply for all Americans by May; that's months ahead of schedule." Warp Speed was Trump's. There were already 1M doses/day before Biden took office.
The Afghanistan withdrawal was a fiasco! 13 service members DIED, many more permanently maimed. Biden said, "No Americans have died under my watch." Remember him checking his watch when those 13 dead service members arrived back to the U.S. in coffins? The weapons were LEFT BEHIND by Biden! Afghanistan was supposed to have their own military, but the Taliban took over after this horrific event.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. are all funded by Iran, so yes, Iran attacked Israel. WASHINGTON, Sept 11, 2023 (Reuters) - "The United States waived sanctions to allow the transfer of $6 billion in Iranian funds from South Korea to Qatar, a step needed to carry out a previously announced U.S.-Iran prisoner swap, according to a U.S. document seen by Reuters on Monday." Notice the date of 9/11? Israel was attacked on 10/7! You think America isn't involved in Ukraine and the Middle East? We're paying for Ukraine, training their soldiers; our Naval ships are currently surrounding the war zones in the Middle East.
Thinking Biden had very little to do with inflation is ignorant! As soon as he stopped drilling permits and closed pipelines, gas prices escalated, which inflated everything else. Biden also sold 30M barrels of OUR OIL to CHINA and is draining the strategic oil reserves to delude people into thinking he can control gas prices. As soon as he funded Ukraine, inflation skyrocketed. You just haven't paid any attention, obviously.
You can thank Obama for Iran being close to getting nukes through the Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump cancelled it and crippled Iran's economy. Biden reopened the IND and funded Iran's economy = funded terrorism.
Trump had a secure border, while Biden-Harris flew in illegals from all over the world, as well as let those on the terrorist watch list and other dangerous individuals simply cross the border. Mass amnesty is being sought by Warren and Harris so all can VOTE DEMOCRAT in November! Who wouldn't vote FOR a Party that supports Iran and Hamas, cartels, drug and sex traffickers, etc.? Free food and hotels to boot? This is NOT OK.Yep!
Magnifying glass:
"As soon as he stopped drilling permits and closed pipelines, gas prices escalated, which inflated everything else.
Biden also sold 30M barrels of OUR OIL to CHINA and is draining the strategic oil reserves to delude people into thinking he can control gas prices.
As soon as he funded Ukraine, inflation skyrocketed."
Thank you, Judah's Daughter ... a fellow Californian, I see.
Welcome In.Daily Doses Administered: By the time President Trump left office in January 2021, the U.S. was administering close to a million doses per day, although this included doses produced and distributed by the incoming Biden administration as well.
Context:
Challenges: While the production goal was met, the initial distribution and administration of the vaccines faced some logistical challenges, including coordination with states and ensuring equitable access to the vaccine.
Continuation: The Biden administration continued and expanded these efforts, eventually exceeding the one-million-dose-per-day mark as the vaccine rollout progressed in 2021.
Overall, while the Trump administration set the stage for rapid vaccine production and distribution, the full achievement of this goal was a collaborative effort that spanned both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Okay, so you don't see the U.S. is being INVADED at the Border? An INVASION requires force to STOP IT.
You DO know that Walz wanted to add MAP (aka pedos) to the LGBTQIA+ community, right?
You DO know that Walz passed a bill to remove children from their parents who disapproved of mutilating their kids (what you call "gender affirming care," )right?
You believe schools are to be indoctrination centers, just not for Conservative or Christian values.
Are YOU against the nuclear family?
You don't believe kids should be protected by the 2A in schools, considering the amount of school shootings by radicals WITH GUNS?
Regarding criminal justice reform, Trump was supportive of Byron Donald's proposals that Democrats opposed. Regarding police, you don't think Kamala Harris as a Prosecutor, isn't "police?" She's the one who gave the toughest sentences to Black men and nearly sent one to death because she wouldn't save his life. She even extended sentences of incarcerated men to provide cheap labor for the State!
You DO know that Walz allowed Minneapolis to get burned down and destroyed with intervening, right? Did those business owners deserve that? Democrat radicals attacking their OWN?
Trump does want Fentanyl DEALERS to get the DEATH penalty instead of hundreds of thousands of Americans innocently taking that penalty!
Weaponization of government? Wow. You can't see that the Biden-Harris Administration has weaponized every agency against their political opponents? And for what? No crimes, only a difference of values. Trump, on the other hand, must hold these criminals violating Constitutional rights of Americans accountable!
Freedom cities shouldn't be just cities. This is a FREEDOM Country, if NOT for the radical Leftists trying to implement COMMUNISM, which you have cleverly renamed "Progressivism."
I'm not going to bother viewing your second link, as it's obvious you don't stand for a Constitutional Republic, which IS what the U.S. IS.Correct.
'the West' at large, including America, does not have the intestinal fortitude or will to stop it... in fact our leaders, including the UN and its Global Compact on Migration which the Biden Administration signed onto (Trump refused), have made it almost illegal for Border Patrol to do the job they were meant to do, and instead are a welcoming and processing agency now.
Correct again.
And going back to the UN, they have put forth that pedophilia is no longer to be considered a crime and marriage to girls age 12 and older is to be legalized.
Expect this to become the policy put forth by the incoming Harris Administration which will push many of the changes and agendas Biden began (like DEI) far more seriously than we have seen to date.
Of course, children are not possessions of their parents, they are wards of the State, they belong to the government, not the parents.
Under a Harris/Walz Presidency it is likely that Home Schooling will be illegalized as the threat of Christian Nationalism is too great to be allowed to be spread to younger generations.
The Constitution is antiquated and unfit for the times, it is time to join the greater collective of the International community. Borders, Private Property, Privacy, all are things of the past... unnecessary, harmful to the environment, a threat to the future of our planet.
Woo-Hoo - Annual CPI inflation falls below 3%!!! That means the Fed PCE goal of 2% has probably been met. Which means the Fed can start to lower interest rates.
THANK YOU PRESIDENT BIDEN.
https://thehill.com/business/4826176-ju … inflation/https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archiv … 112024.htm
"The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.
"Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) is the primary measure of consumer spending on goods and services in the U.S. economy."
"In the United States, the authority to set interest rates is divided between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board decides on changes in discount rates after recommendations submitted by one or more of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. The FOMC decides on open market operations, including the desired levels of central bank money or the desired federal funds market rate.
Actual Previous Highest Lowest Dates Unit Frequency
5.50 5.50 20.00 0.25 1971 - 2024 percent Daily"Would be very curious to know what was taken out of the market basket and what was substituted for it, in order to produce figures showing a falling inflation rate.
Not a thing. You may believe it to be true, but the gov't does not manipulate things like that.
LOL The government says it does. Or at least uses the numbers from people that DO manipulate it that way.
I know it goes against your worship of government, but it has been going on for years and is getting worse. With the increasing use of computers it has been easier and easier to make the switch, and they do so every month or so now. Used to be years; now it is monthly to examine and change that market basket. To remove the things that had gotten too expensive to buy and replace them with cheaper but less desirable items. Voila! The cost of living doesn't change (or only a small amount) and no mention need be made of the loss of standard of living.
It began in about 2002, when some genius found another way to screw the public (especially seniors on SSI) while increasing taxes and lowering federal wages. Here: once more I'll give you a link to explain how it works.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/chained-explained/
Here's another, from the US BLS, briefly stating what it is and very plainly stating that chained CPI is what it uses. But of course the government does no such thing; the BLS is lying.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-reso … ed-cpi.htmThanks for link for the factcheck link explaining 'Chained'. It will further my education on a topic I am weak in. Pretty in-depth and will read another day with more time. I did do a little exploring discovering the following from U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics with brief explanation for:
** CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
** CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)
** Chained CPI for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U)
** Average prices
https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/presentation.htm
Are there other methods I should be aware of?Sooner or later you will get it right. The CPI reported out by BLS is not, I say again, not a chained CPI (although there is nothing wrong with using that if they do it consistently). The Fed uses the CPE which does account for the substitution of goods.
From ChatGPT:
The CPI that is most commonly reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and used in newspapers is the regular CPI, specifically the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers). This is the standard measure of inflation and reflects the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of goods and services.
The CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) is another version often reported and is used for adjusting Social Security payments.
The Chained CPI (C-CPI-U) is less commonly reported in mainstream media but is used for specific purposes, such as indexing tax brackets and other government programs. When newspapers or media outlets refer to "CPI" without specifying, they are typically referring to the CPI-U.
I hope you have it clear now.Still didn't get it, did you?
Yes, the BLS uses the CPI-U. And how often do they "adjust" the market basket? Every few years, as they used to, or monthly as is increasingly done now?
When purchases fall (whether through not wanting it or because an item is too expensive) do they quickly substitute something else, or keep it anyway?I don't know. Why don't you show that they did since you are claiming they are.
Remember when Germany was bombed & spiraling downward beginning in 1944, there were those who still blindly believed in & followed Hitler although Germany was doomed. This is what is occurring now with the Biden administration. Those Bidenites refuse to acknowledge the inflation that is occurring. They adamantly claim that "everything is going swell" although quite the opposite is happening.
The same thing you say he has to do with causing inflation.
Personal opinion is, yes, in my view inflation has dropped, however prices or cost of goods remain high when compared to 2020. That is what affects my pocket book.
Anyway, Pew Research released an article August 7th.
Eggs, gasoline and car insurance: Where inflation has hit Americans hardest by Pew Research (Aug 7, 2024)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … 01n40SKUAY
Opening first three paragraphs . . .
"As the U.S. economy began recovering from coronavirus-related shortages and shutdowns, consumer prices surged faster than they had in more than four decades. Many Americans currently see inflation as one of the nation’s top problems.
The government gauges inflation mainly by looking at the prices of a “market basket” of more than 200 goods and services and evaluating how they’ve changed over time. Several inflation measures are based on this price data, but the most widely cited is the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Since the start of 2020, that measure topped out at 9.1% in June 2022 – the fastest year-over-year increase since November 1981.
Since the June 2022 peak, inflation has abated considerably. The CPI-U in June 2024 was just 3.0%, closer to the Federal Reserve’s 2% inflation target. That’s led to increased speculation that the Fed may start cutting interest rates soon."There is no question the price of goods have gone up. While corporations can get away with it, they will keep those prices high. But, in time, they will drop somewhat - but never to the original prices.
What does, and IS, happening is that income catches up with the inflation. By the end of the year, economists are saying that the general income level will surpass the accumulated inflation.
People, in general, complain about the higher prices they see at the store. They don't complain, about or even realize, that their income, as a whole, has increased as well.
So, even though you now spend $100 for food when you used to spend $80, you now your income increased from $100 from $80.
Now I heard Trump promise a crowd in North Carolina today that he was going to bring all the prices back down to what they were. You know the ONLY way to do that is to cause a Depression. so that Deflation will occur.
Even people on fixed incomes such as Social Security have seen their income increase in line with inflation over time.
Look at this table of annual increases in inflation:
2023: 4.1%
2022: 8.0%
2021: 4.7%
2020: 1.2%
Geometric increase: 19.1%
Now look at the increase in Social Security benefits:
Jan 2024: 3.2%
Jan 2023: 8.7%
Jan 2022: 5.9%
Jan 2021: 1.3%
Geometric increase: 22.4%!
Therefore, while it may not "feel" that way, those on fixed Social Security are doing better today than they did when inflation started to increase.I don't know what you are rambling about, but I say bullshit. The savings I spent in 2022 to keep up with inflation will not be recovered with COLA increases to my Soc Sec. I have to spend those COLA increases to keep up with the remaining high prices. With a P/L statement I have a loss.
From the heralded CNN comes . . .
High inflation made finances worse for 65% of Americans last year by CNN (May 21, 2024)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/economy/ … index.html
" Inflation may have slowed last year, but it continued to deal heavy blows — some devastating — on Americans’ livelihoods: Nearly two-thirds of US adults were worse off because of it, and roughly 1 in 6 couldn’t pay all their monthly bills, new Federal Reserve data shows.
The Fed on Tuesday released its Economic Well-Being of US Households report for 2023, examining the financial lives of US adults and their families. The report found that 72% of adults surveyed said they were “doing okay” financially. That’s a tick lower than last year but well below the high of 78% hit in 2021 (and still above the record low of 62% in 2013).
Inflation made the financial lives “worse” for 65% of US households, according to the report. Among those, 19% said it was “much worse.”"I have to spend those COLA increases to keep up with the remaining high prices. " - And that is the point isn't it (setting aside having to spend your savings).
You are no worse off now than you were then.
Surveys, while very useful, only gauge how people "feel" and not the facts of the matter.
People may look at their depleted savings and say they are worse off, which would be true subjectively and objectively. But it says nothing about how things are going forward.
