What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
Fresh off the press from the right side of the aisle.
Fox News 2024 Voter Analysis
https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2024/ … z7wvky6kd8
Lengthy, but revealing survey.I picked SC because more minorities live in that state.
What is your racial or ethnic heritage?
+ White 2,167 91%
+ African American or Black 67 5%
+ Latino or Hispanic 64 2%
+ Other 132 3%
That says it all about the state of the Republican Party, doesn't it.
And the Republican witch hunt of President Biden continues. The Bidens-hater Bobalinski testified that the president is guilty of the RICO act when AOC asked him what Crimes he was accusing Joe of.
AOC pointed out that RICO itself wasn't a crime, so "what CRIMES are you accusing him of?". He didn't have an answer.
Constitutional Scholar and lawyer Ted Cruz took the bait and jumped in with both feet by saying RICO IS a crime. AOC and to teach this so-called lawyer the law and advised him that RICO is a statute. But to have it apply, certain kinds of crimes must have been committed.
Bobolinski and the Bobo-Republicans can't name any, lol.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=13ESO, could the issue actually be as simple as a Snickers Bar?
Interesting article..
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/it-cou … -sneakers/That was an eye-opening article. My take-away line was " Now? “Well, he got a bill passed on roads and bridges (the $1 trillion infrastructure bill) and I didn’t know that. I just tuned him out to tell you the truth. So, I’m listening now.”
Hopefully, some on this forum will similarly open their eye's and ears.Much appreciated, Cred! I was not only impressed with the reasoning why not to vote for Trump, but the literary prowess of the author. Funny, I buy a bag of Snickers fun size candy bars for my cheat-cheat go to for chocoholic pangs as a diabetic. It is only 10 carbs. Unsure of the 'shrinkflation'. A bag is 18 candy bars at $5.69/bag or $0.32 each.
Morning Consult has a poll out today that has Biden up 2 points in the general election. The interesting part is when you peel back the onion. When you do, you see why Trump will probably lose.
The independent voters are split evenly at 34% for Lying Trump or Biden. There are, however, 19% who want somebody else and and another 12% who don't know.
Other polling suggests strongly that most of the 19% will end up voting for Biden, rather than Trump, on election day. If the 12%, my guess is that they won't vote, or if they do, it will lean toward Biden based on the same data that if an independent is Forced to vote, it will likely be Biden who they vote for.Maybe need to check out the Gallop polls released last Friday.
Does it show how the independents break down?
(Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?
Republicans/Republican leaners 44%
Democrats/Democratic leaners 45%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/part … ation.aspxThank you, I can do some statistical analysis and see what is hidden in the numbers. I will be using the first chart where Republicans, Independents, and Democrats are separately identified.
Well, I plotted it all out (2004 - 2024) and came up with these observations (note, this data set says nothing about the original post regarding the Morning Consult results other than they both mention "independents".)
* Average Republican %: 28.7 +/- 3.3
* Average Democratic %: 31.7 +/- 2.9
* Average Independent %: 37.7 +/- 4.7 (that high SDV represents a lot of movement over time)
* The tighter SDV around the Democratic score says the percent Democrats has remained more consistent that the percent Republican
* I subtracted the Democrat % from the Republican % and summed the differences. The total was -1,204 which means the percent of Democrats consistently exceeded the percentage of Republicans
* There was a steady increase in the percent independents from 2004 until 2013 when it stopped growing. The post 2013 average is 41.3 with a standard deviation of 3.0
* The share of Republicans drop from 2004 to 2009 from 31% to 27% and has remained constant ever since.
* The share of Democrats has dropped steadily since 2004 from 34% to 29%.
* It appears that most of the gain in independents came from the Democrats which tends to explain why independents who don't like either Trump or Biden will lean toward voting for Biden.
* There were periods between 2006 and 2010 as well as 2012 and 2014 where the share of Democrats far exceeded that of Republicans. Those periods coincided with the economy going to hell under Bush and the recovery under Obama.
The good economic news keeps coming - Biden did it again, massively great job numbers.
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/ … index.htmlYet inflation and out-of-pocket costs continue to rise. Jan 3.09 3.15% for Feb 2024 Yikes!
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_infla … 203.28%25.
"Consumer prices rose 0.4% in February and 3.2% from a year ago. The consumer price index, a broad measure of goods and services costs, increased 0.4% for the month and 3.2% from a year ago. The monthly measure was in line with expectations while the 12-month reading was slightly higher.Mar 12, 2024" Just headed in the wrong direction...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/12/cpi-inf … %20higher.
"More than 1 in 3 Americans have more credit card debt than emergency savings. More than one in three (36 percent) U.S. adults had more credit card debt than money saved in an emergency savings account in both 2023 and 2024.Feb 22, 2024ericans are living on credit, and drawing from savings..."
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/saving … nd%202024.
"Americans' credit card debt hits record $1.13 trillion" Americans' credit card balances climbed to a new record high $1.13 trillion, according to data released Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/americans-cre … =106990807
Joe continues to break records.Inflation and out-of-pocket costs ALWAY rise except in Depressions and some Recessions. It is a fact of life. Another fact of life is that wages sooner or later catch up. I don't think in the current environment, the wage growth since 2022 has quite equaled the inflation growth, but it is close.
Wage growth exceeded inflation in 2023 and so far in 2024 by wider and wider margins. Experts expect total wage growth to surpass total inflation since mid-2021 by the end of the year wiping out the negative impact from the large inflation in the early years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbremen … cc6b5b2266
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbremen … cc6b5b2266Odd, but I never recovered from the inflation in the 80's. Or that of the recession in the 2000's. Nor will I recover from the current inflation as I am now on SS and that goes down (after real inflation) every year.
The news (CBS) the last two nights has had a segment on grocery prices. In 5 years it has gone up some 36% (as I recall), but income hasn't come close to that (about 15% as I recall). The tall tale that wages have risen with inflation is just that; a tall tale designed and intended to fool the public and garner Democrat votes.
Immigrants Get 100,000 New Jobs in One Month
Published Apr 05, 2024 at 11:54 AM ED
https://www.newsweek.com/immigrants-get … th-1887354This is from your link.
"Immigrants Get 100,000 New Jobs in One Month"
Last month gains came the largely from healthcare, government and construction sectors, according to the labor department. Healthcare added 72,000 new jobs while the government recruited 71,000 new workers and construction added 39,000 new employees.Healthcare and construction are some of the sectors that have been helped by an improved addition of immigrant workers, analysts suggest.
"In construction, leisure and hospitality and healthcare are all places where you tend to see a greater proportion of immigrants in those sectors, there certainly was a lot of backlog in terms of immigration that was supposed to take place but during the pandemic got distorted and so there's actually been a catch up effect there," Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America and a former Fed economist, told Newsweek.
Employers have shown a willingness to hire despite tightened financial conditions due to the Federal Reserve's hike of rates that have pushed up borrowing costs across the economy. Earlier this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that there were nearly 9 million job openings available for workers looking to get hired.That is good news, thanks. Why? Because without those workers, our GDP would be lower than it is.
Now, if they had taken jobs away from Americans who wanted them, that would be another story. But, that is not the case.Doesnt matter.
The title says immigrants (and we know why, same reason it was posted), but the statistics say foreign born, which include naturalized citizens. No?
Approximately 24.5 million foreign-born individuals in the
United States are naturalized U.S. citizens, representing
about half (53%) of the foreign-born population in 2022.
Havent find recent numbers. But the point is the same.
Maybe Im wrong. It's late.
Nope, sounds like you are correct. The slam includes U.S. citizens, apparently.
Yes, GDP would be lower without illegal aliens. And the GDP per capita would be higher - that illegal aliens produce product and income does nothing for the citizens that already live here. Instead, citizens must add to the income of illegals because they cannot produce enough to support themselves and pay their share of common expenses such as police, roads, schools and all the other things our taxes pay for.
So...net "benefit" for citizens is to pay for someone else to live in the country while celebrating that the GDP is up for the country but not for them.Why did you substitute "illegal" aliens in for "immigrants". We are not talking about undocumented asylum seekers.
Also, your whole line about undocumented immigrants has been debunked dozens of times. I would have thought you would have dropped it by now to save yourself the embarrassment or provided facts to back up your false claims.
I think it is time again for a primer on the Economics of GDP as it seems to me you are using false assumptions. One of which is that the immigrants who arrive in America are less productive than native born Americans (that is a racist conservative myth).
That is a provably false assumption as research proves. The opposite is actually true - https://www.cbpp.org/research/immigrant … harge-rule
FACT: in the medium and long-run the Gross Domestic Income (GDI) = the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
FACT: the formula for GDI is Compensation of Employees + Profit (less labor) + Gross Mixed Income from unincorporated businesses and the self-employed + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
FACT: Immigration brings people and families with lower than normal dependency ratios (they don't bring lots of kids) so that most of the immigrants join the labor force and add their higher productivity to the mix
FACT: Higher Productivity drives higher GDP and GDP per capita
FACT: The native born American population is in decline and has been for around 10 years or longer, I think.
FACT: A declining population leads to lower GDP and GDI and GDP per capita and GDI per capita. due to lower payrolls, less unincorporated businesses and self-employed.
FACT: A declining population leads to an older, less productive population which lowers GDP and GDI and GDP per capita and GDI per capita.
Because of all these factors and many more, America needs immigrants, even the undocumented kind, in order to survive. It is time Conservatives understand this.Do we truly require a sudden influx of millions of migrants that we must now accommodate, leading to various social issues exacerbated by inadequate vetting? I'm specifically referring to concerns regarding rising crime rates and health-related challenges introduced to our nation. The problems stemming from the multitude of migrants admitted under Biden's administration have only just begun to surface.
The majority of these people are low-skilled workers. We need skilled workers more than we need low-skilled workers. This only leads to more living in poverty in our Nation."Do we truly require a sudden influx of millions of migrants that we must now accommodate",
"An analysis by nonpartisan congressional economists shows how much the U.S. economy — and Social Security — depend on a growing immigrant workforce."
Here are some of the CBO’s most striking predictions for the next decade:
The U.S. labor force will grow by an extra 5.2 million workers, mostly because of increased immigration.
They will boost the country’s Gross Domestic Product by a total of 2%.
Immigrant workers will add an extra $7 trillion to the U.S. economy within the next decade and an extra $1 trillion in federal tax revenue.
New immigrants will prevent the U.S. population from shrinking. They will be the source of all U.S. population growth by 2042.
Our nation is shrinking and aging.
As more Americans retire, new immigrant workers will be largely responsible for expanding the labor force and funding Social Security.
The Social Security system has been in trouble for years. Payroll taxes on workers and businesses fund the benefits paid to millions of retired workers. But there are simply not enough people working to cover the cost.
In 1960, about 5.1 workers supported each person receiving a retirement or disability check, and that ratio has been shrinking ever since. In 2022, there were 2.8 workers for every beneficiary. So the current level of payroll taxes is no longer enough to keep the program afloat.
The Social Security Administration has cited many reasons for the crisis, but it basically comes down to this: More Americans are retiring, and they are living longer. And American adults aren’t giving birth to enough children to replace all the retiring workers in the labor force.
Undocumented immigrants and those with legal status pay billions of dollars each year into the Social Security system through payroll taxes. Based on estimates in a 2023 report from system trustees, the more immigrants that come in, the longer the Social Security system will stay solvent. That’s because immigrants, on average, are a lot younger than the overall U.S. population.
These are the realities of our nation. I realize that a lot of folks don't like it but not sure what the solution is otherwise.
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality- … mmigrants/The CBO has a long history of poor predictions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec … 40f53846a7
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion … 540568007/While I believe that the scenarios make good common sense, the CBO it's not the only body to bring out such concerns .
CATO (and many, many other) similarly state:
"The most critical challenge facing the United States today is its declining population growth rate. The U.S. population is growing slower than at any point in its history. Moreover, in 2022, international migration accounted for 80 percent of the meager 0.4 percent population growth. Without immigration, the U.S. population will start to decline by the 2030s. Already in 2022, about half of all the counties in the United States saw declining populations.
People are necessary to maintain buildings, roads, schools, hospitals, and businesses because population decline erodes property values and forces business and school closures.
This population death spiral has afflicted both urban and rural counties. Rural America saw a decrease in population for the first time in U.S. history in the last decade. Population aging or decline will reduce tax revenue per capita in nearly every state by 2030.
The costs of this decline are huge. The ratio of workers to retirees has plummeted since the 1960s, and the Social Security Trustees now estimate that Social Security will be short nearly 35 million workers to fund the system in the 2030s.
The most important economic challenge facing the United States right now is the decline in population and labor force growth. Fewer workers mean less production, higher prices, and lower tax revenues. Immigrants stand ready to address this challenge.
According to Brookings:
Immigration will make the difference between future population growth or decline
Makes perfect common sense to me.
How else do folks suggest to address these real issues we are facing now and look to be potentially growing worse? Where will these workers, needed to power our economy, come from?
Also, this is not a uniquely American situation either. Japan is finally facing up to its economic need for immigrants also. They are a great example of a Nation that's severely limited immigration, grew very old as a population and experienced a decline in births...the result?
A recession and them losing their place as the world's third largest economy. Maybe we could learn something?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Immigra … ation-woes
https://www.cato.org/testimony/unlockin … d%20public
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new- … opulation/And the CBO has a long history of correct predictions and are relied on by - guess who - Congress to make policy decisions.
Also, I personally knew some of the people who worked in the CBO (even thought about transferring there myself) and they were all hard working, experienced, and honest.
That assessment was echoed by Emory University's David Howard, PhD, who added, "It is hard to imagine other groups developing better predictions than the CBO."
The CBO's scoring of the GOP's American Health Care Act seems "perfectly logical to me," said Joyce. "What CBO found is [basically] that this is going to save a fair amount of money -- $337 billion over 10 years -- and it's going to mean a lot of people who would have health insurance now, won't have health insurance after the bill passes. It makes government smaller by guaranteeing that fewer people have government-sponsored or government-provided health insurance. That to me is the bottom line." - this was in 2017 https://www.medpagetoday.com/publicheal … lace/63834
Here is the CBO's own calculations on how well they did. Keep in mind, for estimations, +/- 10% is considered very good.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59682Once more, my original intent seems to have been misinterpreted. I want to clarify that I hold no disrespect towards the individuals working at the CBO. My point was simply to highlight their track record of occasionally being inaccurate. Predicting economic outcomes is inherently challenging due to the multitude of factors at play and the constantly evolving events.
I just don't feel a long-term prediction by the CBO regarding how migrants will affect the economy is something I can feel comfortable about, due to all the many evolving events that could occur.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec … 40f53846a7Sorry, that isn't what you said or implied. You said ""The CBO has a long history of poor predictions.". I don't see the word "occasionally" in there, do you? You couldn't put that word in there because it changes the whole meaning of what you wrote - which is that the CBO is terrible at predicting things, .i.e. The CBO has a long history of poor predictions.