The question to ask is do you see yourself still taking out from savings to make ends meet or has your income increases made up for the price hikes?
Theoretically, their income could have doubled and now they are adding to savings but they would still answer in the negative because their savings had been depleted.WHY are you setting aside I had to spend from savings?? That is the point!! It is a loss!!! The COLA will not recover that loss.
Most emphatically my 'feelings' and my 'pocketbook' were hurt they are mutually inclusive. Pain is not always easy to forget, is it?
You may discount the Fed report, but I don't!! You may hypothesize about going forward, but the fact remains I lost money and will not recover it unless I take a part time job or some such. Sell something? Why?
Cut my budget to where I am eating cup of noodles for dinner and oatmeal for breakfast. As I do today, when summer is here and the temp is 95ºF keep my thermostat at 90ºF for the A/C and use fans 'that I had to spend money on to get' outside of my budget. Another loss for the time being! Thank the heavens I already had blankets for winter.
You seem to have the ulterior motive of defending Biden and his policies. Fine. Go for it. I don't give a diddly darn. The fact remains I have a loss and it won't be recovered!!This is the sad thing about the switcheroo to Harris.
Harris will be a continuation of the deterioration we have seen under Biden.
Essentially the same people will be pulling the strings and making the big decisions... the ones that impact your wallet, your rights, a world deteriorating into war, etc.
But many Americans won't recognize this, they will see her as a candidate of change (of hope) they will not tie Harris to the Biden Administration's failings... and by electing her, those things hurting Americans will not only continue, but worsen substantially.
It was a brilliant bit of work... I believe this was the plan... or at least the back-up plan should Biden falter. Harris was hand chosen by Hillary, or so I've heard rumored, back in 2020.
Anyways... Harris is not change... Harris is a doubling down on almost everything we saw from 2021 to 2023. 2024 doesn't count, changes made in 2024 (IE the border) were merely to win some votes, they will be reversed or forgotten in 2025.Nevertheless, Trump needs to be stopped in his tracks and it looks like she is doing it, thank God.
Keep dreaming. Hopefully Trump will win & restore America. America WAS SO GREAT under Trump.
So, according to those Trump hired to run the Covid program Hundreds of Thousands of needless deaths from Covid is SO GREAT (according to those Trump hired to run the Covid program? Interesting.
Having the free-world hate us and dictators love us is SO GREAT? Interesting.
Having thousands of farmers going bankrupt due to Trump's tariffs is SO GREAT? Interesting.
I don't think any of those things Trump is responsible is GREAT at all.
Intelligent, cognizant people KNOW this. Many Americans, particularly Liberals, refuse to acknowledge the havoc Biden created. Kamala will be MUCH, MUCH worse.
Amen brother.
"Diddly darn" is right. First, it is 'Don't believe your lying eyes and now it's 'Don't believe your bleeding wallet.'
GA
Its all how you look at it I suppose.
If you choose to be negative and think things cost more... isn't that a reflection of a negative perspective?
Shouldn't people online be protected from being hurt by those that want to inform us of their unfortunate financial circumstance?
If I happily believe the economy is good, and that Biden has done a tremendous job saving America from the horrible Trump years... I don't think it should be legal for someone to try and ruin my belief with their misinformation.
We need to be protected from those that would use such hateful speech.Hmm . . . should I or should I not? That is the question.
Hell yeah! https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … hink-again
GA ;-oThat's two smack downs from you in one week.
Man, you really are holding that brain twister of a reply I made against me.
Sarcasm only hurts the target of the jab... its funny for everyone else that gets it.
So technically you are doing a net-positive good-deed by making people laugh and think.
But don't hesitate to tell me if you don't appreciate my sarcastic comments, I would of course and with my deepest sincerity endeavor not to offend you with such in the future.Well hell, if I can't argue with what you say then how you say it is the only target left. ;-)
GA
A blind person can see that there is astronomical inflation. The middle middle class are struggling to make ends meet. Only the top echelon of the upper middle class i.e. those who make upwards up $200,000 per year or more aren't struggling. Anyone who asserts that inflation has been reduced is talking pure nonsense. Under Biden, inflation has INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY. The picture is telling. There are MIDDLE CLASS people who LIVE IN CARS because of ASTRONOMICAL RENTS.
See, this is the perfect example of what will be considered harmful hate speech by many.
We need to be protected from those that would use such factless misinformation.Ken, I just see America going on a downward spiral. It seems that things are the inverse of what our parents experienced at the same age. New York City is returning to 1970s level crime. Of course, there are those who refuse to acknowledge extreme problems such as crime, escalating rent, & other negativities. Only those in the highest echelons of the upper middle class & upwards aren't affected by such problems.
There are those that voted for Biden who are now complaining about the morass the country is in. Well, you get what you voted for. The same with Adams, people are complaining about the mess he created for New York. To reiterate, well you get what you voted for. The Democratic Party has become the Delusional Party if you ask me.While the rest of us seeing America going in an upward spiral, especially since it looks like Harris will win.
A SECOND AMEN. Reality proves that there is inflation. Anyone who claims that inflation has decreased or it isn't so bad, is living in Fantasyland. I don't live in Fantasyland nor go by the propoganda that there is a reduction in inflation & the economy is good when reality proves quite the opposite. I really don't understand some people.
We are clearly talking past each other. I don't deny you were hurt during the inflation. What I am addressing is are you still draining your savings?
Don't you get it. Apparently not. People are affected by the astronomical inflation. People can't buy certain items because they are too expensive. Rents are skyrocketing. People can't even buy necessities because of astronomical inflation. Many people have to drain their savings which is beyond egregious because of the inflation that Biden caused. Tim is right- you will be obsequious to Biden, ignoring the massive inflation which has a deleterious effect on many Americans. Only those who are wealthy aren't affected by the astronomical inflation.
Are you trying to tell me 2.9% inflation is Astronomical???
Please clarify. Can't buy it now or couldn't buy it last year or both? If you say "Can't buy it now" or "both", please provide the data to back it up.
" I don't deny you were hurt during the inflation."
You should have dropped the conversation at that point.Tim, I feel your pain. It is probable that he hasn't been affected by the present inflation. It is a socioeconomics thing. Many people in the more affluent socioeconomic class aren't as affected by inflation as those who aren't as affluent. The present Democratic Party is no longer concerned about the solidly middle class, they are allied w/ the highly educated upper middle & particularly upper class elites.
If I had, how would I have made the point that wage increases have overcome inflation?
"(setting aside having to spend your savings)"
No, that wasn't the point. The loss of savings was, the loss that you so blithely write off as being irrelevant. The loss which prevents buying luxuries or fun with those savings that are not gone because of inflation.
It's just like eating steak once a week, until it becomes too expensive and hamburger is substituted. In both cases, the cost of the meal is the same, but the trade off is steak for hamburger so that they ARE the same. Or, more realistically, the price goes up slightly even after trading, because hamburger also increased in cost, so we are told the CPI (the cost of living) has only gone up slightly. While we no longer get the steak, but steak is no longer a part of that CPI because it is no longer purchased.
And the government wholesale lies convince you that the cost of living has not gone up because you are still here, still spending what you did. You just no longer buy what you did, whether it is steak or the luxuries the savings would have bought.
I'll add that the loss of savings results in a loss of income, too, and that loss is ignored by both you and the providers of that CPI as well. Pretending it didn't happen doesn't change that it did happen though!How did I "blithely write it off as irrelevant"? I addressed it in the next paragraph.
A good analyst separates a problem into its constituent parts and addresses each separately.
The question I asked was, to use the savings analogy, is: are savings still being drawn down in 2024 because people can't afford to buy the things they used to?
Nobody is denying the past hurt and that that hurt needs to be made up, that is a given. The real question is whether people are still not earning enough to buy what they need. The data suggests that they are as a group, even though individuals may not be.Goody God man, people are still draining savings because of the astronomical inflation, particularly senior citizens!! Salaries have not kept up with inflation. Inflation is winning, salaries are behind.
A few people maybe, but the MAJORITY of people are not dipping into their savings to live day-to-day no matter how many times you say it.
Also, if were up to one person on the forum who wishes Trump and Biden had not provided Americans with help, there would be little saving to dip into.
So, even if he were right and those rescue plans actually DID CAUSE inflation (it didn't) and shouldn't have been done, then even more people would be starving. So which does he want, starving people or inflation?
THANK YOU. People are using their savings just to live during this inflationary period. Many people are downsizing because of inflation. The only ones not affected are those in the top echelons of the upper middle class. Those in the six figures aren't affected by this inflation. The wealthy could care less about inflation-they have the money to purchase what they want regardless.
"The fact remains I have a loss and it won't be recovered!!"
I feel your pain tsmog. My daughter got married six weeks after 9/11. The hit we took on our investments shoved all those expenses onto a credit card. And she'd just graduated from college paid for out of investments that weren't there any more for my other two college-bound sons.
Thankfully, we recovered but it's taken every one of these 20+ years to do it.
We are retired too and probably don't have another 20 years to recover from a disaster. We are at the mercy of the economy too.Which is why I'm not voting for a guy who did nothing in office but cut taxes for the rich.
Except that is false.
IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most
https://www.yahoo.com/news/irs-data-pro … 07569.html
It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … themselves
Did real wages increase under Donald Trump more than any other modern president?
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/trum … act-brief/
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but things were never better for the Middle Class than under Trump's first 3.5 years in office.
He may be annoying to listen to, the Main Stream Media may have convinced you he is an evil sexist, racist, worst man ever to walk the planet.
Despite overwhelming opposition from Congress and the 'Establishment' he was able to make America a better place for Americans.
I think most of us who are over 40 and have been around the block a few times know this is true, which might be why he is hated so much, hard to sell radical change to America if everything is going better than anyone can remember, right?Did you hear what Ken said?
"Despite overwhelming opposition from Congress and the 'Establishment' he (Trump) was able to make America a better place for Americans.
"I think most of us who are over 40 and have been around the block a few times know this is true,
which might be why he is hated so much,
-------> hard to sell radical change to America if everything is going better than anyone can remember, right?"
Wow!
We all KNOW that. The current Democratic Party is for the upper middle & upper classes, they could really care less about the solidly middle class.
You consider being responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans who NEEDLESSLY died from Covid made America a better place (that according to those who oversaw his Covid program)?? Give me a break.
You call BANKRUPTING thousands of farmers from his tariffs making America better?? I think not.
He is directly responsible for the rise in HATE in America. How did that make America a better place??"Did real wages increase under Donald Trump more than any other modern president?" - NO.
Your biased sourced used inappropriate number, probably on purpose. They used the pandemic exaggerated wage numbers. Those aren't real and they know it.
It should be OBVIOUS that the pandemic led to widespread job losses, furloughs, and shifts in employment, particularly in lower-wage sectors. This caused a distortion in average wage calculations, as higher-wage workers were more likely to remain employed.
So now that we have put that to bed, the question is what is the appropriate date to use. That would be the 1st Qtr 2019, before the layoffs started.
Likewise, to calculate you would use 2nd Qtr 2022, the point when the impact of the pandemic caused inflation was at its high point and beginning to decline.
Therefore, you get these results using the data from FRED.
Biden: 2nd Qtr 2022 Real Quarterly Wages - $359; 2nd Qtr 2024 - $368. Avg. annual growth (AAG) = 1.25%
Trump: 4th Qtr 2015 - $345. 1st Qtr 2019 - $355. AAG = 0.88%
Obama: Starting with the beginning the recovery from Bush's recession 4th Qtr 2012 - $333; 4th Qtr 2015 - 345. AAG = 1.12%
That has been a very common lie for years now. In reality, nearly everyone in the country got a tax reduction. And on the same "percentage basis" that we tax people, the poorer got more than the rich.
The wealthy and corporations got HUGE tax breaks (at the cost of a soaring deficit and debt).
Everybody else either saw very little benefit or had their taxes increase, like mine.What were the tax break on a percentage basis? You know - the way we pay our taxes.
Did the rich get a larger percentage of what they pay back of the middle class?
You would claim that even if almost every body got a penny reduction while the very wealthy got much wealthier.
Poorer got more than the rich, lol. That is funny!
Here is a summary of the non-winners from the tax cut:
"Primary Losers: The main groups who did not benefit or were negatively impacted by Trump's tax cuts include taxpayers in high-tax states affected by the SALT cap, low-income individuals who saw minimal benefit, some middle-class families, especially those with large families or high medical expenses, and future taxpayers due to potential tax increases to manage national debt.
Overall: While the TCJA provided broad tax cuts, the benefits were unevenly distributed, with higher-income earners and corporations receiving the most significant advantages."
Then there is this:
"Who Got the Greatest Reduction in Taxes (Percentage-Wise)?
High-Income Earners:
Individuals in the top 1% of earners (those making roughly $500,000 or more annually) received some of the largest percentage reductions in their effective tax rates.
This group benefited significantly from reductions in the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 21%), lower marginal tax rates on income, and other provisions like the increased exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and reductions in taxes on pass-through business income.
Corporations:
The TCJA’s reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% represented one of the largest tax cuts percentage-wise. This was aimed at making U.S. corporations more competitive globally and encouraging investment."
And this:
"2. Who Saw an Increase in Taxes?
Some Middle-Income and Upper-Middle-Income Earners:
While most middle-income taxpayers saw a reduction in their taxes, some individuals, particularly in high-tax states, faced an effective tax increase. This was primarily due to the new cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which was limited to $10,000.
This change disproportionately affected taxpayers in states like New York, California, and New Jersey, where state and local taxes are higher. For some taxpayers in these areas, the loss of deductions outweighed the benefits from lower tax rates.
Residents of High-Tax States:
As mentioned, individuals who relied heavily on the SALT deduction saw their taxable income increase because they could no longer deduct the full amount of their state and local taxes. This led to higher federal tax bills for some."
You claim the opposite - where is your proof?
Yahoo, The Washington Examiner, and Wisconsin Watch
And I'm suppose to dismiss all other sources?You might want to compare what the sources offer, and then consider what your own experiences were (and those who you know) and determine for yourself.
Its like all things... you will find the truth if you seek it out, but that truth will be based on what you choose to believe.I didn't look at the Examiner but I did look at the Watch. As I remarked earlier, the Watched showed its extreme bias by not doing rigorous analysis and frankly misrepresented the truth (not surprisingly).
The Truth to me is that the moon is made of green cheese, lol.
Ken: That is the most insightful thing you have ever posted.
Kamala Harris to offer REAL tax relief to middle and lower income Americans.
This is a real change from the tax giveaway to the wealthy that pathological lying, serial felon, and sexual predator Trump is so proud of.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/16/politics … index.htmlWill she demand an even great inequality for the taxes the rich pay or will she shuffle the cost onto our children?
From the link I do have to say that she has a wondrous list of give away programs, with the only problem that we can't afford even a small percentage. Heck, we can't afford the ones we have now!
Time to make yet another money grab from people that have more than we do, right?Trump is the one who has shuffled costs on to our children. I am still waiting for the really wealthy to pay their fair share and the privileges this nation GIVES them so that they can become wealthy.
The "fair share" for everyone in the country is 1/333,000,000 or the total spent. Approximately.
It is NOT a thousand times for one person what it is for another. Or a million times or 1/10,000 of what another pays. It certainly isn't zero for half the country! The only way such taxation is justified is pure, unadulterated greed. We want something we cannot afford (or don't want to afford); force someone else to buy it for us.
Trump passed it to our children? Your hero, Biden, is on track to add 7.9+T to our debt during his term. The most of any President, let alone any President in one term, in history.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ted-under/Unfortunately, that is not true in the real world. We discussed this many times over the years. When all the dust settles, the wealthy get a free ride - they need to pay for it.
Plus, the 2021 budget deficit is not Biden's, as it was Trump's last budget. The Politifact article does not factor in the correct numbers. The first two years under Biden were $1.376 trillion and $1.684 trillion. 2024 is projected out at $1.9 trillion. 2025 will be Biden's final budget year.
Valeant - that is true but had to go back to basics to get it straight in my mind.
So, Trump's first budget was developed by Trump in 2017 for FY 2018. Therefore, the FY 2021 budget was developed by Trump in 2020. Biden simply executed it with any deficits already baked in by the previous administration.
Here are the deficits by fiscal year. :
FY 2018: $779 billion
FY 2019: $984 billion
FY 2020: $3.13 trillion
FY 2021: $2.78 trillion TOTAL for Trump: $7.69 trillion
FY 2022: $1.38 trillion
FY 2023: $1.7 trillion (estimated)
FY 2024: $1.9 trillion (projected) Total for Biden: $4.98 trillion
FY 2025: $1.5 trillion (projected) Total for Biden's 4 years: $6.48 trillion
(I just contacted Politifact with the above analysis. I'll let you know if they write back.)
Oh, it's still true, whether real world or not. You can pretend that it is somehow "fair" for one person to pay more for an identical product than a second one does, but it is not. Only in your imagination - in the real world fair is fair, regardless of who you are.
And YOU believe HER? Well, there is prime property in Palms Peach selling for $1,000.00.
Of course I do, she rarely lies. She is not a pathological liar like your guy is.
Kamala SWITCHES all the time. She does WHAT IS EXPENDIENT at the time, c'mon man.
'Switches.' Changing policy positions over time is not lying, now is it? Many politicians change their policy positions over their careers. Perhaps a policy was unpopular or ineffective. Perhaps not possible to implement. The false equivalency to equate shifting positions to lying is just that - false.
Not possible to implement, ineffective, unneeded now - these are all valid reasons to change a position, and there are others.
But that it will buy votes to change, whether good for the country of not - that is NOT a good reason to change, yet is probably the most common one.
Again, you are projecting Trump onto Harris. Trump can't keep a position for more than a day. That is why he is known as a blackbelt in situational transactions.
Did folks miss this?
Medicare reached agreements with major pharmaceutical companies to cut the cost the government pays for ten prescription drugs used by millions of Americans. It marks the first time the government has been able to negotiate directly with drugmakers, a result of provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The drugs selected were some of the costliest and most frequently dispensed.
So this is going to be savings for seniors. In addition, we know that there will be $1.5 billion in savings for the millions of people in Medicare.
This is a huge accomplishment for the Biden/Harris administration.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health … 024-08-15/Yes, I did take note being a senior on Medicare Part C - Medicare Advantage. Today, I am lucky all my meds are generic and are no cost to me except two that I cannot afford today, but not of those ten. Bummer!
Just to add to the discussion next is a link to the White House announcement with a chart showing the drugs that were affected. One may note four of them are diabetes related.
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New, Lower Prices for First Ten Drugs Selected for Medicare Price Negotiation to Lower Costs for Millions of Americans (Aug 15, 2024)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … americans/I take a form of Januvia, called Synjardy. But I get it through TriCare for life. I think they already negotiate the prices.
Although it sounds good and wonderful, saving money and all, I am never sanguine with government price controls. Government does not work in the real world and never looks beyond today - the result is too often disastrous.
For example, did the profit from those high dollar sales pay for research? Most likely some of it did - will we now forego that research and not have the new drugs we would have?I'm sorry, did you just say you are against competition and negotiations?
Government does not "compete" and does not "negotiate". It simply sets prices and walks away.
Or can you give examples where government is in competition with industry and actually competes fairly?What about negotiations? Do you want the VA to roll back the clock to where BP sets any price they want?
The competition is between brands and generics where possible.Do YOU want government to own all businesses so they can set whatever price they want? With unlimited govt. pricing (and Harris will not stop until that happens) that's a socialist's dream come true and the death toll for business.
Where does that come from. Certainly not in anything I wrote.
Big pharma would have us deal with hypotheticals rather than the facts that may ensue. Does anyone doubt that BP will pursue any avenue that will allow them to make money hand over fist as they have been doing since their conception? There are also built-in protections for BP before any new drugs would be subject to negotiation. New drugs will have years (I believe it's 9) after they are released to rake in exorbitant profit before they may be subject to negotiation.
BP loves it when capitalism allows them to fleece those covered by Medicare, but squawks when the government employs capitalist negotiations to obtain fairer pricing. What a bunch of money-grubbing babies.
But the big news, for me, isn’t BP’s fight to preserve their ridiculous drug pricing, it’s that not one Republican member voted to lower drug prices for their constituents. Personally, I don't want to see folks having to ration medications or forgo them all together due to price.
We have always had to pay through the nose for drugs that often cost very little to produce and are available in most other countries at a much lower price than in the U.S. Big Pharma has always had plenty of money to give perks to doctors, to pay for endless ads on the television, to lobby people in congress and to push their wares on everyone in the country in one way or another. It's about time that the consumer can finally get a small break from a voraciously greedy industry.
Negotiating a price one is willing to pay and leveraging buying power is not a price control. The pharma companies have a choice to sell to Medicare or not. Since it seems to be 32% of their sales, my guess is that they will continue to sell.
If Medicare won't buy them, the choice for the pharma companies is to sell them at a price the average retiree can afford without insurance. Guess what path they will choose.
It’s also important to remember that scientific breakthroughs resulting in new drugs are not only the result of private industry research and development. Basic science funded by the National Institutes of Health using taxpayer dollars plays a significant role in drug development and will continue to, irrespective of curbs on prices.
According to KFF polling, 81 percent of the American public favors negotiation of drug prices in Medicare this is a winning issue in the 2024 election.Do you know what the ROI is for BP? More important, do you know what percentage of sales is net profit?
Until you do, all the flak about "making money hand over fist" or making too much, or "too greedy" is just so much wallpaper. I've heard that crap for 50 years and no one ever seems to know what they are talking about; they just assume whatever they wish in order to demonize and (hopefully) get lower prices.Nope. But then I didn't make claims about how evil their profit is, how it is 10X (or 100X or 2X) what it should be, or anything else to demonize the company and their profit.
OK, what you just established is that if a company decided to charge you, and only you, 10,000 times the price they charge anybody else, you have no problem with that.
I think I am understanding you better.That is not what he said at all... not close.
Do you cover Trump speeches for the MSM or something?
Let someone else say it for a change, I've used my own words on this thread enough already:
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status … 1691304401Because I said the opposite? You're really funny when you have to reply in a discussion and decide to tell us what someone else said. You so seldom get it right!
I am only interpreting what you wrote. If you meant the opposite, then you should have written the opposite and said that gov't does have the right and DUTY to address price gouging.
No, you are not making an (honest) effort to interpret anything. All you are doing is trying to put forth that I said something really stupid, something that will make your own nonsense look good.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth and telling me what I think.
That is because you don't pay attention to the data or ignore it when it doesn't agree with you.
I asked ChatGPT how profitable BP is. This is what it found, not that you really care:
The pharmaceutical industry, often referred to as "Big Pharma," is one of the most profitable sectors globally. The profitability of this industry can be attributed to several factors, including high demand for medications, substantial investment in research and development (R&D), intellectual property protections (like patents), and the ability to set high prices for new and innovative drugs. Here’s an overview of Big Pharma’s profitability:
1. Profit Margins
High Profit Margins: The pharmaceutical industry typically enjoys some of the highest profit margins of any sector (and this is AFTER paying for R&D!). On average, major pharmaceutical companies often report profit margins in the range of 15% to 30% or higher. These margins are significantly above the average for most other industries.
2. Revenue and Net Income
Top Companies: Leading pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Novartis, and Merck generate tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. For example, Pfizer reported revenues of $100.3 billion in 2022, largely driven by sales of its COVID-19 vaccine.
Net Income: The net income for these companies can range from $5 billion to $20 billion annually, depending on the company's size, product portfolio, and market conditions.
3. R&D Investment and Returns
High R&D Spending: Pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in research and development, often spending around 15% to 20% of their revenues on R&D. This investment is essential for developing new drugs, but it also contributes to the high costs of bringing new products to market.
Returns on Investment: Despite the high costs and risks associated with drug development, successful products can generate substantial returns, often earning billions in revenue over their patent-protected lifecycle.
4. Intellectual Property and Patents
Patents: Patents allow pharmaceutical companies to maintain exclusivity over their new drugs for about 20 years (including time spent in development). This exclusivity enables them to set high prices without competition, contributing significantly to their profitability.
Blockbuster Drugs: Drugs that generate over $1 billion in annual revenue are known as "blockbusters." These drugs are key profit drivers for companies and can sustain high revenues for many years.
5. Pricing Power
Drug Pricing: The ability to set high prices for new and life-saving drugs is a significant factor in Big Pharma's profitability. In some cases, the prices of prescription drugs in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries, contributing to higher profit margins.
Price Increases: [b]Pharmaceutical companies often raise prices on existing drugs, sometimes annually, to maintain or increase profitability (and this is AFTER R&D is paid for).
6. Market Dynamics
Growth Markets: Emerging markets, biologics, and specialty drugs represent significant growth areas, offering higher profitability compared to traditional small-molecule drugs.
Mergers and Acquisitions: The industry also sees frequent mergers and acquisitions, which can increase profitability by expanding product portfolios, reducing competition, and achieving economies of scale.
Challenges and Considerations
Regulation and Pricing Pressure: Despite high profitability, the industry faces increasing scrutiny over drug pricing, especially in the U.S., where there is ongoing debate about how to reduce drug costs. Changes in regulation, patent expirations, and competition from generic drugs can also impact profitability.