So, I think I understood very well what your "original intent" was.
Now, you may not feel comfortable with their predictions, that is fine. But you tried to justify that feeling with a false premise that the CBO doesn't do a good job over all at such things when the opposite is actually true.As to the Forbes article, I suspect there conclusions would probably change if they were to repeat it today given the high popularity of ACA.
I can agree. In my view, ACA has become a positive option for many. I also think it most likely will have more Citizens using it due to the present economy. It offers good options for lower-income citizens and good healthcare to many who would have none.
The economy is very hard to predict. I feel this year will give us a good idea if we will see relief or if matters get worse with out-of-pocket costs. In the end, I think that is all that matters right now.
Based on this month's job numbers, there's a concerning trend: we're facing challenges filling tech positions, and there were no new jobs in manufacturing. The numbers indicate a significant portion of part-time, low-wage employment, which isn't sustainable for a thriving economy. This type of work can't sustain a country, especially considering the impact on tax revenue, which is declining and expected to worsen.
"After atypically strong growth in revenues in 2022, driven by record-high capital gains receipts and the historic recovery from the pandemic, revenues in 2023 fell to 16.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with individual and corporate receipts returning to lower levels in line with projections made after the ." https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing … fter%20the
https://economistwritingeveryday.com/20 … n-in-2023/"The numbers indicate a significant portion of part-time, low-wage employment, which isn't sustainable for a thriving economy." - If you fire all those low-wage, part-time employees, the economy would get better, which is what your statement implies to me.
Somehow, I don't think so.I am not saying the job numbers were not somewhat positive, only that it is important to realize the importance of who obtained jobs, and are many of these jobs are part-time. And how will these jobs equate to our tax revenue? I think it's always positive to see good stats. I am just pointing out the "guts" of the report. Which as you see are not that bad, but should be considered if we are talking about the job numbers. Or should we be selective of only the more positive stats?
U.S. job growth totaled 275,000 in February but unemployment rate rose to 3.9%
"Job creation skewed toward part-time positions. Full-time jobs decreased by 187,000 while part-time employment rose by 51,000, according to the household survey. An alternative jobless measure, sometimes called the “real” unemployment rate, that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time jobs for economic reasons rose slightly to 7.3%."
"From a sector standpoint, health care led with 67,000 new jobs. Government again was a big contributor, with 52,000, while restaurants and bars added 42,000 and social assistance increased by 24,000. Other gainers included construction (23,000), transportation and warehousing (20,000) and retail (19,000)."
We continue to have a shortage of tech workers as well as Zero manufacturing jobs was reported in the last jobs report.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/08/jobs-re … 75000.html
Our economy is lagging, and one only needs to follow al the sats to realize that.
"
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2024
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 303,000 in March, and the unemployment rate changed
little at 3.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred
in health care, government, and construction.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures
labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment
survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information
about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical
Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.8 percent, and the number of unemployed people, at 6.4
million, changed little in March. The unemployment rate has been in a narrow range of 3.7
percent to 3.9 percent since August 2023. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Blacks (6.4 percent) increased in
March, while the rates for Asians (2.5 percent) and Hispanics (4.5 percent) decreased. The
jobless rates for adult men (3.3 percent), adult women (3.6 percent), teenagers (12.6
percent), and Whites (3.4 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million, was
little changed in March. The long-term unemployed accounted for 19.5 percent of all unemployed
people. (See table A-12.)
Both the labor force participation rate, at 62.7 percent, and the employment-population ratio,
at 60.3 percent, were little changed in March. These measures showed little change over the
year. (See table A-1.)
The number of people employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million, changed little
in March. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part
time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See
table A-8.)
In March, the number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job, at 5.4
million, was little changed. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they
were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable
to take a job. (See table A-1.)
Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of people marginally attached
to the labor force, at 1.6 million, was little changed in March. These individuals wanted and
were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not
looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a
subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, was
little changed at 337,000 in March. (See Summary table A.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 303,000 in March, higher than the average monthly
gain of 231,000 over the prior 12 months. In March, job gains occurred in health care,
government, and construction. (See table B-1.)
Health care added 72,000 jobs in March, above the average monthly gain of 60,000 over the
prior 12 months. In March, job growth continued in ambulatory health care services (+28,000),
hospitals (+27,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+18,000).
In March, employment in government increased by 71,000, higher than the average monthly gain
of 54,000 over the prior 12 months. Over the month, employment increased in local government
(+49,000) and federal government (+9,000).
Construction added 39,000 jobs in March, about double the average monthly gain of 19,000 over
the prior 12 months. Over the month, employment increased in nonresidential specialty trade
contractors (+16,000).
Employment in leisure and hospitality trended up in March (+49,000) and has returned to its
pre-pandemic February 2020 level. Over the prior 12 months, job growth in the industry had
averaged 37,000 per month.
Employment in the other services industry continued its upward trend in March (+16,000). The
industry had added an average of 8,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. Employment
in other services remains below its February 2020 level by 40,000, or 0.7 percent.
Employment in social assistance continued to trend up in March (+9,000), below the average
monthly gain of 22,000 over the prior 12 months.
In March, employment was little changed in retail trade (+18,000). A job gain in general
merchandise retailers (+20,000) was partially offset by job losses in building material and
garden equipment and supplies dealers (-10,000) and in automotive parts, accessories, and tire
retailers (-3,000).
Employment showed little or no change over the month in other major industries, including
mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; transportation
and warehousing; information; financial activities; and professional and business services.
In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by
12 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $34.69. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have
increased by 4.1 percent. In March, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees edged up by 7 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $29.79. (See tables B-3 and
B-8.)
In March, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1
hour to 34.4 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was unchanged at 40.0 hours, and
overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 2.9 hours in March. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.9 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised up by 27,000, from
+229,000 to +256,000, and the change for February was revised down by 5,000, from +275,000 to
+270,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 22,000 higher
than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.)"
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmSo, what is the take aways from what you just presented?
* Unemployment fell back to 3.8% from 3.9%
* It is interesting that the Participation Rate is basically unchanged given the solid job growth in the last three months. Something behind the scenes must be going on.
* Even though Black UE increased a bit in March, I went and looked and saw that their participation rate is as high as it has ever been.
* Part-time workers were little changed.
* The 5.4 million who want jobs but aren't looking apparently aren't looking very hard given there is what, 9 million job openings businesses can't fill?
* The largest increases were in Healthcare (which has, overall, better than average wages) and Construction ($19/hr) as well as gov't workers (which generally has reasonable pay).
* Average hourly earnings continue to increase at a nice clip. The slope of the increase is greater from 2021 than any time previous back to 2007.
* No sector appears to have had a decline.
All-in-all, pretty good numbers, don't you think?
Add to that the fact that GDP growth ranged from 1.55% to 2.97% in the Obama - Trump years (prior to the pandemic) and Biden is at 5.95% and 2.06% and 2.5% in 2023. So, if you thought Obama's and Trump's economy was good, then you have to think Biden's is as well.Hey, It would seem you missed my first paragraph --- I have not indicated that the stats are not positive. Just took the conversation to consider all states where I said
"I am not saying the job numbers were not somewhat positive, only that it is important to realize the importance of who obtained jobs, and are many of these jobs are part-time. And how will these jobs equate to our tax revenue? I think it's always positive to see good stats. I am just pointing out the "guts" of the report. Which as you see are not that bad, but should be considered if we are talking about the job numbers."
There is no beef here...
Just being silly, Oops! Forgive me . . .
I'm forever, glad, there are economists who are able, with minds of acuity, to interpret such statistical data and arrive with summary conclusions. I, for one, am unable to.
Now ask me how to make an omelet, I will tell you pretty much the same thing. I know the recipe, yet, for the life of me can't make one like the video demonstrates how or picture illustrates is correct. I arrive upon the conclusion of the old adage, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
"I'm forever, glad, there are economists who are able, with minds of acuity, to interpret such statistical data and arrive with summary conclusions. I, for one, am unable to. "
I completely resonate with your perspective. While I leave the statistical analysis to the experts, it's evident that conflicting views often arise regarding the state and trajectory of the economy. Personally, I gauge the economy based on tangible factors such as my own expenses and how they impact me overall. Frankly, it's unsettling to witness a huge noticeable increase in costs across the board, with no real indication of improvement anytime soon.
Your analogy escapes me in regards to the subject at hand --- Yes sometimes in life eggs must be broken, and sacrifices or challenges must be faced to achieve the desired result. What do you elude to regarding what we are trying to achieve, and what would those desired results be?I wasn't eluding to anything. Just being silly.
I often use that anology, but was not sure what you alluded to. We were discussing the economy and stats. I felt you may have been saying we need to just buck up to the challenges of our lagging economy, and sacrifice accordingly. I guess I was too literal with the analogy. Hey, I find I do this frequently --- sorry
Your second link was wonderful, well thought out, and thorough. My take away from the analysis is that what drove the decline tax revenue wasn't really capital gains, although it did fall off some, it was the tax code itself and timing.
The tax code allows for inflation adjustments to the tax brackets to help prevent bracket creep due to inflation. Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, at least to me, this is a backward looking adjustment. That means the 2022 income tax brackets were unadjusted, but the 2023 tax brackets (even though personal income rose) were adjusted upward in 2023 by I think 7.1%, The effect of that was to lower tax receipts a lot in 2023, relative to 2022.I have been plotting the polls regarding what people are FEELING about Biden, relative to the economy.
From Nov 2023 through Mar 2024, the trend is definitely up. Meaning each high is normally higher than the last high and each low is also higher than the previous low.
If I extend the trend line that creates, Biden will be above water come November.
Highs:
11/16/23: 41
1/2/24: 40.8
1/30/24: 42.1
2/28/24: 42.2
4/2/24: 44
Lows:
12/13/23: 38
1/9/24: 39
3/26/34: 40.8
Well, you know, if it is anything good about President Biden or the Democrats, it can't be left unchallenged.
Too bad these Trump supporters just can't be happy with this positive economic news.
This is from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). It shows the Employment Level, Unemployment Rate, GDP, and Labor Force Participation Rate. There are many graphs available. on this site to show how the economy has performed from 1950 until now...have fun!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CE16OV
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/
What is to be gained by beating a dead horse? Would I call it an exercise in futility?
The "other side" would not give Biden any credit even if he could walk on water. Regardless of the amount of flowery oratory that fact does not change.
Am I hard on Trump? Yes, his record is simply unprecedented in the annuals of Presidential politics. And the conservatives reduce this all to "style" and personality"Inflation rose slightly to 3.5% in March. I have to keep reminding myself that this rate is right at the historical average and that the Fed target rate is a standard deviation below what most Americans have experienced over the last many decades. We go used to the abnormally low rates that followed the recovery from Bush's Great Recession.
This article had an interesting poll at the end, the results were not surprising:
1. Are you worried about inflation? It was split evenly between "worried a lot" and "somewhat worried". My choice of "not worried at all" came in with only 13%.
2. When shopping for food, which is more important, brand or price? My answer was "price by a lot" which garnered only 15% of the vote. The winner was "both are equally important to me" at 58%, which in today's environment surprised me.
3. For your next car purchase, will you: "Buy New" (my choice) - 35%; "Lease" - 6%; "Buy Used" - 38%; "Not Sure" - 20%
https://thehill.com/business/personal-f … 20index%20(CPI,March%20and%203.4%20percent%20annually.The NYT/Sinema poll released yesterday had some interesting demographic data in it.
First though, it shows Biden tightening up again among Likely Voters. In Dec, it had Biden +2, then in Feb it fell way back to Biden -4. Yesterday, Biden was at -1. All within the MOE.
In looking at the various questions asked in the poll several great divides show up. It basically centers around uneducated white men living in rural areas vs everybody else.
For example:
1. VOTE FOR BIDEN: Men-37%, Women-58%; Age 65+ - 52% (this is a reversal); BA+-57%, No BA-39%; White College (55%), non-White College(62%), non-White No College (62%) and White No College (31%); City/Suburb-60%/53%, Rural-30%; Independents-44% (but Independents skew Right 45% to Left 37%)
I was going to list more questions, but it becomes an eye chart. I'll let you look for yourself.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … stabs.htmlStates reported that 212,000 workers filed for new unemployment benefits during the week ending April 13, unchanged from the previous week’s revised level. The unemployment rate has remained under 4 percent over the past two years, the longest such streak since the 1960s.
WAY TO GO JOE!!!!Yep - he has done well to keep it only double what Trump did, given liberal policies and philosophies.
When do we officially become declared an insane society?
Utah School Kids Stage Walk Out Protest Against ‘Furries’
https://modernity.news/2024/04/18/utah- … t-furries/
Middle School Students Walk Out in Protest After School Leaders Allow “Furries” to Terrorize Them
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/0 … est-after/
Just wondering what the next 'minority' will become the most protected by the Biden Administration... MAPs or Furries?Fact check, I'm not sure if libs of tik tock is ever a credible source.
"Nebo School District spokesperson Seth Sorenson said that claim was false. He also said students at the middle school are not wearing full-body animal costumes to class, as “furries"
"Sorenson said the Wednesday protest seemed to be organized after a district message sent to families last week was misinterpreted."
"The group of students being targeted, he added, were students who sometimes come to school wearing headbands “that may have ears on them.” He said doesn’t think the targeted students necessarily refer to themselves as “furries.”
“These are pretty young kids,” he said. “You’ll have students that show up with headbands and giant bows; you’ll have students that show up dressed as their favorite basketball player, or baseball player. That’s just what kids this age do.”
"Nobody was taking the side of one group or another,” he said. “What we were saying is everyone needs to treat everyone else with respect.”
Cool idea!
https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2 … -district/And then the claim that the "furries" are barking, biting and scratching other students needs addressed. So far I haven't seen where the school responded to that claim.
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2024/0 … e-furries/
https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front … y-protest/
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2024/0 … e-furries/https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-wal … 00792.html
Libs of tik tock is a dumpster fire of misinformation. I would hope that anyone would fact check these stories. Doesn't seem to happen though.
The district administration from the school has spoken out. I also referenced the Salt Lake Tribune previously.
Cool idea, for sure, but it doesn't seem to be in Conservatives DNA to let people live their own lives.
So, you are saying Trump kept UE at 1.75%. You know what I am going to call that.
TRUMP BIDEN
2017 - 2018 4.4% 2021 - 2022 5.2%
2018 - 2019 4.0% 2022 - 2023 3.8%
2019 - 2020 3.8% 2023 - 2024 3.6%
2020 - 2021 5.2% 2024 - 4/2024 3.8%
What was it you said? Trump's UE rate was half that of Biden? Looks like liberal policies and philosophies beats out whatever it is Trump believes in. Wouldn't you agree?I like charts all one needs to know about Biden's sad economy in 8 charts
https://www.vox.com/politics/24094752/b … -inflationSad? That's just your warped perception, especially when you post an article that states:
'The Biden and Trump economies were both pretty good — but only one president has gotten credit'
'But Trump arrived in office when the economy was already pretty strong. He was “just riding on the coattails of a 10-year-long economic recovery...”