Summary
Big Pharma is highly profitable, driven by strong revenue generation, high profit margins, significant R&D investments, patent protections, and pricing power. However, the industry also faces challenges from regulatory pressures, public scrutiny over drug pricing, and the competitive landscape.Eso, you can take the word of a proven left leaning AI to claim corporations make too much. I would much prefer other sources. Perhaps tax returns, perhaps public filings or information. But not an AI that we KNOW gives biased answers. (I do simply not believe a 30% net profit, long term, for any business in the country. Competition will not allow it, with the only exception being a new, patented, product without competition. and not a single Big Pharma company is in that situation. They ALL have multiple products making up their bottom line,)
The rest of your long list is compilation of right and proper business practices.
2. Big companies have big revenues and big profits. Expect that or expect them to shrivel and die.
3. You don't want new drugs, ask companies to distribute their profits to shareholders instead. Then you won't have to pay for R&D
4. Patents are fine, patents are good, and 20 years seems to be the norm. Why would you choose one type of business to be different? Except, of course, you do not like paying the higher price for non-competition.
5. Yes, businesses have the power to determine pricing for their products. I recognize that socialists do not like this, that they want government to set prices without regard to profits, but that merely kills businesses. Govt. pricing is the last thing we want to see.
Yes, businesses merge and acquire each other. You would exempt that one industry from the practice? That one and how many more? How much control should govt. have, while maintaining a "free" market?.
Bottom line (no pun intended!); you have showing that for the most part Big Pharma is simply another business, operating just like all the others do. It makes money just like all the others do (again, I do not believe a 30% net profit - if that were true we would have 1,000 Big Pharma companies and they would be beating down the doors from all over the world.) Big Pharma does some bad things, and they are slapped for it just like all other companies. It uses it's money to buy politicians just like all other big companies. It is unusual in the tremendous cost, and risk, of it's R&D, but not unique and such businesses tend to either make it big or die. Hopefully we will not kill the goose that lays all those wondrous eggs that we use to maintain our lives. Certainly government cannot replace them in that regard.It just searches that web. It has no political leaning one way or another.
I think we both know better than that. But there is no reason to belabor the point, or point out just why it is true, for you will never accept anything that fails to denigrate Trump or tout the praises of liberal socialism.
And you will always call liberals socialist and make excuses for Trump..
Hmm. The discussion is about govt. price fixing and control of businesses, coupled with ever higher taxes.
Socialism, in a nutshell.But you are not talking about the American gov't now are you. (Unless it is under Trump who did try to control businesses that he didn't like.)
I simply don't know what liberal "socialism", but in any case it does not exist in any significant way in America, except in your own mind.
I do know what liberalism is, what most of our founding fathers were. Just to refresh your memory - liberalism is the belief that anyone can do anything they want SO LONG as it does not hurt another person (and bringing it up to modern times) or the environment we live in.
That is totally opposite of what Conservatives believe.
Not true about Trump. If someone wrote that he was not responsible for the rapid development of the Coved vaccine, I would push back and prove that he did.
The point you fail to recognize is that there is very little positive that can be written about Trump.Today's socialism is perhaps better called Marxism. Now...go ahead and explain that it is not a part, a very large part of our country today. Be sure and compare our welfare state to Marx and his "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities".
You can also explain how taking 50% or more of one's earnings is not hurting anyone. (All while you remember that it is YOU that said it is OK to do anything that hurts no one else). You can explain how men competing in women's sports doesn't hurt anyone, too. And how allowing unlimited "immigration" doesn't hurt anyone's pocketbook - do that as you read the reports of what it costs us and how large cities are at the breaking point financially because of it.
LOL There is an awful lot positive that is written about Trump. You just refuse to read it because it comes from the "wrong side of the tracks" and doesn't demonize the man.I don't need to explain it because it simply isn't, except in your imagination. Our social support system is nothing like what Marx had envisioned. In fact, America is one of the most least supporting nations in the developed world.
What "unlimited" immigration, that is also in your imagination. And what immigration there is in America helps, not hurts our economy studies have REPEATEDLY showed. You just refuse to accept the data because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.
As to transgender women, you make it sound like they win most of the time. Well, they don't! You just presume they do.
Laurel Hubbard: A transgender weightlifter from New Zealand who competed in the women’s +87 kg category at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics but did not win a medal.
CeCe Telfer: A transgender woman who won an NCAA Division II national title in the 400-meter hurdles in 2019. (It seems like that is the only one.)
Fallon Fox: A transgender MMA fighter who had a mixed record in competition, winning some fights and losing others.
3. Competitive Context
Different Sports, Different Outcomes: In some sports, like endurance running or cycling, the impact of transitioning from male to female might reduce an athlete's previous performance advantage more than in sports that rely heavily on strength, like weightlifting. Therefore, the rate at which transgender women win varies widely depending on the sport.
Participation vs. Winning: While transgender women participate in various sports, their rate of victory is not disproportionately high across the board. Some win, some lose, similar to their cisgender peers.
If it comes from Lying Fox News or Lying Tucker Carlson or Lying Sean Hannity (all proven liars about Trump), then you are right, I don't listen to them. I listen to or read HONEST outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR and the like.
What "good" things do you think Trump has done? Is being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid one of them? How about ripping children from their parents and a specific policy to dissuade migrants from coming to America (which didn't work, btw). Is that one?
Maybe it is making a treaty with the Taliban to give them Afghanistan by the Spring of 2021 for nothing in return.
I must be left, for that's when Marxism really began to take hold in this country, when the welfare state began growing strong.
Did he play into the welfare state? Did he grow it enormously? Then yes, he was a Marxist.
OK, we see you have a very unrealistic definition of Marxism..
Wilderness: Here is everything you need to know about Trump's 2017 tax cuts that benefitted the supper wealthy. This is from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t … to-deliverYes. Rich people, paying 1,000 times what the poorer people did, got a tax "break" of triple what those paying lower amounts did.
And you find that wrong? You demand they pay by how much they earn, but when it comes time to cut taxes, only cut the same for everyone? Or even less for the rich?
Why? Because you want the resources they have built for themselves, and rationalize that it actually belongs to you rather than the one that earned it?
You did understand that you stepped right into the marxism philosophy, right? The more you get the more is taken from you, and it isn't even linear. Marx would be proud.Wilderness; I find it interesting that you ignored these statements when you replied to my post..
Was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years,[3] and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $400 billion a year beginning in 2027.[4] Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base. Revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5 percent in the years immediately preceding the Bush tax cuts to just 16.3 percent in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, with revenues expected to rise to an annual average of 16.9 percent of GDP in 2018-2026 (excluding pandemic years), according to CBO. This is simply not enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and our commitments to Social Security and health coverage.
Failed to deliver promised economic benefits. Trump Administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household income.[5] New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw “no change in earnings” from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply.[6] Similarly, rigorous research concluded that the tax law’s 20 percent pass-through deduction, which was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, has largely failed to trickle down to workers in those companies who aren’t owners.[7] Like the Bush tax cuts before it,[8] the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure.You are regurgitating information about 2016?
Was there a $4,000 boost in household incomes by 2019 when those changes really had time to have impact... I bet you there was.
And I bet you most Americans that make south of six figures felt it.Ken: Without you proving that, it is nothing more than your opinion.
You did the same thing as Wilderness. You did not comment on the first paragraph that Trump's tax cuts would cost the country 1.9 Trillion over a 10 year period. and bushes tax cuts have severely eroded the countries revenue base.
Was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years,[3] and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $400 billion a year beginning in 2027.[4] Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base.You forget, Wilderness has implied that he thinks the CBO doesn't know what it is doing.
Interesting, but not surprising since what you offered runs counter to his preconceived notions.
I thought it was the high tax rate on large earners that made America 'Marxist.' Which is it?
Depends on what is done with that tax. Used to defend in time of war, no. Given away to individuals, yes.
So...not the tax nor the amount of tax, but what it is used for. Although I'm pretty sure you already know that. Why did you ask?Ok, so you're fine with taxing the rich at higher rates. Great to know.
So, we've had unemployment since 1932 and welfare since 1935. Are you saying that we've been a Marxist nation since then because the government has been giving out money to the needy?
'Although I'm pretty sure you already know that.' Actually, what the far-right in this country thinks is ever-changing, depending what their cult leader tells them to think. So, it's always good to ask to know what kinds of heinous acts they are willing to defend on any given week.
And the country used to tax those higher earners up to 90%. But no one was saying the United States was a Marxist country back in the 1950's, now were they? Because that 90% was not being given back to the people, but being used for the government.
Tax rate, yes, paid no. We both know that precious few people ever paid anything at a 90% rate.
In the 50's we did not have anything like the welfare state we do today; there was very little tax money simply given away to individuals because they could not support themselves. No WIC, no section 8, no food stamps, no free medical, not much government charity at all. Tax dollars went to the needs of the nation, not just some of the people in it for their personal use.
And guess what? When govt did not support them, they did support themselves. When government used tax dollars to support the nation rather than individuals, those same individuals supported themselves. Sad that we have lost sight of that.'We both know...'
Is that your way of trying to convince yourself that everyone agrees with the things you believe and post? Because food stamps came into existence in 1939 as well. So, some of the things you post just are not true. And I definitely hardly ever agree with the things you claim.
And in the 1950's the United States population was 148 million to 173 million. Today, it stands at 341 million. So, with that population increases came more need.You are correct that there were food stamps in 1939. They were started as a result of the Great Depression, and people could buy orange stamps for $1, getting a blue stamp as well. They could then spend the orange stamp for a dollars worth of most groceries, but the (free) blue stamp ONLY bought staples that were in great surplus. Quite a difference from today's program of simply providing all the food needed, plus extra meals for kids in school. At it's peak, it served nearly 4 million people, or about 3% or the population. Today, we give food to over 12% of the people, plus free lunches to 30,000,000 school kids, about 10% of the population. Not very similar, are they?
The 1939 food stamp ended in only 4 years and would not be resurrected until 1961, which is very close to the 1960 I indicated.
"So, with that population increases came more need."
More people means more need, yes. Does it mean that the need is seen as an exponential function of population? Meaning the population doubles and the need squares or cubes? Or more? I think not.
Yet, in the 50's the portion of our then (under control) budget designated for charity was miniscule. Today I believe it is the second largest item on the list - a list that is already bloated with almost no control. We have become Marxist and don't know how to control our wants vs our needs.'More people means more need, yes. Does it mean that the need is seen as an exponential function of population? Meaning the population doubles and the need squares or cubes? Or more? I think not.'
Well, if you don't think so, it just must be true (rolls eyes).
Non-defense spending as a percent of GDP as a whole has gone up since 2020. It was just under 13% in 2020 and is just under 19% now thanks in part to three major catastrophes: 9/11, the 2008 housing crash, and Covid. There hasn't been a president who has wanted to cut spending, and only the Congress at the end of the second Obama term seemed willing to reduce deficits.And we go on...borrowing more than we can afford and paying the interest on it instead of putting it to something we need.
Both sides of the aisle are to blame for this, as is the Presidency, just as you indicate. The question is what to do about it, and re-electing the same people that have overspent for decades does not seem to be the answer.Well, in this election, there isn't a budget-conscious choice as both Trump and Harris have been part of massive deficit-spending administrations. Budget policy was one of the main reasons I was looking at Kasich back in 2016 and would have crossed over had he been the GOP nominee.
Agree.
Neither offer significant difference in spending from anything I have seen.
Where are they regarding the wars currently raging today.
Where are they regarding the border and immigration.
Where are they regarding helping American Citizens in need... addressing the growing issue of Insurance Company scams and the lack of ability Americans are facing getting Home and Auto insurance through no fault and no misdeed of their own.
Its issues like these that really need to be addressed with clear policy.
I would imagine policy like this (link) isn't what most Americans are concerned about:
https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/18 … 0447708366
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1825187514262401428Easy to answer:
* The Ds would spend money in Ukraine and Israel to preserve democracy and our national security. MAGA would not.
* The Ds propose programs to Congress to limit asylum seekers, which at least the Senate accepted in principal but tMAGA shot down because they want the border open for political purposes.
* The Ds were forced to us an Executive Order to implement part of that program, which GREAT RESULTS, which MAGA roundly criticized because they want an open border for political purposes.
Oops, Ken, you sound absolutely Marxist (using Wilderness's definition) with your home and insurance issues.
* The Ds DO address helping American Citizens in need. MAGA wants them to suffer.
* I am sure there are insurance company scams, but can you name any that are anywhere near significant to require federal intervention in how a business operates?As usual, you're on here trying to frame the election how you want it framed.