Global inflation has certainly affected the recovery from the pandemic. The sad part is that MAGA cultists think that a president can solve it overnight.I like charts ... all one need to know about Biden's great economy (remember, you called Trump's economy more than great, but it wasn't).
First, only 7 of those 8 charts matter, one is an opinion poll.
Chart 1: Consumer Confidence - for those of us who know how to look behind the curtain and actually understand what we are looking at, that is not a bad (it isn't great either) picture. What does it show?
That consumer confidence took a massive hit from Covid and it took another major hit when the pandemic-driven inflation inevitably happened (biased, partisan people wrongly blame Biden for that).
Actually, I, as an actual economic analyst, am impressed with how quickly it has recovered after that unprecedented double whammy. Inflation is just now under control and already the confidence index is shooting up.
Chart 3: Economic Growth - the Vox headline speaks for itself "US Economic Growth Is Exceeding Expectations". Biden has us growing at the same sustainable rate that Obama left America with and Trump didn't screw up.
Chart 4: Real Wage Growth - Again the Vox headline tells the story. After the inevitable inflation that has nothing to do with Biden (or Trump, for that matter) "Wages are catching up to inflation" Very Good News Indeed!!
Chart 5: Unemployment - A good analyst (or anyone looking at the chart who doesn't have a partisan agenda) will note the UE figures in the previous post and see immediately that Biden is doing better than Trump. More Good News!
Chart 6: Stock Market - Here, it doesn't take a professional economic analyst to see that Biden is beating the pants off of Trump - Great News!!
Chart 7: Personal Savings - Here, training in economic analysis comes in handy. It allows one to understand that what that chart shows is an expected outcome from both the pandemic and inflation. So, this chart is neutral.
Chart 8: Credit Card Debt - Likewise, any good analyst will tell you this is an inevitable outcome from the pandemic followed by the expected surge in inflation. It would be surprising if this (and Chart 7) showed anything different. Again, a neutral chart.
Thank you for proving Biden is doing a good job with the economy (as most economists are saying)It's quite amusing to witness attempts to argue that President Biden isn't accountable for our struggling economy. Given my perspective, I'm not surprised; it seems to be a common trend among liberals to shift blame in such situations. I find it rather entertaining, albeit concerning, to observe this pattern of reasoning. I stand firm in my views, finding a certain amusement in the ideological gymnastics often employed to deflect responsibility. (please note the content of my comment is my view)
I eagerly await the next inflation rate... Yikes we are headed in the wrong direction. So, how do you justify, your thoughts that Biden is doing a good job regarding our economy?
Feb 2024 -- "The consumer price index, a broad measure of goods and services costs, increased 0.4% for the month and 3.2% from a year ago. The monthly measure was in line with expectations while the 12-month reading was slightly higher. The core CPI rose 0.4% on the month and was up 3.8% on the year." https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/12/cpi-inf … he%20year.
March 2024 --- "Over the year ended March 2024, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 3.5 percent (not seasonally adjusted), after a 3.2-percent increase from February 2023 to February 2024. Prices for all items less food and energy increased 3.8 percent from March 2023 to March 2024.2 days ago" https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/consu … ch%202024.
April 2024 -- will be available May 15,Yeah, given your perspective, it's not surprising to see you assign all the blame to Biden either. Just another point of evidence in what many see as cultish thinking to deny any, or many, factors that took place before Biden's election that contributed to inflation (and by extension savings and credit card debt).
Isn't he the president after all? From what I see, leads me to my opinion. Biden's policies have led to a 40-year-high inflation rate, fueled by excessive government spending, borrowing, and printing of money. This has significantly devalued our currency. Throughout Biden's presidency, the burden of cost increases on consumers hasn't matched up with the challenges businesses are enduring, largely because of his questionable decisions.
Biden owns inflation: He bought it with massive spending and Americans are paying for it economically. Now, Biden’s afraid he will have to pay for it politically. Thank you Joe...
Sure he's the president, and he gets some culpability. But there was a previous president who's policies also contributed to the problem in a number of ways. You see, those of us who are rational can admit the fault of both and can look at the issue globally. Your assignment of ownership is nothing more than blind partisanship, continually. And laughably.When Trump departed the White House, inflation remained remarkably low, and despite some sluggishness, the supply chain was still operational. Trump navigated the challenges of COVID from January 2020 until his departure, ultimately overseeing the nation's shutdown. Remarkably, even during his final year, inflation remained subdued.
Operational? You couldn't buy toilet paper if you tried. Supply chains were damaged. He oversaw a 20% cut to global oil production. Around a third of small businesses closed during the pandemic. Sorry, but 'operational' is not functional when the economy reopened in January of 2021. He did a decent job keeping the economy afloat by pumping trillions into it with stimulus, but that was also a contributing factor to the inflation once the pandemic was over, now wasn't it? And when everyone was flush with cash, and those stimulus checks from Trump and Biden were ready to be spent, with 33% less businesses around, and supply chains damaged, voila - inflation. Again, both gave stimulus. Someday, maybe MAGA can admit these basic facts and their contributory effects, but with the brainwashing they are subjected to, it might not be possible without therapy.
Come on, Valeant. It is not fair presenting facts and solid logic.
The supply chain was operational?????? That is laughable. It was broken beyond belief, more than they every have in the history of the United States and his policies caused a little of it.
Nope, wait, I got that wrong. Trump was president during Covid and the collapse of the supply chains. That means HE OWNS both doesn't it?
Why didn't you say "Isn't Biden God after all?" That seems to be how you view his ability to control every aspect of what goes on in America.
Biden does not own inflation, that is nonsensical. You have been asked repeatedly to provide concrete examples of what Biden did to cause long-term inflation growth. You have never offered up a single example that passed muster. But, there is a good reason for that, it doesn't exist.
That leaves you with just repeating endlessly the false nothing that Biden caused inflation. I'll do you one better. Since Covid happened on Trump's watch, by your logic, Trump must have caused Covid. Agreed?
Again with these vague criticisms - "questionable decisions". WHAT questionable decision are you talking about? It can't be the American Rescue Plan because most economists say that AT BEST, that raised inflation 3 points for a short period of time.
So what are those decisions then?
Pretty sure when someone can convince thousands to show up to 'Stop the Steal,' the country's been insane long before any furry protest. Any sane American could identify they were being lied to in that example.
The Kennedy Effect.
Right now polls are inconclusive on who Kennedy will hurt the most, Biden or Trump.
Here are four recent polls.
NBC News: Biden gained 4 points when the other candidates were added to the mix
Emmerson: Trump gained 1 point
NYT/Sinema: No change
I&I/TIPP: Trump gained 3 points.As an aside, which you may find interesting, is TMZ on 4/13 ran a poll regard the effect of RFK Jr. Note how many participants for each there were while considering the audience demographics.
Joe Biden = 52%
RFK Jr. = 48%
Participants = 73,958 across the nation
Donald Trump = 36%
RFK Jr. = 64%
Participants = 71,241 across the nation
https://www.tmz.com/2024/04/13/polls-you-be-the-judge/
Demographics
18 - 24 = 8.98%
25 - 34 = 22.81%
35 - 44 = 24.38%
45 - 54 = 20.93%
55 - 64 = 14.62%
65+ = 8.27%
Female = 49.23%
Male = 50.77%
The US is 77.79% of their market for viewership
https://www.similarweb.com/website/tmz.com/#geographyYou are right, that is very interesting. No wonder both sides view Kennedy as a serious challenge to their candidacies.
I also find it interesting that there are very few of us old farts who are into entertainment who like to take polls, lol.
The demographics was for their viewership, not the polls, yet same difference in essence. Yes, us 'old guys/gals' don't seem to be into the entertainment/celebrity world. However, those younger generations that do, vote. I haven't checked by generation the percent that votes, yet that would be interesting with the poll above.
I watch TMZ Live on TV every morning at 4 am on a local station. It runs the previous day broadcast then. I like to keep up with what the younger generations are into. You know, see who is divorcing who, what Kanye West is up to, which rapper is pissed off at which rapper, who is starting a new business enterprise, what the effect of Taylor Swift is recently, who has been arrested and for what, what sports stars celebrities are up to, and etc. A peek at 'X' shares what that voting population is up to as well.
Could mean one of two things:
1.) RFK is about even with Biden with the TMZ crowd if it was between the two
2.) Trump is really unpopular with the TMZ crowd
Anyone else wondering why they didn't put Trump vs. Biden as an option?I can go along with the two observations. As to why not Biden v. Trump or Trump v. Biden v. RFK Jr. I can only guess there interest was RFK Jr. When the show aired sharing the poll results there was naturally a discussion between the two hosts about how the different generations view RFK Jr. as an option.
Biden finally has a poll that puts him over 51% in the general election - 51% - 48%. (RCP if you want to look it up).
,
In all the polls reported in April by RCP, Biden leads in 3 (25%), Trump in 7 (58%), and tied in 2 (17%).
In March that was 10 (43.5%), 10 (43.5%), and 3 (13%), respectively.
In February that was 2 (10%), 17 (80%), and 2 (10%), respectively.
And finally in January that was 4 (17%), 15 (66%), and 4 (17%), respectively.
There seems to have been a major shift between January and April.Shift from:
1.) Trump sitting a courtroom?
2.) Trump claiming responsibility for Roe?
3.) Trump short-circuiting in rallies?
4.) People realizing he has no solutions to America's problems?One of the benefits of President Biden's bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill is it scored him an early endorsement from a major union - the North America's Building Trade Union, 3 million strong.
Its leader said "It’s “almost like the perfect leader was sent at the perfect time for working people,” NABTU President Sean McGarvey told CNN about Biden in an interview announcing the endorsement."It is becoming very clear now that RFK Jr. is hurting Trump more than Biden. It also appears Biden is inching up on Trump in head-to-head matches as well.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … -of-polls/Another sign that President Biden is keeping our economy strong in spite of all the naysaying from the Right - Jobless Claims fall again.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-w … y-2a97bc79Former President Trump blamed President Biden for a disappointing GDP growth report from the U.S. Commerce Department on Thursday.
The Commerce Department says the GDP grew by just 1.6% on an annualized basis in the three-month period from January through March. That is lower than the 2.4% increase forecast by LSEG economists and marks a sharp slowdown from the 4.9% pace seen during the fourth quarter.
Trump blasted Biden over the report, saying his presidency has been a disaster for the American economy.
"As you probably have heard, some very big things have happened. But the biggest seems to be that the GDP just announced to all the way down to 1.6% and it's heading south. It's going to get worse. Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. Energy costs are going way up and the stock market is, in a sense crashing. And the numbers are very bad. This is Bidenomics. It's catching up with them," Trump said.
"We have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country," he added.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/april … t-immunity
Source to fact-check gas prices - Gas is at $7.00 a gal. not $7.60 as of yet.
https://kyma.com/news/california-news/2 … er-gallon/
Source -- "GDP Grew Only 1.6% in Q1 in First Sign of Slowing Growth as Businesses Trimmed Inventories, Imports Surged - The downshift could mean the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates sooner than had been expected. In what could be the first significant sign the U.S. economy may be slowing from the weight of higher interest rates, gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 1.6% in the first quarter."
"That is well below the 2.2% consensus forecast and comes after a string of hotter-than-expected GDP reports dating back to last fall."
https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/art … A06%20a.m.
Wonder what the May 15, 2024 inflation rate will reveal.
"Trump blasted Biden over the report, saying his presidency has been a disaster for the American economy." - Since Trump is a known serial liar, the truth must be that Biden's presidency has been a godsend for the American economy.
"https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/april … t-immunity" - Since Lying Fox News is well known as - well being less than truthful, in fact even lying then the opposite must be the truth, which is Biden is the Best President ever.
What? Do you find these stats not factual? I sourced the stats. "The Commerce Department says the GDP grew by just 1.6% on an annualized basis in the three-month period from January through March. That is lower than the 2.4% increase forecast by LSEG economists and marks a sharp slowdown from the 4.9% pace seen during the fourth quarter."
I sourced all I offered. I sourced Trump's quote from Fox News.
I sourced he was off on his evaluation of gas prices by offering FactCheck
Source to fact-check gas prices - Gas is at $7.00 a gal. not $7.60 as of yet. https://kyma.com/news/california-news/2 … er-gallon/
You just don't truely read comments before you comment. When I offer what is thought of as facts such as stats, I always source my posts. As one can see in the comment you are questioning due to being from Fox News. I fact-checked Trump's quote concerning stats and offered a resource to show he was wrong. In my view, It's a waste of time to respond to your comments, you don't appear to comprehend or read the comments you respond to.If Lying Fox news writes something, it needs to automatically be fact checked. In any case, I wasn't referencing most of the numbers presented, but Fox reporting that Biden was the worst president ever - a known lie.
As to you claiming I don't read comments, how do you know. I make the same claim about you. It is obvious that is often true because I present undeniable facts that refute what you say, yet you keep on saying it.
As to you insulting my comprehension, I think you are projecting you on to me.
As to the $7 gas you offered as skyrocketing gas prices, why didn't you also report, in order to present a balanced picture, "In Menlo Park, one gas station is listing prices at over $7 per gallon. However, according to AAA, the state average currently sits at $5.43 per gallon; a 48 cent increase over this time last month." and highlighting the part I bolded which tells the true story without innuendo.Here is the permalink to my comment -- you need to read it carefully.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4328338
"If Lying Fox news writes something, it needs to automatically be fact checked. In any case, I wasn't referencing most of the numbers presented, but Fox reporting that Biden was the worst president ever - a known lie"
You did not correctly read the Fox article -- they were quoting Trump he stated " Biden was the worst president ever". So call him a liar.
And yes I fact-checked Fox, as I always do. As I fact-checked Trump on the gas price of $7.60 quoted --- he was not correct, and I noted that he was off on his quote on gas prices in California. I need not offer any form of comparison, I was simply pointing out that TRUMP WAS WRONG. I am not writing a book, I was critiquing what he said... I was not writing an article on the rising gas prices across the nation. You need to read the entire comment, you need to consider the context.
"As to you claiming I don't read comments, how do you know. I make the same claim about you. It is obvious that is often true because I present undeniable facts that refute what you say, yet you keep on saying it."
You rarely source, so no I do not take much of what you post as fats. It would be easier if you labeled your comments as your view.
Regarding my source on what Gas is going for in California, I posted a source from California. Here are a few other sources
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/price-ga … 00459.html
https://www.newsweek.com/california-gas-hits-7-1893336
Here in Michigan we are seeing gas at $3.90 and rising.
Q3 2022 - 3.2%
Q4 2022 - 2.6%
Q1 2023 - 2.2%
Q2 2023 - 2.1%
OH MY, the Sky is Falling
Q3 2023 - 4.9%
OH, I guess the sky isn't falling.