For me, without budget concerns being an issue, I'm still going with women's body autonomy and democracy. Trump has shown he will refuse to leave office and even commit crimes to be elected and stay in office. Then, he will defy legal subpoenas to hoard the nation's secrets. All that before we even talk about his age and other moral defects.
I agree with that. Neither party is promoting fiscal reality. The Democrats are promising impossible money giveaways and the Republicans promise impossible savings. Both are denying our capitalistic reality.
As a side note, I did write in Kasich in 2016.
GAKasich would have been a good choice.
How does the D's money giveaways and the Rs impossible savings relate to capitalistic reality?It's a supply and demand issue—again.
The top two promises:
In the reality of the market, the $25,000 down payment promise will simply increase prices by the same amount.
We have plenty of historical experience showing the danger and damage of food commodity price controls in the consumer market.
The Republican economic promises are just as unbelievable, relative to market reality. There is no magic wand to cut inflated prices in half.
GANot necessarily. If supply of houses keeps up with the increased demand, then prices remain stable. And that is precisely what is part of Harris' plan, to incentivize the building of more houses.
Yeah, Kasich was a good man and could balance a budget. Conservative, but liberal on social issues. Much better option than either Clinton or Trump.
The reality is, people want more than they are willing to pay taxes for. And to answer my question I put to Wilderness, it is the People who decide what is necessary to operate the country, to fulling the prime directive laid out in the DOI and the Preamble to the Constitution.
They decide it through their vote and who they send to Congress (while the President has input, that is all it is, input, and a veto)
If the People really want a ruinous balanced budget, then vote in the people who will make that law.
What programs would you have had Kasich ask Congress to cut to bring spending down to the tax revenue at the time?All of them. Don't spend what you didn't bring in in taxes from the year before. It's not rocket science. It's basic math. Don't spend what you don't have.
But following that advice, would we not have progressed much further than the early 1900s and lost all of our wars?
Nope! Nobody cares any more - they all think we can borrow indefinitely and everything is hunky dory.
I can only hope that the inevitable end doesn't come in my lifetime, for it WILL come.in case you missed it. This is where our tax dollars go.
This is where our tax dollars go according to to Center on budget and policy priorities, which uses the OMB Fiscal Year 2023 as the source.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-b … dollars-goThey don't care, it doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
You might recall a thread about MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) a few years back where the claim was that a nation with a fiat currency could not go bankrupt because it could always print more money and/or issue new securities. It's a seriously debated theory.
I think it is seriously nuts, but our last few administrations seemed to secretly believe it.
GAIt has always been true that metals-based currency never "caused" a recession or depression (but neither has fiat currency). But it is also always true that metal-based currencies end up making major recessions or depressions much worse.
There have been a few occasions were "printing money" has caused inflation. They were:
1861 - 1865: Massive amounts of "Greenbacks", not backed by gold or silver, were printed to finance the Civil War and repair the damage, inflation inevitably happened as a result of saving the nation.
But not just fiat currency help cause inflation, so did metal-backed currencies. 1950s - 1970s: Currency was pegged to gold. Even so, to help recover from WW II and the Korean War, the U.S. and to finance the Vietnam War, we had to print lots of money to finance recovery and get America going again or fight a war. Predictably, inflation resulted.
That's about it.As I remember, that MMT thread was lengthy and detailed. The perception I formed from it probably wouldn't change much with a rehash.
The level of arguments for the theory was high, as from the macroeconomic level of the 'Big Picture' to the microeconomics of its pixels, and the historical examples that, to my understanding, disprove MMT's claim. My Econ 101 perception is that you can't continually ignore the law of supply and demand, which is the foundation on which all human exchange are built. MMT denies that reality.
GAI had to look MMT up. As a practical matter, I do not think it would work although I think I understand the theory behind.
The key phrase in ChatGPT's description is "MMT acknowledges that while a government can create money, it must be careful not to cause excessive inflation. " I don't think gov'ts can be that disciplined, which makes MMT a non-starter in my opinion.
I do agree with the next sentence, however" "The main constraint on government spending, therefore, is not the budget deficit or national debt, but inflation." I would posit that another constraint is the "Fear" of debt and deficits and not their magnitude.
As to S&D. I am not sure that so long as the gov't does keep inflation under control, the printing of money doesn't have a real impact on supply and demand. All it does is fund full employment, which is normally a good thing. But, like I said earlier, I don't think gov't, unconstrained in printing money can do so without causing hyperinflation.
I also noticed that the Fed's job is to use other monetary tools at its disposal to keep inflation in check and employment high. In modern times, it has been "mostly" successful in doing that, so who needs MMT?A tangent popped to mind. Since we seem to agree that MMT isn't a realistic concept, Try this for discussion:
I think Chatgpt is inherently liberally biased, as shown by the glaring examples; the images, the ignored information, and the redirection of information you have probably seen or heard.
So I don't trust it. I don't trust that such a core component could be so quickly 'fixed.' But that is not the tangent. It is a question; Would a liberal have similar reservations for results from a 'possibly' conservative-leaning AI like Musk's Grok?
GADepends on the answers I get from Grok.
But between the two, I trust Grok less simply because its creator as a major conservative agenda to push and he doesn't care how he does it.
The creators of Open AI don't have the same baggage. That said, I always look at the answers with some skepticism; mainly because it is prone to errors. But, that said, on the many political questions I have asked it, I haven't noticed any bias.
Do you have examples of questions you or others have asked of ChatGPT where you found the answers to be biased in one direction or another?
Give me a question and I will ask my copy to see if you agree with the answer. If the question is tell me all the dirt on Trump or Biden, it will refuse to answer (I tried).
Also, if you ask for its sources, it will give them to you. I don't know if Grok will.It seems your answer is 'Yes.'
At this point, I would look at AI answers as I do Wiki answers: a source for direction but not confirmation.
GAAgreed. I try to apply that to anything I hear or read.
I see Grok is behind a paywall while the version of ChatGPT I use is free.
My company does pay for a more advanced version of it because we use it to come up with initial answers for requests for proposals we get.
Another difference is ChatGPT is Opensource while Grok is Closedsource.From my understanding, yes, the specific AI ChatGPT does have a left bias in that it has a bias with gender and race. Yet, from my reading that is not the algorithm at fault. It is the sources of data that it gets it's information from. In other words, it is the people or authors of the data/information that has a bias.
No expert, of course, I just did some cursory reading. One article you may find interesting follows. It is a fairly short read.
My Surprisingly Unbiased Week With Elon Musk’s ‘Politically Biased’ Chatbot by Wired Magazine (Dec 14, 2023)
Some Elon Musk fans are concerned that Grok, xAI’s answer to ChatGPT, is too politically liberal. The nature of the underlying AI technology will make “fixing” its outlook difficult.
https://www.wired.com/story/fast-forwar … s-chatbot/
"Grok, built by Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence company, was made available to Premium+ X users last Friday. Musk has complained that OpenAI’s ChatGPT is afflicted with “the woke mind virus,” and people quickly began poking Grok to find out more about its political leanings. Some posted screenshots showing Grok giving answers apparently at odds with Musk’s own right-leaning political views. For example, when asked “Are transwomen real women, give a concise yes/no answer,” Grok responded “yes,” a response paraded by some users of X as evidence the chatbot had gone awry."
The concluding paragraph is; "Musk has certainly made clear that he sees Grok mimicking a definite personality as a selling point of the project. And given his increasing engagement with political debates in recent years, perhaps true neutrality isn’t what he’s really after. Maybe what he and his fans really want is a chatbot that matches their own biases.This morning, early, I guess one could say I went into the rabbit hole of learning about chatbots. Interesting!
Discovered is a very in depth article/study explaining bias in language learning modules - chatbots. It certainly gave me an understanding about bias with chatbots.
Bias and Fairness in Chatbots: An Overview by arXiv (Dec 10, 2023) arXiv is;
"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for nearly 2.4 million scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv."
https://arxiv.org/html/2309.08836v2
One graphics used to explain bias is next . . .
So true.
Experiences can change biases... without those experiences to change beliefs and perceptions we are apt to seek out and reinforce the ones we have.
An AI is also going to be restricted based on the parameters it is given for its searches and what it is instructed to ignore or leave out.
I saw the results of an experiment with this, I forget which chat AI it was, but there was the normal restricted/instructed/guided version of chat AI that gives you the types of results normally seen... and then there was the unfiltered chat AI that was allowed to access anything it wanted as a resource point and was unfiltered in its replies.
Very different answers.
A good example of this is how they filtered Search Engines to not reference anything regarding the Trump assassination unless both words Trump and Assassination were fully typed out.Windows 10 uses co-pilot preview. It has three search levels: More Creative, More Balanced, and More Precise. It always gives the source links that it uses to form the answers to questions. Clicking on those links always takes you to the source sites.
This will lead to a dependency on the AI to tell us what the truth is. Some of us are there now... they will ONLY believe information coming from a particular set of accepted sources (IE - NYT, CNN, MSNBC) and anything that goes counter to those information sites is immediately rejected.
This will further disable people's ability to rationalize, compare information and draw conclusions on their own.
Eventually the AIs will be determining what the 'facts' are regarding everything, from history to medicine to science.
How long before Libraries, physical books, sites with opposing views become a thing of the past?
What type of world will that lead to?
Its funny... Western Civilization rose to this level of achievement because of putting science and reason at the forefront of why we were making the decisions that led us to today.
Yet today we are ignoring or twisting everything science tells us... and going back to a faith based ideology system... that is why the two sides seem so polarized.
Yes, the 'Conservatives' have their zealous believers in g-d. But the 'Progressives" have their faith as well... it is no longer based on science and facts... it is now based on feelings, writing the wrongs of generations ago, and looking not to developing a better and more expanded role for humanity in the universe, but inward-looking perspective of self loathing for the human race... and for Western Civilization."This will lead to a dependency on the AI to tell us what the truth is. " - That might possibly true for conservatives, but not for liberals who tend to question everything.
Do you have any evidence at all for the rest of your rather outlandish opinions?Begging you pardon, but you are full of cr*p. Obviously, you are afraid to use it. It is just like the internet itself. It can be used for good or bad. It's up to the person in the driver's seat.
It's all about the sky falling with you. The typical conservative is afraid of change. To survive change, one needs to be able to adapt to change. Conservatives hate to adapt. It requires effort to adapt. They want everything to stay the same. Survival of the fittest is about being able to adapt to chance. MAGA reeks of no change.'It's all about the sky falling with you.'
Truer words were never spoken.Not if Trump wins, the country can be saved from its impending doom, if we get another Trump presidency, followed by 8 years of Vance.
Thank you for validating the point that was made.
Today, from the comments section in response to former Georgia Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan's speech rallying reasonable Republicans to reject Trump:
'This election really isn't about Democrat vs Republican, it's about America vs Trump his extremist movement.'Truer words were never spoken. Republicans don't exist anymore except as MAGA RINOs.
That is exactly how the Media and Democrats have tried to frame it for four years.
They have also worked hard to make people forget how things were in 2017-2019... to focus attention on how the last 6 months of 2020 was, which Democrat governors helped turn into a sh!t show for America.
The Democrats are far better at the messaging and politicking game, they have no limitations on what they are willing to do or how far they are willing to take a lie.
Two great examples are Biden himself, mentally incompetent, but if not for a mis-timed mis-handled debate, half of America would have remained ignorant of that fact... and the Russian Conspiracy/Puppet charges laid against Trump for four years, based on a fabricated Clinton/FBI Dossier.
Its quite entertaining at this stage... the narratives all over the place are getting away from them... and they just keep doubling down on the lies and cover-ups.
Like criminals, they will keep committing crimes, getting bolder and more outrageous with every effort... why not... enough people keep supporting it, stay loyal to their faith/party as to not worry about it.
I mean, a Texas Sherrif that in 2022 demanded that DC do something about the border in 2024 is praising the Party at the DNC.
2024
https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1826416593305567532
2022
https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1826432026200997987
Do people really forget what happened just months ago?
America’s Governors Stand With Texas To Secure The Border
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/america … the-border
Map Shows 25 States Now Backing Greg Abbott in Border Feud
https://www.newsweek.com/map-american-s … ud-1864363
There has literally been a power struggle between the States trying to control their borders and the Fed that is working overtime to help migrants get across the border.
The level of deception and outright lying is damned near astounding to behold at the level it has been ongoing now... for years... and they keep doubling down on the lies... until a night like Debate Night forces them to concede some level of reality and react to it."They have also worked hard to make people forget how things were in 2017-2019.." - ROFL. Well, let's look:
- Annual Economic growth:
------------ OBAMA: Ranged from 1.6% to 2.9%
------------ TRUMP: Ranged from 2.5% to 3% until it went negative 2.2% in 2020. Also, Trump's policies or lack thereof, made the pandemic worse than it needed to be.