Q4 2023 - 3.3%
Still strong growth.
Q1 2024 - 1.6%
OH MY, the Sky is Falling Again.
Now Let's Look at TRUMP
Q4 2017 - 4.1%
Q1 2018 - 2.8%
Q2 2018 - 2.8%
Q3 2018 - 2.9%
Q4 2018 - 0.7%
WOW! A crash!
Q1 2019 - 2.2%
Q2 2019 - 2.7%
Q3 2019 - 3.6%
DAMN, RECOVERY
Q4 2019 - 1.8%
ANOTHER CRASH
Q1 2020 - (-4.6%)
Q2 2020 - (-29.9%)
If this were a Democratic President, REPUBLICANS would be screaming that it was the President's fault. Democrats, on the other hand, know what to blame - the pandemic.
Q3 2020 - 35.3% WOW Great! RIght?
Q4 2020 - 3.9% REPUBLICANS would call this a disaster.
THEN BIDEN comes in to save the day.
Q1 2021 - 6.3%
Q2 2021 - 7.0%
YEP, you sure can tell a lot from one month's report can't you.
Just the latest example of whining about the problem and its solution. The right whines about inflation, then when there's a downturn in spending to slow inflation, they whine about that. And a 4.6% and 1.9% in two quarters still averages over 3%. Still a nice average for half a year.
Biden has this country in a poor economy, and it is the poorest that are hurting the worst.
"Prior research suggests that inflation hits low-income households hardest for several reasons. They spend more of their income on necessities such as food, gas and rent—categories with greater-than-average inflation rates—leaving few ways to reduce spending."
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/econ … ending%20.
Hopefully, they are taking notice of what Joe has done for them... Hopefully they whin very loudly.
Is it just me or does the MAGA crowd buy into the gross exaggerations of their leader nowadays? One fairly normal quarter of growth in the cycle and the economy is tanking.
It's why no one really takes them seriously any longer. They attempt to weave these false realities where they are great and the people they oppose are the worst thing that ever happened to anything. I just can't figure if it's the cult-like brainwashing or just low self-esteem that makes them think this way.I go with the cult-like brainwashing.
In other research I have done on this phenomenon, the lengths captivated people like this will go to deny obvious reality is mindboggling. One of their favorite go-tos is Projection. Try to make their opponent have even worse characteristics than the demagogue they are worshiping.
OMG, the SKY IS FALLING again, or so those on the Right will say.
While Consumer Spending improved yet again (Biden had nothing to do with that they will say), jumping 0.8% from the month before. Economists were expecting a 0.5% gain, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) that is the Fed's favorite inflation gauge, jumped an extraordinary high 0.2%, a whopping 0.01% higher than what economists predicted. Of course, while Biden had nothing to do with the improved consumer consumption, the Right will say this terrible increase in PCE is 100% Biden's fault.
Now that we have gotten past the Trump-world make-believe, let's get to the reality of the situation. The reality is that the PCE is not a stable number, it goes up and down. For example, in Nov it was 2.7%, in Dec it was 2.6%, in Jan it was 2.4% (where was the cheering from the Right then?). In Feb it increased to 2.5% and now in Mar it went back up to 2.6% (notice that is still lower than Nov).
Now, in the month of March, I watched my local gas prices jump between $3.39 to $3.79, sometimes from one day to the next and lately in the same day. Right now as I drove past one gas station yesterday it was $3.39 (even though it was $3.69 the day before) and when I went past the next station of the same brand, it was $3.79. Go figure.
Well when you strip out price manipulation like that (can it be anything else?) and other volatile items, the PCE was unchanged at 2.8% from the month before.
This is pretty close to the Fed goal of 2% (PCE). I didn't realize the PCE is used for the goal and not the CPI, which runs about 1% higher.
Most of the conversation in this forum references the CPI. Well, as it turns out, the CPI is much closer to the target of (what I guess would be) 3% than I thought. Much better news.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/economy/ … index.htmlOr if you knew Trump was wrong because you fact-checked him, it's a wonder why one would choose to post the falsehood from him. Were you trying to show him to be a liar to all of us? And when one posts some truths and some falsehoods, it kind of undermines all the claims.
I have little concern for proving whether Trump lied or told the truth to you or anyone else here. It's up to individuals to read his words and consider my sources. I believe most people here are intelligent enough to view the post and the sources simply as a presentation of what Trump said on a break from the courtroom without further interpretation. And to also note I made no claims nor did I share a view.
And if anyone wanted to listen to Trump's complete BS, they could go search it out to hear him peddle his lies. To knowingly post things he's clearly lying about seems odd to me.
Just a reminder, there's a moderator overseeing this forum. If they find any issues with my posts, I trust they'll inform me about it or cite the rules. I'll continue to post what I deem appropriate for the Political forum.
I understand it might be unsettling for you when someone posts something that contradicts your beliefs. However, it's important to recognize that there are individuals here who do support the Republican party and Trump and do not find his statements BS. So, it would seem if you have problems with my posts, that would be your problem.It's not about posting something that 'contradicts beliefs.' It's looking at a quote, understanding that it's clearly misinformation, such as a $7 price of gas, and deciding to post it anyway. I just don't agree with willfully spreading misinformation.
In the link that was posted about the gas, it clearly states the average price in California is something like $5.45 per gallon - a fact that was hidden from us and amplifies the idea that this was purposeful misinformation.
I offered a source from a California outlet. For days several outlets have reported that gas prices have reached $7.00 and more in California,. I am reporting your comment, I find it uncalled for and a personal insult that you have posted I post misinformation.
Well, I cannot help if people feel insulted when their comments are challenged for taking the most extreme price gouging and trying to portray that as the norm. And I've reported you as well then for these baseless threats.
You did not challenge me, you openly said I spread misinformation. I did not threaten you, I informed you openly. Which I think is only fair to do.
SHARLEE01 WROTE:
I offered a source from a California outlet. For days several outlets have reported that gas prices have reached $7.00 and more in California,. I am reporting your comment, I find it uncalled for and a personal insult that you have posted I post misinformation.--
I trust the moderators will review your post, where you accused me of deliberately spreading misinformation. I hope they examine the entire conversation thoroughly. I am confident they will notice my comment along with the sources I provided to support my statement. As I mentioned, the increasing gas prices have been widely reported for several days. The link I selected provides a conservative perspective on the rising gas prices in California this week.And this is your quote:
'Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60.'
There is a very remote station in the middle of nowhere (Gorda) that is charging that price. It is routinely the highest in the nation. So, no, gas prices in California were not announced at $7.60, one very remote station is charging that price. A pair of stations are price gouging people, if you include the Menlo Park station that is charging more than a dollar more than all the local stations. I will stand by my claim that this distortion is misinformation, especially when the state average is $5.42.The link I offered did offer AAA evaluations, the link was informative, and showed different evaluations of gas prices in different areas all showing and making my point --- Trump's evaluation was off. Did you look at my source in regard to gas prices? I had no agenda, I offered AAA evaluation clearly in my source. All one needs to do is view the link. https://kyma.com/news/california-news/2 … er-gallon/
Article -- "MENLO PARK, Calif. (NBC, KYMA/KECY) - The cost of gas seems to be on the rise again.
AAA says the average price for a gallon of regular gas currently sits at $3.67 nationwide; that's a 15 cent increase over this time last month. But in California, those prices are even higher. In Menlo Park, one gas station is listing prices at over $7 per gallon. However, according to AAA, the state average currently sits at $5.43 per gallon; a 48 cent increase over this time last month.
The price hikes are in line with the rise of gasoline futures, which have gone up nearly 29% this year alone, according to AAA.
Last week, however, a Biden administration official said the White House is focused on keeping gas prices affordable, and would consider tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve if warranted."
That quote you mentioned is directly from Trump as cited in the article I shared from Fox. (Which a left the source). After fact-checking, I discovered that his statistics was inaccurate. I provided a link to a source based in California that debunked the claim of gas being priced at $7.60. If you scroll back a few pages to my original post, you'll see that I quoted Trump and provided sources for all the statistics he referenced. The fact that California gas prices are going up is being well reported for over a week now.
https://www.today.com/video/gas-prices- … 9527877641
https://moneywise.com/investing/stocks/ … ornia-citySo, you admit that you found his stat off, and still chose to post it. That's pretty much my point. It was recognized as misinformation, and the choice was still to spread it. I would have just chosen to omit that part if I knew it to be a clear falsehood or gross exaggeration.
You jumped ahead before I finished my post.a full quote from my source that was posted in my first comment on this subject. My quote certainly showed AAA evaluation. All you need to do is read the source.
Admit -- The entire first comment was to show he was off. What is wrong with you? Did you ever read the first post? I think anyone that reads my first comment will recognize my point, and that I fully fact-checked my information.Sorry, I didn't see any quote from the AAA. I only saw the Trump quote you posted, a note that the $7.60 was actually $7.00 (a distinction without a difference) and the source. There was nothing about the average gas price being around $4.75 or so.
It was in the source, I assumed my source gave a true picture of the situation. And debunk Trump's evaluation. I took good care to source all the stats as well as Trump's quote. Feeling it would show a non-biased view. And to prevent anyone from thinking I would post stats that were misinformation... Did you not also fact-check the other stats in his quote ( GDP Grew Only 1.6%) And offered a source. Which showed he was correct.
Jumped ahead? You posted it and then edited it twice. Even stating I 'jumped ahead' is a distortion.
So, your aim was to help us prove that Trump lies then? Great, welcome to the team. However, like I said previously, many of us do not need to see Trump's lies here in these forums. His words hold little to no credibility with many of us because we know he lies about everything.I is disappointed she doesn't get the impact her words have when given without context.
For example, let's say I quoted Trump as saying “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning?”
And then I provided a link which proves he said it, but at the same time discredits the notions.
I wonder how many people reading that would believe that to be true even though it is not. (BTW, "accidental" poisonings increased soon after Trump said those words.)
That is the definition of spreading misinformation.
For it not to be, I should have written "Trump said “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning?” Followed IMMEDIATELY by something like "the link below shows that statement is dangerous BS and should not be believed."
Now, I am countering Trump's disinformation with the truth. Without the caveat, I am just spreading his lie regardless of what the link says.I respectfully maintain that I have no obligation to provide evidence to you or anyone else. Additionally, I understand that not everyone may share the same perspectives, and that's perfectly acceptable. In this open forum, I aim to contribute content that I deem suitable for a political discussion. As I've previously mentioned, if you believe any of my posts violate the rules of this platform, please feel free to report them. Rest assured, I will also report any posts that I believe stray from the established guidelines.
You keep inventing that we have a problem with your post because it 'violates the rules of this platform.' We've stated from the opening, that we more have the issue with reposting Trump's falsehoods, falsehoods that were even noted in the post.
And sure, people have the right to post that kind of content. But I'm not the only one that will challenge that kind of misinformation when it's spread in these forums. So, go ahead and exercise your rights to post what you wish and we will exercise ours to challenge when we believe something to be false, grossly exaggerated, or openly misinformation.Unfortunately, hubpages doesn't appear to have a policy prohibiting the spreading of disinformation or misinformation, even dangerous ones such as my example of Trump's "disinfection". So it is up to people like us push the truth against such lies.
Offering the link isn't the point, in my opinion. It is leaving " "Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. " hanging out there as if it were true without pointing out that it was misleading hyperbole is the point.
You even fact-checked it yet you failed to point out to the reader that the average price was $3 Lower than Trump's inflated numbers. The point, from where I stand, is you wanted to leave the impression that gas in California was at $7."Offering the link isn't the point, in my opinion. It is leaving " "Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. " hanging out there as if it were true without pointing out that it was misleading hyperbole is the point."
WHAT OMG --- I did not say gas was $7.60 it was a quote from Trump. Read to comment note Trump quote the price of Gas being $7.60... I pointed out with a factcheck he was WRONG and offered an article to prove that he was WRONG, and the article also GAVE AAA evaluation. Which proved him wrong. Again you do not understand the context or you are selecting words without looking at a full paragraph.
PLEASE READ THE SOURCE --- NOTE IT OFFERS AAA EVALUATION OF GAS PRICES IN CALIFORNIA. I assumed anyone interested would look at the source, I am not obligated to write a book here. I assume most who are concerned or question my post would check out the link.
"Article -- "MENLO PARK, Calif. (NBC, KYMA/KECY) - The cost of gas seems to be on the rise again.
AAA says the average price for a gallon of regular gas currently sits at $3.67 nationwide; that's a 15 cent increase over this time last month. But in California, those prices are even higher. In Menlo Park, one gas station is listing prices at over $7 per gallon. However, according to AAA, the state average currently sits at $5.43 per gallon; a 48 cent increase over this time last month.
The price hikes are in line with the rise of gasoline futures, which have gone up nearly 29% this year alone, according to AAA.
Last week, however, a Biden administration official said the White House is focused on keeping gas prices affordable and would consider tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve if warranted."
Permalink https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4328338
At this point I can promise, I have no intentions of answering or responding to any of your posts. I truely don't appreciate your indication that I posted misinformation. If you troll me, and I find you posting an inappropriate comment I will report the comment. If you feel I have added any misinformation to be factual, I suggest you also report the comment.
In this case, I did not report you, because I can clearly see you did not truely read my comment in full, and certainly did not have a look at my source or you would have noted it included AAA evaluation did you note the trump quote I provided, and fact-checked as being false.
Here are excerpts of the post that started this thread.
"... "As you probably have heard, some very big things have happened. But the biggest seems to be that the GDP just announced to all the way down to 1.6% and it's heading south. It's going to get worse. ..."
"Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. Energy costs are going way up and the stock market is, in a sense crashing. ... "
"We have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country," he added.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/april … t-immunity
Source to fact-check gas prices - Gas is at $7.00 a gal. not $7.60 as of yet.
https://kyma.com/news/california-news/2 … er-gallon/
Most of what you quoted (and since you didn't present any context, you get to own it as yours) is misinformation in the way it was presented. To me, that means you endorse and are spreading the misinformation.
* Trump correctly points out that the latest GDP was 1.6%. But then he misleads people by saying " the GDP just announced to all the way down to 1.6% and it's heading south. It's going to get worse." Couldn't you have at least add context that the rates go up an down and between Q2 2023 and Q3 2023, that the rate, to use Trump's hyperbolic terms, SKYROCKETED from 2.1% to 4.3%? Nor did you point out that there is no way Trump could know it will get worse.
* You posted, without context, that Trump said "Gas prices in California were just also announced at $7.60. Gasoline is going way up. Energy costs are going way up and the stock market is, in a sense crashing. ... Didn't you just leave it there without challenging it as obviously misleading based on the source you provided? And yes, you did point out that Trump's $7.60 was wrong, but you left out that the AVERAGE price of gas in California was around $4.75 or something like that. Isn't that spreading misinformation by NOT pointing out that your source contradicts Trump's claim?