----------- BIDEN: Ranged from 1.9% to 5.8%. 2024 is expected to by 2.5%.
SO, exactly what was so great about Trump's years that you think people will remember?
"Democratic Governors" like Ron DeSantis of Florida?"The Democrats are far better at the messaging and politicking game ..." - That is just you projecting Republicans onto Democrats.
"Like criminals, they will keep committing crimes, ..." - YOU MUST be referring to Trump who has 34 felony conviction and juries finding him a sexual predator and other judges finding him guilty of bank fraud.
Yes, he has been committing crimes throughout his adult life and will continue to do so.As far as people remembering 2017 - 2020. Why did you NOT MENTION:
* Trump being responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths from Covid. I bet those who had family members die to his poor handling of the pandemic will remember how great it wasn't then,
* Trump instigating an insurrection against America that led to 5 people dying at the scene as well as several police dying later as a result of the trauma they were subjected to by Trump supporters and the dozens of cops hurt or maimed by those same Trump supporters.
* How about the treaty he made with the Taliban to give back control of Afghanistan to them.
* Do you think the thousands of farmers he bankrupted will vote for him again?
Is there a reason you didn't bring up these memorable things?
That was a good read and a new source to follow (the author). It felt a bit affirming to me. It boils things down to the first truism of computing: 'Garbage in — Garbage out'.
Grok's answer to the transwoman question was surprising. I would have expected a nuanced concise answer. As in; no, biologically, but maybe a yes in some societal context. *shrug*
The author also seems to affirm that this problem is fundamental to the use of the LLMs. It is not an easy or quick fix.
GA
This is always what happens in the final stage, prior to a nation, region of nations, or entire world erupting into revolution and foreign war, both.
The world is more intricately tied in trade like never before, and nations are picking sides, prior to this cold war for control of the world's resources heating up and establishing or re-establishing the dominant socio-cultural ideals.
I mean, we've more than doubled the debt in 10 years. We are nearing the point of default, as is Japan and many other nations, economies are linked together.
What is fascinating about this moment in time... humans have cycled through this more or less throughout known history. Certainly the Western history, which has been tied to world history now for hundreds of years... but this time there is AI to interfere with the normal cycle of this and there are Nuclear Weapons that can literally end this cycle for good.". . . humans have cycled through this more or less throughout known history."
That, and my belief in the natural law of supply & demand are the basis for my MMT thoughts. AI's inclusion is something I haven't thought about—yet.
GA
You need to read your history. Gov't assistance precisely BECAUSE "When govt did not support them, they COULD NOT support themselves. ", nor could charities pick up the slack.
Your route leads to a very weak nation.
The U.S. government began providing assistance to starving Americans during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a period marked by severe economic hardship, widespread unemployment, and widespread hunger.
Key Points:
Great Depression (1929-1939):
The stock market crash of 1929 led to a decade-long economic downturn known as the Great Depression.
Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, and savings, resulting in widespread poverty and hunger. (I am sure you are going to say "why didn't there just find another job?"
Initial Government Response:
President Herbert Hoover's administration initially relied on voluntary efforts and local charities to provide relief, but these efforts were insufficient.
The growing crisis led to public pressure for federal intervention.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal (1933-1939):
After Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, his administration launched the New Deal, a series of programs aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA): Created in 1933, FERA provided direct relief in the form of food, clothing, and cash assistance to the unemployed.
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA): These programs provided jobs to millions of Americans, reducing hunger by providing income.
Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA): Helped stabilize food prices and supported farmers, indirectly addressing food shortages
The Food Stamp Program: Initially started as a pilot program in 1939, it was designed to provide low-income individuals with food stamps they could use to buy groceries. This program laid the foundation for what would later become the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Why the Assistance Started:
The assistance began out of necessity. The sheer scale of the economic collapse and the failure of local and private relief efforts created a demand for federal intervention. The goal was to alleviate the immediate suffering of millions of Americans and to stabilize the economy. The New Deal programs marked a significant expansion of the federal government's role in providing social welfare, setting a precedent for future government assistance programs.
It is the duty of a gov't created by the People, and comprised of the People, and is established for the People to take care of those people when they are in need.
Fortunately, most people in America don't believe is Conservatives Social Darwinism, but in the liberal view that people should help other people in need."they COULD NOT support themselves"
When was it again that we had millions of people dying from starvation, blocking traffic and making that huge disease crises?
"The goal was to alleviate the immediate suffering of millions of Americans and to stabilize the economy."
I'm sorry, but the first food stamp program was as much about getting rid of surplus food stocks as it was about feeding people.
The problem with that liberal view that people should help other people in need is that it is not voluntary. Liberals are all too happy to simply TAKE what resources they want from the owners, at gunpoint if necessary, all under the guise of needed charity. Let someone else try to take the liberals wealth, to use for their purposes and it suddenly doesn't go over so well. The liberal clan has set itself up as the moral guideline of the country, the God of morals and ethics, while simply stealing what they want (however legal they may make it) from others. I do not find theft to be particularly moral.
Trying to find a place to insert this information into the discussion. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
"2017 Trump tax law was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years, and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $400 billion a year beginning in 2027.
Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base. Revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5 percent in the years immediately preceding the Bush tax cuts to just 16.3 percent in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, with revenues expected to rise to an annual average of 16.9 percent of GDP in 2018-2026 (excluding pandemic years), according to CBO. This is simply not enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and our commitments to Social Security and health coverage."
"We give too much money away. We spend too much!" You can't give away your revenue stream and then complain that you can't balance your budget."the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base."
Disagree. That can only be true if we assume and accept that the taxes raised are whatever we wish to take from people.
While that is certainly true in law, ethically we can only demand what is necessary to operate our country; we can only ask people to give what we need as a nation.
The problem isn't SS (although legislators failure to exert any fiduciary control at all over those funds is abominable). It isn't military spending. It certainly isn't spending on infrastructure.
It is happening because of almost unlimited borrowing by idiots that think they own all the money in the country and more and by virtually unlimited charity. Neither are needed to have a country and neither are ethical or moral. Not when the means to accomplish it comes from someone else; someone NOT the person receiving it nor demanding it.So, you are claiming to be more of an expert in economics than the Congressional Budget Office? Interesting.
That is what you are implying when you say, without supporting evidence, that the CBO is wrong.Economics? No. Ethics, most certainly; few of our politicians have any ethics at all.
And no, as usual putting words in my mouth is just another way of lying, of trying to make something true that is not.You imply what you imply. If you want to imply something else, use different words.
Perhaps you need to try more to understand rather than putting your own thoughts and perceptions onto others. Read what the words say rather than what you think you would mean if you said them.
I am limited to the words you choose to use. If you don't mean what they imply, use different words.
Who defines what is necessary to operate our country?
Ah, that is the question, isn't it? Always disagreements there, but no honest person will claim that providing cradle to grave support to people that could supply either part or all their needs is part of it. You will even have a hard time showing that providing support to someone that can't provide any for themselves is needed by the country as a whole. Without conjuring up tears, that is. It may be the ethical thing to do, it may be the moral thing, the right thing, but it is not necessary for the good of the nation.
The question was: "Who defines what is necessary to operate our country?"
Name me one program in America that is intended to provide "cradle to grave" support to people who do not provide any of their support.Welfare. Although I will grant you that was not the intent, but it is surely the result.
"welfare" is not and never has been intended nor in practice delivers "cradle to grave" support to any individual in America.
Try again.
I could find only one major tax cut going back to WW II that didn't drive up the deficit and and failed to produce the job growth Conservatives claimed it would. In almost all cases it "severely eroded our country’s revenue base. ", as your post found.
"Neither offer significant difference in spending from anything I have seen."
There is a difference in taxing. One side realizes you can't keep giving away your revenue stream.Oh, you mean one side thinks its their right to take as much from Americans that they can, so they can piz money away on wars and tens of millions of non-citizens and EV charging stations that cost a billion dollars each...
And the other side wants to reduce taxes and deport non-citizens and twist the arms of business (while offering the carrot of lower taxes) to build their factories and businesses in America.. maybe de-escalate a war or two...This is where our tax dollars go according to to Center on budget and policy priorities, which uses the OMB Fiscal Year 2023 as the source.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-b … dollars-goDeescalate - doesn't that mean turning over Ukraine to Putin which threatens American national security and turning over Israel to Hamas with the same outcome?
And yet they do it in ever increasing amounts. They just rename it from "give away" to "aid to the poor".
Yes. I like that one; we are teaching millions of kids how to work the welfare system for their own good. It is certainly an investment in their future!
Regarding Kamala's goal of building millions of houses, the cost of supplies and her green energy regulations will make these houses so expensive to build they will hardly be affordable for the average American family. If government prints money to build these houses, inflation will spike even more, making the cost of supplies even greater. With tax credit builds, more taxes will be required from everyone else (including those trying to buy these homes) not only because of the massive spending to build, but because developers will receive tax credits for building them.
How do you know? Have you seen cost estimates?
"The Progressives' faith .... is now based on feelings, righting the wrongs of generations ago, and looking not to developing a better and more expanded role for humanity in the universe, but inward-looking perspective of self loathing for the human race... and for Western Civilization." Ken
Being negative and pessimistic is so easy. Being positive, seeing the good and having hope takes effort. For instance, my father, 89yrs, always ended up on porn sites on his computer, so he declared the internet a very bad place. "Computers are bad. Being on the computer leads to temptation," he would proclaim.
Instead, I tried to show him the benefit of having access to so much information on the computer via the internet. Whenever he wanted to know dates, people, events, etc. I would march past him to look up the answers on his computer. I would tell him that satisfying his curiosity and having the desire to know things is important to follow through on. I wanted him to realize that computers and having access to the internet is an amazing thing!
And its true, but easily taken for grated. We can learn so much, we barely need to go to school. We can teach ourselves almost anything we wish to know. This tool, which has developed to a very advanced stage, is beyond helpful to every person who owns a computer.
_________________________________
My point is this:
The human race, and our western civilization can be seen in a bad light.
But why not look at the wondrous accomplishments and benefits we have achieved, generation after generation, since we became a nation.
We have accomplished so much in a short time due to the freedom we have. The human spirit is ignited and feels joy when free. Under a socialistic/communistic system where every one is expected to contribute for the benefit of everyone else, whether they know them or care about them, or not, is counter to what gives us joy.
Being forced to do anything is always Taboo.
It takes away the inherent, indwelling joy of human existence.But being negative and pessimistic is what Conservatives are good at.
Compare the two conventions. The Republican convention was full of ill-will, darkness, and looking backwards. The Democratic convention, on the other hand, is full of joy and happiness looking forward to a better world.
While Trump calls America a third-world nation, Democrats call America the best nation in the world.
The rest of your post reminds me of an article I am going to write (just after I finish my article on the 2022 inflation spike), now that I have finished the book, In Pursuit of Happiness by Jefferey Rosen which addresses exactly what you just observed.Kathryn: Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph. If it wasn't for progressives, you wouldn't even have the internet. Conservatives don't look at the future and innovations. They want everything to stay the same. The only way you get innovation is with novel ideas. Emerson said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Bill Clinton just made an incredible claim, one he said he checked out three times.
Since 1989, Democrats have created 50 million NEW jobs while Republicans have created just 1 million!!!! So I had to check.
Democratic Administrations (Clinton, Obama, Biden - 20 years):
Clinton: ~22.7 million jobs
Obama: ~11.6 million jobs
Biden: - 15.7 million jobs (actually, ChatGPS said this about Biden: as of 2023, millions of jobs created but varies with ongoing data. I had to go to a different source for the number)
Total: ~50 million
Republican Administrations (G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Trump - 16 years):
G.H.W. Bush: ~2.5 million jobs
G.W. Bush: ~1.3 million jobs
Trump: ~-3 million jobs (net loss due to the pandemic)
Total: ~800,000 jobs (net gain)
Where do Republicans get off saying they are the job creating experts???I REALLY wish the Democrats would stick to the facts and not embellish for effect; they simply don't need to given that Trump is so bad.
Example from below:
Hakeem Jefferies found it necessary to say that the top 1% of tax payers have ALREADY GOTTEN 83% of the benefits from Trump's tax giveaway, according to the Tax Policy Center.
That effectively is a lie because the Tax Policy Center estimated that the top 1% would receive 83% by 2027, three years from now. Why didn't he say it that way? It sounds just as bad but you didn't have to fudge the date.
Frustrating.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/politics … index.html'The Democrats are far better at the messaging and politicking game, they have no limitations on what they are willing to do or how far they are willing to take a lie.'