* You posted ""We have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country," he added.", and just left it hanging without pointing out that the experts disagree with him. You could have sourced the Wikipedia report that clearly makes a lie out of what Trump said.
* In another post you say "Here in Michigan we are seeing gas at $3.90 and rising." I will counter that by saying here in Florida we are seeing gas at $3.59 and falling.
I did a different kind of statistical analysis on Biden's Approval numbers. It came up with a slightly different view that what I had been calculating.
The polls (all from RCP) look at either All Voters, Registered Voters, and Likely Voters. When I have all three grouped together and look at the numbers in half month segments, I see a slight upward trend for Biden. It turns out that might be an artifact of having more Likely Voter polls in the more current polls. Why do I say that? Because as one moves from All voters to Likely Voters, Biden's numbers improve.
That said, the RV and LV groups appear relatively constant over time while All Voters is improving. But as you focus on the Likely Voters, there is a noticeable improvement in Biden's ratings. From Nov the results are:
All Voters - Biden 38
Registered Voters - Biden 40.8
Likely Voters - Biden 42.0
RCP average of recent polls - Biden 40
That tells me three things:
1. Biden's message is not getting through to Registered or Likely Voters,
2. Biden's message is getting through to the public at large.
2. He is in a bit stronger position than some people think.This is how you report bad news about your preferred candidate - you don't hide it as others here do.
This is a sad report from CNN for Biden and America. (this is something Lying Fox News would report if the results were reversed)
* Overall, Biden is still suffering from the understandable but still misperception that he caused inflation everywhere in the world. - His approval rating has fallen from 50% in Oct 2021 to 40% today (although that is a gain of 3 percentage points since Nov 2023.
* Likewise, Biden's economic approval rating dropped from ~50% in Sep 2021 to 30% in Jul 2022 where it has bounced around (in spite of a provable improving economy) ever since and is at 34% today.
* Biden's best approval ratings is with Healthcare and Student Loan debt at 45% and 44%, respectively. His lowest is not Inflation but is the Gaza war at 28%.
* There is a glimmer of good news for Biden in that those who think the economy is good has risen from a terrible 18% in Jul 2022 to a dismal 30% today. (If I extend that trendline out until Oct, it will be at 38% if the trend is linear, lol)
Note also that his holds true for Trump. In April 2020, it plummeted to 39% and then 34% from 69% (which is where I would argue it should be at today)
* THIS ONE is surprising! Q3. Which of the following changes do you think would do the most to improve your view of the US economy if it happened?
No, the answer is NOT lower inflation (37%). Nor is it a positive change in your financial situation (14%). IT IS who becomes president (41%)!!!! So, that tells me a whole lot of people really don't care that much about inflation or how well they are doing.
Let's Drill Down Deeper: The demographic who cares more about who is president that economic well being are White (51%), Male (44%), 50+ years old (60%), earns > $50,000 (43%), Republican (61%), Conservative (60%), and not a college graduate (57%).
The demographic who thinks the inflation or well-being is more important are People of Color (69%), Female (56%), less than 50 years old (64%), College Graduate (56%), Democrat (77%), and Liberal (62$)
That is absolutely amazing given that Trump's pre-Covid economy is roughly the same as Biden's current economy.
I'll save it here so it doesn't disappear on me and carry on later with some very interesting results.* Biden Favorability is worse than his Performance rating, it stands at 35% in this poll. Digging deeper provides some interesting results.
** People of Color will vote for him, but they don't think much of him with 39% favorability
** Older people, 65+, and College Graduates (both White and non-white) have a much better opinion with 44% and 43%, respectively.
** Only 72% of Democrats view him favorably. This is influenced by the Liberal wing where only 68% view him favorably (although they do see his job performance in a much better light).
* Independents have a poor opinion of both Trump and Biden at 28% and 30% respectively.
* By far and away, the two most important issues to registered voters is the Economy (92%) and the threat to Democracy (81%). So long as Americans have the misperception that the economy is bad, that hurts Biden. Offsetting that is American's real fear that our Democracy is under attack, which is a Biden strong point.
* Following those are Healthcare (79%),Immigration (76%), Crime (76%), Gun Policy (73%), and Abortion (69%). The latter will drive the woman's vote.
Hopefully, this analysis is correct and gas prices, which President Biden has nothing to do with but many here falsely blame him for anyway, will be settling down soon and lowering.
On Wednesday, I bought gas for $3.49/gal. On Thursday, when I drove by again, it was $3.79/gal. That is your REAL CULPRIT - corporate greed and price manipulation.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/30/business … index.htmlIt ISN'T corporate greed but Biden. Biden is the REASON for all this inflation.
GMW: If only it were that simple.
Monthly Labor Review: "The United States was experiencing a period of low inflation before 2020. Then, in early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) created various market problems, causing prices for goods and services to rise."
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2023/beyon … r-2020.htm"So, from this research, the authors find that three main components explain the rise in inflation since 2020: volatility of energy prices, backlogs of work orders for goods and service caused by supply chain issues due to COVID-19, and price changes in the auto-related industries."
It absolutely amazes me the power some people erroneously give to Biden, they make it like he is a god and can wiggle his finger and poof, the price of gas increases 50 cents at my local gas station.
In the real world, we know it was the pandemic that caused this round of inflation as Kathleen correctly pointed out. It is only in the fantasy world of Trump where it is possible to have a different reason.Why not? Trump waggled his finger and caused the biggest insurrection since the civil war; we very nearly lost the country to rebels as the swung their flagpoles, killing hundreds with every deadly blow!
Yes, you are quite right. Trump DID cause the biggest insurrection since the civil war. I am surprised you finally admitted that.
Instead of bitching about great jobs numbers leading to keeping interest rates high, Biden-haters can switch gears and bitch about normal jobs numbers which may lead to lower interest rates. (Go figure. The whole point is just to criticize one of the most effective Presidents in modern history.)
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/ … index.htmlJobs Report Today: Hiring Slows Down More Than Expected
Follow the latest news and analysis of the April nonfarm payrolls report.
Last Updated:
May 3, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT
https://www.barrons.com/livecoverage/jo … port-today
NYT - 26 minutes ago — The economy added 175,000 jobs in April, a slowdown in hiring. The unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9 percent. Share full article. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/03 … il-economyA well spoken article, ESO, please have a look...
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/04/dont-l … low-it-up/Thought I would highlight the important points in case people don't take the time to read it:
* the Biden economy was doing remarkably well, at least by most standard macroeconomic measures.
*Job numbers were historically high,
* unemployment low and the
* U.S. had done the best of all G-7 economies in bringing down inflation resulting from the worst pandemic years.
* The author did note that many people, his family included, is feeling the pain from the pandemic-caused inflation. But, that doesn't detract from the facts that show the economy to be in good shape.
* the Biden administration’s active economic moves included a focus on industrial policy to accomplish goals that simply cannot be left to “the marketplace.” Leaving infrastructure work to the marketplace is how America wound up with so many embarrassing airports, shaky bridges and poky, increasingly dangerous trains. There are things we must do together. - IT IS WELL known that the "marketplace" is not a panacea.
* He’s the first president in many decades to stand with organized labor and support its fight for better wages and benefits.
* He continues to work on alleviating the crushing student debt that limits so many young adults’ lives.
* He has taken on Big Pharma, moving to lower prescription drug prices and health care costs for older Americans.
* He is working to stop the junk fees hidden in so many transactions.
* He rejoined the Paris climate accords and has done far more to address that crisis than any previous president. (especially Trump who made it worse)
* As Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg writes, the U.S economy typically does much better when a Democrat is in the White House. (As I have proven in several articles! If anyone disagrees, present the facts to support your position. I can refer you to my articles if need be.)
* Biden’s record of more than 15 million new jobs amounts to eight times as many as were created under the last three Republican presidents combined.
* Although inflation for consumer goods rose slightly in March, which is not good news for anyone, the Federal Reserve has done a good job in carefully bringing inflation down after the supply-chain disruptions and supermarket price hikes of the pandemic. Remember the corporate media (and Republicans) braying endlessly about the coming recession? Well, it never came.
* if Americans were better versed in the writings and actions of our founders, they might understand that they believed in a strong central government and sometimes held surprisingly progressive ideas about how to manage an economy.
One thing is certain - President Biden had little to nothing to do with the inflation we experienced in 2022.
A second this is certain - the pandemic-caused destruction of the supply chain had 95% to do with inflation from 2022 to early 2023.
A third thing is certain - corporate greed had a LOT to do with the slowish decline in inflation since mid-2023 and keeping the PCE (the Fed's favorite inflation measure) above the target of 20%.
It seems corporate greed may have pissed of consumers.
"Retailers jacked up prices and squeezed consumers. They might have just blinked"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/business … index.html
"Lower prices are a clear opportunity to drive people into the store or online.”
It’s a lever that Walmart, he said, has pulled forever. Walmart said in December that lower grocery prices will be coming this year. “It’s a very effective lever. It’s a great marketing strategy to get consumers’ awareness, get them into the store and convince them to open their wallets and spend,” said Stambor. “There is the perception of value, and value is very much front of mind for consumers even when as they continue to spend to some extent.”
NO WONDER people can't afford to buy anything today - "The last quarter was the most profitable of the year, and one of the best ever for corporate America. In the final quarter of 2023, corporate profits after taxes stood at $2.8 trillion, a $105 billion increase from the previous quarter, per the Commerce Department's data." - THAT IS CALLED CORPORATE GREED, they kept prices higher than necessary.Flip-flopping - changing your mind - has become a dirty phrase and a political death sentence. But, as this opinion piece points out, that wasn't what our founding fathers were hoping for. The sign of a sensible person was a flexible mind who could change their mind based on reason and new information.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/opinions … index.htmlGreat article! Thanks for offering it up to 'Free Will'. One thing, for me of least, is that, yes, the ideal is of the founders sentiment may be seen as 'flexible', yet I ponder usage, today, may be more proselytizing. The example of voting with no accountability makes the most sense to me. Grace being offered to perhaps save face.
Yeah, I was thinking that would be a good idea for both the House and the Senate. Have all votes be a secret ballot.
Someone online just made an interesting observation. 2024 could be similar to 2016 in that Haley is now the kind of drag on Trump that Bernie Sanders was on Clinton. Even after dropping out, Clinton had trouble attracting many Sanders supporters. Trump is having the same issue with Haley's supporters. That does not bode well for the GOP.
Valeant: From your mouth to God's ears.
It may be enough, though, that he doesn't have the National Enquirer killing negative stories for him this time or his fixer making hush money payments for him. Or maybe his 91 criminal indictments will finally make a dent in the MAGA mindset.Wisconsin to get 2,000 jobs from Microsoft building a plant in Racine. Microsoft credits Biden policies for paving the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNVTABHDsHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsRbzVCqz1wTo expand on your youtube's:
Biden on Trump: He ‘didn’t build a damn thing’
"Time and again, Biden took aim at former President Donald Trump, casting him as someone who talked but didn’t deliver. " - THIS IS something everybody but his cult knows to be true.
"Biden was highlighting a new Microsoft data center that would be built on grounds where then-President Trump announced that Foxconn would build a $10 billion factory for making LCD panels. That plant was never built, even after the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer received millions in subsidies and bulldozed homes and farms to build the factory." - ISN'T THIS what Trump does - a lot?
"“He promised a $10 billion investment by Foxconn. He came with your senator, Ron Johnson, with a golden shovel and didn’t build a damn thing,”"
On the positive side "During his trip to Wisconsin, Biden did the same, pointing to specifics in his economic plank — from Buy America provisions, to replacing lead pipes, to shepherding in AI manufacturing — that were creating real, localized results."
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/0 … s-00156853
In the week ended May 4, the Labor Department reported weekly unemployment claims hit 231,000, an increase of 22,000 from the previous week and the highest number of jobless claims since August at 234,000. The report also found that the four-week moving average increased by 4,750 to 215,000 unemployment claims.
The states with the highest insured unemployment claims were California at 44,142, New York at 23,373, and Texas at 15,573.
4 hours ago https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-w … 024-05-09/
"Unemployment Claims Surge More Than Expected, Hit 8-Month Peak: Dollar Falls As Traders Bet On Rate Cuts"
"Market reactions DOLLAR DROPS
"Following the release of the unemployment claims data, the U.S. Dollar saw a significant drop. The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), tracked by the Invesco DB USD Index Bullish Fund ETF (NYSE:UUP), decreased by 0.3%."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unemploy … 56066.html
Yikes, we're heading in the wrong direction ... Can't imagine what May 15th will bring regarding the new inflation rate. What next?
Market Summary
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp
54.39 USD
+5.13 (10.41%)today
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/DJ … cFegQIMhAf
Hey, you said DJT would tank...
Trump 2024The sections of the unemployment claims that were left out:
Unemployment claims for the week ending May 4 rose by 22,000 to 231,000, up from 209,000 the week before, the Labor Department reported Thursday. Though last week’s claims were the most since the final week of August 2023, it’s still a relatively low number of layoffs and not cause for concern.
The four-week average of claims, which softens some of the weekly volatility, rose by 4,750 to 215,000.
Weekly unemployment claims are considered a proxy for the number of U.S. layoffs in a given week and a sign of where the job market is headed. They have remained at historically low levels since the pandemic purge of millions of jobs in the spring of 2020.
Last month, U.S. employers added just 175,000 jobs, the fewest in six months and another sign that the labor market may be loosening. The unemployment rate inched back up to 3.9% from 3.8% and has now remained below 4% for 27 straight months, the longest such streak since the 1960s.
The government also recently reported 8.5 million job openings in March, the lowest number of vacancies in three years.
Moderation in the pace of hiring, along with a slowdown in wage growth could give the Fed the data its been seeking in order to finally issue a cut to interest rates.
Doesn't everyone love how when certain people report the news, it's the end of the world. When you actually go read the article, it's more of a small blip and the state of the jobs market is actually pretty darned good. Just goes to show some people have a really negative outlook on things, even when they are doing quite well. Slowing down the jobs market has been the goal of the Fed for a while now. It could lead to a rate cut. But again, some like to complain about the problem and the solution...just to complain.Of course only the part of the story that supports the negativity is offered. Why on earth would someone so biased be fair and thorough and present the WHOLE story?
Finally, some news that will let the Fed lower interest rates which is what you have been pining for all along. Apparently one of the outcomes of getting what you want is a lower dollar.
Did I say DJT would tank tomorrow???? No, I didn't. I said it is so overvalued that it is unsustainable and all similarly overvalued stocks ULTIMATELY collapsed.Oh my now you are predicting what the Fed will do... Me I sought out JP Morgan
"Rate implications
Overall, the April jobs report paints a picture of a labor market that is slowing but not weakening imminently. While the Fed welcomes signs of a more balanced labor market, they are being patient and have indicated they are in NO HURRY to lower interest rates until they see sustained, compelling evidence of slower inflation. Slower wage growth will contribute to lower inflation, but the Fed will also look to some of the stickier components, such as shelter cost, for indications of decline.
At the April Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, the Fed held its benchmark overnight interest rate steady at 5.25% to 5.5% for a sixth straight meeting.10 Fed Chair Jerome Powell reiterated the Fed will continue to make decisions on a meeting-to-meeting basis and remain fully data-dependent." Source Great article read more if interested
https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/outlo … april-2024
I think May 15th will show us going in the wrong direction regarding inflation. We are just heading in the wrong direction. I think we need MAGAnomics.Oh, give me a break! Did I say they were going to do it TOMORROW? No, I didn't not. Don't you listen to what the Fed says? (Probably not since Lying Fox News doesn't report it.) They have said MANY times that they are waiting for things to cool down before they will drop the rates. Good God.
What's up with Biden --- +Biden said on Wednesday that “no president has had the run we've had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation.
” “It was 9% when I came to office. 9%.... But look, people have a right to be concerned." Joe Biden
https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/b … y-was-1-4/
Confused or lying? What is your call? I say confused. or maybe lying, hard to tell any more.Here is a good example of why one must always carefully read opinion, or in this case analysis, with care, even if it is from CNN. The point of this analysis of a Fed report is to show that corporate greed was not the main driver of the now cooled spike in inflation. The analysis claims this is what so-called "progressives" claim to be true and cites a quote from Senator Warren to prove it.
Well, the analysis is not wrong in the Fed's conclusion. But, it is wrong in suggesting that people are claiming that that corporate greed is the primary cause of the pandemic-caused inflation, writ large. Of course it wasn't and neither was Biden as MAGA wants you to falsely believe..
What IS true, and apparently the Fed analysis supports this, is that Corporate Greed IS responsible for prices being higher than they ought to be in certain sectors such as gas, food, and general merchandise. Those sectors hardly make up the whole of the economy. All one has to do is look at the wild 20, 30, and sometimes 40 cent swings in gas prices of the course of one or two days to understand it is corporate greed that is at play and not slower moving oil prices.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/business … index.htmlMarkets Surge While Inflation Cools! - Something MAGA hates to hear.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/business … iness-fastMany of those who complain about what amounts to normal levels of inflation obviously never lived through when it was REALLY bad in the 1970s and 1980s. You know, that period of almost continuous Republican rule where our economy performed poorly for almost 20 years?!!
"GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.19 percent from 1947 until 2024, reaching an all time high of 34.80 percent in the third quarter of 2020 and a record low of -28.00 percent in the second quarter of 2020."
1960s (D) - Growth averaged 5.0% (no recessions)
1970s (R) - Growth averaged 3.17% (one recession)
1980s (R) - Growth averaged 3.67% (one recession)
1990 - 1993 (R) - Growth averaged 1.87% (one recession)
1994 - 1999 (D) - Growth averaged 4.1% (no recessions)
2000 - 2009 (R) - Growth averaged 1.8% (two recessions including the Great Recession)
2010 - 2016 (D) - Growth averaged 2.3% (no recessions)
2017 - 2020 (R) - Growth averaged 0.9% (one recession and a pandemic)
2021 - (D) - Growth averaged 3.0% (no recessions)
I know I would rather have Democrats in charge have better economic growth and much fewer recessions. Wouldn't you?
Dow Jones Industrial Average hits 40,000 amid renewed hopes for U.S. economy
Slowing inflation, a still-strong labor market and robust corporate earnings are all supporting strong stock market growth.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average stock index hit 40,000 for the first time ever Thursday amid renewed investor hopes for a "soft landing" for the U.S. economy following a favorable inflation report.Sooner or later, people will realize the BS the right-wing feeds them about the economy is just that - BS.
I am old enough to remember when inflation under Nixon-Ford-Reagan was really, really bad, making what happened because of the pandemic look like a walk in the park by comparison.Considering that 70% of the GOP still believe Trump's election lies, I'll go with later - due to the brainwashing they are getting from their media about the economy. These are not people that can think for themselves.
Manchurian Candidate Biden and all that he has done for China:
1 - Drove Russia into China's arms.
2 - Drove Saudi Arabia into China's arms.
3 - Drove the UAE into China's arms.
4 - Handed Afghanistan over to China.
5 - Helped strengthen the economy of Iran, one of China's closest allies.
I guess he didn't do as much to harm America's relations as I thought.I appreciate you realizing that Biden has so much power and is so competent as to force weak countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to do his bidding all by his lonesome.
I bet the Taliban will disagree with your assessment that they are a puppet of China, ROFL.Taliban welcomes China’s new ambassador to Afghanistan in lavish ceremony
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/china/ch … index.html
ROFL!!! ROFL!!!Did the Taliban provide strings to China so they could be the Taliban's puppet master as you suggest they are?
Or, was this a normal diplomatic ceremony from one "country" to another that you are using to mislead?
I suspect the latter.That was a very moderate/level response.
I suppose it deserves one in kind.
I have reviewed Biden's 2025 Tax Plan, with reservation, I must say it appears to be one that does not harm/impact those making below $400k.
When I judge tax proposals, or anything that impacts 'Middle Class' like the ACA did, for instance, I really focus on how it hurts (or helps) those making $200k a year or less.
This tax proposal, other than the Death Tax which from my understanding talking to an accountant who believes it will be extremely hard to get around in the future, seems to leave alone those Americans working the hardest to get by.
That is a good thing... they are most often the ones stuck 'with the bill' when it comes to new taxes and 'help' such as the ACA.Wow...Did we just see someone on the right say Biden did something well? {steps outside to see if pigs are flying}
Maybe because there is no alternative anymore?
As I said, the ACA killed off the small Insurance businesses competing with the big dogs, it crushed the market.
Deductibles are out of control, limits on what treatment you can get, what drugs you can be approved for... its become a racket, you play their game by their rules... or you have nothing.You do know you are talking about how it was PRE-ACA don't you? Why do you think ACA was put together in the first place?
Let me ask directly:
1. How did ACA kill off Small insurance businesses? Hadn't Bid insurance businesses already done that pre-ACA?
2. Weren't deductibles out-of-control before ACA and ACA put limits on them?
3. Pre-ACA, weren't insurance companies denying medications and procedures left and right and ACA stopped them from doing that?After buying and using health insurance for some 40 years, liberals finally forced me into the ACA programs. Where I found I was forced to pay for a plan that I could never use with its $5,000 deductible.
Yeah, deductibles are out of control with ACA - a "limit" of $5,000 deductible for those that can't afford to purchase insurance is the height of ridiculousness.And the insurance company's way around losing money is making half the treatments out there uncovered.
IE - they will pay for 90% of an EKG but refuse to pay for an MRI regardless of the doctor's recommendation based on the diagnosis.
Of course, anyone that has dealt with the ACA and remembers how it was before it pretty much know what I'm talking about.I don't understand. First, I have never had insurance under an ACA program. When the ACA hit I was on Medicare. How does the ACA dictate what a private health insurance carrier will cover? Is there guidelines or something like that?
Yes, ACA does dictate what things must be covered by insurance companies. They do that to prevent the practice of them dropping coverage anytime they felt like it.
Thanks. I was speaking more to services, procedures, and etc. I am on Medicare Part C and my private insurance carrier has only denied one thing requested by a physician/specialist. It was deemed not medically necessary. It wasn't necessary not affecting my overall health/wellness. No biggie!
Yes, you are correct, prior to ACA that is exactly what insurance companies were doing - stiffing the insured. ACA stopped that.
Yes, they remember, that is why ACA is so popular now.Spoken like someone who has never had to depend on the ACA.
Please explain how whether I used ACA or not has anything to do with the facts I laid out? I think that is what is called a non-sequitur.
So, you are saying you would rather live on the dole when you get sick letting someone else pay your bills?
Didn't matter much, did it? Either with or without the ACA plan I was unable to see a doctor.
Then ACA doesn't seem to be the problem, does it.
If your deductible is $5,000, as was claimed, you likely skimped and went for a lower monthly-cost plan, banking that you wouldn't get sick. And where's Medicare in this whole thing?
That's what I said; at that point I was raising a family on minimum wage and it wasn't working. A higher priced plan was NOT in the books, just as private insurance was not.
Still made too much for Medicare, though; it is only the very, very poor that get the best deals in this country.
Those with just low (as opposed to near zero) income don't qualify. Interestingly, several years later, during the recession when my wife and I both lost our jobs, she was put in Medicaid whether we wanted it or not. Best insurance we had had since the 80's. The very poor do far better than those actually working for a living (poor that it is)...a part of why our system is broken.What year are we talking about here where there was a recession? Because it doesn't sound like you are talking about the ACA at all, just about something long before it.
Some time ago. Let's see. Guessing at sometime in the first few years of the ACA - maybe 2012 or thereabouts, maybe a year earlier.
I retired in 2012, before I could get medicare, because of the recession (company went under), so had no health insurance at all. So I wasn't even getting minimum wage, but WAS getting unemployment and later, Social Security.
But, Val, I'm not positive of the timeline. I just know that I was forced into purchasing the cheapest (bronze?) package they had, and that the individual deductible (as well as the total out of pocket) was $5,000, $10,000 for the family. With near zero income it was worse than useless; nothing more than a drag on resources already strained to the limit and provided nothing at all in return. Then every year my taxes went up because the subsidy had been more than allowed. A very bad deal for my family all the way around.
A few years later, my wife was put on medicaid when Idaho accepted the expanded federal plan. Not our choice - was too stinkin' proud to take charity - something done by the state. And found that, like my private insurance from the 70's and 80's it simply paid for everything. No one else could have such a thing, but we give it to the poor.Truth.
One felt by millions of other Americans.
In addition, the ACA left the pharmaceutical industry largely unregulated.
The Obama Administration decided to make a deal with Big Pharma to get them to support the legislation, which got a number of favorable provisions.
For every American that it helped, it hurt several others, typically those that could least afford it.How did ACA leave the pharmaceutical industry largely unregulated? What were those "provisions"? You mean ACA met the Republican dream of deregulating everything and leaving Americans unprotected?
Yeah, ACA was 2010, so it was the early years of the program. I have recently retired as well and won't get Medicare for another decade as well. Have been using the ACA for the past two years. Low deductibles, easy access to doctors and dentists when needed so far.
I have noticed in a lot of the polls lately that worm-in-the-brain RFK Jr. is pulling more from Biden than Trump now. Too bad.
Wow! It is probably an artifact of the sampling, but Fox News (whose polls, unlike their news, I have always found to be legitimate) has Biden at a 45% approval rating.
Even Rasmussen has him at 43%, up from their normal 40 - 41%.
In looking at monthly averages of general election polls, Biden is clearly doing better in May than he was in Dec. Actually, it is Trump who is doing worse. While Biden as fallen from 45.4% in March to 44.5% so far in May, Trump has fallen from 46.3% in February to 44.7% so far in May. The difference in February (Trump's high) was 2.1 in favor of Trump and now in May, it is 0.2 in favor of Trump.Mortgage rates fall for third straight week! Why aren't the usual suspects blaming Biden for that? Oh yeah, that is good economic news.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/economy/ … index.htmlI'm using the ACA right now and have no issues with services, or things being covered as was claimed here, because I'm paying for a decent plan.
I know a lot of people that do - my massage therapist for one.
Understanding what the Biden Administration has done to young Americans.
It stole their inheritance; it stole their future:
f You Are Under 40—I'm A Baby Boomer—I'm Sorry...': David Schweikert Delivers Passionate Warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn5KqkrHS7UIt was Trump that did that, not Biden. Biden saved America.
Biden’s administration has led the federal government in spending and borrowing more money in his first 20 months in the White House than any other president in history. No one else comes close to his record of fiscal recklessness.
Biden is not even halfway through his presidential term, and he’s already signed into law federal spending over the next decade that will exceed $4 trillion.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … -deficits/
Of those who were president in either the 20th or 21st century, Franklin D. Roosevelt contributed to the largest percent increase in national debt.
Recent presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George W. Bush presided over the three largest increases in terms of dollar amounts.
Current President Joe Biden is on pace to join or surpass them all by a substantial margin.
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by … ge-7371225
Let's see, Trump's spending went to a tax cut to the rich and in his failures to prevent Covid from reaching our shores.
Biden's went to states to distribute the vaccines, infrastructure (that everyone acknowledged needed to be done under Trump and which he failed to deliver on), and in bringing microchip manufacturing back to the country (where Microsoft just announced a plan to build a plant in Racine, WI).
Infrastructure and manufacturing actually help the country. Cuts to the corporate tax rate only helped businesses buy back their stock and helped the rich get richer.LOL Trump's tax cut went to nearly everyone in the country; it is an outright lie to say it was only the rich.
Biden's went to "stimulate" spending by people that had not lost their jobs, and to people that didn't want to go back to work after being paid more to sit home than to work. And a small amount to people that had lost jobs and actually needed it.The tax reform passed in December 2017 included tax cuts for corporations as well as individuals – but while the benefits for business were permanent, the individual taxpayer cuts will expire by 2027. If Congress does nothing to extend them, the top 1% will at that point receive roughly 83% of the tax cut benefits, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. When a law gives 83% of the benefit to the wealthiest in the country, it's not a lie to characterize it as a tax cut for the rich.
Then everyone got a tax cut, and while 83% may (or may not) go primarily to the rich at some time in the future it did not at the time. Why did you say it was only the rich? Does truth not matter to you?
Let's not go lecturing about truth when one cannot adequately quote what was written. Does honesty not matter to you? Or do you think that by adding in the word 'only' that makes what was written true? Like I said, the tax cuts went mostly to the rich and I have no problem characterizing them for who they benefitted the most.
As usual, you alter another's words to try and create your own reality. That means it's time to cease further conversation with you.
I am taking a CNN poll regarding pre and post Biden taking office. CNN has a broad range of viewers/readers save for a dearth of MAGA cult members. That missing part probably skews the results to the more realistic.
* I answered that I am better off during Biden's term than during Trump's. 65% of respondents answered the same way.
FACTS
Investments have grown. For those fortunate enough to have investments, markets have gone up. The S&P 500 was at 2,271 when Trump took office and 3,852 when Biden took office, despite a plunge during the pandemic. It's around [b]5,300 today, more than double the value eight years ago.
People make more money. Average hourly earnings across all sectors were $26 in January 2017, when Trump took office, $29.93 in January 2021 and $34.75 today, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. These figures don’t tell the full story, however, because they are not adjusted for inflation and are affected by the share of low- and high-wage workers in the country. (The increase is also part of the reason why inflation persisted longer than it otherwise would have.)
Homes are more valuable. Values have risen dramatically. The typical home, according to Zillow, was worth nearly $211,000 when Trump took office, nearly $275,000 when Biden took office and is nearly $359,000 as of April 2024.
* To "Is it more difficult to afford living expenses today"? I answered yes, simply because I haven't given myself a raise for years (but I have my employees). Consequently, because there is inflation, it is logical that it has become harder. I was surprised that only 48% agreed with me.
* "Has it become more difficult to move or find a house". I answered No and so did 44% of the others. This is a two-part question. First, it is very easy to find a house today, they are building them everywhere. But, pre-pandemic I was looking for a vacation/airbnb home and found the pricing outrageous so I didn't buy. I suspect it is the same today.
* "Have I lost a job in the last few years?" - No, and neither has 87% of the other respondents. In FACT, jobless rates are at historic LOWS.
* "Do you think it’s true that the poverty rate in the US is decreasing?" I answered Yes, That Sounds Right. So did 45% of the others. IN FACT, the poverty rate is below pre-pandemic levels.
* "Are you happier than you were?" Again, I answered yes as did 70% of the others
* "Do you feel as free" - I answered Yes, but only because I am a White Male. Otherwise, I would have answered No, because of various Supreme Court rulings restricting freedom. 61% answered Yes as well.
* "Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? I and 47% of others answered N% of the others.o. Why? (1) Because of the Supreme Court again not putting a check on w% ho can own guns. The explosion of guns on the streets makes me feel less safe. (2) The hate speech from Trump and MAGA (and now a little bit from the anti-Israel progressive crowd) and the increase in violent actions from those groups makes me feel much less safe as well.
* "Do you feel healthier than you did four years ago? Surprisingly, at 77, I do. I certainly have my share of problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, hearing loss, eyesight loss, and being way too fat I nevertheless feel pretty good. So did 59% of the others.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/05 … 4-quiz-dg/Very, very interesting and eye-opening as I see it. Thanks for the run down.
I will take the quiz next. I am not unique per se, but my only income is Soc Sec. It will be interesting to see where I fall in the percentages of likeness.And the rest of the story:
Investments have grown, yes. 69% during Trumps tenure, in spite of entering the pandemic downturn. And 37% during Bidens tenure, while recovering from the pandemic downturn. (Both using your figures)
People make more money, yes. And just as you point out the rest of the story is that after accounting for inflation it is static or a bit less.
Homes are more valuable, yes. Meaning that many saw property tax increases, and virtually everyone is having trouble buying a new house, unless downsizing from a current one.
The only other one I'll address is the laughable idea that we feel less safe because SCOTUS once more failed to violate the second amendment. Instead, one must look to idiot cities and DA's that refuse to prosecute existing laws while at the same time reducing penalties. One must look to cities and police that fail to control riots and instead stand back and watch them happen. One must look at a President that refuses to follow the laws re: border crossings and opens our borders to anyone that wants in. There are a whole raft of reasons crime has skyrocketed and not a single one is that SCOTUS failed to violate the second amendment."People make more money, yes. And just as you point out the rest of the story is that after accounting for inflation it is static or a bit less. " - AND doesn't that mean the impact of inflation has been neutralized?
It certainly isn't running rampant as others on here would have you believe.
Where in the second amendment does it give you the absolute right to own any weapon you want?? Even Scalia says that it does not (as he created new law from the bench with his Heller decision where he created a new definition for militia.)
"Instead, one must look to idiot cities and DA's that refuse to prosecute existing laws while at the same time reducing penalties. " - DO YOU have any statistics to back up that anecdote-based broad-brush hyperbole?
'One must look at a President that refuses to follow the laws re: border crossings and opens our borders to anyone that wants in. " - WHY DO you keep propagating false propaganda. You know as well as I what you just wrote is not true.Oh, inflation is "rampant", although nothing like what it was. And no, that wages have risen to almost take care of it does nothing for those on a fixed income. Certainly my SS check has not come close to making up the difference.
What does "Shall not be abridged" mean to you? That you can take whatever you want as long as you leave a slingshot?
No statistics...except those that we all acknowledge; that crime is far worse in large cities. Couple that with very liberal DA's and city managers and the result is obvious to anyone that actually looks rather than putting their head in the sand when something negative about liberals surfaces.
Of course it isn't. Criminals with records in the US are not welcome. All others are, though, aren't they? And if not, why are we letting them in anyway?So, you claim the SSA shorted your check the 5.9.% COLA in 2021 and the 8.7% COLA in 2022 and the 3.2% COLA in 2023 (19% compounded increase) that I got? Compare the 19% increase everybody else on social security got with the 18% increase in inflation over the same period, and what have you got. Darn, SS recipients received 1% too much, lol. You should write them and ask for the money you are owed.
So, 1 percent above the fed target (using their CPE index) and .5% below historic levels (using CPI) constitutes "rampant" to you? Personally I call that "normal".
What does "militia" mean to you? Does that mean "private home"? I don't think so, but somehow Scalia decided that is what was meant by militia. As I said, he made stuff up. (Now, that is not to say he didn't come to good conclusion, he did, just not one supported by the 2nd Amendment.)
No, we don't know crime is far worse in large cities. For example, violent crime is down in New York City and the nation overall. You seem to be reposting without evidence right-wing mythology.
Yes, wife-beaters need to have guns to, at least in Texas. Mentally disturbed people need to have guns, but you don't want to check to see if they are.
I wasn't going to comment today, just read and contemplate... but this had me LMAO so hard I had to give it props... thankfully I wasn't chewing food!
[EDIT] Doing some fact checking:
CNN saw drop-off in 2023. But unlike Fox News, CNN was not among cable’s most-watched networks. In fact, its 582,000 total primetime viewer average for 2023 represents the network’s smallest average primetime audience for a year in network history.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/this-is … -for-2023/
And that was the best reference I saw, others I saw said 526k 497k average... which even that is pretty remarkable for such a unreputable and untrusted source.So, how does that matter to anything at all. LYING FOX News is an admitted fabricator of information and THAT is who is informing MAGA. The fact that lots of people want to listen to lies means nothing important.
Funny thing when I inquire as to what the "Stable Genius" proposes as a solution to inflation that he bashes Biden over, he is wanting.
Deregulation: Trump ideas that the resulting savings that are to be acquired by corporate America will be passed down to consumers, yeah, and "the check is in the mail"
Massive deportations: how is removing a source of labor going to benefit the American consumer? Less labor means reduced production and with demand unchanged translates to higher prices for consumers. Economics 101, the stable genius must have been playing hooky. How is that going to help?
For example Tariffs on China: from what I heard as a method of reducing the trade deficit and leveling the plYing field, this idea is proposed. But there is always reciprocity with tariffs, how much of the cost of the tariffs on China would be passed on to the American consumer through increased prices? Is this really the solution?
Of course,there always remain the Trickle Down theories of cutting taxes for the rich and waiting for its benefits to tinkle down upon the rest of us.
I hear of no viable solution except for Trump to sit on that ample Rump of his doing what he always, does blaming others for his screw ups while taking credit for the efforts of others. He has no answers and never had.It's probably true to say American consumers will pay all of the tariff costs. Importers add them to their cost of goods. I have also heard economists say a trade deficit isn't a bad thing.
It is reasonable to view them as a protectionist tool that's handy to have when you need to protect a national asset, like our steel industry, et al. The blurbs I've heard put Pres. Biden's tariffs in that category.
GAWell, I just got lucky. Tariffs are one topic where I do think the details are important in judging the action.
GA
Thanks, maybe you can help me in the Econ 102 course.
It appears that protectionism is coming back into style.
In your example of the steel industry, let's say that Brazil can produce steel at 75 percent less per ton less than what can it can be produced for domestically. Would not US Steel be better off sub contracting with their Brazilian counterpart and acquire steel at lower cost? Does not the tariff sort of subsidizes inefficiency which is contrary to the operation of capitalism? I am aware that it is politically unacceptable to have jobs disappear within this labor sector. But, Isnt that where that sucking sound from abroad against so much of industrial America and its working men and women is derived? It would be outsourcing and all of that, for example
I remember when japanese goods were considered cheap trinkets, until their electronic products Sony and Panasonic ran circles around our RCA and Philco in the 1970s. Then we had the flood of well built Japanese cars at competitive pricing, giving Detroit a run for its money during the early 1980s.
And now I am reading about Chinese electric cars that are well built and low priced and that we don't dare allow to compete in our markets without challenge. But, being a Marxist society, China has a command economy in large part, giving them an unfair advantage as we operate on supply and demand, the very foundation of capitalism.
Just how much can you protect? Is that a reasonable question?As Jefferson and Hoover learned, broad tariffs are a terrible idea.
Off the top of my head, the only place for a tariff is on a product by product basis where the competing product is gaining an unfair advantage from their government.
There are probably a FEW other reasons, but that would seem to me to be the main one.
One article I just read claimed :"According to the administration, there are two major motivations behind these tariff increases: 1) Protect and stimulate US clean energy industries and supply chains, and 2) Counter a flood of Chinese goods, as Beijing turns to exports to compensate for weak internal demand."
Well, I disagree with both reasons for a tariff on EVs. What I would support, if those are the goals, are subsidizes on domestic EVs that exceed what is already in Biden's bipartisan initiatives that have already passed.Yes, that was a reasonable question, and yes, protectionism can have the effect of protecting inefficiencies that capitalist market forces would normally correct.
One determinant would be the 'why' of the cost differences. My understanding is that in both the steel and car industry examples the cost difference wasn't primarily due to production inefficiencies but to the degree of government subsidies.
If a company has its production costs subsidized they have an unfair advantage. When the subsidies are as affecting as China's in their industries, no amount of efficiency increase will bridge the price gap.
When the industry is a national asset, vs. a 'trinket' or luxury asset, that can be bankrupted and lost by unfair foreign government manipulation, correcting inefficiencies should be secondary to saving the industry.
There are some qualifiers to that thought. It isn't about instances involving a better mouse trap or a leap in production efficiencies—the market should deal with that, it's about incidences where the difference is almost solely due to government intervention in the cost of production.
GADepends on what your goals are for the Nation.
Do you want to have a self-sufficient thriving economy and nation?
Or do you believe allowing most things to be made in foreign nations does not harm the nation or its economy?
China subsidizes its industries because, in the end, all things are ultimately owned by the State (CCP).
Those with real wealth and power don't care where things are made, which nation gets rich, which population suffers.
America's government (politicians and agencies) answers to Big Pharma, not the people, this is why almost all our prescription drugs are Made in China, rather than America... Big Pharma can make the most profit having their drugs manufactured overseas, the regulations are lower, they are able to avoid taxation, etc.
For National Security as well as the wellbeing of Americans, prescription drugs should be made in America, but most are not, yet many of our prices are regulated and the highest in the world... all of this is evidence of a corrupt government that is failing its citizens.
Japanese brand vehicles that are sold in America are mostly assembled in America today. Same for most foreign brands, this ensures those companies are able to avoid some tariffs and fees, while it also employs some Americans.
China (China's carmakers) are working with other corporations today to try and come up with a solution, so that they can sell their cars in America.
President Biden is Handing China the Keys to America's Auto Industry
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/ … o-industry
As I have said related to many of the issues we have seen develop over the last 3.5 years, the decisions made and actions taken by the Biden Administration couldn't be any more advantageous to China than if Xi were making them himself.
Biden is the living breathing Manchurian Candidate. He heads an Administration that bends over backwards to undermine America's wellbeing at every turn.
Chinese automakers want to sell electric cars across America
https://www.axios.com/2023/07/27/chines … ss-america
Chinese cars gain market share in Mexico
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and- … -in-mexico
Mexico is considered an important market for China because of its geographic location as it provides access to North and South American markets.
China's global dominance will continue to grow, they are the manufacturing center of the world today, and China's domination will grow until it is much like America was in the 50s & 60s.
America needs to preserve and return within its borders many of the things it outsourced to other nations in Wall Street's pursuit of profits... if it does not, we will cease to exist as a sovereign nation that has the economic and manufacturing might to protect its own interests at home... forget about abroad."this is why almost all our prescription drugs are Made in China, " - YOU probably need to revise your figures. That statement is false. In fact, only 13% are manufactured in China. POP.
"America's government (politicians and agencies) answers to Big Pharma, not the people," - Pure propaganda. Prove It
"all of this is evidence of a corrupt government that is failing its citizens." - I guess you are meaning the Trump truly Corrupt gov't. Biden, happily has lowered in some cases or, in many others, is lowering drug prices. Something no president before him has done!
You say all those things about China and yet their economy is in the tank. Explain that.Yes, Biden is setting prices now, coming ever closer to classical socialism as he ignores the basis of our country and our economy.
Only a socialistic liberal can think this is a good thing overall. It certainly benefits a few, and may even keep them alive, but it in no manner is good for the country.Since the free-market is failing to produce competitive prices because of monopolistic conditions in the pharma industry, what other choice is there?
I know one answer to that, bust up the monopolies.
BTW, the ONLY price that I know that Biden set wasn't a price at all, just a cap. The rest of "his actions" was to pass a BIPARTISON law that allows Medicare to put out request for proposals for certain drugs so that competition can come into play.
I suspect that because Biden was behind that, you oppose it.What other possibilities? Break up the monopolies; something that is quite legal and has often been done. But you indicate you understand that - why then is Biden lauded and applauded for violating the very basis of a free enterprise economy?
"Often been done"?? Not really. Generally, Republicans stop any effort to break up monopolies.
Except the Pharma industry is the exact opposite of a "free enterprise economy". So, how did he violate it as you claim?
It did not go unnoticed you were silent on the fact that Biden and the Democrats (and a few Republicans) introduced competition into the Medicare drug procurement process.Well, let's see. The "exact opposite" of free enterprise would be a government setting all prices, both labor and products.
Is that how you see the pharmaceutical industry? Government sets all wages and all prices?
What is with you and this good for the country stuff? Who made you the judge?
Monopolistic control has nothing to do with fluid and free markets, unless you are content to be ruled by corporate plutocrats?History is the judge; no socialistic economy, or the marxist one we are developing, has ever been successful.
You missed the entire point; monopolies must be controlled in free enterprise to have free enterprise and competition. Which means cutting them back as necessary.To each according to their needs, from each according to ability. Isn't that what we are doing with our welfare state? The rich pay more because they can (while we pretend that it's "fair") and the poor get what the rich have had taken from them.
And we travel further down that path nearly every day.
Marxism.
No, I did not miss the point, we both agree that monopolies must be curbed. It is just that Republicans are slower to take action in this regard.
The so called evolution of our society into a socialist Marxist society is just a figment of your imagination. You have to be among the hardest core of the rightwing reactionaries to believe all of this stuff.I would tend to agree that Republicans are slower to take action to end monopolies. It is, after all, an action that flies in the face of free enterprise, small government and freedom.
None of those mean much to Democrats, so they will jump faster and harder on anything that has any tendency to enrich one person/group more than another."It is, after all, an action that flies in the face of free enterprise, small government and freedom."
So, economic exploitation of others is ok, might makes Right? It is why I hold Republican and conservative philosophy in utter contempt.
Yes, we will and do "jump harder and faster" and you know, I like it that way."Economic exploitation of others" takes place any time any profit at all is made on a transaction. It is how the world turns and how progress is made, for without profits no one will produce/sell anything.
I'm sure you do - anything to make everyone "equal", regardless of their efforts. That is the liberal way, wherein efforts count for nothing. It is also why I hold the liberal concepts and philosophy in utter contempt.""Economic exploitation of others" takes place any time any profit at all is made on a transaction." - THAT is not true in the normal meaning of those words, a meaning that everybody else understands and not just for someone who wants to argue for arguments sake.
Everybody else knows that "exploitation" means taking an UNFAIR advantage of others. i.e. "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. "the exploitation of migrant workers""
"Profit" is derived from the excess of price over cost from an "arm's length" transaction where the buyer and seller agree on a price where neither has an unfair advantage.
Thought you understood that.
Once again, you seem to be MAKING THINGS UP. Please point out where he said "anything to make everyone "equal", regardless of their efforts. That is your preconceived bias talking in my opinion.What you have said here is basically true...but it is not how liberals think at all.
Liberals do indeed think any profit is unfair if one person has less wealth than the other. They think that a mutually agreed to contract is UNFAIR if one is poorer than the other. They define "FAIR" only when every person has equal wealth.
And that is stupid beyond belief, for it is not possible to have an active, working economy wherein all have equal wealth.
Not sure of you last paragraph, though - who is the "he" that wants everything equal?As usual, there is a false belief of what liberals think by a member of the far-right.
*shrug* We tend to go by actions and the results of those actions. That, too, is not the liberal way (words and claims count far more than truth and reality), but it is how conservatives make conclusions.
If liberals didn't think that way we wouldn't be seeing government grow nearly every year. If they didn't think that way we wouldn't be seeing them scream about excessive profits...on a 4% profit margin.
If they didn't think that way we wouldn't be hearing that it is "fair" for one person to pay more taxes...because he has more to give. And we wouldn't be seeing an unending and ever growing welfare state, either.Oh, so government didn't grow during the Trump years? I've already posted how his spending increased, even as he was cutting tax revenues. The hypocrisy to ignore one's own party's similar actions to paint the other in a way that is unique is typical in these forums.
As for the claim that liberals 'scream about profits,' I see it a different way. Liberals are screaming about revenues being way up, and seem to be ignoring the profit margins. Your point about the 4% is certainly valid. But you are mistaking what the liberals are actually yelling at, as usual.
As to the tax rate, it's pretty much been a historical norm for people who make more to pay more. The country thrived in the past using this principle. And yet, somehow, the far-right of this day and age does not claim that America was a Marxist nation in the 50's and 60's when the tax rate for the highest earners was above 70%. How odd.How many rules/laws did Trump do away with, vs how many Biden has either reinstituted or made anew? That is another method of measuring government size. A third method is how many are on government payroll as employees (I would not count military here). Not to excuse Trump's excessive spending, but there is more to government size than just spending.
Perhaps it was claimed to be Marxist then because those funds were not simply given away to those that don't support themselves.
Marxism does not come solely from high taxes; the second half, "to those that need it" is part of the equation.Yes, people can measure government size in different ways. But there are ways to show that Trump did, in fact, expand the government. Spending is one way and while you may not count military here, I would.
Another way to measure would be total weeks of unemployment claims. In 2020, there were 470 million, meaning that under Trump's term, more people were relying on the government to get by. Much to do with Covid, but still, he was in charge. By the end of 2021, Biden had dropped that figure to 135 million and by 2022, reduced it further to just 62 million.
'Perhaps it was claimed to be Marxist then because those funds were not simply given away to those that don't support themselves.'
- when exactly do you believe unemployment was created?To give money away to people who don't need it, of course, lol. Who needs money when you don't have a job. The Conservative solution - go find another job or two or three or four. Just so you don't give tax dollars away to help society (I wonder if they understand that money to the military is for the exact same thing - to help society).
Yeah, Biden was Captain when covid died out. Sure, we paid unemployment, at double what we should, for many more months than we should have, but it did finally die down as Covid ended and Biden took massive flack for continuing to pay people not to work. Surely a great coup for Biden, right?
The comment about Marxism and giving money away was a reference to our welfare system, which didn't get a good start until the 60's or 70's. Until then it was used to give a lending hand for a short time; not it is a way of life with over half our populated deemed unfit to support themselves and requiring more than they can provide just to survive. Untrue, of course, but that IS the current thinking.
I did. You don't like the definition, find your own.
Deleted
Sounds almost exactly what I said. "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability". A philosophy, not an economic model - the economy was socialist under Marx, in an attempt to achieve that great model he created of equality of everyone. But the underlying philosophy was all Marx, and is encapsulated in that single statement.
And yet somehow you twist that as a description of what Biden and the Democrats are doing. That is why Credence and my mouths fall open in disbelief when you pass on such ridiculous Conservative myths - WITHOUT evidence, in the great tradition of Trump, I might add.
And you know, ESO, I have not been able to get my mouth in its rightful place ever since.
..uhhh, it was out of wack long before Wilderness said that.
ROFLMAO
*for a twist of irony, this is the image that cost me a 1-day ban, years ago, in 'Jake's' time. But it wasn't offered with friendly and humorous intent that time.
GA ;-)You were probably banned for the profanity, not the meme.
What profanity?
There were no words, just the image.
GA
It ok, GA, I have thicker skin....
It is ok despite how much conservatives like to differentiate themselves, they are much more alike than we are asked to believe. That merits a chuckle from a macabre direction.
"disbelief when you pass on such ridiculous Conservative myths - WITHOUT evidence, in the great tradition of Trump, I might add."
So, as a "thinking conservative" you go along with this?Hold on now. My comment was only to the issue of your noted 'mouth problem,' which was referenced from a post concerning another's mouth problem, and since the exchange seemed to be between kindred spirits, a question might be asked as to whether the affliction might somehow be associated with causal similarities derived from ideological alignments or, in the case of the mentioned 'mouth problems', misalignment.
To the rest . . . you're on your own.
GA ;-)
Umm...just who was it put unemployment payments at double earnings, and kept them up while businesses were begging for help? It is mostly (not all, but mostly) liberals that keep the welfare system growing ever larger. "To each according to their needs", or at least what liberals describe as need even though it might be better classified as luxury.
Currently liberals (today's Democrats) jump harder and faster on protecting the rights of people as Conservatives (Republicans today) try to take those rights (freedom) away. Conservatives get pissed when they aren't allowed to hurt other people and claim they are being discriminated against.
Monopoly is not free enterprise, small government is not allowing a handful of plutocrats to run the country and "freedom" is not the ability to subjugate your neighbor because of wealth and power. I will always be a source of resistance against the Right in this regard.
Capitalism does not necessarily mean exploitation but in Wilderness laissez faire beliefs, nothing else is possible.He just goes right to the extremes with his views on the opposing party in most cases. Any mild form of protectionism is seen as Marxism because that's as extreme as he can think.
Monopolies fly in the face of free enterprise. Conservatives protect monopolies while liberals try to break them up.
Small Government is ineffective in protecting its citizens. Besides, under Trump, Conservatives no longer believe that. Liberals believe in a government sized such as to deliver what the people want through their representatives.
Freedom is something liberals believe in unconditionally. Conservative only say they believe in that when they aren't restricting people's freedom (like being gay or having a right to privacy)"Small Government is ineffective in protecting its citizens."
True, but they are better than large governments. Unless you substitute "control" for "Protect".
Liberals believe in a government as large as it can force on the populace, which is the biggest reason ours keeps growing.
Sure liberals believe in unconditional freedom. Which is why they continue to make gun grabs, why OSHA exists, why we have the ADA and ACA and men participating in women's sports. Because they believe in the freedom for us to make our own choices. Can you read the insanity in your statement?
Technically you are correct, I overstepped saying the majority of pharmaceuticals were made in China, the correct thing to have said would have been "overseas", not specifically "China".
As of August 2019, only 28 percent of the manufacturing facilities making APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) to supply the U.S. market were in our country.
By contrast, the remaining 72 percent of the API manufacturers supplying the U.S. market were overseas, at least 13 percent are in China.
As for the power of BigPharma lets consider this...
Can Americans sue a Pharmaceutical company for providing "bad" Vaccinations?
"bad" meaning you can prove there were known risks for heart disease/failure, for instance, and yet the company disregarded these findings or dismissed those whom discovered the connection to continue to provide the vaccines to the public.
How involved is Big Pharma in lobbying Congress and controlling the laws related to Pharmaceuticals?
Pharma funded more than 2,400 state lawmaker campaigns in 2020
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682483/
More than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020
https://www.statnews.com/feature/prescr … -data-set/
These Senators Received The Biggest Checks From Pharma Companies
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatin … c6a92a1da2
Ken, can I trust you to provide accurate information and not just right wing propaganda?
____________
“this is why almost all our prescription drugs are Made in China, " - YOU probably need to revise your figures. That statement is false. In fact, only 13% are manufactured in China. POP.
"America's government (politicians and agencies) answers to Big Pharma, not the people," - Pure propaganda. Prove It
"all of this is evidence of a corrupt government that is failing its citizens." - I guess you are meaning the Trump truly Corrupt gov't. Biden, happily has lowered in some cases or, in many others, is lowering drug prices. Something no president before him has done!
You say all those things about China and yet their economy is in the tank. Explain that.”
——-
China has a competitive advantage and we need to counter it with appropriate tariff policy. But Trump, from what I understand, intends to extend the tariff concept beyond prudent boundaries. Maybe China will work with US as Japan has and consider manufacturing their vehicles here to avoid the inevitable tariff issue?
What do you fellows think about this?What do I think?
I think America is beset by two very powerful efforts that are determined to undermine it every chance possible.
If as Americans we cannot perceive this and we allow these efforts to continue to undermine our self-interests there will not be an America that protects Liberty or Rights (to own property, to pursue happiness, etc.) for anyone.
The primary threat is from within, our own 'elites', the UN & WEF the Open Society (Soros) and BlackRock (Fink). Businesses, governments, and the extremely wealthy share a vision: You will own nothing and be happy.
From declines in home and vehicle ownership to global inflation and government spending, many of the trends of the past few years reveal that a new world is emerging... one in which Western citizens, by choice or by circumstance, increasingly do not own possessions or accumulate wealth.
Can one truly be free, have liberty, without the right to own property?
When CBDC is rolled out (as is being done in the EU now) the government's ability to control what you can own, if you can travel, if you can eat becomes near absolute.
If you have 50k in cash right now, your ability to eat and travel is near limitless... if all you have is digital currency that the government can take at any time, then you are fully dependent on the government allowing you to have it.
It will be pretty hard to be critical of your government or speak your mind if doing so means you have no ability to buy anything or go anywhere.
The other threat is BRICS.
BRICS is a far bigger threat than we imagine because of our leadership in DC (corrupt, willing to send millions to their deaths to preserve their power, willing to allow severe hardships on their citizens to maintain their control).
BRICS is a reality, Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. they are creating their own Global Trade, their own Reserve Currency, they are separating from America and the West (thanks largely to the Biden Administration).
So... if we are to survive as a Sovereign Nation... if we are to secure for future generations the right to Liberty, Property and Opportunity then we must do two things.
Give up the nonsensical idea that we can create a Global Socialist State that will create some type of utopian world where everyone is taken care of... that is a ludicrous concept that will lead to subjugation as bad as anything seen in the histories of Russia or China... only this time it will be Americans living through those horrors.
We have to rebuild our own industrial base, our ability to produce everything from pharmaceuticals to computer chips, as well as or better than anyone else.
And if that means the government has to supplement those industries to do so, so they can dominate the North American marketplace, that is what needs to be done.
Instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year killing people in foreign lands, as we have done for the past quarter century, wasting the Nation's wealth... we need to invest it in Industry, real education (STEM) not BS Social Justice garbage that does nothing but instill ideology that aids in destroying America and give people degrees in something that produces nothing but hostility and division.
Its hard to tell if its already way too late... but the people we have making the decisions today have proven incompetent (or compromised) beyond the pale...
Choosing to tangle with Russia has backfired... Choosing to give billions back to Iran has backfired... what can you point to today that signifies a clear success story? Our Open Borders? The skyrocketing debt Americans have created in just the last two years of trying to survive Biden's America?Very well said - nothing I could disagree with.
Isn't denigrating "elites" the hallmark of being a Marxist? Wasn't that the whole point of what Marx wanted to do - destroy the elites just like Ken wants to do?
Pretty sure that anyone not MAGA is an elite in this case.
The country needs an enima...
Clearly the people in the EU are so weak they are willing to let autocrats in Brussels force them back into serfdom and poverty.
I think the make-up of Americans, enough of them, is different, they won't stand for it, sometimes things need to get bad, need to fail, collapse, so that you can build back up from the solid foundation that everything had been built.
We don't need to worry about multiple millions of foreigners crossing our borders every year if our government does not provide them with free airfare, housing, and other assorted services better than they can receive in the country they are coming from.
We don't need to worry about Nuclear War if we are no longer funding and instigating wars on the borders of nations with Nukes.
We don't need to worry about our little girls being raped in gym showers if we no longer have a government that forces us to accept men as women."Clearly the people in the EU are so weak they are willing to let autocrats in Brussels force them back into serfdom and poverty." - WHERE do you come up with such nonsense?
"We don't need to worry about our little girls being raped in gym showers if we no longer have a government that forces us to accept men as women." - YOU are passing on Conservative Myths.
Consider those who are NOT committed to the Democrat Party.
Consider those who are NOT committed to Trump.
What are the options, what are the realities for those voters?
We have to wait and see really, there is still time for things to happen that will impact our lives, there are wars that can escalate, banks that could collapse, too many things up in the air right now that could substantially change how we view things come November 2024.
What Biden DOES have to do, that he did not have in 2020, is own his record... answer for the decisions his Administration made.
In 2020 Biden was all about promises of unifying the country, of being a return to normal, of saving the country from tyranny... that worked during a Pandemic, with artificially inflated hatred for Trump by the MSM, but these are different times and people have been able to see what a Biden Administration brings.And, overall, Biden has a great record to run on. He just needs to find a way to overcome the right-wing propaganda that want to end democracy in America. That is the reason why experts in the field rate Biden Much Higher than Trump. They recognize Biden has done a lot a good (including stopping a Trump dictatorship) and Trump has done mostly bad.
There is nothing artificial about the dislike of a mob boss - they are bad people.
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 3 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...
- 6
Joe Biden: Pardons, Corruption Allegations, and Accountability
by Sharlee 33 hours ago
With all the uproar about Trump’s picks for his administration, scandals abound, and Democrats seem intent on wringing their hands over every alleged indiscretion of those nominated. But perhaps we should turn our attention to the man currently holding the top job. For the last eight years,...
- 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...
- 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,...
- 57
Just The Numbers
by Willowarbor 15 months ago
The economy is big, complex and difficult for most people to understand. In reality, the president may not have as much control over the economy as people tend to think. The Federal Reserve, for instance, has a much more direct influence over how well the economy does. I've read a lot of...