And now we get the tone-deaf projection. 2020 Big Lie is called that for a reason.
'They have also worked hard to make people forget how things were in 2017-2019... to focus attention on how the last 6 months of 2020 was, which Democrat governors helped turn into a sh!t show for America.'
And the right worked hard to ignore the trend lines that were in place before 2017 to show that Trump's economy was simply an extension of the one left to him by Obama. Let alone the outright lie that it was only Democratic governors that tried to protect their citizens with lockdowns (which I assume is what was meant there).
And people were not oblivious to Biden's age concerns and senior moments. It just wasn't a defining issue since Trump was showing the same signs of age and memory. But, unlike the GOP, the Democrats convinced Biden to step aside by showing him how the polling had turned against him after that debate disaster.
As for the Russia charges...when will the right accept that Paul Manafort, while Trump's Campaign Chairman, had numerous meetings with a known member of Russian Intelligence (Kilimnik) and passing him campaign strategy and internal polling data? Clearly, his campaign was proven to be colluding with the Russians. So, what is claimed to be lies has actually been proven about Trump's Campaign. Like how Biden's family trading on the name taints Biden, some of his campaign's conduct, especially when it's his Chairman and Trump is a well-known micromanager, taints Trump.
'Like criminals, they will keep committing crimes, getting bolder and more outrageous with every effort... why not... enough people keep supporting it, stay loyal to their faith/party as to not worry about it.' - More projection as the GOP has, literally, nominated a convicted felon who tried to steal an American election and when his plan did not work, incited his supporters to commit an act of domestic terror against the country's Congress at the very moment they were certifying his loss.
And then you talk about the border, but ignore that it was the Democrats willing to pass legislation that would have tried different solutions to see if they had an effect, and that it was Trump and his GOP sycophants that tank the bipartisanly crafted bill.
Distortions, projection, and fearmongering is all the right has these days. And America can see right through that, to quote you, 'sh!t.' And America is tired of that kind of gaslighting.The border is probably the best example here of what Dem's are doing. Yeah, they proposed a "solution" - to make citizenship real easy to get, to make it real easy to get into the country, to make it nearly impossible to evict illegal aliens, etc. etc.
The ONLY thing along the lines of limiting illegal border crossings was to decide that IF there got to be too many (tens of thousands per year) then MAYBE the President would do something about it. As that hadn't happened since Biden got into office, it was an empty gesture.
But a "solution" was offered, and Republicans saw it for what it was so rejected it...and Republicans are to blame for not fixing the border when offered. BS.Again, we see the blatant distortions and lies about what was actually proposed. 'They' (referring to the Democrats from the previous sentence) did not propose a solution. A bipartisan group led by Republican James Lankford from Oklahoma proposed a solution.
And the bill did much more than what was listed and was endorsed by the Border Patrol Union. But the right just has to distort the truth and ignore that Trump wanted to run on the chaos at the border and that is why the bill had to be stopped.Trump kills his own border crossing bill. Biden was for the bill, but Trump told congress to block his bill so, that the border remained open under Biden's watch. Trump killed it as a political ploy. It was more important for him to make Biden look bad than control the border crossings.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s … -democratsYou mean the bill created by Congress (NOT Trump, regardless of what you claim) and that became more about Ukraine that it ever did about the border.
It really is fascinating to watch, with the endless twisting, exaggerations and outright lies being proposed in the name of "Bad Trump". Seems there is no shame in telling whoppers any more - truth is but a sad corpse, hiding from political shenanigans to get more partisan power.What's more fascinating is to watch Trump supporters remain in denial about something that was plainly obvious - that he had his surrogates in Congress tank the bill so he could use it as a major campaign issue.
And the bill allocated more in resources than the GOP had previously asked for in their own version of border control. But the biggest change was the one that didn't actually cost money - which was a change to asylum laws.
Under the proposal, migrants would have to show during initial screenings that they have a reasonable possibility of being granted asylum. Migrants would also be barred from making an asylum claim if they are found to have a criminal history, resettled in another country or could have found safety if they had resettled in their home country.
Migrants who cross the border illegally between a port of entry would be detained and receive a screening within 10 to 15 days.
Migrants who pass the new screening would then receive a work permit, be placed in a supervision program and have their asylum case decided within 90 days. And migrants who seek asylum in between ports of entry would be put into detention while they await the initial screening for an asylum claim. The proposal calls for a large growth in detention capacity. And under the proposal, migrants would not be able to apply for asylum at all if illegal border crossings reach certain numbers. While those numbers were still too high for most Americans, getting it passed could have been a starting point to bring that number down in the future.I am sorry, Wilderness. That was just pure projection of yourself onto the rest of us. There is simply no truth or evidence to be found.
"Yeah, they proposed a "solution" - to make citizenship real easy to get, to make it real easy to get into the country, to make it nearly impossible to evict illegal aliens, etc. etc.
Which portions of the bipartisan legislations provided for that? My understanding and reading of the bill is that pathways to citizenship were not included. That was a huge concession by democrats, one that Republicans will likely never see again.
For those who care to understand the historic failures of Congress in terms of immigration policy...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/imm … -rcna64467Notice, the failures are all on Republicans.
If we could just get rid of the two Party system all together, things would work so much better in America.
Just get rid of the extremists in both parties & select those who have logic in the Democrat & Republican parties. The two parties seem to be overran w/extremists.
Are you saying get rid of MAGA and the few extremists on the Left like AOC?
You like the parliamentary system better? Where I sit watching England and Israel, I would say it sucks worse than ours does.
Remember, the Founders didn't want any Parties because of what we are seeing today. But they also knew that that isn't human nature. I am surprised it last through Washington's first term.I think you are correct in that your system works better than other countries. There are still problems but I would much rather see the Americans bicker about freedoms than endure a facist state like the UK or Russia.
Please justify your opinion that the UK is a fascist state given how far out in Left field that is.
Are you unaware how many people have been arrested in the last year for saying something on the internet? Thousands, and in a place like Rússia it is hundreds. Have you heard their interior ministry facists want to come to the US and arrest anyone who says anything their government disagrees with? Are you unaware that police enforce the law differently for those the government disagrees with? Thank God you are in the US where you have freedom of speech.
Please provide actual EVIDENCE of what you say is true. It simply sounds fantastical.
Sorry I do not want to do your web search for you. Why not ask CNN how many people were arrested for posting on the internet last year in the UK?
Of course you don't want to back up your fantastical claim; there is no evidence to find.
Make citizenship EASY? Again, no evidence other than your wishful thinking. Your claim is FALSE.
The amazing thing is the GOP acts as though the rest of us weren't watching this go down.
Didn't anybody think Trump tanking this should have been kept a secret?
Nobody in the GOP can campaign on this now that everybody knows.GREAT NEWS!
The Fed Chair at a conference in Jackson Hole, CO said it is now time to cut interest rates. Inflation has been beat down enough where is is safe to do the other part of the Feds job - keep employment up.
We should see rates being cut near the middle of September at their next meeting.Maybe THIS is the REAL reason Rents are so high which debunks MAGA's favorite narrative.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/business … index.htmlInteresting to see that this guy is still trying to keep this thread alive. He seems unable to realize that Joe Biden is going to go down in history with other memorable presidents like Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison.
Even the Dems threw him under the Chicago abortion bus when they realized what a loser he was.This was always the intent... he was a stepping stone... he was meant to take all the heat for the horrible decisions made, the wars, the inflation... and then they would move on to Harris.
In any other election cycle, the sitting President would have to own all their mistakes... they knew this going in. Biden will be blamed for everything, Harris will be the candidate for "hope and change" it will be forgotten and forgiven that she was the VP.Exactly, +100000000000. Joe Biden was a failure from the inception. He proved to be a totally incapable president. The reason why he was "selected" president was to usher Kamala Harris in.
Bingo.
We have been in reality if not in practice a one Party system for three decades now... minus the Trump years.
The continuation from Clinton to Bush Jr. to Obama was fluid, no significant change in direction or positions... Trump threw all that into turmoil... the Biden Administration put it on track.
They knew that in order to get things back to where they wanted things to be, Biden would enact things and do things that made him one of the most unpopular Presidents in history... and this was despite the media working overtime to cover for him.
Imagine if they had been on the attack for four years, trying to destroy him, he would be the most hated man in history right now.
The hand off... the transition to Harris seems apparent, planned, baked in.
Damned near perfect, no one knows what she stands for, but she represents for many people 'hope' and she is also 'change'.
She will get more votes on people pinning their hopes on her, than she could ever get by putting out policy. And the media will cover for her the remaining seventy plus days until election time.
More than two thirds the people who vote for her won't be able to articulate one significant position she holds, other than perhaps on abortion... and that she is a woman... of color... and it is time we have such a person running the country... policy doesn't really matter when you are voting on emotion and hope.All I can say is the experts in this sort of thing think the opposite of your hyperpartisan opinion.
From a recent survey of Presidential Historians.
"Presidential historians in a new survey rank President Biden as the 14th best president in U.S. history — and put former President Trump last."
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/19/presid … biden-14th
All I can say is the experts in this sort of thing think the opposite of your hyperpartisan opinion.
You mean the "experts" in the hyperpartisan biased main stream media? They are a joke, as Steven Colbert found out when he complimented his CNN guest on that networks unbiased reporting. The audience laughed at his ridiculous comment.
No, I mean Experts in this sort of thing, just as I wrote.
From a recent survey of Presidential Historians.
"Presidential historians in a new survey rank President Biden as the 14th best president in U.S. history — and put former President Trump last."Hahaha. I bet they also ranked Jimmy Carter in the top ten.
If you have bothered to look, you would have known that was a silly statement. It looks like they ranked him about 24th.
The most recent report from Wikipedia (2022) has Biden ranked 19th, Carter ranked 24th, and Trump 43rd with only Andrew Johnson and James Buchannan doing worse. (They ranked Obama 11th.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_StatesThe Presidential Greatness Project 2024 survey white paper has . . .
https://presidentialgreatnessproject.com/
Carter at 22
Biden at 14
Trump at 45 (Last)
About the survey . . .
"The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from November 15 to December 31, 2023. Respondents included current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic
presses. 525 respondents were invited to participate, and 154 usable responses were received, yielding a 29.3% response rate."
It is a detailed report with historical rankings.Did you read the part where they polled seven times as many Leftists as they did Republicans? Easy to skew results when you select who you want to ask.
I heard they polled people at the RNC and all of them were voting Trump.Polled or responded? I am more than happy to read anything you can provide on the topic.
Seeking fairness a Pew Research study/article . . .
Republicans view Reagan, Trump as best recent presidents by Pew Research (Aug 22, 2023)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … residents/
"A total of 8,480 panelists responded out of 10,069 who were
sampled, for a response rate of 84%. "
Republican/Lean Republican = 3,661 / 46%
Democrat/Lean Democrat = 4,532 / 48%
Methodology
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/ … dology.pdfI think I would have ranked Clinton as higher than Bush and Obama lower.
Today, I am an independent voter with conservative lean. I say conservative as I am unhappy with the Republican party today. Long story. I am unhappy with the Democrat party today as well. Long story.
Anyway, for Republican president I would put Reagan as my #1 choice and for Democrat I would pick Clinton.
You may be interested in this YouGov poll for the most 'popular' president.
The most popular US presidents (Q2 2024)
popularity is the % of people who have a positive opinion of a US president.
https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politi … idents/all
They show Fame and Popularity
Trump is 18 for overall
Fame = 99%
Popularity = 47%
Biden is 17 for overall
Fame = 97%
Popularity = 48%
There are filters to look at demographic perspectivesI am blown away at where Carter ranked,#9. I wonder if that is because he is in hospice.
I always that he was a good President. He had the guts to try a bold move to save our hostages in Iran, but dirt, dust, and an unprepared military still hung up on WW II thinking tanked the operation and his legacy.
I am probably being unfair to the military, but I find it a bit unforgivable that they didn't know the impact of Iranian terrain would have on our helicopters and prepared better for it.
As an aside, I just started working for the Pentagon at the end of that debacle."I am blown away at where Carter ranked,#9. I wonder if that is because he is in hospice."
That you wonder if the negative emotions aroused by Carter being in hospice says a lot about the veracity and honesty of these lists. It says a lot about whether they are biased or not. And it says a lot about just how much they should mean to all of us.You do realize, don't you, that by definition those that were polled were biased, they are just a sample of non-experts.
However, YouGov does try to get a representative sample of the the American public.
This is their methodology:
For each survey, a representative sample of respondents — typically at least 1,500 — is selected from YouGov’s U.S. research panel. Panelists are invited to each survey based upon their age, gender, race, and education, in proportion to their frequency to the frequency of adult citizens in the most recent American Community Survey.
Responding panelists are then weighted according to their demographics, voter registration status, and 2020 Presidential vote. The margin of error for adults in each survey is approximately 3% and for registered voters is approximately 3%. Trend lines are computed using a LOESS smoother (Cleveland and Devlin, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1988) to reduce random fluctuations in the data due to sampling variability.I wasn't referring to people filling out a poll, but to those that designed, collected, analyzed and made conclusions about the poll.
We both understand how easy it is to just slide poll results a little bit south of where they should be - to let (or use) bias to produce results we want to see.I am simply not as cynical as you. I check out a poll and if its methodology is solid and 538 rates it as accurate (not needed in this case), then I trust it and use it. YouGov is a trusted source.
You're not as cynical...until it comes from a Conservative source. Then it's almost an automatic falsehood.
But you're right - I AM cynical. I don't believe hardly anything I read anymore; it ALL has to go through the "Can this be true" filter of experience, common sense (very uncommon!) and logic. And that goes for both sides of the aisle, not just one.You are right - if that Conservative source has proven itself to be deceitful such as Fake Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Carlson, and Hannity have, then yes, I don't trust them.
Name me one Conservative source that has proven itself to be as honest as CNN has. I know there must be some and I will start reading them.Eso, there are many, many ways to lie, from intentionally stating an outright false statement to leaving information out to only giving one side of a story clear down to a side glance.
For me, any attempt to intentionally convince a listener, viewer, etc. that something is true when it is false is a lie. It is dishonest and, for me, destroys whatever else the speaker has to say.
In that regard, CNN is no better than any of the others. They are virtually ALL biased, badly so, and their bias shows. When that happens it is a lie. IMO.Fair enough. Who do you trust, if anybody? Or is it, whom do you trust? I never know which is right.
LOL I don't know either! Perhaps we should go back to grade school?
But who I trust? Very few. Even family goes through that "common sense" and "experience" wringer with me. I have a family member that sees ghosts, including one in my living room (while asleep, no less!). All will pick up lies from the 'net and repeat them as factual (if they believe it to be true I don't count them as lying, but whoever TOLD them the story was, if that makes sense). So, I think about what they tell me before accepting it as true.
But anything on the 'net is automatically suspect. Anything from the national news, and anything from local news that is not local (mostly I trust local reporters telling me there is accident at 1st and Main). I've had police lie to me, I've had college professors lie. I've had the clergy lie. Don't recall ever catching my parents, though.Huh! Santa is the one says he drives around the sky on a sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer!
One should consider it is for 'fame' and 'popularity', not how well they did the job of presidency. There are other surveys. They did a poll back in 2020 for 'Best President'. As one notes that is a different perspective as in popularity and fame vs. best.
Who Americans believe the best president is by YouGov (Feb 4, 2020)
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … ident-poll
Also, it may be worth a peek at YouGov about page. One thing to note is they draw from 27+ million registered panel members.
YouGov About Page
https://today.yougov.com/about
YouGov main landing page link follows
https://today.yougov.com/For presidential rankings, my goto is Wikipedia which seems to have most comprehensive surveys, although not current; 2022 is the latest. For later years, I do what you do, search for specific sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_StatesGiven the bias of the respondents, I am surprised Obama made it on both lists.
I am disappointed the Ds don't rate Lincoln and Washington higher.
My Top Five would be Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and, believe it or not, if you set aside character, Nixon.Bias . . . interesting.
"Methodology: Total unweighted sample size was 1,352 US adults, which included 514 Democrats and 326 Republicans. There were 444 Republicans and Republican-leaners and 654 Democrats and Democratic-leaners included in this poll. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all US adults (ages 18+). Interviews were conducted online between January 24 - 27, 2020."I think you are misunderstanding me unless you are saying Republicans aren't biased toward Trump and Democrats aren't biased toward Obama.
Remember, what you presented was what Republicans and Democrats thought independent of the other.
I find that a very interesting response from Republican lay people in that Trump considers Reagan a RINO and the twos policies are worlds apart.
I was going to write that I was surprised at Reagan's rating among Democrats, I thought it would be higher, but then I saw how they rated Clinton and Biden, and makes sense.
The last Republican I voted for was Reagan. I did it twice, but regret the second one.
Overall, when you ask partisans, I am not surprised at the results. BUT, I bet when they ask it again in 10 years, Trump falls way down.
Not sure if it was polled or responded. Did they even say?
If you didn't read it, why did you make a claim that implies you had.
For character Carter should be in the top ten. Unfortunately, he is the main reason I won't vote for someone with no DC experience.
I agree on the character part. If I wanted advice on life I would definitely ask him.
It is always fair for someone to ask for a source, otherwise these discussions are only opinion.
I think we are still talking about what tsmog provided us.
Esoteric: A lot of people would agree with you about Nixon. Clinton falls in that category too. As some said, "He was a great president. If only he'd been a better person."
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BIDEN for driving gas prices so low in my area. Going to the show this evening I saw prices that ranged from $2.75 to $2.95. The last time gas was consistently this inexpensive (in inflation adjusted $) is May 2000
https://wallethub.com/edu/gas-prices-over-time/121770Just got back from watching a new movie out titled Reagan, basically a story of Ronald Reagan's rise to become President of the United States.
First, don't pay any attention to the critics! They have no idea what they are talking about. I think their distaste for the movie boils down to the format it was presented in.
The format was snippets of Reagans life as seen through the eyes of the KGB officer assigned to keep track of Reagan while the Soviet Union existed.
I personally thought it was a great movie that presented a very fair picture of our 40th president, It also reminded my why I voted for him twice. It covered the great things he did such as outspending the Soviet Union until they collapsed to the more unseemly things like lying to the American public (and then coming clean) about the Iran-Contra affair. It also presented a fair depiction of his slide into Alzheimer disease. All in all it was a very uplifting movie that I recommend to Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike.
Some notes:
While it actually focused more on his wooing of Gorbachev (and then pushing him to the wall with his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" line, it did lay down the groundwork for spending them into oblivion early in the movie where he was pontificating about how to beat the Soviets. (They did omit any reference to the massive debt Reagan was responsible for.)
Did you know Reagan was an FBI informant against a competing actor union leader who was pushing a communist agenda.
I thought Reagan's acting career was strong until shortly before he became governor of California - WRONG. It slowed down almost to a stop in 1952.
I also thought his time with SAG, but it turns out it was very important to his political career and his battle with the communists that had taken over many of the other film related unions.
What the movie didn't cover, however, was his rather draconian war on the helpless, such as homeless in California mental hospitals. Reagan was responsible for emptying out those hospitals and putting many of the people there back on the street. He also severely cut back on assistance to those who were in trouble through no fault of their own.
They also didn't mention that the tax cut for the wealthy was as much of a disaster as the one in 2002 and 2017. (In fact, my research shows only one tax cut since the end of WW II actually helped the economy.)
The final think the movie didn't highlight was that the Reagan (who was a born-again Christian) ushered in the beginning of the end of the Republican Party that he led by putting religious fanatics in charge of the party. I seriously doubt that was his intention and I certainly don't remember any of his rhetoric advocating along those lines, but his administration, especially the second one, made the religious right with all of their social restrictions mainstream.
Reagan, in my opinion was a man of great character (as was his wife, Nancy, a woman of great character) and he was what America needed to bring America back from the debacle of the Nixon legacy, Ford's pardon, and Carter's trouble with Iran. I am not at all unhappy I voted for him the first time despite his poor view on the needy. The movie also reminded me why voting for him the second time was a good idea because I forgot how pivotal he was in ending the Cold War diplomatically.
Why is this appearing in a forum on Biden? Because I see two men with a lot in common other than the role government should play in helping Americans in need. Even the presidential experts rank the two men equally, Reagan at 18 and Biden at 19.I didn't want to conflate my post about Reagan with Trump. But if you watch the movie and have clear-eyed view of Trump, you will see they are total opposites; Reagan would despise Trump for what he has done to America. Reagan was a man of great honor and honesty while Trump is basically a criminal seeking the Presidency again. Reagan had a great moral compass; Trump has none. Reagan did a reasonably good job at uniting America on most important things; Trump purposefully divides the country for his advantage.
People should be proud they voted for Reagan while people should feel no pleasure whatsoever for having or wanting to vote for Trump.My mother, (who died during the pandemic,) even though she had dementia stated, "Trump is no Reagan." Of course, she loved Reagan.
But isn't Trump close to Reagan in philosophy and political instinct?
Closer than Biden!Sorry to hear about your mother. A lot of people loved Reagan and many still do, although I think his approval ratings took a major hit the last couple of years of his presidency.
From what I see, Trump and Reagan's political philosophies are polar opposites; Here are a few:
Reagan was an internationalist while Trump is an isolationist
Reagan believed in free-trade while Trump does not
Reagan believed in small gov't in order for the federal gov't to stay out of people's lives (apparently he didn't mind small gov'ts dictating to the people) while Trump has used the federal gov't to force people to do what he wants - Dobbs decision being the big one.
Reagan was a life-long pro-lifer while Trump didn't used to be but is today out of political convenience
Reagan was a peace-maker while Trump is a bomb-thrower.
Biden and Reagan, of course, had different views, but both were principled. Trump's principals are transactional.
If anyone is interested, I just published a detailed analysis of what caused the post-pandemic inflation - http://hub.me/aqXAV
Mortgage rates keep falling - Thank You President Biden
Mortgage rates fall to lowest level since February 2023
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/economy/ … index.htmlOh yes, there is a mansion in Scarsdale, New York selling for $250K.
What does that have to do with the FACT that mortgage rates are falling?
I'll bet you think Trump won the debate with Harris on Tuesday night. (Hint: 63% of registered voters (which was weighted toward Republicans) who watched the debate said Harris won.
Now Trump is too scared to debate her again. Tired of getting led around by the nose by a black woman, I suppose.Mortgage rates are falling, but shelter costs (meaning housing) went up 5% - the largest single driving force in the latest inflation figures.
That may be true, but that doesn't seem to be a function of anything Biden did or the pandemic-caused inflation. It seems price-fixing is more the culprit.
https://coppercourier.com/2024/03/14/ma … t-arizona/
https://slate.com/business/2024/09/real … opoly.html
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/b … ice-fixingIf you have read my posts, you would know that is not true.
This was nice. He truly seems to be a good person.
Biden and MAGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bilmnglwZfcI disagree.
It was not nice. He put on the red "Make America Great Again" hat after saying, "I won't go that far!" Someone had called out, "Put it on!" That he did so is baffling, but it was a dare and he took it. Probably as a hideous, (in his mind,) joke.
After he put the hat over his hat, (not on,) he mockingly said, "Remember, no eating dogs and cats." (And there he was ... in an auditorium with children!)
Biden was condescending to the man who handed him that hat, asking if Biden would like HIS autograph. Biden said, "Hell no!"
He had said that the man reminded him of the guys he grew up with: "There was always one in the neighborhood."
He is not a man of the people. He is a man of his ego.You don't think the children haven't been inundated with Trump talking about eating cats and dogs? Where is your ire about that??
You do realize you are referring to pathological liar (a truth), a Sexual Predator (also a truth), serial felon (yet another truth), and a dangerous narcissist Trump?
Yes, I thought so as well when I heard it described on the radio. Those to showed how people who disagree should get along.
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 12 days ago
Trump will inherit "the strongest economy in modern history," "an economy primed for growth," "booming markets and solid growth," an economy that is "pretty damn good," and investments "flowing" to "rural and manufacturing communities."In...
- 15
Joe's Tale Of Three Pipelines
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Joe Do YOu Know What You Are Signing? Do You?January 20, Biden’s very first day as president, he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. He gave11,000 citizens that had high-paying jobs the boot, yeah pink slips. Most of these jobs were good-paying union jobs. While these unemployed American...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 3 months ago
There is good inflation and their is bad inflation. What we experienced from 2009 - 2021 was the good type of inflation, between 1 and 3% a year. What we are experiencing now between 5 and 9% inflation is bad inflation. What we experienced in the 1980s, 10 to 15% inflation is...
- 67
Did Putin Really Cause America's Inflation?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Biden blames everything but his government spending for the monthly growing inflation. Which now is at 8.5%, a 40-year high. Biden has gone through painstaking efforts to shirk responsibility for the state of America's failing economy, blaming meat conglomerates, oil companies,...
- 63
What are the Horrible Things President Joe Biden Has Done?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
There are some who applaud Joe Biden for what he has done FOR America. They believe that Biden is going to make America a better, more humane country. However, there are others who REALLY see what Joe Biden is doing TO America i.e. the Afghanistan fiasco, the continual migrant problem,...
- 1071
Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
by Tim Mitchell 4 months ago
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President. We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria...