What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
I see President Biden's poll numbers have stabilized since the beginning of the year.
His negatives are trending downward in a range between 55.3 and 51.2
His positives are flat between 39.8 and 42.9
Four things, in my opinion, account for this: 1) his decision to leave Afghanistan in the way he did, 2) the pandemic-driven inflation, 3) disillusionment among the Left in not getting all of their policies turned into law, and 4) the ubiquitous and unfair propaganda against Biden by the Right.
All of the GREAT things he has accomplished take second place to these negatives.To ugly to post --- 22 hours ago — A recent poll truly shocked me. Quinnipiac University found that President Biden's approval rating had sunk to just 33 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/opin … derms.html
CNN --- Tanking with younger generation --- https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics … index.html
Polls spell trouble for Biden with Hispanic voters --- https://thehill.com/news/campaign/32702 … ic-voters/
Will Biden break a record?What I offered were averages which include your point estimates.
On average, Biden's approval rating has been flat since January and his disapproval ratings have been declining since January as well.
I read the Hispanic article earlier and can only shake my head, How dumb is the DCCC anyway?
What the youth article said is not surprising given the very high expectations they had, but, it doesn't say what they will do when faced with Trump, or a fanatical fascist like DeSantis (who now is banning math books because he thinks they are loaded with critical race theory, lol) and Biden. I don't see them voting for either one of the two Republican idiots, and if they are still disillusioned with Biden three years from now, they might do what they are good at anyway - not voting at all.
Just like with inflation, they are too shallow to dig into the details of why their agenda was mostly dead on arrival to start with because of Trump Republican intransigence.
DeSantis, btw, is proving to be much more dangerous than Trump, it seems. Consider:
* Now you can't say "gay" in Florida schools
* YOU cannot exercise your constitutional right to end your pregnancy before 15 weeks
* You apparently cannot teach about slavery in America in Florida schools.
* The only redistricting map that is allowed in Florida is the one DeSantis unconstitutionally (state) created to deny minorities an equal right to vote. Even the Democrats were satisfied with the map the Republican legislature came up with.
* You can't talk about systemic racism in the classroom
* He minimizes covid vaccines over monoclonal antibody treatments that he apparently has a financial interest in.
* Heaven help you if you are a youth having identity problems in this state. If you seek help, they may jail those who help you.
It is a terrible state in Florida.The recipe for today’s Republican Party is really quite simple: start with a base of total obedience to Donald Trump, add a healthy dose of doubling down on the Big Lie, and top it off with embracing far-right extremists.
The path to power for Republicans in Congress is now rooted in the capacity to generate outrage.
Voters will have a choice in 2022 between Democrats tethered to the center and a party run by those who sought to overturn the election, who concoct insane conspiracy theories. Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy has proven to be a feckless leader who sold his soul to the most extreme elements of his caucus.
Kevin McCarthy said if Republicans retake the House, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar may get ‘better’ committee assignments” Just incredibly unbelievable.Just adding a current slant to the direction Biden's polls are headed. Nothing more, no opinion, just a thought put into a question . Simple neat, and clean comment.
wow wow wow wow ---- I see you are beefing up your DeSantis derogatory lables in advance. " fanatical fascist like DeSantis ".
My God you do go on.DeSantis is the best Governor Florida has ever had.
I hope he doesn't run for President; Florida can only take a turn for the worse if he leaves.
"DeSantis draws congressional map that would dramatically expand GOP’s edge in Florida." one of the latest headlines.
I think he needs to create a tax on Democrats, all registered Democrats should have to pay an extra 10k each year to be allowed to live in Florida, and that money should be available to be used at the Governor's discretion.You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. A tax on Democrats lol yeah that's the ticket.
DeSantis is the best governor ever, and how is that!? I suppose, maybe compared to Rick Scott.. You say so many inflammatory things with absolutely No factual foundation.
Grab yourself another martini KenAs bad as Rick Scott was, he was orders of magnitude better the DeSantis. It shouldn't be long before women will have to wear Burkas in Florida, lol. Seriously, he is driving us quickly to the bad old days of the 1950s.
I must assume you live in Florida? Must be hard for you to accept President Trump won Florida and collected 29 electoral votes.
But don't fret, you may get to tout a US president in 2024.Not hard to accept at all. I know why he barely won (3 points, I think). The Florida Democratic Party sucks at getting people, especially Latino's, to vote. We had a perfect opportunity to blow it right open and those idiots ignored the Latino vote.
Interesting, what do you think will happen with the Latino vote next time around, if DesSaniis should run?
Well, the way the Florida State Democrats are approaching things, they will refrain from voting. Save for the Cubans, I can't see them voting For Desantis since most of his policies hurt the Latino community.
The small county Democrats have largely given up on the state organization and are banding together to try to do something effective, the medium sized counties are joining them. It is not pretty.I think Latinos in general will vote Republican in 2022 and 2024.
Pew Research Center shows that even as Mr. Trump was narrowing Democrats’ margins with white women and Hispanic voters, President Biden was surging with other groups, like suburbanites, white men and voters who identified as independents, that propelled him to victory.
I think Independents will again hold the key. Maybe even more so this time around. Attracting new, younger voters I think is also key.
"Millennial and Gen Z , Americans in their early 40s and younger already outnumber Baby Boomers. To date, it’s been Boomers, the largest voting block for the last three decades, who show up on Election Day, whereas their kids and grandkids, broadly speaking, are chronically absent. But if 2020 and its remarkable participation among new voters is an indicator, that’s projected to flip in short order. Plenty of projections suggest that Millennials and Zoomers are poised to overtake the Boomers in both number and political clout, perhaps as soon as this year."
With vote counts so close in many states, I'd like to see both parties campaigning more actively and on issues that really matter to people. New voters need to be brought into the mix and plenty of independents need to be swayed.
https://time.com/6142138/young-voters-u … ashington/Just a prediction. And when did Trump announce he was running? I predict a sweep in 2022, and a Republican will take the WH in 2024.
I don't think I have ever witnessed such a failure of an administration,
ever. But, to each their own. I would think Biden would have little chance of winning if he ran.
Young Voters Turn On Biden April 15, 2022
https://www.newsweek.com/younger-voters … ll-1698310
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … nts-latin/
Blood Bath-- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/opin … derms.html
Bidens polls are dismal and will most likely get worse, due to the sheer confusion that comes out of his administration, as well as IMO, he appears more confused himself daily.Do you feel the culture war issues are resonating with younger voters? The Gen Z and millennials? The book burnings and bannings, labeling educators as indoctrinators of gender swapping, allegations of CRT, for labeling Democrats as pedophiles, the continued refrain of a "stolen election"?
Researchers, including Pew Research Center and the duo Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, have been tracking the beliefs of millennials for some time now. The bottom line: milliennials see the world differently than previous generations.
"Millennials’ parents sat their toddlers down in front of the TV to watch ‘Barney,’ which taught the generation to look for consensus solutions that worked for everyone in the group, regardless of their surface differences,”
"The culture wars? They’ll slip away because the social differences that plague millennials’ parents and grandparents hold little meaning to millennials themselves. To millennials, sexual and racial differences don’t matter. Just like Barney, millennials take for granted that we’re all the same on the inside. They don’t bat an eye at interracial dating and gay marriage, and they’re decidedly pro-immigration. (This may be partly due to the racial diversification of America, as 43 percent of millennials are not white, the highest share ever.) "
Just a thought. Maybe this bodes well for a more cooperative American political climate.I simply feel the younger generation wants a crack at the American dream, and may just be smart enough to see they do not have the same opportunities Boomers had. In my view, I don't think they care or lose sleep over -- The book burnings and bannings, labeling educators as indoctrinators of gender-swapping, allegations of CRT, labeling Democrats as pedophiles, the continued refrain of a "stolen election".
I think you are using too big a blanket.
"I don't think I have ever witnessed such a failure of an administration,
ever. " - Then where were you when Trump was president. He will be, hell, he already is, ranked as one of the worst presidents ever.
C-Span ranks Trump 4th from last while they rate Obama at #10. Biden hasn't been rated yet.
CBS ranks Trump 3rd from last and Obama at #17.
Sienna College ranks Trump as 2nd Worst president while they put Obama 33rd worst out of 43We all know Trump's polls were always low. They fluctuated little.
Sienna College, come on. A liberal New York Private college. I have no doubt there are many polls and list that rate Trump the worst president ever.
I think that is a phenomenon. I need not be repetitive in my thoughts on Trump's presidency.
Sharlee will argue, rightly so at the moment, that Biden's hold on the youth vote has been diminished because the Democrats could not overcome Republican resistance for many of the progressive programs such as voting reform and the rest of the BBB initiative.
They won't look at the fact that it was the Republicans who failed them. Instead, they will only see that Biden and the Democrats didn't deliver regardless of the reason.
For me, I am more supportive for voting for Democrats so they can get a working majority and against the Trump Republicans whose only goal is to destroy democracy.I think you have read me wrong. I was just simply pointing out a current stat. I am not so naive to think polls can't change.
I am just a person that stays with the most current My current of today, will be old in a week, and I will move on to the current...
I disagree that the Republicans are trying to destroy Democracy. Yes, the party has morphed into something different than it was, but so has the Democratic party. It is obvious that many do not like that the Republicans are becoming very aggressive in nature. But I appreciate them showing more backbone.Sharlee, who do you feel is the face of the Republican Party these days? I find a handful make some sense to me. Ben Sasse of Kansas being one and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois another. I don't feel like they get much attention from party leadership or play a large role in shaping the direction of the party. But I'm curious about who you may feel as driving or leading the party right now.
The face of the party at this point is clearly Trump. I have several that I prefer, and feel would be good choices to run in 2024-- Marco Rubio, Condoleezza Rice, Pence, Sasse, Cruz.
I think some of us see Kinzinger as a Dem in Rep clothing.You can compare any representative to another in terms of how often they voted in a similar manner with the link below. Kinzinger is solidly conservative. He votes with his party colleagues the great majority of the time. You can compare his votes to those of his Democrat colleagues and it drops drastically. Unfortunately there is this perception of him because he's on the January 6th committee but I see that as a plus in his ability to use common sense and think logically and stand on principle even when abandoned by his party. That says a lot. I also appreciate that he comes from humble roots. Condoleezza Rice I had not thought of before but again I'd love to see someone younger and not so much of a Washington insider. Sasse, agreed! Cruz is too much a regular of political theater. He just doesn't ring true for me. Pence, for me is the old guard who really needs to retire also but He would be steady and not controversial in my opinion.
https://projects.propublica.org/represe … terman/115You had a few good names in there, Rice and Sasse. Rubio is a coward who crumbled to Trump and Cruz is simply crazy (therefore Trump supporters probably adore him). Pence is a lightweight who FINALLY showed some backbone to prevent team Trump from totally subverting democracy. Because of that, no self-respecting Trump Republican will ever support him.
I bet you see the most conservative of Real Republicans, Cheney, the same way as you see Kinzinger, both who should be part of the book Profiles in CourageI also want to point out that all but Crus are considered RINO's (in the same camp as Cheney and Kizinger) by Trump and people who think Trump is good and did a good job.
If the DNC and DCCC don't get on the ball, you may very be right.
The sad thing is, there is no reason for Latinos to vote Republican. Save for being against a woman's right to choose, there is nothing in the Trump Republican platform that helps them and several things (such has Trump's hate for them) that hurt them, i.e., restricted voting rights.
I can't believe he is still that high... expect it to hit the 20s when the economy really starts to tank, what we are experiencing right now in regards to inflation and lack of supplies is just foreplay.
And which policies contribute to inflation and lack of supplies more so than China going into complete lockdown every other week?
I really doubt Ken will attempt a reply since he has no evidence, just hilarious vitriol.
Or perhaps he is sick of repeating himself and beating a dead horse. I mean how many times does one need to make the point of how Biden's policies have hurt our ecconomy. Ken has frequently addressed the subject of why he feels we are having growing inflation.
He never addresses what the actual policies are though. They're just kind of vague generalizations. Sometimes he gives you links that don't support his assertion either. When I asked the question previously he gave me links to the UN? These aren't President Biden's policies. I asked specifically what President Biden has passed in Congress that has impacted inflation. The names of the policies.
What I have ascertained is that economists have several different views on what has caused inflation. One can only barrow on these views, which I know I have, and assume Ken has.
I think the subject has been well discussed here on HP's political forum. Although it is ongoing, and getting worse, no one can definitively give a solid factual view.
I follow stats, and how policies appeared to affect the economy. Decisions are made correlate with monthly stats. Is my assessment the "all be it" --- no. But very clearly economists are split on what has caused our inflation. My view is no more valid than anyone else's that post here. It's my view.
"what President Biden has passed in Congress that has impacted inflation. The names of the policies."
Faye, HIS stimulus bill, that he admits to being a "part " of what caused inflation.
"President Biden on Wednesday conceded that inflation is at a three-decade high because “people have more money now” as a result of his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus legislation, recognizing a central point made by people who are arguing against a nearly $2 trillion sequel.
Biden unexpectedly endorsed the stance of his critics who have said the US dollar is losing its buying power as a result of the government printing money to cover COVID-19 aid.
The president said stimulus funds that he signed into law are in part to blame for demand exceeding the supply of goods, causing a backlog at major US ports and the highest rate of annual inflation since 1990."
https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/biden-say … inflation/
His regulations on oil... may have added to inflation. Whether it be just tweaking the noses of the oil CEOs to stop exploring oil leases... To make sure they bring in cash, and gas prices rise. What better way for them to get rid of Biden?
It actually is not all about policies or what Biden got passed in Congress. The oil companies have played their games long, and hard, and won. He perhaps should have known what a mess he would cause when he tweaked their noses with his EO's.And all she is asking is to lay out the specific policy, unique to Biden, that allows you to continue to make your threads blaming him solely for the inflation.
Me, I've laid out multiple policies, such as the three stimulus packages, that lead blame to both Trump and Biden.
Another is the cutting of global oil supply in April of 2020 that would clearly have led to an increase in price of oil.
A third is the war in Ukraine that affects the price of certain foods coming from that region on the world market.
This is backing up your view with facts, instead of putting an unsupported view out there.
What we have gotten to support that view is a pipeline that wasn't functional, nor would it have been even now. And an attempt to limit new oil drilling leases on federal lands, despite more than 7,000 leases already in existence. Neither seem to have an actual negative affect on rising oil prices.Do you think we could have survived the first stimulus without our current inflation? Or were the others "the straw that broke the camel's back"? Don't know if anyone can actually answer that, but they certainly added fuel to the fire.
Oil demand was way down - a decrease in supply should not have caused much, if any, inflation.
As I commented before, any price increase in the tiny portion of our food supply imported from Ukraine could not produce the overall food inflation we're seeing. Not even if it were expanded to the entire 15% of our food we import. That comes from something else, with lack of labor (from the farm to the slaughter house to the truck drivers to the grocery store) playing a big part.As to stimulus, doubt it will be proven if one or all of the stimulus led to inflationary pressure. But like I just noted above, European nations largely did not issue stimulus and are seeing the same inflation we are. So that is a strike against the stimulus as the main factor leading to the root causes.
Oil demand was down, supply was decreased significantly, then demand went back up when the vaccines were rolled out. Production did not increase as the vaccines were rolled out. Oil companies just decided to focus on profits.
And as I noted, and which you ignored, the inflation figure you quoted on food was a very bad guess and not even close. Between the avian flu outbreak and the war, those factors do contribute to world shortages.No, we will never prove that the stimulus added to the inflation. However, it does fit the classic definition and reasons for inflation; increased dollars chasing decreasing goods. For me, that is good enough - that formula has been known and accepted for a long, long time as producing inflation.
Europe (as far as I know) did not simply write checks to everyone as the US did. However, what did it do? The people there were not working, either - where did they get the money to buy food, gas, energy, etc.? For sure they did not starve or freeze, they did not go homeless from lack of rent money, so how were those bills paid if not through government? There are more ways to add money to the economy than simply write checks.
So what is the inflation figure on food? Not lobster tails, but basic groceries - hamburger, flour, milk, eggs, etc.? I grocery shop and it is not 8%! It may not be the figure I quoted, but it is absolutely NOT the figure we're being given for overall inflation, either. And it cannot come from increased import prices, nor did it come from the avian flu (although that is NOW affecting prices, it did not do so a few months ago).
Val. I see her frustration, and where it comes from. She asked a valid question. I hope I offered up the one policy that may have attributed to inflation. It would appear the stimulus did snowball into economic problems. that increased chances of inflation. Yes, Trump also provided stimulus cash. But should the new administration have taken that fact into consideration before pouring more money into the economy at a time our supply chain was already marked with problems? This was a gamble.
The Trump deals that cut the oil in 2020, in my view was a good move. It was a serious problem that could have been very bad if not handled. I know we might disagree on that deal. I have now done more research on the deal, that problem. It could have caused a great problem in it was left unchecked.
AsO yet we are still receiving oil from Russiam, for about the next 40 days or so. I can't comment on how much we imported to create our food supply. I would think in the near future, yes it will be a problem.
The Keystone, if the XL part was finished, would have been a good way to move crude through America. We now have a problem moving oil, and lots of regulations on how it can be moved. This adds to the oil companies' attitude to not develop leases that would be more problems than they are worth. They can't move the amount of oil these new wells might bring. Yes, it's all about making money, but there are also problems the oil industry face. And while we look for better energy sources it is a fact, that we need oil.
I don't think new leases not being explored have caused rising gas prices. Oil companies have plenty of leases producing oil, they can't move it. And what they move cost more to move, and that cost is being passed on to us. Plus, they aren't in any respect willing to work with the new administration.
Inflation is the highest since 1990, that's a fact. Some say that's the price of huge stimulus over 2 administrations and a booming recovery.
The $5 trillion in stimulus passed by Mr. Trump and President Biden powered spending so strong that supply hasn't caight up.
The stimulus fueled an unprecedented economic boom.
Americans saved a lot during lockdowns and mostly spent on durable goods. When they started leaving the house again in 2021, spending on goods stayed strong while spending on services soared. It means Americans bought more stuff overall than they had in decades, but the supply chain to provide that stuff buckled under the pressure. That's a telltale recipe for inflation.
https://www.businessinsider.com/high-in … om-2021-11America saved a lot during the pandemic. Since the pandemic Credit card spending rose yearly and could indicate people are paying bills with credit. Feeding America Estimates at Least 60 Million People Turned to Charitable Food Assistance in 2020
https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us … -food-2020
And I will agree it appears many found it necessary to spend their windfall on goods.
We have all the same signs we had in 2007 -- and are headed for a recession. We have all the telltale signs that predict it's coming.
And it's coming fast. And we have a president that is calling for more spending. He makes mistake after mistake. Instead of addressing problems, he tries to use money as a bandaid. In the end, nothing is solved. That's my view.
"But very clearly economists are split on what has caused our inflation." - How split are they? Since I haven't seen any evidence that is true, pleas give me some of the examples you have found to substantiate that claim. Me, I rely on what I read and my economics training and education.
"Decisions are made correlate with monthly stats. " - You see, the problem with that statement is you fling it around like it is proof of causation when it is not. Sometimes the inference that is drawn is correct, but correlation nevertheless does not prove anything. It never has and it never will, ANY economist will tell you that.
"My view is no more valid than anyone else's that post here. It's my view." - So does that mean your view is that anybody on HP who has training in economics doesn't know more about economics than you do? Interesting.
This statement appears to the basis of all of your and the Post's hyperbole: "The irony is people have more money now because of the first major piece of legislation I passed. You all got checks for $1,400. You got checks for a whole range of things,” Biden said during a speech in Baltimore.". SOMEHOW, you both managed to take that truth and morph it into this untruth The president said stimulus funds that he signed into law are in part to blame for demand exceeding the supply of goods, causing a backlog at major US ports and the highest rate of annual inflation since 1990."No intention of defending my view. I made no claims that my view was factual, just an opinion.
I wanted to offer Larry Summers view on inflation
"With retail prices surging, wages failing to keep up, and the Federal Reserve moving to raise interest rates, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist and former Treasury Secretary, seems to be everywhere. Last week, Ezra Klein, the Times columnist, featured Summers on his podcast. Summers is also an economic commentator for Bloomberg News, and he writes columns for the Washington Post. In one of his latest articles, he declared, “The Fed’s current policy trajectory is likely to lead to stagflation . . . and ultimately to a MAJOR recession.”
Summers, who is sixty-seven, has seldom balked at expressing strong opinions. Over the decades, his views on globalization, financial deregulation, women in science, and Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, which he helped to craft as the head of the White House National Economic Council at the time, have caused controversy. Now, though, he is receiving plaudits for being ahead of the pack in warning that inflation could reëmerge as a major economic problem. At the same time, Biden Administration officials and some economists are questioning the basis of Summers’s arguments. Earlier this week, I spoke with some of these people, and then with Summers himself. "
In a column published in February, 2021, Summers questioned the historic size of President Biden’s $1.9-trillion covid-relief proposal, which Congress passed the following month, and wrote, “There is a chance that macroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” At the time that column appeared, the rate of consumer-price inflation was below two percent. Today, it stands at 7.9 percent. “Larry deserves credit for identifying the danger of inflation,” Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who worked in the Obama Administration, said. “At the start of 2021, the only people saying that were the folks that had predicted hyperinflation every year since 2008.”
Goolsbee also claimed, however, that Summers’s analysis of why inflation could reëmerge, which he has doubled and tripled down on over the past twelve months, hasn’t necessarily been borne out by events. Whereas Summers emphasizes the role that Biden’s American Rescue Plan played in stimulating demand throughout the economy, and the failure of the Fed to react quickly enough to rising prices, Goolsbee and others emphasize pandemic-related factors, particularly the impact of the coronavirus on global supply chains and the American labor market. “This distinction has been lost in the popular political debate, where the fact of high inflation overshadows everything,” Goolsbee said. “But it does matter for thinking through how to respond going forward.” Read more
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu … -and-bidenSharlee: Part of the blame game is on Biden and higher oil prices which leads to higher inflation. This is from the Brookings Institute and blames both sides for the cause of inflation.. This is from the bottom line of their article and the link to the article is below.
The administration’s policy makes sense, but is difficult to explain in a sound bite. Congress is focused more on scoring points in the politgame than on informing the American people. High gasoline prices anger Americans like those for no other product. Gasoline prices are apparent to all as they drive and see the price in lights along the road, and gasoline is a crucial component in many family budgets. But the American public doesn’t understand who to blame in a market that is global, nuanced, and complex. And particularly in Congress, politicians aren’t helping.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpo … ne-prices/"But the American public doesn’t understand who to blame in a market that is global, nuanced, and complex. And particularly in Congress, politicians aren’t helping."
This is how they encourage people to remain purely partisan. If people considered all of the facts in a rational and unbiased manner most would end up dead center. Today's politics is about polarization to assure votes.We certainly have regressed as a nation for sure. Back in the day (early 1800s), those that could vote were much more politically savvy and educated than the general population is today (that said, they were nevertheless very polarized back then as well, just for different reasons).
And so they blame the president, who ever that is. It is the thoughtful people who understand a president has little if any control over such things. It is the purely partisan or shallow thinking people who blame the sitting president.
While you offered Summers' analysis, you also offered Goolsbee's more current assessment. What do you make of
Goolsbee and others emphasize pandemic-related factors, particularly the impact of the coronavirus on global supply chains and the American labor market. “This distinction has been lost in the popular political debate, where the fact of high inflation overshadows everything,” ?
It was certainly lost on people here.But, but, but... you don't understand the economic factors involved.
It... It doesn't really have anything to do with Biden or his Administration's decisions. Biden has no impact on inflation. It is Russia, it is greedy oil companies!Ken: I know you are being sarcastic about your post about inflation. However, here is a compelling article that supports your statements that are not sarcasm.
https://www.inequalitymedia.org/the-tru … -inflationKen --- while the White House makes this claim --- Psaki: ‘There Are 9,000 Approved Oil Leases That Oil Companies Are Not Tapping into Currently’
The truth is there is more to the equation in regard to oil leases--- a huge tax hike.
"With gas prices averaging $4.08 across the U.S., the Biden administration announced late Friday that it would increase taxes on oil and gas drilling on federal lands as part of its plan to resume lease sales.
The Interior Department announced in a press release that it will hike royalty rates charged to oil and gas companies operating on federal land to 18.75 percent, a NEAR 50 percent tax INCREASE from the current rate of 12.5 percent. This royalty rate hike will increase the cost of energy production on federal lands, cost increases that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices and energy bills.
Biden’s tax hikes are accompanied by a significant reduction in the amount of federal land available for oil and gas development. The Interior Department’s plan will only allow 144,000 acres to be available for oil and gas production, a near 80 percent reduction in the amount of land originally analyzed by DOI for inclusion.
President Biden enacted a federal ban on new oil and gas leases during his first week in office, a move that was initially described as a 60 day pause. Yet after more than one year in office, the Biden administration has failed to conduct a single new lease sale.
In June of 2021, a federal judge reversed Biden’s Executive Order with a nationwide injunction ordering the Department of Interior to resume lease sales. Now the Biden Administration will finally comply with the court order but will do so while increasing taxes on leases and greatly limiting the ammount of land available for development.
With Americans facing record high gas prices, the Biden Administration should be encouraging American energy production by reducing taxes and regulatory burdens while expanding production on federal lands. Instead, the Administration did the bare minimum to comply with a court order to resume lease sales and attached new tax increases and land restrictions designed to limit new production." https://www.atr.org/biden-admin-announc … as-leases/
In my view, I don't see oil companies will ever be on board with Biden. Plus they feel very threatened by a guy that flip flips daily, and is pushing his New Green Deal. Which is very unfriendly to oil. Not to be snarky, but, Common sense just does not bode well with some people."This royalty rate hike will increase the cost of energy production on federal lands, cost increases that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices and energy bills."
Much like the trade barriers and tariffs Mr. Trump leveled against China that really only impacted prices for American consumers as all corporations just passed on costs to us rather than absorbing some themselves. In politics, the general population usually comes out with the short end of the stick. Did anyone try and purchase any sort of electronic or home appliance during that time? The price was about 30% more and your delivery time was about 6 to 9 months out.
I do not support government handouts to corporations when they have shown record profit and huge returns to shareholders over the interest of the public. But that's their prerogative as they are private corporations. I don't think they need government support in doing so.
I wouldn't mind seeing the lower 48 enacting an investment fund like that Alaska's permanent fund.
I think people who support the actual new green deal are pretty disappointed in President Biden's position on climate. I don't see any evidence that he's a real climate warrior whatsoever.
But of course the oil companies are going to adamantly oppose climate restrictions. The following link is really a great article on a documentary / exposé that is coming out on the oil industries efforts to conceal the damage they were doing to the environment And who helped them.
The Guardian: ‘What we now know … they lied’: how big oil companies betrayed us all.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi … yed-us-all"I think people who support the actual new green deal are pretty disappointed in President Biden's position on climate. I don't see any evidence that he's a real climate warrior whatsoever."
I would think they would be, he is now needing to play clean up on his mistakes, and beg around not only our American oil companies, but OPEC, and Venezuela. Smashed what they saw as progress.
It would seem that all of the above countries we buy oil from are polluting the atmosphere. Just a different area of our planet. Seems like we could appear to the rest of the world as hypocrites. Or as we do to me -- airheads. We are dependent on oil. If we can replays it at all it will be a process that takes time to gradually cut the amount we use.
At this point, I am more worried about the cost of heating my home, and putting gas in my car. Hopefully, down the road, I won't have to.
.At the end of the day (or come November voting) that is all the majority of Americans care about.
Food prices and the availability of food, the cost of gas at the pump, their ability to keep their standard of living.
What the majority of Americans don't care about are excuses.
They won't want to hear about Trump, Ukraine, Putin, no excuse is good enough. The people who are too dumb to know what is really going on won't care, they will only know they are going broke, and those that are smart enough to know won't buy their BS excuses.
Inflation is the new Tax on Working Class Americans, it is how they redistribute wealth to the wealthy... the stimulus package Biden passed was nothing more than "printing money"... when you inject more dollars into the economy you devalue the dollar, its buying power.
This isn't about Russia, or the Pandemic, it is about making the Middle Class poor, until eventually there are only two classes of people in America, the wealthy elites, and the deplorable rest of humanity.
That is your Democratic led government in action today.Ken: Thanks for your opinion. Until you can prove otherwise, It is my opinion that what you posted is strictly your opinion. Why is it that Biden's stimulus plan is printing money, while Trump's stimulus plan is great problem solving?
Ken: Thanks for your opinion. Until you can prove otherwise, It is my opinion that what you posted is strictly your opinion. Why is it that Biden's stimulus plan is printing money, while Trump's stimulus plan is great problem solving? Wasn't Trump's plan just printing money as well? Isn't the feds quantitative easing just printing money as well?
What we do know is a pandemic caused loss of jobs and supply chain backups. The economy was stimulated by printing money which created greater demand for goods and services that are still not being met. That demand allowed markets to raise prices which causes inflation. The feds then raise interest rates to moderate the demand for not only goods and services but also borrowing of money.
The fact is both Trump, Biden, the Feds and a pandemic have caused where we are now. It is a perfect storm of many forces at work at the same time. And now we will probably be printing more money to pay for the arms being sent to Ukraine.
Blaming the democrats for this buys us nothing. We are in this all together whether you like it or not. As far as printing of money goes, you can blame Nixon for taking us off of the gold standard. Please prove me wrong with anything I have stated in this post.You know what I find interesting is that everybody is focusing on the year-over-year inflation numbers (the standard look). But analysts also consider the equally important annualized month-over-month inflation.
When you look at it that way, you get:
- Mar 21: 6.35%
- Apr 21: 7.38%
- May 21: 2.29%
- Jun 21: 0.96%
- Jul 21: 0%
- Aug 21: -0.22%
- Sep 21: 0.23%
- Oct 21: 1.778%
- Nov 21: 1.16%
- Dec 21: 0.35%
- Jan 22: 0.86%
- Feb 22: 0.64%
So what people see and hear all the time from news and right-wing propaganda is how bad it is from a year ago. And then repeat it month after month unnecessarily scaring the crap out of people with a sting of high numbers.
But what people don't understand is that once the jump is made from a year ago, it is not going to change much (assuming inflation isn't constantly increasing) after that until 12 months have past since the initial rise.
That is why the month-over-month data is so important because it reflects that ACTUAL inflation people are experiencing on a monthly basis. AND, as you can see, once the first couple of months of shock are over, inflation is back down to what it has historically been, 1 to 2% annually.
Another way of saying that is so long as inflation continues at this low monthly rate, come May 2023, year-over-year inflation will fall drastically.That may be true, yet in my view that means peanuts in the respect I know gas prices are not going drop significantly to make up for the loss of what I had to use my savings for to purchase it. It in my mind it is about Cash Flow. A loss is a loss.
Just for info . . .
California All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … pg&f=m
Gas Prices Stretch Family Budgets
https://www.ppic.org/blog/gas-prices-st … y-budgets/Good point, the majority of Americans are not looking at charts or stats. They are looking at the cost of living. What do they pull out of their pocket or charge to fill up one's gas tank or what does it cost now to feed their families? Many now are dipping into savings, some living on credit that they may have a hard time paying at the end of the month. That is the reality of the situation. Most food prices have doubled. We are most likely headed for worse in the months to come.
Prices were up 7.9% from February 2021 to February 2022, not 100%.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ … -findings/
More detailed look by category:
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/31/10900862 … sda-reportSo what you are saying is that if a fill-up in Feb 2021 cost $40, then people would have to dip into their savings today to pay the $43.16.
Or not buy that Cappuccino at Starbucks. Or not eat out, or not take that movie in. Give up the luxuries, in other words, to satisfy the necessities. Isn't that what most reasonable people do, at least until Biden fills their pockets with free money?
How many people are doing that do you suppose, lol?
Sharlee: You remind me of Debbie Downer on Saturday Night Live. Oh you probably never watch that because I have observed conservative have no appreciation for political satire, unless Trump is bad mouthing his opponents.
Speaking of Trump and his great problem solving skills, and I know I'm off topic, but I couldn't pass this up. At his Ohio rally yesterday, he is very concerned about low water pressure and taking a long time to wash his hair. I fully expect you to chastise me for being off topic, but then again I couldn't let this go. It's all part of MAGA.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzDid you think about low water pressure in terms of what fire engines need from hydrants?
Did you consider that long times to get hot water means more energy loss during the travel of the water?
Did you recognize that water pressure varies in a township, with higher elevations getting even lower pressures?
Or did you just jump at a chance to laugh at Trump because he thinks water pressure is a problem, ignoring anything he said but the comment about his hair? (That's a rhetorical question - we already know the answer.)President Biden reverses Trump showerhead rule.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- … en-climate
Trump has said frequently it takes many flushes to conserve water... Or longer showers to save water... I want the water pressure back the quicker the better.I didn't know Trump had a vendetta against toilets and showerheads. Neither has anything to do with water pressure, although both sound like something Trump would do. He is hardly an expert, or even of average knowledge, in common things like that.
Trump was hell-bent on rolling back water restrictions on water usage
Trump Bemoaned Water Pressure. Now His Administration Has Eased Standards
December 17, 20203:00 PM ET
The U.S. Department of Energy has finalized two new rules that offer a win to President Trump in his personal crusade to roll back water efficiency standards on appliances like showerheads.
Trump frequently has bemoaned what he views as insufficient water pressure with newer appliances.
The new rules, announced Tuesday, loosen water regulations on showerheads and for washers, and dryers. The Trump administration heralded the standards as a victory for the "quality of life" of Americans.
I am all for better showerhead pressure, and washers that fill up to the top and get clothes clean.If you want better showerhead flow, buy an old head or drill out the restrictions in a new one. If you want more water in your washer then adjust or change the sensor that tells it when to stop filling. Same for more water to flush a toilet with.
None of them have anything to do with water pressure...unless the pressure to the house is simply too low to provide more than 2 gallons per minute. Whereupon you have other problems and should either adjust the pressure regulator on your well or call the city water department. Personally, I have set my well for 40 psi, which is pretty low compared to city systems but still gives me plenty of water unless I'm spraying the grandkids.My plumber showed me how to take out the small plastic part years ago. The part just snaps out with a screwdriver.
We got our toilets from Canada, and last year I purchased a new dishwasher and washing machine.
We have wells that we use on the grounds this saves on the water bill.
Thanks for all the tips...
" He is hardly an expert" - Careful, he may sue you for such disloyalty, lol.
I would assume many Americans are sharing my sentiment. Americans are not looking at charts or stats. They are looking at the cost of living. What do they pull out of their pocket or charge to fill up one's gas tank or what does it cost now to feed their families? Many now are dipping into savings, some living on credit that they may have a hard time paying at the end of the month. That is the reality of the situation. Most food prices have doubled. We are most likely headed for worse in the months to come.
It would seem you feel it socially acceptable to assume due to me being a conservative you can assume what I watch on TV, and assume you have the right to label me "Debbie Downer".
I don't feel anyone that truely knows me would assume I am a negative thinking person. I am very much upbeat and look to the future, not the past. The past is water under the bridge. I certainly have an opinion on the past and future. But, I live for the day.
Now, in regards to SNL, I do not watch it anymore, I find the satire borders on cruel, uncalled-for personal insults. I realize some liberals find this kind of satire funny. I find it unacceptable. Yes, being a conservative I hold better values than looking down on another just because I could or can. I think this type of satire does nothing but foment hate. Yes, harsh words... But my words.
I think it would be obvious by now our ideologies are very far apart, and so are our values in my view. I guess that pretty much sums it up.
And I did not watch Trump's rally, but I do think I know what he was talking about. I have the same complaint. So, if that is part of the Republican agenda they had me at "water pressure. I am tired of every time I buy a shower head needing to remove the little white plastic part to resume the water pressure I love.
So odd, that you did not address the subject of my comment. Just went off on my person. How liberal of you.
Since you didn't have to pull any more money out of their pocket this month than they did last month, do you still claim rampant inflation is still happening?
To do what TSMOG wants, we will need to go through a serious recession. I would rather let wages catch up, which for the lower economic group most affected by inflation, that is happening.How do you know what I want? I said what happened for me is a loss! A big loss! I have no wages. So, who cares if they go up. Not I! If that is selfish, so be it.
It would well appear your view or what you are personally experiencing is relevant, it just does not fit his scenario. Our current inflation is serious and affecting many. We need solutions.
The entire world economy is facing inflation today. We are not the only ones. Many countries depend on Russia for their oil and gas. Putin’s game is to lower the supply to those countries which in turn creates more demand, causing higher prices. He has treaties with the gulf states, like Saudi Arabia which are on his side and agreed to not increase their supply as well.
Putin’s game plan is “give me Ukraine and I will increase the supply of oil and gas”, along with gulf countries like Saudi Arabia. If he doesn’t get Ukraine, he will continue to decrease the supply, along with his gulf country alliances. We and the Western world will also feel the effects of his game plan with even higher prices at the pumps.
I learned this today from watching Fareed Zakaria’s show. At this point it is a very plausible theory.It's definitely not our inflation, but the world's inflation. Someday maybe people will write it that way.
But based on these economic laymen, the world's inflation problems are also Biden's fault. lol.
How do I know, because you said so. You said " yet in my view that means peanuts in the respect I know gas prices are not going drop significantly to make up for the loss of what I had to use my savings for to purchase it."
That implies you want prices to fall across the board (assuming your use of gas was a stand-in for everything affected by inflation). To have prices fall, you need the deflation caused by a 2008-style recession.
And are you saying you want us to believe you had to dig into your savings to pay that extra $3 per fill-up?
1.23%
U.S. inflation rate for 2020 was 1.23%, a 0.58% decline from 2019. U.S. inflation rate for 2019 was 1.81%, a 0.63% decline from 2018.
8.5. The Consumer Price Index increased 8.5 percent for the year ended March 2022, following a rise of 7.9 percent from February 2021 to February 2022. The 8.5-percent increase in March was the largest 12-month advance since December 1981.6 days ago
Let's let the number speak.
So do you think it costs more to live, under this inflation? As inflation heats up, 64% of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck
The increased cost of living is straining households nearly across the board.
Almost twAs daily life gets more expensive, workers are having a harder time making ends meet.
While wage growth is high by historical standards, it isn’t keeping up with the increased cost of living, which is growing at the fastest annual pace in about four decades.
“Wages are up 5.1% over the past year, which is trailing the pace of inflation,” said Bankrate.com senior economic analyst Mark Hamrick. “Indeed, surging prices are stealing the show on the minds of consumers.”
When wages rise at a slower pace than inflation, those paychecks won’t go as far at the grocery store and at the gas pump — two areas of the budget that are getting particularly squeezed.o-thirds of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck, according to one report.
At the start of 2022, 64% of the U.S. population was living paycheck to paycheck, up from 61% in December and just shy of the high of 65% in 2020, according to a LendingClub report.
“We are all seeing the cost of everything shooting up,” said Anuj Nayar, LendingClub’s financial health officer. However, paying more for gas and groceries is hitting households particularly hard, he said.
“You’ve got to eat, you’ve got to commute; these are not discretionary expenses.”
Even among those earning six figures, 48% said they are now living paycheck to paycheck, up from 42% in December, the survey of more than 2,600 adults found. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/as-pric … check.html
64% live week to week, many might have saved to retire, and are now forced to dip into their savings, and yes some even got a small raise the one Biden is so proud of --- and that raise is eaten up by inflation, and they find themself deeper in the hole than before their raise. --- So it would make perfect sense to feel many are suffering due to inflation. And many are feeling as TSMOG does."8.5. The Consumer Price Index increased 8.5 percent for the year ended March 2022, following a rise of 7.9 percent from February 2021 to February 2022." - And THAT is what most people call disinformation. Why? Because you just laid it out there without context that inflation is sky-rocketing; which is simply not true.
Both of your facts are certainly true, but are presented in such a way as to leave a false impression. More correct and "factual" would be "The Consumer Price Index was 8.5%, which is a 0.9% annual increase over February's results which were 7.9%."
Now THAT tells a factual story - that current inflation is running at less than 1% rather than the VERY MISLEADING 8.5%More the fact is that 62% of Americans live week to week --- Inflation hurts the less fortunate more than the fortunate. It is very evident that you are hell-bent on figures. I am hell-bent on pointing out people are suffering due to inflation.
I see you caught onto the new liberal overused flavor of the month word misinformation: LOL What happened to last month's word --- projecting?
You can twist them up, shake them up, the stats do not change or the problems our current inflation rate is causing. And that was the
subject.of TSMOG post.If you are all that concerned about people's well being, then why is it OK with you that so many people died from Trump's Covid policies. As much as you would like it to be so, you can't have it both ways.
BTW, the term is disinformation, which you pointed out way back is just another form of lying.You are diverting. And your comment is irrational, off the wall. Comparing COVID to inflation.
COVID is a virus, not a man-made problem, but a problem of nature. inflation is man-made. (Is inflation a man-made concept?
The general price level is a man-made construct for which no natural scientific formula exists.)
. And I do not agree with your view that Trump's policies were responsible for the death rate. In fact, in my view, his quick problem-solving led to vaccines that save billions of people around the world.
We can agree to disagree. It is mutual that we rarely respect one another's views.Nice Deflection.
So, because Covid was a virus, then you have no qualms with millions of people dying or getting sick and having their lives upended. You have never really shown remorse over how Trump's policies caused so much suffering. Yet, because this is Biden we are talking about and the man-made inflation he had no control over, NOW you decide to worry about people hurting? WHY the change of heart? Is it BDS? I think your concern is called crying crocodile tears.
From your response, I am guessing that analogies are not your thing to understand.
You may nor agree with what everybody knows to be true, that is your right. But it is true nevertheless, I'll leave you one source that I have left before from Dr. Brix:
"“I look at it this way: The first time, we have an excuse. There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge,” Birx said. “All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … s-1148052/
Seems pretty clear this expert thinks Trump is responsible. And, I can find many more like it.
So, yes, you can agree to disagree with Dr. Brix if you want, but I take her at her word.I did not deflect. Here is your comment and my reply. It was you that deflected. here is the comment I replied to
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
If you are all that concerned about people's well-being, then why is it OK with you that so many people died from Trump's Covid policies. As much as you would like it to be so, you can't have it both ways.
BTW, the term is disinformation, which you pointed out way back is just another form of lying.
Sharlee -- You are diverting. And your comment is irrational, off the wall. Comparing COVID to inflation.
COVID is a virus, not a man-made problem, but a problem of nature. inflation is man-made. (Is inflation a man-made concept?
The general price level is a man-made construct for which no natural scientific formula exists.)
. And I do not agree with your view that Trump's policies were responsible for the death rate. In fact, in my view, his quick problem-solving led to vaccines that save billions of people around the world.
We can agree to disagree. It is mutual that we rarely respect one another's views.
(I certainly did not bring up COVID in the middle of a conversation about inflation, that would be you, I do not find your analogy makes any sense at all...)
Once again, I appreciated and was very pleased with how Trump handled the COVID crisis. Too bad our death rate has skyrocketed since Biden took office. I will repeat COVID was a problem that came from a problem of nature. Biden created and fed inflation.
Your analogy shows no comparable significance. COVID a natural crisis caused by nature does not compare to a man-made crisis. It would be you that does not understand the concept of what would be an anology.
Perhaps look up the definition of analogy.
I see you really spinning out of control, headed back down the Trump bad man.
It was you that deflected, as your comment shows, it is you now that deflects further off subject.
Not willing to fall for this stale bait. America's present problem is inflation. I prefer to discuss the current.)
.There it is folks. I posted this 46 hours ago. The news link to support this is at the end of the Italic text.
Sharlee: I think you missed the point of my post. Putin and his oil producing countries of the mid-east control the energy spigot for the rest of the world. If Putin does not get his way in Ukraine, he will turn that spigot down and continue to raise the cost of energy through out the developed world.
If Putin had not decided to attack Ukraine, we wouldn't be in this mess. This could be a long slog not only for Ukraine, but for increases in energy prices for the free world.
At this juncture what would you like Biden to do to increase energy supply? What would a "better solution" be? Putin wants NATO to stop sending arms to Ukraine, but I don't think he will then open the spigot.
Biden's issues with Saudi Arabia have to deal with how Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, but that is another story.
This just released today.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … s-l2gapmmd
I haven't used "projecting" because you haven't done it much lately. When you do, I will dry it off and start using it again.
Do you know what I find exceptionally funny?
You'll appreciate this, Sharlee...
For four years, everything going wrong was Trump's fault, everything he did was because he was a racist or sexist, or was trying to start WWIII, or a Russian puppet.
And when something good happened... well that was leftover from Obama.
Remember all those Threads and Posts?
I bet you do.
Now those very same people say none of the problems going on today are Biden's fault... how can a President be responsible for greedy oil companies?
How is Biden responsible for inflation?
If Trump had done his job, there would be no war in Ukraine, Biden would have never had to leave Afghanistan the way he did, etc. etc.
And only a deplorable person would argue the matter.Ken and Sharlee: The date on this article is August 4, 2020. It is near the end of Trump's four year term. It is his history, like it or not. Sharlee says it shows Trump all bad and Biden all good. Biden had not yet become president, but he was stating his polices and agendas and of course they were different than Trump's
I challenge you and Sharlee to dispute the facts in this article were contrived to make Trump look bad and Biden look good, but that is what Sharlee claims and more than likely you as well. The problem is that those things about Trump actually happened.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/vo … vironment/Keep in mind, everybody, nobody had to make up things about Trump. His incompetence was so monumental that he self-destructed and is trying to take America with him.
And let me emphasize you last very true statement The problem is that those things about Trump actually happened.You may not have noted, that I did not defend Trump's climate agenda nor did I condemn it. I said I was --- I supported Trump's energy independent plan and was very pleased with the results. I also feel Biden kissed Putin's butt with Nordstrom 2 Thank God Germany Axes Nord Stream 2 pipeline to punish Russia over war...
I also said this -- He provided an article that had paragraph after paragraph of Trump bad, Biden good... two paragraphs of words political promises.
I just pointed out he is a hypocrite running around begging other countries for oil. And that Trump realized what a problem it was to have Europe so dependent on Russian oil. Which is very evident. Trump shut down Nordstrom, Biden as I said kissed Putin's butt and gave the go-ahead.
Trump's had a climate agenda, one can find it online If one chooses to view it. I read it long ago. I was very much in support of that plan. And felt it was logical for this time in our history.
I have no intention of arguing about my view in regard to climate control. My comments give my view."I supported Trump's energy independent plan and was very pleased with the results. " - Trump didn't have "energy independence plan", he just SAID he did. If fact, he simply continued Obama's VERY SUCCESSFUL plan and claimed the credit for himself. That is called being disingenuous
"I did not defend Trump's climate agenda nor did I condemn it. " - Trump was totally anti-climate, so why didn't you condemn it?
"I also feel Biden kissed Putin's butt with Nordstrom 2 " - Of course you do, that is your role in life, after all. Even though it is not true, but you nevertheless must say so.
"I just pointed out he is a hypocrite running around begging other countries for oil." - Has you said, that is your ill-informed view (ok, ill-informed is my word). You also said "for us to buy", which is also false. He was requesting oil producers (including US producers) to increase world supply to keep oil prices down. I see you oppose that with your criticism of the attempt.
"Trump shut down Nordstrom, " - Again, why with the lie? Germany did NOT stop Nordstrom II." - Again, why with the lie? Germany did NOT stop Nordstrom II."
I don't care for being called a liar. --- Actually, Germany did --- Germany axes pivotal Nord Stream 2 pipeline bringing Russian gas to Europe after Putin sends troops to Ukraine
Feb 22, 2022, Germany on Tuesday scrapped plans for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline after Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukraine.
During an address on the Ukraine crisis Tuesday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he decided to "reassess" the certification, a necessary approval for it to start moving gas from Russia to countries in Europe.
"In light of the most recent developments, we must reassess the situation in particular regarding Nord Stream 2," he said. "The situation has fundamentally changed." https://www.businessinsider.com/germany … ine-2022-2
TRUMP STOPPED THE CONSTRUCTION ---
"Christmas came early for Ukraine and much of Europe after US President Donald Trump signed an omnibus defense bill that included sanctions STOPPING THE completion of a major new Russian gas pipeline to Germany.
"The Nord Stream 2 undersea pipeline was JUST WEEKS away from completion when, on December 20, the US President signed a bill that stopped the contractor, Allseas Group of Switzerland, from further work. Allseas has proprietary technology to do such specialized work, and threats by the US government against the company legally and financially forced it to immediately suspend work.
Some critics have said the sanctions are too little, too late, because the project is nearly completed, with estimates that 2,100 kilometers have been laid and only 300 kilometers are left to build. But a letter from the US Senate warned Allseas: “if you were to attempt to finish the pipeline in the next 30 days, you would devastate your shareholders’ value and destroy the future viability of your company.” https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u … -pipeline/
"President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union.
The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany.
The US considers the project a security risk to Europe.
Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions.
Congress voted through the measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
BIDEN as I said in my view Kiised Putins BUTT...
The U.S. waives sanctions on Nord Stream 2
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The Biden administration waived sanctions on the company behind Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany and its chief executive, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday, a move decried by critics of the project in Congress.
A State Department report sent to Congress concluded that Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO, Matthias Warnig, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, engaged in sanctionable activity. But Blinken immediately waived those sanctions, saying that it was in the U.S. national interest.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 021-05-19/
Please reread Ken's comment. Perhaps you will realize you jumped off the subject. The subject was clearly hypocrisy.
To be truthful, It's more than apparent to me that much liberal logic is flawed. There is no making sense of much of it. I feel many liberals show a lack of unintelligent not to recognize the hypocrisy they exude
The hypocrisy is palpable.
Trump handled problems and avoided problems IMO. Biden creates and makes problems worse.Ken: Really, how about Jan.6 and everything leading up to it?
Ken and I were looking at the current hypocrisy. Comparing some attitudes to how some were very willing to bash Trump at every turn for what they considered a problem, yet will not do the same with the real problems we are witnessing today.
I think the problem is some just can't discuss the current problems for their own reasons --- and prefer to discuss Trump. It is also apparent some here are interested in more current problems and don't ruminate on the past.
Not saying we did not have problems during Trump's presidency, but we have a new president and lots of new problems. And for the record, Ken did not say we did not have problems during the Trump years. He just pointed out what appears to be hypocrisy.
Here is part of Ken's post please note the context --
Do you know what I find exceptionally funny?
You'll appreciate this, Sharlee...
"For four years, everything going wrong was Trump's fault, everything he did was because he was a racist or sexist, or was trying to start WWIII, or a Russian puppet.
And when something good happened... well that was leftover from Obama.
Remember all those Threads and Posts?
I bet you do.
Now those very same people say none of the problems going on today are Biden's fault... how can a President be responsible for greedy oil companies?
He did not say we did not have problems under Trump, he was simply stating his view on how some are not willing to say none of the problems we are having is Biden's fault. "
I offered my view that I see this all as hypocritical.
So, Jan 6th has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing. Neither Ken nor I stated there were no problems under Trump.Sharlee and Ken: Let me remind you of the title of this forum.
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President?
You could have saved a whole lot of effort by just answering, Biden has done nothing great while being president and he never will.
No matter how you slice it, in your minds Biden has done nothing great while being president and further never will because he is not capable of being president. As a politician, he never did anything great and is now a senile old man with mental deficiencies.
He should be impeached as soon as possible. However, you never take into account about who would succeed him. It would be Kamal Harris, so please try to stick with reality.
You want to stick with the current news, but you always project what is going to be Biden's down fall, like a self fulfilling prophecy.
You need to understand, oil is a geopolitical commodity. that is used as an investment instrument. The futures market can influence the price of oil while it is still in the ground.
Putin is shutting off the energy supply to Poland and Bulgaria and threating to do that to many other nations. Thus increasing demand and causing prices to rise. And you keep saying Biden is going around begging other countries for oil. Is that rise in prices Biden's fault?
I would like to see the dates on your sources for Biden begging for oil from other countries. I have a feeling it is old news. Here is the latest.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … f-to-bidenRemind me of the name of the tread? You continually deflect from subject to subject, most bringing all back to Trump, not Biden. LOL
Once again --- Ken and I were looking at the current hypocrisy. Comparing some attitudes to how some were very willing to bash Trump at every turn for what they considered a problem, yet will not do the same with the real problems we are witnessing today.
Here is the comment where you entered our back and forth
PEOPLEPOWER73 WROTE:
Ken and Sharlee: The date on this article is August 4, 2020. It is near the end of Trump's four year term. It is his history, like it or not. Sharlee says it shows Trump all bad and Biden all good. Biden had not yet become president, but he was stating his polices and agendas and of course they were different than Trump's
I challenge you and Sharlee to dispute the facts in this article were contrived to make Trump look bad and Biden look good, but that is what Sharlee claims and more than likely you as well. The problem is that those things about Trump actually happened.
ONCE AGAIN THE POINT we were sharing that some are very willing to treat Biden differently than they did Trump. Not sure I can be any clearer.
I don't care about what Trump did. I have moved on. And yes this thread is as you reminded me
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President?
So why are you stuck on Trump? Let's hear some of the great things Biden has been up to.
"No matter how you slice it, in your minds Biden has done nothing great while being president and further never will because he is not capable of being president. As a politician, he never did anything great and is now a senile old man with mental deficiencies."
Yes, today I can honestly say answer your question -- CORRECT
Yes, he should be asked to step down or be impeached.
"You want to stick with the current news, but you always project what is going to be Biden's down fall, like a self fulfilling prophecy."
The current news is negative in regard to Biden. I need not project his downfall --- he has fallen
"Putin is shutting off the energy supply to Poland and Bulgaria and threating to do that to many other nations. Thus increasing demand and causing prices to rise."
This will cause a possible gas increase. As of today, Biden can truthfully say if gas rises it Putin has added to the increased price.
" And you keep saying Biden is going around begging other countries for oil. Is that rise in prices Biden's fault? " please look at the date today. Our problem was current before any Russian war. Stats prove this. I blame Biden for much of the problem with rising gas prices as well as inflation.
"I would like to see the dates on your sources for Biden begging for oil from other countries. I have a feeling it is old news. Here is the latest."
All you need to do is click... My articles are current and show where I came by my view on Biden looking for oil from other countries. Biden looking for oil is no secret and it's not misinformation as ECO called my view.
I suggest you look at the sources I offered.This post is not reflecting the full understanding of how the global oil industry works. President Biden isn't "looking" for oil for the reasons you believe he is.
Okay. I did not give any explanation of why Biden is looking for oil. I did say he was begging for oil, but not why... I suggested PP read the sources I offered on the subject.
My comment --- All you need to do is click... My articles are current and show where I came by my view on Biden looking for oil from other countries. Biden looking for oil is no secret and it's not misinformation as ECO called my view.
I suggest you look at the sources I offered.
The context is rather clear.Sharlee:
"Once again --- Ken and I were looking at the current hypocrisy. Comparing some attitudes to how some were very willing to bash Trump at every turn for what they considered a problem, yet will not do the same with the real problems we are witnessing today."
It's not that they were willing to bash Trump for what they considered a problem. It was real problems that he created and is still creating. He more than likely will run for president again. I predict that he will start his "If I lose the election, it is rigged" mantra again.
What do you mean by the real problems we are witnessing today? Isn't that just weasel wording? Doesn't it really mean, look at the problems Biden is creating and then you want us to agree with you by bashing him, because in that way we are not being hypocritical.
Do you think there are Biden supporters on this forum that can convince you that Biden is not as bad as you think?
"I don't consider chatting about current political news bashing. I have as I said not seen anything positive in the news about Biden currently."
It's not about current political news that you are bashing it is Biden you are bashing, in the past, currently, and even in future predictions.
Let's face it. I'm afraid Trump will run again and you are afraid Biden will run again. If you could impeach him right now without breaking the law, you would do it.The mantra should be "If I win, then that means I successfully "rigged" the election."
"What do you mean by the real problems we are witnessing today? Isn't that just weasel wording? Doesn't it really mean, look at the problems Biden is creating and then you want us to agree with you by bashing him, because in that way we are not being hypocritical. "
My statement is clear I prefer to converse about the real problems we are witnessing today. I do not consider all the hype about "what if" Trump runs. That is just my preference. You can disagree, and I have no problem with that.
Your anology seems non-sensical. I have always been fairly pointing out problems in regard to Trump, and I do not intend not to do the same with Biden. You don't talk much about Biden, why is that? This thread as you pointed out is about his accomplishments.
You accused me of asking you to bash Biden... Did you not. I have asked you to provide where I stated that. The fact Is I asked you to provide his accomplishments.
You know pivot once again and ask --- "Do you think there are Biden supporters on this forum that can convince you that Biden is not as bad as you think?"
It's not up to anyone to convince me of anything. I glean my view as do most from different forms of media and conversing with friends, and on social media. So, perhaps some of what other posts here on HP could add or change my view in some respect.
" It's not about current political news that you are bashing it is Biden you are bashing, in the past, currently, and even in future predictions."
Yes, I see Biden's policies at the heart of most of the problems that are occurring today, and what is currently encompassing the news. It would be hard not to include Biden in most conversations of current news.
It is clear you are more interested in debating why and how I come to my opinions, and why they center around Biden. It would seem you won't touch conversing about Biden other than comparing him to Trump. And when I state my feelings about Trump, you are just unwilling to accept my view.
You ask me many questions, but you never answer mine... I am still waiting for what you feel Biden has done that could in the end turn out a positive for our Nation.
On your last point --- I realize many are fearful that Trump will run again. I have news for you, we have one vote, and that's just a fact. That vote is pretty much how we are heard. I can't predict if he will run again, off the top of my head I think it will depend on what happens in Nov. If there is a sweep and the Republicans take House and Senate, I think he will run, If they don't I don't think he will bother.
I have not a bit of fear about Biden running. My gosh, not sure the Democrats would even back him at this point. It would seem to me he would not have a chance of winning another four years, for many reasons.
I would prefer as I have said over and over to see him step down. I have also said if he won't step down I hope they impeach him under ---
As it happens, there are ample reasons to conclude legally as well as politically that a president’s recurrent violations of the oath in potentially consequential ways can constitute an impeachable crime or misdemeanor.
Some feel Biden has not lived up to his oath and ignores his job obligations.
But yes, I do want to see Biden out of the White House. I feel he is detrimental to America.Sharlee:
You ask me many questions, but you never answer mine... I am still waiting for what you feel Biden has done that could in the end turn out a positive for our Nation.
What do you mean in the end? More weasel wording. I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, but you love to project where you hope Biden is going to end up at the end of his four year term.
This was just in his first year. Will this all turn out to be positive or negative for the country? You don't know and neither do I.
Jobs: President Biden’s first year was the greatest year of job creation in American history, with more than 6 million jobs created.
Unemployment Rate: The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2% when Biden took office to 3.9%, the biggest single year drop in American history.
Unemployment Claims: The average number of Americans filing for unemployment has been near its lowest level since 1969. When the President took office, over 18 million were receiving unemployment benefits, today only 2 million are—also the biggest single year drop in history.
Economic Legislation Passed: Most significant by economic impact of any first-year president.
Child Poverty: Experts estimate the lowest child poverty rate ever in 2021.
Expanded Access to Health Care: Nearly 5 million Americans have newly gained health insurance coverage.
Reduced Hunger: The number of households reporting that they sometimes or often did not have enough food to eat dropped by 32%.
Judges Confirmed: More judges confirmed to lower federal courts than any president since President Kennedy.
Judges That Reflect Our Nation: More Black women appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals than any president – even over 8 years – in history.
Cabinet: First majority non-white Cabinet in history, with most women in the Cabinet, including first woman Treasury Secretary, first LGBTQ+ and Native American Cabinet officials, and first woman Director of National Intelligence.
Climate Investments: Largest investments ever in the power grid, electric vehicle chargers, and climate resilience.
Clean Water: Largest investment and national, bipartisan plan to get safe and clean drinking water to all Americans.
Cleaner Cars: Strongest vehicle emissions standards ever to save drivers money at the pump and reduce pollution.
Wind: First-ever approvals of large-scale offshore wind projects.
Personnel: Most diverse Administration in history – most women, people of color, disability, LGBTQ+, first generation American, and first-generation college graduates.As I look at your list, the following strikes me:
The first 4 were a direct result of COVID and the release of our lockdown. Nothing Biden was actually responsible for accomplishing.
The next two are just more give-away programs, additions to our bloated welfare system that already goes too far.
Three are actions by a racist president that uses race (and sex) to hire. It may look good to those that count the racial/sexual makeup of government, but in the final analysis he is using race to hire, and in direct violation of our laws denying that that can be done.
On the positive side, he has "invested" in vehicle chargers (by giving subsidies to business to build them so as to earn a profit off the taxpayer dime?), spent money to provide clean water, raised the cost of cars by requiring higher emission standards and "invested" in money for offshore wind projects (again, how did he do that if not a subsidy to companies to build them?).
There are positives, then. Three out of that long list, of which most are just subsidies to companies to increase their profit margin."The first 4 were a direct result of COVID and the release of our lockdown. Nothing Biden was actually responsible for accomplishing." - No, no, you can't do that. You gave up that right when you purposefully ignored Obama's springboard to Trump's fake success. Trump's claim to fame is that he didn't destroy all that Obama accomplished.
Can't do it. Though true, I can't do it.
Because it's true but takes from Biden's fake "accomplishments"?
"You ask me many questions, but you never answer mine... I am still waiting for what you feel Biden has done that could in the end turn out a positive for our Nation."
PP --- What do you mean in the end? More weasel wording. I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, but you love to project where you hope Biden is going to end up at the end of his four years.
This is true, see your point.
PP"Jobs: President Biden’s first year was the greatest year of job creation in American history, with more than 6 million jobs created."
Here is my take on jobs --- He’s taking too much credit. As Trump did before him, Biden makes some grandiose economic claims that gloss over one central reason for historic growth — the U.S. population is far larger than in past decades (and continued to grow last year, despite COVID-19 deaths). The economy added 6.4 million jobs in 2021, the most on government records dating back to 1939, but part of that is just a natural rebound from what had been the steepest job loss on record in 2020 when 9.4 million jobs were cut.
PPUnemployment Rate: The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2% when Biden took office to 3.9%, the biggest single-year drop in American history.
It was 6.2% due to a pandemic, the 3.9% reflects people returning to work or falling off the unemployment rolls due to not being any longer eligible. The unemployment rate in 2019 before pandemic hit the rate was 3.6%
PP Unemployment Claims: The average number of Americans filing for unemployment has been near its lowest level since 1969. When the President took office, over 18 million were receiving unemployment benefits, today only 2 million are—also the biggest single-year drop in history.
Your stats are correct but why we see these stats is very obvious.
You do realize people fall off the rolls? The pandemic has caused that phenomenon, and many no longer are eligible. Under the CARES Act responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, all states received access to federal funding to provide additional weeks of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance (PEUC) benefits to people who exhausted their regular state benefits, and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) to many others who lost their jobs through no fault of their own but who were not normally eligible for UI in their state. These and other pandemic-related emergency UI programs ended nationwide the first weekend of September 2021, but many states stopped providing these federal benefits before that.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/h … -available
PP --Economic Legislation Passed: Most significant by economic impact of any first-year president.
Child Poverty: Experts estimate the lowest child poverty rate
ever in 2021.
Yes for the time Child Poverty money was provided we did have the lowest child poverty rate. but a month after the payment stopped, the bandaid was removed we had this ---
The monthly child poverty rate increased from 12.1 percent in December 2021 to 17 percent in January 2022, the highest rate since the end of 2020. The 4.9 percentage point (41 percent) increase in poverty represents 3.7 million more children in poverty due to the expiration of the monthly Child Tax Credit payments. Latino and Black children experienced the largest percentage-point increases in poverty (7.1 percentage points and 5.9 percentage points, respectively).
https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/ … nuary-2022
Biden's stimulus is thought by some economists to have contributed to the current inflation.
PP -- Expanded Access to Health Care: Nearly 5 million Americans have newly gained health insurance coverage.
THis is an a possitiveaccomplshment.
PP -- https://www.chn.org/voices/experts-impe … -millions/
Current April 22 2022 -- Hunger is once again on the rise in America. Experts say it is about to get worse – and it could get a lot worse.
New U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey data released this week show 11.2 percent of households reported they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat during the previous week, compared to 10.3 percent who said the same thing during the previous reporting period in March, and compared to 8.6 percent in August 2021 – a time when inflation had not kicked in and monthly expanded Child Tax Credit payments were in full swing. For families with children, the rate of food scarcity was 14.5 percent. For Blacks, it was 22.6 percent; for Latinos, 26.0 percent.Two million more people living with children reported having had too little to eat in early April than in the last half of August.
Experts point to a triple whammy of reasons why hunger is on the rise and why the rise likely will continue. First was the cut-off of monthly CTC payments of $250-$300 per child in December – indeed, Household Pulse Survey data showed an immediate increase in food scarcity rates beginning in January. Other forms of assistance also ended in 2021 – stimulus checks and expanded UI benefits, for example. Even worse, 10 states have ended their participation in federal COVID emergency SNAP benefits even though the federal government has extended the emergency declaration through July 15 (another two states will end their emergency benefits in May). The emergency benefits are much higher than regular SNAP amounts. Some people have seen their benefits plummet from $250 to $20 per month.
Second, inflation is cutting deeply into the budgets of people with low incomes, who need to spend most of their money on food, rent, gas, and utilities. Inflation is also hitting the nation’s networks of food banks particularly hard – in an urgent appeal issued earlier this week, Feeding America said every aspect of its network of hundreds of food banks has been affected by inflation, including purchasing food, transporting donated food, energy for cold storage, and other costs including fuel, wages, and even vehicle maintenance seeing significant increases. Feeding America said food banks are purchasing nearly as much food as they did in 2021, but are now paying 40 percent more for those purchases.
PP -Judges Confirmed: More judges confirmed to lower federal courts than any president since President Kennedy.
Judges That Reflect Our Nation: More Black women appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals than any president – even over 8 years –
in history.
I look at this as a Congressional accomplishment.
PP Cabinet: First majority non-white Cabinet in history, with most women in the Cabinet, including first woman Treasury Secretary, first LGBTQ+ and Native American Cabinet officials, and first woman Director of National Intelligence.
I find this a form of discrimination. And like people to be appointed due to accomplishments, experience, and education.
All the climate cash --- I am not sure if any form of projects have been started. This is what I mean by "in the end".
All his climate policies look good on paper, but can be shot down by any new administration - All if comes...
Strong federal clean car standards that address passenger tailpipe emissions are a critical way to reduce total transportation sector emissions and to help achieve the US’s goal of 50-52% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.
I hope we see some of the money set aside for climate change get spent on the promises he made. I feel his infrastructure bill in some way very possitive. I supported it.(1)PP"Jobs: President Biden’s first year was the greatest year of job creation in American history, with more than 6 million jobs created."
Here is my take on jobs --- He’s taking too much credit. As Trump did before him, Biden makes some grandiose economic claims that gloss over one central reason for historic growth — the U.S. population is far larger than in past decades (and continued to grow last year, despite COVID-19 deaths). The economy added 6.4 million jobs in 2021, the most on government records dating back to 1939, but part of that is just a natural rebound from what had been the steepest job loss on record in 2020 when 9.4 million jobs were cut.
(1a)PPUnemployment Rate: The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2% when Biden took office to 3.9%, the biggest single-year drop in American history.
It was 6.2% due to a pandemic, the 3.9% reflects people returning to work or falling off the unemployment rolls due to not being any longer eligible. The unemployment rate in 2019 before pandemic hit the rate was 3.6%
(2)PP Unemployment Claims: The average number of Americans filing for unemployment has been near its lowest level since 1969. When the President took office, over 18 million were receiving unemployment benefits, today only 2 million are—also the biggest single-year drop in history.
Your stats are correct but why we see these stats is very obvious.
You do realize people fall off the rolls? The pandemic has caused that phenomenon, and many no longer are eligible. Under the CARES Act responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, all states received access to federal funding to provide additional weeks of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance (PEUC) benefits to people who exhausted their regular state benefits, and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) to many others who lost their jobs through no fault of their own but who were not normally eligible for UI in their state. These and other pandemic-related emergency UI programs ended nationwide the first weekend of September 2021, but many states stopped providing these federal benefits before that.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/h … -available
So 1 and 2 are due to the national order of things and no matter who was president these events would have happened.
(3)PP --Economic Legislation Passed: Most significant by economic impact of any first-year president.
Child Poverty: Experts estimate the lowest child poverty rate
ever in 2021.
Yes for the time Child Poverty money was provided we did have the lowest child poverty rate. but a month after the payment stopped, the bandaid was removed we had this ---
The monthly child poverty rate increased from 12.1 percent in December 2021 to 17 percent in January 2022, the highest rate since the end of 2020. The 4.9 percentage point (41 percent) increase in poverty represents 3.7 million more children in poverty due to the expiration of the monthly Child Tax Credit payments. Latino and Black children experienced the largest percentage-point increases in poverty (7.1 percentage points and 5.9 percentage points, respectively).
https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/ … nuary-2022
Biden's stimulus is thought by some economists to have contributed to the current inflation.
It was never renewed because Manchin thought it would contribute to inflation and the money would be used to buy drugs.
(4)PP -- Expanded Access to Health Care: Nearly 5 million Americans have newly gained health insurance coverage.
This is an a positive accomplishment.
Hooray for our side we got one right
PP -- https://www.chn.org/voices/experts-impe … -millions/
Current April 22 2022 -- Hunger is once again on the rise in America. Experts say it is about to get worse – and it could get a lot worse.
New U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey data released this week show 11.2 percent of households reported they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat during the previous week, compared to 10.3 percent who said the same thing during the previous reporting period in March, and compared to 8.6 percent in August 2021 – a time when inflation had not kicked in and monthly expanded Child Tax Credit payments were in full swing. For families with children, the rate of food scarcity was 14.5 percent. For Blacks, it was 22.6 percent; for Latinos, 26.0 percent.Two million more people living with children reported having had too little to eat in early April than in the last half of August.
Experts point to a triple whammy of reasons why hunger is on the rise and why the rise likely will continue. First was the cut-off of monthly CTC payments of $250-$300 per child in December – indeed, Household Pulse Survey data showed an immediate increase in food scarcity rates beginning in January. Other forms of assistance also ended in 2021 – stimulus checks and expanded UI benefits, for example. Even worse, 10 states have ended their participation in federal COVID emergency SNAP benefits even though the federal government has extended the emergency declaration through July 15 (another two states will end their emergency benefits in May). The emergency benefits are much higher than regular SNAP amounts. Some people have seen their benefits plummet from $250 to $20 per month.
Second, inflation is cutting deeply into the budgets of people with low incomes, who need to spend most of their money on food, rent, gas, and utilities. Inflation is also hitting the nation’s networks of food banks particularly hard – in an urgent appeal issued earlier this week, Feeding America said every aspect of its network of hundreds of food banks has been affected by inflation, including purchasing food, transporting donated food, energy for cold storage, and other costs including fuel, wages, and even vehicle maintenance seeing significant increases. Feeding America said food banks are purchasing nearly as much food as they did in 2021, but are now paying 40 percent more for those purchases.
To much information to parse. Let’s just blame Biden for all of it
(5)PP -Judges Confirmed: More judges confirmed to lower federal courts than any president since President Kennedy.
Judges That Reflect Our Nation: More Black women appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals than any president – even over 8 years –
in history.
I look at this as a Congressional accomplishment.
Of course you do, even though if it hadn’t been for Biden this would have never happened.
(6)PP Cabinet: First majority non-white Cabinet in history, with most women in the Cabinet, including first woman Treasury Secretary, first LGBTQ+ and Native American Cabinet officials, and first woman Director of National Intelligence.
(6a)I find this a form of discrimination. And like people to be appointed due to accomplishments, experience, and education.
Of course you do, even though that is what he pledged to do.
(6b)All the climate cash --- I am not sure if any form of projects have been started. This is what I mean by "in the end".
This is what I mean you don’t have a crystal ball.
(6c)All his climate policies look good on paper, but can be shot down by any new administration - All if comes...
That goes without saying.
(6d)Strong federal clean car standards that address passenger tailpipe emissions are a critical way to reduce total transportation sector emissions and to help achieve the US’s goal of 50-52% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.
(6e)I hope we see some of the money set aside for climate change get spent on the promises he made. I feel his infrastructure bill in some way very possitive. I supported it.
Hooray for our side again I must be a pain freak to take the time to do this. It must be my technical writing background wanting to be satisfied.
Sharlee:
Once again --- Ken and I were looking at the current hypocrisy. Comparing some attitudes to how some were very willing to bash Trump at every turn for what they considered a problem, yet will not do the same with the real problems we are witnessing today.
What I posted about Trump is not my view, it is historic fact over a four year period. Trump was an open book. You like to use the terms my view and my opinion. which may or may not be fact. But yet you define them as Biden's real problems we are facing today.
Then you pivot to hypocrisy, but you can't dispute the facts about Trump. Biden has only been in office for a little over a year. He is still a a work in progress. He is democrat, not a republican like Trump. They are different people and cannot be compared.
It is an interesting challenge that you have given me to bad mouth Biden. In order for me to do that I have to either listen to Fox News or find a dyed in the wool Biden hater and that is what I have done with congressman Steve Scalise. By the way what if I asked you to bad mouth Trump while he was in office, what would you do it?
Here is his website where he bashes Biden. I want to thank you because now I see where the other side gets information from and the kind of mentality it takes to believe the other side.
I hope you get my point. Why would I look for Biden's problems, no more than you would look for Trump's problems? That is what you are calling hypocrisy.
https://scalise.house.gov/media/press-r … -and-chaos"What I posted about Trump is not my view, it is historic fact over a four-year period. Trump was an open book. You like to use the terms my view and my opinion. which may or may not be fact."
I read your source. I never said or disputed your source was not factual. What I said and will repeat I read Trump's climate policies and supported them. So why be so defensive? And yes I do use the word opinion and view frequently, I do this so one makes no mistake that I am offering my thoughts. When offering facts I try very hard to offer where I got my information.
I did not what you call pivot to hypocrisy. I was responding to a comment addressed to me by Ken. I shared my thoughts on what he shared. And I do feel that some are very willing to point out the negatives in regards tomTrump, but are very capable of doing the same with Biden. This comment was my truth. Many on social media project Trump bad - Biden good. I call that trait hypocritical.
I did not ask you to bad mouth Biden. Please read my entire thoughts, realize all three sentences share lay the context ---
I don't care about what Trump did. I have moved on. And yes this thread is as you reminded me
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President?
So why are you stuck on Trump? Let's hear some of the great things Biden has been up to.
Then you go on to talk about Fox news. I think you need to point out where I asked you to bad mouth Biden?
I did not imply you needed to offer anything but positive. Why do you find it necessary to misconstrue my context.?
I don't consider chatting about current political news bashing. I have as I said not seen anything positive in the news about Biden currently.
I think you need to look at some of my sources, you are being unfair. I use many different sources. It is very obvious that most media outlets are becoming more open to not carrying water for Biden.
Maybe you should realize not all agree, and it is unfair to just come at others with accusations because you don't agree.
I do want you to point out where I told you to bad moth Biden.
"Here is his website where he bashes Biden. I want to thank you because now I see where the other side gets information from and the kind of mentality it takes to believe the other side.
https://scalise.house.gov/media/press-r … -and-chaos"
You must realize when I was referring to hypocrites I was not referring to media or politicians, I was referring to users on social media forums such as HP, Facebook et."What I said and will repeat I read Trump's climate policies and supported them. " - But Trump's climate policies were to put the world in more danger than it was before he took office. That is what you support.
This is what you supported.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … otections/
"Trump at every turn for what they considered a problem, yet will not do the same with the real problems we are witnessing today." - You have that bass-ackwards I think.
But the false argument from the right is that high inflation will continue for the foreseeable future - a patently false assertion.
Do you then see the left cutting way back on their giveaway's? Because I don't.
This IS a good one, you'll appreciate it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0vEYrDBdvQ
Then why was inflation so low through the Decades of previous so-called "giveaways"? Why didn't it happen with Trump's giveaway to the wealthy? Or is giveaway to the same Americans Biden helped?
Why in the world is someone's view of inflation a patently false assertion?
NO really... Some economists feel it COULD continue. Some feel differently.
You need to look up the words view, Opinion.
I feel inflation will be around for some time, that's my view.Give me one economist who thinks Mar 2023 Inflation will be 8.5%, or thereabouts.
Ken:
"All the talk of why prices are going up because of Ukraine/Russia... ignorant and/or deflective excuse."
Here is an analysis from the Wilson Center. I hope it isn't too negative and deflective for you.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/sa … rices-highAmericans could help a lot to decrease inflation by stop travelling so damn much.
And this makes sense to you. To drive one of our airlines into the red?
What percentage of the US economy is the airline industry?
Aviation contributed 5.2 percent of GDP, the value- added measure of overall U.S. economic activity. Considering only the direct sectors, aviation contributed 2.3 percent of GDP, $850 billion in economic activity, and over 4 million jobs. What percentage of the US economy is the airline industry?
Aviation contributed 5.2 percent of GDP, the value- added measure of overall U.S. economic activity. Considering only the direct sectors, aviation contributed 2.3 percent of GDP, $850 billion in economic activity, and over 4 million jobs.
Yeah, that should work out well... Let's destroy one of our industries that support 4 million jobs, Yeah that's the ticket.
It would seem you are using Bidennomic or his method of problem-solving
Create a problem that will snowball into a big ass problem.
Not only does the OPEC + want Biden gone so do our Oil companies. Odd more people are not realizing that fact. Biden has made some powerful enemies across the world when it comes to oil companies.
It would seem as of today, that the oil barons will keep the
price of oil high. Their strategies are working well for their coffers.
At this point, we are tapping oil reserves for the next 6 months, which is the largest emergency draw the US has ever done. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-03-31/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/3 … e-00021995
You would think Biden could come up with a better solution to get oil companies to pump. They have him over a barrel...Sharlee: I think you missed the point of my post. Putin and his oil producing countries of the mid-east control the energy spigot for the rest of the world. If Putin does not get his way in Ukraine, he will turn that spigot down and continue to raise the cost of energy through out the developed world.
If Putin had not decided to attack Ukraine, we wouldn't be in this mess. This could be a long slog not only for Ukraine, but for increases in energy prices for the free world.
At this juncture what would you like Biden to do to increase energy supply? What would a "better solution" be? Putin wants NATO to stop sending arms to Ukraine, but I don't think he will then open the spigot.
Biden's issues with Saudi Arabia have to deal with how Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, but that is another story.I would have like to see all of Trump's energy policies left in place back in Jan 2021. We are the US, we have the energy to support our country, and much of the world. That's what I would have liked to see.
Yes, such a shame we now need to deal with Saudi Arabia.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/biden-sa … a-ukraine/
Please check the chart of how between 2016 and 2020 we bought less and less oil from Saudi Arabia.
Daily crude oil imports to the United States from Saudi Arabia from 2000 to 2020
We are presently trying to buy more oil from the Saudi's.
https://theintercept.com/2022/02/15/sau … price-oil/Sharlee: What would you rather have lower energy prices with an unsafe toxic environment (Trump's policies) or higher energy prices with a safe environment (Biden's policies)?
Biden's policies are about mediating global warming and climate change to protect the environment. Trump's policies are about making more money for corporations and damn the environment.
This is from the Brookings Institute and gives a comparison of both policies.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/vo … vironment/Since she claims what Trump did was all good, then she must like his anti-environmental policies. If that is not true, then she has to admit Trump screwed up badly.
This article is laughable --- There is paragraph after paragraph listing Trump's bad... And two little paragraphs on what Biden said he will do...
"Potential Biden administration promises very different priorities
Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has offered very different plans for environment and climate policy. Climate is a key part of his platform, with an overall goal of net-zero U.S. GHG emissions by 2050. Parts of the Biden agenda involve reinstating and, in some cases, strengthening regulations that the Trump administration is working to remove, including limiting methane emissions, strengthening fuel economy standards, and prohibiting fossil fuel development on public lands. Biden has also promised to immediately re-join the Paris Agreement if he is elected.
Other parts of the Biden plan cannot be implemented under existing laws, and thus would require action from Congress. Key among his legislative proposals is an enforcement mechanism to ensure the economy reaches the mid-century decarbonization goal and that polluters bear the full cost of their carbon emissions. Other priorities include investing in clean energy and low-carbon innovation, encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles, and advancing low-carbon manufacturing. All these actions and more are needed to reach the overall decarbonization goal, but they depend on a Congress amenable to such actions."
Has he done anything on this list but re-join the Paris Agreement if he is elected, and reinstate Obama's regulations?
Is he not begging for oil from OPEC+?
I supported Trump's energy independent plan and was very pleased with the results. I also feel Biden kissed Putin's butt with Nordstrom 2 Thank God Germany Axes Nord Stream 2 pipeline to punish Russia over war...
Trump knew the dangers of Europe being dependent on Russia.
"BERLIN—Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered government support to efforts to open up Germany to U.S. gas, a key concession to President Trump as he tries to loosen Russia’s grip on Europe’s largest energy market."
He tried to solve the problem, in regard to Russia having the upper hand over much of Europe.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-win-for … 1540209647"Is he not begging for oil from OPEC+?"
Is he asking them to pump more because adding to the global supply (because remember oil is sold on the global market), equals lower prices and American producers have not been cooperative?
Your views on oil seem to lean heavily toward nationalization of our countries resources.I don't think you understood my comment. PP was inquiring if I more or less respect global warming warnings, and asked if I would prefer a cleaner planet or lower gas prices.
He provided an article that had paragraph after paragraph of Trump bad, Biden good... two paragraphs of words political promises.
I just pointed out he is a hypocrite running around begging other countries for oil. And that Trump realized what a problem it was to have Europe so dependent on Russian oil. Which is very evident. Trump shut down Nordstrom, Biden as I said kissed Putin's butt and gave the go-ahead.
I am in no way proclaiming to lean toward nationalization. I was on board with Trump's agenda, to pump and export our excess. energy. I feel this would prevent a man like Putin from collecting cash to kill innocent people. Which I also feel would not be going on under Trump.
American producers will not cooperate with this administration. Realistically why would they? They hope for a more oil-friendly administration. They are making up for the money they lost in the pandemic and will cash in as long as they can.And your raging BDS leads you to mislead the reader into actually think Biden "begged" the Saudi's to increase production. You are simply being absurd because of your misguided hate for Biden.
Please Sharlee, please tell the truth about something so provably wrong as "Trump shut down Nordstrom," HE DID NOT. You have been played a fool, it seems.
You were also on-board with Obama's agenda to pump and export our excess energy. You are so partisan that you can't admit the truth.In my view, Biden is begging other counties to pump oil for us to purchase. I did use the word begging which is how I see it my view.
Should Biden Really Be Begging Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for Oil?
In the short term, there may be little choice in the matter. But it’s bad environmentally—and politically if they don’t budge. https://newrepublic.com/article/165720/ … ezuela-oil
White House is pressed on potential oil deals with Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran.
Recent reports say President Joe Biden and European counterparts are discussing a ban on Russian oil imports to further punish President Vladimir Putin for the attack on Ukraine.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/0 … n-00014803
https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/biden-sa … a-ukraine/
Not sure you have done research in regard to how Nordstrom2 was sanctioned and stopped
Trump Imposes Sanctions To Stop Nord Stream 2 - Forbeshttps://www.forbes.com › davekeating › 2019/12/21 › t...
Dec 21, 2019 — Donald Trump last night signed into law sanctions from the U.S. Congress against companies involved in constructing a new gas pipeline ..
".President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union.
The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany.
The US considers the project a security risk to Europe.
Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions.
Congress voted through the measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
With the Trump sanctions construction was stopped until Joe lifted the sanctions. The pipeline was completed under Biden
( This is one of the articles that offered me the view I shared, that all work on the pipeline was stopped due to Trump's administration sanctions. So I would appreciate it if you instead of implying I was being untruthful --- perhaps ask where I formed my view, and not assume I was played for a fool. There is no reason to use such inflammatory language. )
"Trump blocks Putin’s pipeline with US sanctions
Christmas came early for Ukraine and much of Europe after US President Donald Trump signed an omnibus defense bill that included sanctions STOPPING completion of a major new Russian gas pipeline to Germany.
The Nord Stream 2 undersea pipeline was just weeks away from completion when, on December 20, the US President signed a bill that stopped the contractor, Allseas Group of Switzerland, from further work. Allseas has proprietary technology to do such specialized work, and threats by the US government against the company legally and financially forced it to IMMEDIATELY suspend work.
Some critics have said the sanctions are too little, too late, because the project is nearly completed, with estimates that 2,100 kilometers have been laid and only 300 kilometers are left to build. But a letter from the US Senate warned Allseas: “if you were to attempt to finish the pipeline in the next 30 days, you would devastate your shareholders’ value and destroy the future viability of your company.”
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u … -pipeline/"Biden is begging other counties to pump oil for us to purchase."
The Biden administration has been seeking for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to make a significant increase in oil production as a way to calm soaring prices.
Oil is a global commodity that is purchased on the global market. More supply brings down prices regardless of who contributes to the supply.
OPEC has the upper hand in the sense that it has almost a unique ability in the world to influence substantially the price of oil.
David Rundell, a former U.S. diplomat with three decades of experience with Saudi Arabia, and author of the book, Vision or Mirage: Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads.
He says increasing oil production would require the Saudis to break an agreement with OPEC and its allies, including Russia.
So unless all the OPEC people and Russia get together and make a new deal, they'll stick to their old deal."
In terms of Venezuela, administration officials also traveled to there for talks on potentially allowing the country to sell its oil on the international market, helping to replace Russian fuel. Again, trying to bring more supply to the market.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/10897744 … pec-russiaBTW, I learned today that another part of the Venezuela agenda was trying to get our hostages back. Of course, I am sure the right-wing on this forum will criticized him for that as well, lol.
"In my view, Biden is begging other counties to pump oil for us to purchase. " - Then your view is clearly not rational and totally influenced by your unwarranted Hate for President Biden.
Your sources are right-wing propaganda rags.
Disproving your "misinformation" (I don't think you researched this well at all and have been snookered by right-wing propaganda) as opposed to "dis" is often very easy. I quickly found this regarding Nordstrom II.
But aside from the NATO summit outburst, the Trump administration has shown limited interest in Congress’s objection to the pipeline over the past three years. In the mean time, construction has progressed at breakneck speed.
The "outburst" is where stupid Trump threatened Europe that America would not abide by article 5.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeatin … 0218f25df1"Your sources are right-wing propaganda rags."
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/atlantic
Political -- rated left-biased
Atlantic -- rated The Atlantic media bias rating is Lean Left.
BCC --BBC News media bias rating is Center.
Fortune - Fortune media bias rating is Center.
I offered no misinformation --- I offered several good articles which I gleaned my opinion from. It is factual that the Biden administration has been seeking oil from other nations, and it also appears he was turned away thus far. I certainly did not say he made any oil deals because he has not been successful. Are you saying he is not seeking to purchase oil from other countries?
Ukraine War Pushes Biden Toward Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia in Oil Hunt
Biden presidency could cut slow path to resumed Iran, Venezuela oil exports https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-wa … 1646935216
You deflected off the true subject of my comment. Which was he begging for other countries to pump, which I see as hypocritical in regard to his claims he wants to use less gas, and provide a better cleaner climate.
As I said and I will repeat we have one atmosphere it pumping offshore, purchasing oil that oil does not cut the US usage or does it help reduce the use of oil.
Simply said facts show Trump stopped the production of Nordstrom2, in 2020.before leaving office. Biden removed the sanctions.
Construction of the Nord Stream 2 (NS2) natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany—a dangerous project that will hand evermore power to Russia and threaten transatlantic security— it was completed in September 2021. But physical completion of the pipeline does not necessarily mean that it will become operational. The pipeline must pass the technical and regulatory certification, obtain insurance, and traverse a slew of impending legal challenges. Russia is using high energy prices and historically low gas reserves in Europe to push for swift certification. The U.S. has tools to prevent NS2 from becoming operational, which it should use without delay. But Biden will not do this, will he?
I never made any form of prediction of what our inflation rate would be in 2023. You are spinning out of control in regard to the subject we were currently discussing. Let's back up --- I understand some need to hear something many times before they take hold of it.
In regards to the economy, I have stated economists have different opinions on our current inflation, and where it will go. I have said I believe
(that would constitute my view) I feel inflation will be around for some time, that's my view. Note there is no context this offers any time frame.
You are reading into my comment.
You are baiting... I have no intention of putting on my Google Tennies and running around any further on what economists think we are in for. I will let you do that.
TSMOG,
You will have to plan and budget accordingly for this is the new normal.
They cannot raise taxes without taking massive political harm for it.
The new way of taxing the people, is simply printing more money into existence, deploying it to whomever they feel, and the result is continued never ending inflation.
The new normal will be inflation of 6% to 10% each month for at least the remainder of this year and I believe the year to follow as well... a slow but steady decline in the dollar's value.
A can of tuna I bought two weeks ago cost 78 cents.
Today it cost me a dollar at the same store.
A box of spaghetti 98 cents two weeks ago, $1.34 today.
etc. etc. for the majority of items. And it is going to continue.
All the talk of why prices are going up because of Ukraine/Russia... ignorant and/or deflective excuse.
That hasn't impacted our economy AT ALL yet. The war is only two months old, its impact isn't going to be felt in April, not in America... its going to be felt six months down the road.
So, as I said, make plans for consistent inflation for months, perhaps years to come.Yup! I guess I will get my own money printing machine ha-ha I learned about budgeting in my senior high school year in '72 taking home economics. Yeah I know kinda' odd in those days for a guy to take that class. It was either that or typing and I knew how to type. Not only did it go into the basics like balancing a checkbook (That is archaic isn't it), but did introduce us to economics. Everyone is being hurt by the cost of gasoline these days coast-to-coast. And, as you pointed out groceries. The only other thing of importance to a family budget is the availability of toilet paper ha-ha
Just for giggles . . . Great Scott! Inflation Is Real on Toilet Paper Prices, The Balance, Apr 30, 2021
https://www.thebalance.com/great-scott- … es-5181574tsmog,
This inflation is costing everyone more for just about anything from food, gas, and clothes utilities. We need solutions. We don't need the blame game... This administration needs to work on solutions, not looking who to blame. This morning I read an article in regards to costs to farmers during this inflation. Farmers are now paying so much more this year to plant... We will have these higher costs passed on to us the consumer.
Your sentiment is that held by the majority of Americans. I can't say this enough -- Nothing is being done in Washington to solve or avert problems (in my opinion).
https://www.agriculture.com/news/busine … nservation
Here was one of Bidens idea in 2021
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/2 … ram-507028
Would it not make more sense to help farmers at this time in our history, than pay them not to plant?
That prompts me to remember something I was taught, though as a truth is always open to discussion, and that is with capitalism there are really two classifications; investor and consumer. If there is any middle, then it is the consumer seeking through struggle to be an investor, i.e. Musk, Bezos, or the neighbor who simply has more.
100% agree. As I have been pointing out. Biden tosses cash at problems that in the end did not solve the problem. For example the Child tax credit. They put a date when it would expire, hoping they could cram it through. It does not cram through. In a month's time, the stats show child poverty numbers have fallen. He has a big box of bandaids. He is a poor problem solver- https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/ … nuary-2022
Hey, in my view this cash he poured in with that giveaway added to our current inflation.The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan:
The March 2021 Democratic bill included $1,400 payments to every American, $360 billion for state and local governments, and $242 billion in expanded unemployment benefits, among other things.
As lawmakers worked on the measure, some economists, including Larry Summers, a top official under President Barack Obama, warned that the bill would lead to inflation. Fiscal conservatives joined in the warning.
"The American Rescue Plan was far larger than the economy could support," said Marc Goldwein with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that promotes lower deficits.
In the months that followed, inflation has taken off in the U.S. In March, prices were 8.5% higher than 12 months earlier. Even filtering out the cost of food and energy, which can rise and fall quickly, inflation still ran at a yearly rate of 6.4%.
How much of this can be put at Biden’s feet?
Some, but not all of it of course, there was a stimulus package the year prior as well, that also has significant impact. The difference is that the first stimulus package was needed to rescue an economy our government essentially shut down.
Biden's stimulus package was unnecessary as the country was already past the worst of Covid and fast tracking to recover from the shut-downs.
"With no American Rescue Plan, we would still have inflation above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2% to 3%," Goldwein said. But probably 2% to 3% lower than we see today.
The post-COVID-19 inflation story is more complicated than just federal spending. Other forces, including changes in the labor market, rising global energy and commodity prices, supply chain dysfunction have all contributed to higher prices as well.
What I don't buy into, is the impact the war in Ukraine is having. That impact would NOT be being felt today. The war is not 2 months old, thinking it had any impact on what we saw in February or March is ludicrous."Biden's stimulus package was unnecessary as the country was already past the worst of Covid and fast tracking to recover from the shut-downs."
One can only assume why Biden thought his stimulus package would be a great idea. IMO it was political, and it backfired.
"The post-COVID-19 inflation story is more complicated than just federal spending. Other forces, including changes in the labor market, rising global energy and commodity prices, supply chain dysfunction have all contributed to higher prices as well."
I agree, but again the Biden administration in my opinion tossed fire on the flames and overheated our ecconomy. I do not feel the Ukrainian war caused the inflation we are seeing. But it sure the hell added to our deficit
The bottom line for me ---. I have come to this conclusion. And many here will certainly not agree with me. I do not think the country would be having the problems we are having if Trump were in the White House. So, many problems with nothing really being solved.
No one could convince me otherwise.""Biden's stimulus package was unnecessary as the country was already past the worst of Covid and fast tracking to recover" - Then WHY did another 55 million get infected, and of those, another 520,000 DIE? AND WHY did the unemployment rate wait until after the stimulus was distributed to start dropping?? Seems like you are passing on more disinformation.
""The post-COVID-19 inflation story is more complicated than just federal spending. Other forces, including changes in the labor market, rising global energy and commodity prices, supply chain dysfunction have all contributed to higher prices as well."" - Then WHY do you only blame Biden for inflation when you just said it wasn't true?
Yes, Larry Summers, and maybe a couple of others, predicted the stimulus might cause inflation to raise a bit. But when the dust settled and the analysis was done, one of the sources I already provided showed that 1) the rise in inflation due to the stimulus was temporary and that what inflation did occur due to that cause amounted to only about .4%. WOW!![/i]
"I agree, but again the Biden administration in my opinion tossed fire on the flames and overheated our ecconomy." -Yet those studies I provided you said just the opposite - that the stimulus didn't overheat the economy.
Of course we couldn't get you to change your mind, you are totally under Trump's spell and part of his cult.
All we can do is continue to point out the disinformation you post.
"It is how THEY, the working class, distribute wealth. Why didn't you point out how idiotic that CLAIM is? So now the far-right doesn't falsely see Biden is the source of inflation, now, instead, the "Working Class" is. ROFL.
I''ll make a prediction, "inflation will be over this time next year."Inflation is the new Tax on Working Class Americans, it is how they redistribute wealth to the wealthy... the stimulus package Biden passed was nothing more than "printing money"... when you inject more dollars into the economy you devalue the dollar, its buying power." Ken
I agree with Ken's sentiment. Actually, I don't think you understood what he shared. You may want to ask him. I am fully aware of what he was saying.So you agree that inflation is the Working Class's fault. Interesting.
Who is the "they" Ken is referring to? The vast Right-wing conspiracy?
I am guessing he may be talking about Biden's stimulus to Americans still suffering from the Pandemic. If that is true, then you are agreeing with him that Biden created that program solely to Tax Working Class Americans. That is called a conspiracy theory and I limit my engagement with conspiracy theorists.
"the Biden administration announced late Friday that it would increase taxes on oil and gas drilling on federal lands as part of its plan to resume lease sales." - Sounds right to me as the gov't was basically giving these leases away. Oil companies need to pay their way and get off of gov't welfare.
You may be right... but do you slam someone in the head if you need them to bail you out? Just a thought. Could Old Joe, maybe, just maybe put a hold on his tax hike on big oil until he saw where his economy was headed. The tax hike was a big huge boulder that rolled quickly downhill and is adding to inflation problems.
The oil companies have always worried more about making money, and they still do. Joe most certainly knows this. I mean don't we all."Sounds right to me as the gov't was basically giving these leases away. Oil companies need to pay their way and get off of gov't welfare."
Isn't this always the way? Socialism for corporations and rugged individualism for citizens.This looks like it's time for the rest of the story.
"Oil companies need to pay their way and get off of gov't welfare."
In the context of the discussion about Federal oil leases, the government gets a royalty.
The companies pay billions of dollars annually. And now, those royalties will be 50% more, with no more rationale than they should pay more. The oil companies will be paying multi-billions to the government for the product of those 'given' away land leases.
The oil lease program isn't "govt. welfare."
I don't know enough about this to consider defending or criticizing the oil companies on this issue, but I can see that paying billions for something isn't welfare or socialism.
GAConservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year.
The federal government provides numerous subsidies, both direct and indirect, to the fossil fuel industry. Special provisions in the U.S. tax code designed to specifically support and reward domestic fossil fuel‐related production are direct subsidies.
I agree with this representative statement:
"Let’s look at the oil and gas subsidies, let’s take them away. Let’s let them compete just like everyone else at the same level. We can do that with the tax code to take those special provisions away.”
— Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
These subsidies aid an industry that is mature, well-established, and with an abundant private financing stream.
They are one of the more egregious ways that the government is prolonging the fossil fuel era and fossil fuel industry influence in our politics.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-s … etal-costsAs I noted; "In the context of the discussion about Federal oil leases. . .", I was speaking to the "gov't. welfare." I think the subsidies are a different conversation.
Maybe I misread the inference of the initial quote, but it was used in the context of the oil leases discussion.
GAI understand. I do think the oil companies have received enough handouts time to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They have more than enough leases. At this point they're just trying to extort the government.
How are they different, especially when they don't serve the original purpose?
What is the original purpose of the lease program that isn't being served?
GA
Something to consider --- The latest statistics show that the oil and gas industry in the US employs around 10.3 million people.
(API; The Conversation)
When it comes to natural gas and oil production, the US is one of the world’s leading countries. But, how many Americans work in the oil industry? An API study from 2017 revealed that the industry supported a whopping 10.3 million US jobs. According to the study, the occupations sustained by this industry have seen an increase of 500,000 new employees since 2011.
So, do the people that work for the oil companies or jobs depend on the oil industry pay taxes? It is true that companies get big tax breaks. But ultimately create jobs (10.3 million jobs). This is truely something that we need to add to the equation.
It is also very much evident that when they get hit with extra costs we pay those costs. Can you fix that problem? I sure can't. I don't think kicking dirt in their faces is the solution. Especially at this point just coming out from a pandemic, that certainly should have been considered before raising taxes on an industry that took a huge hit due to the pandemic.
Big Oil Took a Big Hit from the COVID, Earnings Reports Show
Companies report billions in losses and decreased value of assets but still plan to expand oil and gas production going forward.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3107 … us-losses/
This problem is a two-bladed sword."Something to consider --- The latest statistics show that the oil and gas industry in the US employs around 10.3 million people." - With record profits, how does higher royalties have on their workforce?
"It is also very much evident that when they get hit with extra costs we pay those costs. " - Unfortunately, for gasoline and natural gas that appears to be true because both have relatively inelastic demand curves.
"I don't think kicking dirt in their faces is the solution. " - I thought you were opposed to the gov't giving things away for virtually no cost. Why are you making an exception for wealthy oil companies?
"Big Oil Took a Big Hit from the COVID," - But so did every other industry. Why should Big Oil be treated to more welfare than other companies, say resturants?"With record profits, how do higher royalties have on their workforce?"
Not sure I get what you are referring to. The oil companies pay the federal Gov royalties as well as rent on federal leases. Yes as a rule they have yearly record profits.
"Big Oil Took a Big Hit from the COVID," - But so did every other industry. Why should Big Oil be treated to more welfare than other companies, say restaurants?"
I did not say they should be treated differently, just more strategically. Perhaps we would have not fallen into such deep inflation.
"I don't think kicking dirt in their faces is the solution. " - I thought you were opposed to the gov't giving things away for virtually no cost. Why are you making an exception for wealthy oil companies?"
To clarify - What I meant was due to the problems the oil companies had during COVID (losses). Maybe it made little sense at that point for Biden to add a higher tax on Federal leases. It seems to have been a poor strategy when he really needed all the cooperation he could get from them. I mean let's face it, Biden ran on BBB and the New Green Deal. Which is a great threat to the oil industry.
He bit off more than he could chew in my opinion, and IMO it was poor problem-solving. I feel the economy is what ultimately has sunk him. He just does not seem to be able to see how many Americans vote with their pocket.I left out a word or two on the royalties thing. You tried to make the point that higher royalties will cause the oil companies to lay off their workforce and I was wondering how that could happen given the record profits they are pulling in.
"Maybe it made little sense at that point for Biden to add a higher tax on Federal leases." - Were they pulling in record profits when he suggested that? I don't even think it is implemented yet. Aren't they just talking about it?
Biden DID NOT run on the Green New Deal. That is your right-wing propaganda talking. Biden opposes the GND as written. And BBB is not a threat to Big Oil at all.
Exactly what did he "bite off"? Are you talking about BBB? Well, Republicans and Manchin were successful in killing that great idea.
What has he done, specifically, to make you think he is not able to understand that people vote with their pocket books?
""I don't think I have ever witnessed such a failure of an administration."
Is it a failure though?
Do you raise taxes, increase regulations, shut down federal lands, etc. and not expect oil prices to go up?
Do you give away trillions of dollars in "stimulus" even as we have passed the worst of the pandemic and are dealing more with paranoia regarding the virus than actual risk, and not expect inflation to rise?
Do you give billions worth of weapons and economic aid, deploy special forces, and ratchet up the rhetoric and propaganda if you really want to see a war end, or peace negotiations be successful?
Do you inspire confidence when you tell people to expect food shortages?
Do you think any of this is by mistake?Every decision this president has made has been a mistake. Plus, after creating problems, he ultimately makes them worse with other ridiculous maneuvers.
I have never seen anything so crazy.Saying every decision has been a mistake is pretty false considering the unemployment rate and job growth has been so strong. Child Poverty levels dropped thanks to his decisions. Allies' faith in the United States improved. NATO is united again. Infrastructure, something the last administration failed so miserably at, finally got passed.
Just because you cannot recognize any positives due to your extreme partisanship, does not mean there haven't been any. Trying to claim otherwise is a fabrication.That bandaid did not hold. I would have been glad to give credit if due. He poured in cash, and when it stopped the problem returned quickly. I think the solution may have also added to our inflation problem.
Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy
3.7 million more children in poverty in Jan 2022 without monthly Child Tax Credit -https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022-
"The monthly child poverty rate increased from 12.1 percent in December 2021 to 17 percent in January 2022, the highest rate since the end of 2020. The 4.9 percentage point (41 percent) increase in poverty represents 3.7 million more children in poverty due to the expiration of the monthly Child Tax Credit payments. Latino and Black children experienced the largest percentage-point increases in poverty (7.1 percentage points and 5.9 percentage points, respectively)." https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/ … nuary-2022
3.7 Million Kids Fell Below the Poverty Line in One Month
https://www.thecut.com/2022/02/3-7-mill … nuary.html
" Allies' faith in the United States improved. NATO is united again"
I have really not done much research on the subject. I will.
I have given the Biden administration credit for the Infrastructure bill. I supported the bill. Although I am not sure how it ultimately will pan out. t was a huge expenditure. And I certainly hope the cash is spent wisely.
I have not fabricated anything in regard to what he does or does not do. Yes, my view is negative in regards to what I see as poor problem-solving. That's just my own view. he does seem to be in the news frequently, and most reports are somewhat negative. I always try to back up my views with sources. Sources that helped me come to a given view. As I did in this very comment. It seems if you don't like my view, you call it fabricated, misinformation, lies... I have made every effort when making a statement or an accusation, that I feel is truthful -- I add a source.
I have no anonymous toward this Biden, I am watching what he does daily.
Most Left media outlets are slamming him. So, yes, there is a lot of negative to chew on and bring to a political forum.
I would suppose I could ignore the news, and just not post here. I will give that a go. I have other forums that are more open to current stuff, and a good mix of people. I can see this forum is somewhat different, and I will respect that, and use a kid-glove approach.And YOU are blaming Biden why??? He told everybody that would happen if they didn't continue paying the Child Tax Credit. He warned you and yet ALL of your side and a couple conservative Democrats didn't believe him and killed it anyway.
I must assume you agreed with killing the Child Tax Credit extension, so it is your fault, not Biden's that 3.7 million more children in poverty in Jan 2022 without monthly Child Tax Credit
Consequently, it is very unfair and disingenuous for you to blame Biden for rising child poverty - look in the mirror instead.So Biden had lowered child poverty and then no Republicans and Manchin decided to let the payments lapse. I would say that those people are responsible for adding to the child poverty in this nation - causing harm - which is what many GOP policies do.
You could be right that the child poverty payments added to inflation, but without them, that's less money and higher prices for the poorest among us. A double whammy to the most vulnerable Americans due to GOP obstruction.
Your fabrication is in making a clearly false statement that every decision has been a mistake when that is so obviously a blatant lie. You can certainly have a view, but excluding many facts to formulate it just makes your view far-fetched and exaggerated. You always claim to be fact-driven, but that conclusion clearly omitted many facts that didn't fit your very jaded world view.
And it does seem that you ignore the news if it goes against your outlook about Biden. So yes, go to those other forums where they might accept your tainted claims. People like Eso, Faye and I will certainly do our best to inform you of the many things clearly missed in your far-right hate vacuum.This why no one really takes you seriously. When you make an easily disprovable statement, you cannot admit that it's complete crap.
Wonder if you speak for all that posted here. I think not, it would seem they could speak for themselves. And hopefully, a few will come to realize you appointed yourself the voice of this forum and speak up
I always back up my statement. You not so much. Very rarely do WE see any links to the source. Mine, well one can have a look-see, and compare how offers sources.
At any rate, I will be reporting you from here on to the moderator when you appear to be trolling or insulting my person.
I have suggested many times to report any of my posts that you feel are promoting mistruths or misinformation. I think the moderator can determine if my post is inappropriate.
I will leave it up to the moderator to critique my posts, and yours if necessary.Considering a few of us took issue with that obviously false claim about every Biden decision, I think using the word we was more than appropriate in this instance.
Another false exaggeration in claiming I rarely post sourcing. I often post sourcing, but for other information that is readily available, I assume those who would want to know more could open up a browser and check my claims for themselves.
And ask yourself how often people just end up debating sourcing and not the main point when someone posts a source they don't believe in. What we see so often from the Trump base, is a disbelief in any sourcing that isn't from their own media vacuum, or from the man himself, and all we end up talking about is the source and not the material.
And if you find calling out an easily disprovable statement trolling or insulting, you're going to be reporting me a lot. There's a First Amendment right to post your opinion, even when it's so blatantly false as in this case, so unless it entails violence or endangers the community, it's not going to get reported. But it's also not going to go unanswered when it's such an obvious slander."Considering a few of us took issue with that obviously false claim about every Biden decision, I think using the word we were more than appropriate in this instance.'
If one trusts polls, I like the majority of Americans feel Biden is doing a poor job. I have a right to my view in regard to how I feel about the Presidents job performance. The polls show the majority. of Americans share my feelings Current polls
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/ … opagnqapa/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
"Another false exaggeration in claiming I rarely post sourcing. I often post sourcing, but for other information that is readily available, I assume those who would want to know more could open up a browser and check my claims for themselves. "
You rarely post sources. Perhaps have a look at this very thread.
"And ask yourself how often people just end up debating sourcing and not the main point when someone posts a source they don't believe in. What we see so often from the Trump base, is a disbelief in any sourcing that isn't from their own media vacuum, or from the man himself, and all we end up talking about is the source and not the material."
Debate is what a political forum offers. Current news is a great source for subject matter that promotes conversation. I as a rule post and quote what could be considered non-biased sources.
You frequently insult anyone here that does not agree with you. Just as you have in the comment I am responding to.
As I said, the majority of Americans feel Biden is doing a poor job. I happen to agree with that majority. I enjoy conversing about current news. This is a political forum, users can pick and choose what they comment on.
You frequently just lash out if you disagree, as you have done here.
There's a First Amendment right to post your opinion, even when it's so blatantly false as in this case, so unless it entails violence or endangers the community, it's not going to get reported. But it's also not going to go unanswered when it's such an obvious slander."
You have stated my opinion is false. You never prove your accusation, you just lash out and make them... When I make a derogatory comment about Biden, I back them up very carefully.
IF I offer a view, it's opinion-oriented, and I have that right.
Let's face it we both can imagine our feelings about one another. I will leave it there. If I see trolling, I will report it.
I have a right to my opinion, and I always let users know up front when I am expressing an opinion. I feel it's up to me if I want to defend
my view. I am not obligated to beat a dead horse.You do realize that you just tried to equate two different things entirely as a means of trying to avoid having to admit that what you said was clearly a gross exaggeration and outright slander.
Biden's job performance is one thing. Saying 'every Biden decision has been a mistake' is something entirely different. That you still cannot grasp what you said was clearly false is what makes you the classic Trumper.
If you come to this site to make false slanders in a thread dedicated to highlighting positive things Biden is doing and do not expect there to be aggressive push back on that 'opinion,' then I just don't think you understand the nature of forums.
And you're going to stick with another gross exaggeration about my sourcing. That's fine. Another opinion not based in reality. It was made plainly clear that much of your sourcing and your creation of threads at this site comes from Fox News repeated segments and headlines. Not even remotely credible in terms of sourcing.
Then back up this false statement from you "EVERY decision Biden has made is a mistake" (or words with similar meaning in case I didn't get it exactly correct) How do validate a lie on the face of it?
The moderators don't care whether people post "mistruths or misinformation". So it is up to the readers to point them out to the other readers.She already replied to that question (see above posts).
Perhaps you should give it a rest.
I would modify that a little bit so you won't be "nit-picked" to death. I would say "This is why very few rational readers of this forum take you seriously".
How is it argumentative when he proved your claim wrong? Doesn't seem like trolling BS (unless that is what you think truth is), it seems right on point.
Crickets, I see. It is hard to argue against the truth isn't it.
Do you know realize that when you state categorically that "Every decision this president has made has been a mistake you destroy your credibility as a fair purveyor of information. It is not true on the fact of it so why should I take any of your opinions seriously?
No, I can't. Not when you are promoting disinformation. It must be faced head-on and called out.
knit-picking --- I guess I could say ---- THE MAJORITY of decisions this president has made has been a mistake. Plus, after creating problems, he ultimately makes them worse with other ridiculous maneuvers.
That is my opinion and don't care to defend it.I would argue "nit-picking" is what you and your side here on this forum do. But at least with "Majority", while still false and with no support, at least you are back to your opinion, and an admission that Biden has made some good decisions, rather than an outright lie.
It would be nice if you were able to list Biden's "mistakes" - ones that hurt America and Americans or where self-serving. I'll start help you out with one: the decision to and the execution of the Afghan pullout.
I am not sure there are any others.Every decision this president has made has been a mistake. Plus, after creating problems, he ultimately makes them worse with other ridiculous maneuvers.
I was referring to my choice of words. The majority or in my view would have been a better choice than EVERY. My context was not as clear as I had hoped it would be.
And I don't care to hear your opinion or" put down of others on the site.
I have more than offered reasoning for my opinion of the economy I actually offered economists' opinions that I feel are better educated to prove my point.
I have listed what I felt Biden's mistakes were, in great detail. The subject has been beaten like a dead horse. I have actually posted threads on his
what I feel were his greatest mistakes.
Done ruminating on the subject. I am done playing the game list. I provided my view. Don't like it, that's your problem.
I am done with what I feel are his water under the bridge mistakes... I am moving on to whatever comes the way of the future problem, he is sure to cause.
Like his involvement with his son Hunter's dirty business dealing. You know the one Biden claimed he knew nothing about...Yet Hunters bussni=esspartner visited the White Houes 19 times... Keeping an eye on that story. As well as what will happen at our southern border in the next months.
Since he makes frivolous claims which no one takes seriously, of course he needs to repeat them. Charge Democrats $10,000 to vote, do you take that as rational thinking?
I got to thinking about the China thing. I don't lay the root cause of inflation at their feet either, their actions just make it worse.
What we are seeing in inflation was set in stone many decades ago - when "just-in-time" (JIT) logistics became dominate. I can remember thinking back in the 1970s as the idea was taking hold that this was a disaster waiting to happen. It took 50 years, but the pandemic created the conditions necessary for the house of cards to crumble.
JIT was created to save money by reducing the costs of holding inventory needed to produce things. Later, Walmart took the idea to the retail trade. The idea is that you keep just enough inventory on had to get you through the order-delivery cycle time and pray there is no disruption in that process.
Disruptions have occurred many times in the past, but they rarely have been on a global scale. When they did happen, production stopped quickly (this happened to the auto industry several times), which ultimately reduced sales. Also, during these times demand did not accelerate much and price increases were not too bad.
But the pandemic created the Perfect Storm. Supply chains and supply were drastically reduced, inventories were quickly drained and could not be replenished, and demand was greatly curtailed.
It is that last fact that kept inflation in check for the beginning part of the pandemic. But, when the economic brakes were let off in 2021, demand skyrocketed! The obvious problem was, of course, supply could not keep up with demand. And, as everybody with a minimal education knows, that is what drives inflation. That is what is driving today's inflation.
Two things joined forces to keep inflation up: 1) a totally broken supply chain and 2) a manufacturing and retail industry still reliant of JIT to turn a profit. President Biden has done what he can, in spite of all the unfair flack the disloyal opposition heaps upon him, to improve the supply chain.
If it the problem were solely constrained to the United States, he could probably effect significant improvement. But it isn't; it is a global problem. Consequently, what he is able to do is does not have much of an impact unless the world joins the effort.
Right now, China's no Covid policies are working against keeping inflation down and will, in fact, continue to drive it up.Doesn't it get a little tiresome searching for something to shift blame for inflation from Biden? Now it is a 50 year old program (JIT) that worked quite well for decades.
It was not the pandemic, nor JIT that has caused our runaway inflation. Just as you pointed out ("The obvious problem was, of course, supply could not keep up with demand.") is the cause, and that came about from denying the people the ability to work coupled with a massive dumping of cash into the economy. Demand increases while supply falls as a result, but it was not a virus causing it; it was policies intended to ameliorate the effects of that virus, enacted without regard to longer term effects.Then how do explain inflation figures mirroring the US all over the world? You can't without noting the supply chain issues everyone is facing. Countries that use the Euro have very similar inflation figures as we do. They aren't using Biden policies.
OIL... Energy... It is making the world's economy falter. And yes a faltering supply chain. Ine that can't make up for the surge in command.
Did Biden's Jan 21 EOS help the oil companies or hurt them? Did overly pouring stimulus money not create a surge in spending? Spending and demand for goods that we could not keep up with
due to the supply chain. This added to the problem, it could and should have, and could have been expected. Would it have not been more prudent to get people back to work, instead of encouraging many to stay home, and spend? It seems a no-brainer.
His problem solving was poor, he just did not think about what his policies could cause, and combined with other variables did cause. Hard to put the blame, but he took somewhat of a gamble, and I feel he lost.Nothing in your post helps to explain the US being right on par with the rest of the developed world in terms of inflation rates.
I concede that a third stimulus payment would have contributed to inflation, but in the same way that the first two did as well. Hence, not just a Biden cause, but both a Biden and Trump cause. Can you ever concede that fact to stop solely blaming Biden?
And I disagree with the EO's hurting as they had such a supply of leases already built up and are making the choice not to drill. It's not a supply of lease issue at all. Especially when you consider that only 10% of drilling happens on federal lands and we were talking about future leases. A pipeline that still would not have been functional to this day would have no effect on a change in prices.I did include the fact Trump also offered stimulus to the pot. I simply feel Biden should have considered not pouring more money into the economy.
And it is obvious many other countries did the same thing by offering stimulus cash and pretty much locking down, and some did not open their economies any quicker than we did.
As I tried to say, I don't think at this point it is all; about the leases. I think first of all it's about raking in cash, which the oil companies are doing, and payback politically. The oil industry is cutthroat IMO.
I disagree about the pipeline the oilcompanir=esin my view would have put up cash to explore more leases (which can take a few years) if they had that pipeline to move the oil. I just feel as I said it's about cash that could be made, and the oil industry thinks many years ahead. They have for some time needed better ways to move oil due to restrictions. (not Biden's restrictions).
Over the last decade, U.S. oil production saw tremendous growth. But when prices crashed in 2014, investors lost big money. Oil prices are notoriously volatile, with the industry often suffering from boom-and-bust cycles.
Another problem, think back to 2014 -- the companies drew few investors. Making it clear to oil producers that they should not sink money into additional drilling in pursuit of the next oil boom. Instead, they want companies to pay back investors. And draw new investors.
I would not be surprised if Biden lets XL Keystone be completed to help solve one of the oil companies' problems. I think for now it would be a good move on his part. It would show he is open to changing his mind due to a crisis. Couldn't hurt.
I am all for clean energy and think it should be eased in. Who expected a pandemic, and the problems the Nation would face. Is it too late to right the ship? Could we start preparing, instead of moving too quickly with an agenda that could create more problems?We need to remember though that keystone XL was expected to transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. From the refineries, the oil would be sent chiefly oversea, not to gasoline pumps in the United States. Our refineries are perfectly matched to deal with the tar sand oil. Rather than refine their own by building more refineries in Canada TC energy thought it would be a good idea to transport this muck (potentially damaging our drinking water sources) to us to deal with. This deal always benefited Canada more than us.
The keystone system itself had quite a history of leaks.
And the risk that Keystone XL would have spilled was heightened because of the extended time the pipe segments were left sitting outside in stockpiles. “A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on the project’s pipes was damaged from being stored outside and exposed to the elements for the last decade,” Keystone XL is a trash heap at this point I don't think anyone, including TC energy wants to revive this Frankenstein.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline
"Would it have not been more prudent to get people back to work, instead of encouraging many to stay home, and spend? "
Just an observation from my own little neck of the woods was that a lot of people did want to get back to work but their places of work remained closed or went completely out of business during that time.
"In June 2021, of the 6.2 million people that did not work at all or worked fewer hours at some point in the last 4 weeks because their employer closed or lost business due to the coronavirus pandemic, 575,000 were age 16 to 24, 3.7 million were age 25 to 54, and 1.9 million were 55 years and over."
It's a given some people are lazy but not all of us."Did overly pouring stimulus money not create a surge in spending?"
Actually I doubt that it did, very much. What it did do was create a much larger supply of dollars chasing a diminishing supply of goods as production fell or ceased entirely. The dollars spent rose some, even with the lack of jobs, from those trillions, but the goods purchased did not - they couldn't as they weren't there to purchase.
Which is a classic definition and reason for the inflation we're seeing. Add in that when we did begin to allow jobs to return people were still being paid to stay home, and at rates more than they could earn. No reason to return to work, leaving business paying far more for labor - once more a classic reason for inflation (lower supply, increasing demand). Eventually, of course, it all comes together to inflate the balloon and we have the highest inflation rates in 50 years. Perhaps higher as methods of calculation have changed per the need for government to minimize and hide what it has done.
Didn't most countries use the same tactics the US did in fighting COVID? Isn't China, or parts of it, again locked down with people starving in their homes? Didn't most countries inject massive quantities of money into their economy?
For sure, the supply chain problems have played a part, and a good sized one, in our inflation (and the world's). Now...what has caused those interruptions if not lack of workers. And that does not even attempt to describe what ESO mentioned; that an increase in demand also played a large part. An increased fueled by giving away trillions without an increase in supply.I referenced the Euro nations, and no, they did not use the same tactic in providing stimulus money. So your theory about stimulus leading to inflation in both the US and Europe is undermined by the policy choices that were taken.
As to a lack of workers claim, it could have been a change in how people spent their money that played a large part in adding pressures on the supply chains. There are plenty of investigative articles noting these changes.
I am not searching. What I wrote is reality. It is you who look for surface answers.
"The obvious problem was, of course, supply could not keep up with demand." - Of course that is true, which is what I pointed out. But I took a more fundamental approach to get down to the real reason.
" that came about from denying the people the ability to work coupled" - The logical conclusion from that line of reasoning I guess it means that 6,227,769 dead people isn't enough for you (over 1 million of them Americans). Your solution of letting everybody continue to work through the pandemic would have double, tripled, quadrupled those numbers. That would certainly be better than a little inflation, wouldn't it.What you (and other liberals) ignore is that our response to the pandemic should always have been a balanced approach, with all facets considered. That includes the inevitable inflation and trouble that brings, it includes supply chain problems, it includes the killed and wasted hogs because slaughter houses closed.
Instead the liberal thought sticks tight to the emotional, immediate path of "But we simply HAVE to do this or people will die!". A failure, as always, when other effects are ignored that can bring about the same result of people dying or living in misery.
Bottom line is that we overdid our response, particularly with the extreme unemployment and second round of stimulus checks. By that time we should all have been going back to work instead of sitting home as a non-producing parasite on the rest of the country that was working to produce our food and other goods.The preservation of life has to come first, Wilderness, your pursuit of mere mammon amount to a poor second place. Did you you have all these brilliant ideas during the pandemic?
Like they always say " hindsight is always 20/20"."In June 2021, of the 6.2 million people that did not work at all or worked fewer hours at some point in the last 4 weeks because their employer closed or lost business due to the coronavirus pandemic, 575,000 were age 16 to 24, 3.7 million were age 25 to 54, and 1.9 million were 55 years and over."
Not everyone is a "non-producing parasite"
And at the height of the pandemic I did not expect a worker making $7 an hour to risk their health for my cheeseburger.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2021/6-2-m … e-2021.htm
Hey, I can't either. It is clear at this point the polls show even the Democrats are jumping ship.
It seems to me your "tenses" have been wrong for a while now. Here you just said "jumping ship" as if it were still going on. Well, the stats show that is no longer true.
The stats also show that Democrats and Independents are are starting to disapprove of Biden less each week. There has been a couple of polls that has his disapproval rating below 50%. Even one poll had just a one or two point difference, 47 - 49, or something like that.Yes, jumping ship Bidens polls show him sinking at a good pace. Not sure where you get your polls? His polls get worse each month.
April 13, 2022
"74% OF AMERICANS THINK WORST OF WAR IN UKRAINE IS YET TO COME,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;
MORE THAN 8 IN 10 THINK VLADIMIR PUTIN IS A WAR CRIMINAL
As the world witnesses the atrocities in Ukraine committed by Russian troops, the vast majority of
Americans (74 percent) think the worst of the war is yet to come, while 11 percent think the worst of the war is
over, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of adults released today.
BIDEN
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans approve of President Joe Biden’s handling of the response to Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine, while 48 percent disapprove.
While 33 percent of Americans approve of the way President Biden is handling his job,
54 percent disapprove with 13 percent not offering an opinion. Biden’s 33 percent job approval ties the low that he received
in a Quinnipiac University poll on January 12, 2022, when his job approval rating was a negative 33 – 53 percent
.
In today’s poll, Democrats approve (76 – 12 percent) of Biden’s job performance,
while INDEPENDENTS disapprove (56 – 26 percent)
and Republicans disapprove (94 – 3 percent).
Among registered voters, 35 percent approve of Biden’s job performance, while 55 percent disapprove
with 10 percent not offering an opinion. Biden’s 35 percent job approval among registered voters ties the low that he received in a Quinnipiac University poll on January 12, 2022 when his job approval rating was a negative 35 –
54 percent."
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/u … upip76.pdf"Yes, jumping ship Bidens polls show him sinking at a good pace. Not sure where you get your polls? His polls get worse each month." - You must be referring to last years polls because this years average of polls prove you wrong - as I have shown you. So, in case you missed it, his average approval rating has be basically constant since Jan 1 while his average disapproval numbers has been declining since January! That is just a fact.
WOW! President Biden's Disapproval numbers (51.4) continues to decrease (or as some here would exaggerate and say "cratering") is at its lowest level since Dec 2021.
His approval numbers (41.3), however, are still stuck between 40 and 42 as they have been since Jan 2022.All of this comes as Biden is at or near his low ebb in terms of job approval during his term. In CNN's latest poll of polls -- an average of the last four national polls -- Biden's approval rating is at just 39% among Americans, with his disapproval at 55%
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/politics … index.html
PLUS --- this won't help
US economy facing 'modest' recession next year, Fannie Mae says
Rising interest rates at the Fed and sky-high inflation could trigger a recession
(Bloomberg) -- Rising interest rates at the U.S. Federal Reserve will further slow an economy already weighed down by high inflation and the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, causing a “modest contraction” in the second half of 2023, according to Fannie Mae.
“We continue to see multiple drivers of economic growth through 2022, but the need to rein in inflation, combined with other economic indicators, such as the recent inversion of the Treasury yield curve, led us to meaningfully downgrade our expectations for economic growth in 2023,” Doug Duncan, Fannie Mae’s chief economist, said in a statement.
The new forecast includes a “modest recession, but one that we do not expect to be similar in magnitude or duration to the recession of 2008,” Duncan said.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-economy … -1.1753874"All of this comes as Biden is at or near his low ebb in terms of job approval during his term. " - At least you dropped your insistence that his numbers are cratering, that is a start. Now, can you admit his negatives are falling and that his net negatives is shrinking, on average.
"In CNN's latest poll of polls -- an average of the last four national polls" - I like RCP's better, it has more than four polls in it. Today's numbers are 41.3 and 52.6 with a spread of -10.3. Since January, the spread has spanned from -14.6 to a low of -8.8 in March to -13.9, also in March, to the current -10.3.
"US economy facing 'modest' recession next year," - Absent Ukraine, this would still be expected. The antidote to inflation is recession. The balancing act the Fed must play is to increase rates just enough to reduce inflation while not setting off a recession. Normally they fail, but generally the recessions are small, historically.
All bets are off, however, because of Ukraine (I know, this is Biden's fault and not Putin's). Along with the shock to gas prices (which seem to have waned) the more damaging danger is the destruction of Ukraine's grain. This won't impact America so much as it will the rest of the world who rely on Ukrainian and Russian grain exports. America doesn't need imports of grain.
Glad to see we got Sharlee's daily declaration ignoring any accomplishments over the last 15 months out of the way early. Her record for one day is five. Maybe she wanted to take a shot at breaking it.
I really see few accomplishments. I did feel the stimulus money to citizens was positive, until it may have been one of the variables that added to inflation. But not sure there have been any true accomplishments. I am willing to listen to what you consider accomplishments. Always open to kicking it around again.
So Is This A Lie? WAPO says it is.
WHITE HOUSE Published April 21, 2022 10:39am EDT
Biden gets 3 Pinocchios for saying 'congressional Republicans' want middle-class tax hike
The claim 'just barely' missed getting four Pinocchios
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wapo-g … s-tax-hike
The unfortunate thing about this kind of lie is many see it, and believe it. This is dishonest politicking, as well as misinformation that Twitter did not see fit to remove (as of yet)
My comment was removed for simply calling the tweet misinformation. Go figure. Twitter is a propaganda site in my view. But many of us already know that."EXCLUSIVE: Florida's lawsuit against the Biden administration over its so-called "catch-and-release" policy advanced Wednesday, with a federal judge saying that Biden's policies have turned the southern border into "little more than a speedbump" for illegal immigrants.
In September 2021, the state of Florida sued the Biden administration over its "illegal" catch-and-release policies saying they cause harm to the state's "quasi-sovereign interests," while claiming officials are either in violation of federal immigration law, or simply abusing their authority. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed the suit against the administration as part of a joint effort with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to "uphold the rule of law despite the Biden administration's decision to violate the law."
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled Wednesday that the lawsuit can move forward, throwing out the Biden administration's motion to dismiss the case, with Judge T. Kent Wetherell issuing a scathing opinion saying the court was "wholly unpersuaded" by the administration's position."
"Today’s order is a huge win in our fight to force the Biden administration to fix the crisis by following the law. As the order states, ‘not even the President is above the law,’ and I look forward to advancing our case to hold the Biden administration accountable for ignoring public-safety immigration laws and turning our nation’s last bastion of protection into nothing more than a speedbump," Moody said in an exclusive statement to Fox News Digital.
Wetherell's order states that the Biden administration has "adopted and are implementing policies that contravene explicit mandates and restrictions in the immigration statutes and that the policies have effectively turned the southern border into little more than a speedbump for the hundreds of thousands of aliens who have flooded across the border into the country since January 2021 and the thousands more who are arriving at the border daily."
Wetherell wrote that the court was unconvinced that the Biden administration has "unfettered discretion to determine how (or if) to comply with the immigration statutes and that there is nothing that Florida or this Court can do about their policies even if they contravene the immigration statutes."
He called the Biden administration's policy "as remarkable as it is wrong" because no one is above the law, including the president.
When Biden first took office in 2021, he signed several immigration-related executive orders, which included revoking then-President Trump’s order ending the catch and release policy, by which migrants were released into the interior after being apprehended.
"This is about how America is safer, stronger, more prosperous when we have a fair, orderly, and humane legal immigration system," Biden said at the time.
Under the former Trump administration, the catch-and-release policy was limited due to the enforcement of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in 2019, also known as the Remain in Mexico program.
The Biden administration officially ended MPP in June and was sued by a several GOP-led states, which took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. The high court is set to rule on it in the coming months.
The administration is also facing backlash from both Democrats and Republicans for ending Title 42, a public health order set to expire on May 23 that has been used since March 2020 to quickly expel a majority of migrants at the border due to the COVID-19 pandemic"
Thoughts -----. Do you feel Biden has handled the growing migration problems? If so what have I missed?President Biden's Approval - Disapproval ratings are remaining constant: Since January, Approval fluctuates between 40 and 42 while Disapproval fluctuates between 52 and 54. There is still a slight downward trend of the Disapproval highs with the last four being 55.3, 54.9, 54.8, 54.0, and 54.0 respectively. It currently sits at 53.0.
I suspect his numbers might improve as the idea of the loss of women's liberty sinks in.Another reason for inflation that isn't Biden's fault.
Wages per unit Surged 11.6% in the first quarter of 2022 while Productivity Fell 7.5%. (Hourly wage growth was 3.2%).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/economy/ … index.htmlIn President Biden's last economic speech, he put the blame on the recent high gas prices squarely on Putin and his war. This time he is right. Prior to the war, the average oil price was around $70/bbl. After the war started, it is averaging $102/bbl. That is inflation which is driving most of the world's inflation.
That said, President Biden also said that recently oil prices have been relatively stable, which is true. So what is driving the record gas prices at the pump? Could it be oil company price gouging?Finally, a bit of good news on the inflation front. Hopefully, it repeats itself in the coming months.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/business … index.htmlReally, you feel 8.3 % is a promising sign on the inflation front. I was not going to respond --- But then I read this
May 12 2022 -- Former Obama adviser says 'inflation is here to stay,' predicts November will be a 'tough one' for Democrats
Steve Rattner, a former Treasury Department official under the Obama administration, predicted Thursday that Americans wouldn't see the end of the inflation crisis anytime soon.
"During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Rattner declared, "Inflation is here to stay," and argued it would be "the defining issue" in the upcoming midterm elections, making November "a really tough one" for Democrats. Inflation hit 8.3% in April and has been hovering near a 40-year high
Co-host Mika Brzezinski began the topic by expressing her worry over inflation, as well as Democrats "hanging their hat" on being the solution to it.
"I’m not sure one person, one country, one party can solve this problem with everything that’s happening around the world," she said, before stating that President Biden had been traveling the country to learn from, and empathize with, Americans suffering from the crisis. She asked Rattner if inflation was "here to stay."
"Inflation is here to stay," Rattner declared, arguing it was "the defining issue in the midterm elections," and that the Democrats' control over the House and Senate was at stake because of it.
Referring to charts released by the Federal Reserve outlining the change in inflation rates over time, including a slight dip from March to April, Rattner suggested it was possible inflation might have peaked earlier in the spring.
He explained, however, that gas prices were having big impact on the inflation rate and pointed to them reaching record highs in March as inflation hit a 40-year high, but then dipped in April as the inflation rate saw a slight dip.
He added that if you removed gas prices from the calculation, the inflation rate for April would actually have been 0.4% higher than the massive 8.3% recorded rate.
"Look, the president has been blaming everything except himself and the Democrats for the inflation," Rattner said, arguing the only element in Biden's favor was that inflation is "a worldwide phenomenon."
He then outlined the factors contributing to inflation that he saw as within the control of the Biden administration.
"There is a fair amount of self-inflicted pain that we've put on ourselves with too much stimulus, too big budget deficits, too much bond buying by the Federal Reserve, too much money printing by the Federal Reserve, and that's what's coming home to roost," Rattner said.
"And look, it's the number one issue, and it's going to be a really tough one for Democrats," he added.
He went on to argue that none of the policies being pushed by Biden would have "any meaningful affect" on inflation between
now and the fall.
AND THEN HE SAID THIS
"Former Obama Treasury adviser: Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID bill was 'an extraordinary mistake'
"Steven Rattner, former counselor to the Treasury Secretary under the Obama administration, wrote in a column for The New York Times Thursday that President Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan "will go down in history as an extraordinary mistake."
He said the solution to our inflation problem is to reduce demand by making Americans spend less. Unfortunately, this "leads to fewer jobs and slower wage growth, historically to the point where we tip into recession."
"That’s not desirable, but it is the price we pay for poor economic policies delivered by the White House, by Congress and by the Federal Reserve," he said. "Those poor policies include far too much budgetary stimulus as we addressed Covid challenges. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in the early days of the Biden administration will go down in history as an extraordinary policy mistake."
AND THIS WAPO May 12 2022
WaPo editorial board slams Biden's 'magical thinking on inflation'
Biden said his polices 'help, not hurt' inflation
The Washington Post editorial board slammed President Biden's "magical thinking on inflation" on Wednesday, following the release of April's numbers.
Inflation came in at 8.3% in April, showing a slight decrease from March's record-high 8.5% year-over-year inflation. Prices remain high and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was still higher than predicted.
The editorial board noted that inflation was "one of the biggest challenges" the president faces and that American consumers from both political parties were frustrated about it. The editors said that Biden should have told the American people that he was taking inflation "very seriously" several months ago.
"The White House has been suffering from magical thinking on inflation, and, sadly, that continues," the editorial board said, adding that in 2021, the Biden administration "wrongly" told people that the high prices wouldn't last.
When it was obvious inflation was not going to come down "on its own," the editorial board said, the Biden administration turned to "a blame game."
"One of its favorite talking points is to pin inflation on greedy corporations for hiking prices too much. That just doesn’t add up. Corporations did not become far more greedy in the past few months," the authors argued, adding that what is really going on is "basic economics."
The editorial board criticized Biden's hammering of the Republican Party, noting that it wasn't what Americans wanted to hear. The authors also said Sen. Rick Scott's, R-Fla., tax plan was "terrible."
The Washington Post editorial board argued that Biden needs to focus on the things he can do and on "how to fix supply chains and get more workers into the economy."
"It’s wishful thinking that inflation is going to come down much by Election Day. To show voters he is on top of the problem, Mr. Biden needs to do more than blame someone else for high prices," they concluded.
The president said Tuesday that his policies "help, not hurt" inflation, but many economists have said that his American Rescue Plan contributed to increased prices.
Biden and his administration, along with some congressional Democrats, have consistently blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin, the war in Ukraine, and the COVID-19 pandemic for inflation.
Joe continues to rack up WAPO Pinocchio's
Washington Post reiterates Three-Pinocchio rating on Biden's repeated claim Republicans want to raise taxes...
Republicans voiced 'generic words of support for the idea of releasing a plan,' WaPo reported
The Washington Post reaffirmed a fact check from the end of April on Thursday that gave President Biden "Three Pinocchios" for his assertion that Republicans want to raise taxes.
In an April 18 tweet, the president said that "congressional Republicans now want to raise taxes on middle class families," adding he would not let that happen. The root of Biden's assertion is a plan outlined by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.
Scott put forth an 11-point plan, which says "all Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax."
Biden and his administration have repeatedly suggested that Republicans back the plan and White House Press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated the claims Tuesday during a press conference.
"Psaki’s comments only reaffirmed why our original analysis was correct. We will concentrate on her explanation of why Biden claimed that a ‘majority’ of Republicans back Scott’s plan," The Washington Post reported in another piece addressing the April fact check.
Psaki quoted multiple senators, including Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who offered vague praise of Scott's delivery of the plan, according to the Washington Post.
The Washington Post reported that none of those senators endorsed the proposal in question and have instead voiced "generic words of support for the idea of releasing a plan."
Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D, said Tuesday that he does not endorse Scott's plan and it would be a stretch for Democrats to suggest that the Republican Party was supporting the agenda.
"If they try and run campaign ads against individual senators who haven't adopted that plan, then I don't know how straight-faced you can make that argument," Thune said. "That doesn't mean it won't be done."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., has criticized the bill as well.
"We reaffirm our rating of Three — nearly Four — Pinocchios," the fact check said.
Biden reiterated the claim that Republicans want to raise taxes in his Tuesday speech that focused on inflation and increased prices. During a Wednesday speech addressing the Democratic National Committee, he said that Scott's plan was "what the Republican Party stands for, what they’re going to run on."
Biden and Scott have sparred in the last past week over the assertions. Scott said that the president was "unwell" and called on him to resign. Biden responded that Scott "has a problem."
Was he lying or just confused, or both?The Republican Party seems very divided at this point in time between the Trump faction of the party and the traditional Republicans. McConnell says they have no platform and won't be putting one forward. Some seem to support Scott's plan which does raise taxes on the middle class and below while "sunseting" programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Personally I think his agenda is terrible and nothing I could ever support but he is the only one in the Republican Party that actually has a platform. I don't know, it appears that Scott is out there and really doubling down on his agenda for the GOP. I think he's obviously positioning himself for a run in 2024. At any rate, he is aggressively trying to make a lane for himself.
Rick Scott's plan has no Republican support. Although it has been fact Checked by several outlets. And the media has out and out lied about what is in his bill. I don't see any divide in the party. I see a couple in Congress, that have no real power. Maybe three... The party will back Trump or someone with Trump's MAGA policies in my view. Many of us are very much missing having a president that we trust to solve problems. And oh my will we be ready to clean house. We are not enjoying watching the destruction of America.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/democ … -medicare/He's got some support for his plan. He has a growing faction.
"RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel: “Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel also endorsed Scott’s 11-point plan, telling the Daily Caller it is full of actual solutions to help the U.S."
Plus others here: https://democrats.org/news/here-are-the … ga-agenda/
Also, Aside from his tax policy, many of the provisions of Scott’s plan tested in this survey were popular both with the Republican base and the wider electorate.
https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/02/r … s-polling/
https://democrats.org/news/here-are-the … ga-agenda/
He is not someone I would support but I think the Republican Party is diversifying from the maga agenda and certainly the divisiveness of Mr Trump. I do think that's a good thing. I would prefer not to see a Republican candidate continue with the bluster of division and hateful rhetoric.I could never support Rick Scott, I feel we need someone that leans to the right of the middle.
That sounds like you think Scott is a moderate. Were you trying to say we need someone that leans more Left than Scott?
Oh I wholeheartedly agree but moderate Republicans seem to be labeled "Rinos" these days. Can a centrist Republican candidate get support?
They get mine. I may change my party affiliation from "independent" to "conservative" solely to vote in my state's primary. We have a woman running for governor that is totally unfit for any job, let alone that of governor and promises to make the state one "where Christ lives".
On the other hand I'm quite happy with the current (republican) governor, who does not embrace the radical right. I actually believe (or maybe just hope) that the majority of Americans want a "centrist" of either party; that it is the loud voices of the radical fringes that we hear while the rest keep their peace.I hope the same thing about "centrists". That is why Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama were elected. All were considered somewhat moderate in their political views.
I voted for Eisenhower (albeit in an elementary school election), Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.
I didn't vote for Nixon, but if I had known how pragmatic he would be with his policies, I would have."I voted for Eisenhower (albeit in an elementary school election), Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama."
When you spoke about voting for Eisenhower, even I could not believe that you were that old. To have actually done that, you would be fast approaching 90 years.
McGovern, Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis ,Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Biden
My political affiliation is quite clear. But did not always win, though.
BTw I voted for LBJ in 1964 and Hubert Humphrey 1968, in absentia, while part of the public school system.
I don't think a person who holds moderate political views. will get the support of this Republican party. People are once again searching for a strong fixer.
Most of us are sooooo--- shocked at what is happening to America. Not a chance we will be interested in a moderate.
Come on Faye many Rep crossed over and thought they were voting for a moderate, a guy that said he was for all of us, was going to fix everything, and bring the country back together.
What I see is either Trump or someone he handpicks being the Rep next candidate. And the way things are going well I would think the Rep will win back the WH. Many of us liked the idea of America first."People are once again searching for a strong fixer." - I would argue they don't give a damn about the person being a "fixes" (which Trump was not even close to being). Instead, they are looking for someone who looks like them: able to believe in lies without batting an eye, anti-immigrant, racist, anti-democratic, nationalistic to a fault, shallow thinking, etc.
Trump's, and apparently yours, is not "America First", it is "American Only" (which means Trump First) and to hell with anyone else. All presidents, until Trump, have been demonstrably America First.
President Biden is trying hard to bring the country back together, but Trump Republicans are not having any of it - they WANT a divided country, it keeps their base riled up.In my opinion,.the maga candidates and agenda only offer more division. The candidates that Mr Trump is currently endorsing in various primaries are quite divisive. I really do feel that the Trump faction is based on creating and keeping divisions. It's not a healthy thing for the country.
The divide is there we all know that. And I don't think either side could ever come to terms with what we want for America.
I will share my view in regard o the divide. The Democrats going after a duly elected president from before he won the election to smear him in every respect. All lies and deceit. People like me watched him survive, and always do his job. We respected that. We don't respect grifts to ruin a man. And did they? No.
Trump did his job, he worked to make things better, but he was hit with I would say one of the biggest problems any president could be hit with COVID. He quickly went into action to provide hospitals with vents, PPE, pop-up hospitals, vaccines, medications... A was excoriated by Democrats and left media every step. We have a president at this point who can't even solve the problem of a lack of baby formula. This is inexcusable...
The divide is there, talk to the Democrats on how this all happened, I blame them. I think they are done as a viable party. They certainly have nothing to offer me. I hope to see the next president continue with Trump's agenda and initiate America's first policies. IMO many are fine with the division, we have so lost respect for the Democratic party, they have zero to offer me. I have watched their antic, am I am so done with what they tried to dish up.Sharlee:
"Trump did his job, he worked to make things better, but he was hit with I would say one of the biggest problems any president could be hit with COVID. He quickly went into action to provide hospitals with vents, PPE, pop-up hospitals, vaccines, medications... A was excoriated by Democrats and left media every step. We have a president at this point who can't even solve the problem of a lack of baby formula. This is inexcusable."..
Trump was too little to late with his OWS. He knew in January how lethal the virus was, but being the con artist he is, he conned everybody into thinking it was like the flu and would go away in a few days. That con job cost many lives that could have been saved if he would have told the truth and reacted when he knew. He took over the briefings that were done by scientist because he wanted to control the narrative and didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about.
As far as baby formula goes and blaming it on Biden:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … ge-abbott-
recall/629828/
Trump's "America First" is about Economic Nationalism. Here is what it got him.
https://thehill.com/opinion/internation … en-a-bust/I can see we come about things differently. I felt and still do that Trump did a great job with handling COVID. I think if Biden were president we would have has double the deaths. As you can see by the 600,000 deaths that have occurred under his watch. Biden knew about the baby formula problem in Feb and ignored it. My Gosh, he can't even handle this
small problem.
I think it's clear I don't respect your thoughts on how Trump handled COVID. So we are going in a circle. I will say I have little respect for those that can't admit Trump did a good job with COVID.
The country is literally falling apart and you continue to ruminate on Trump. perhaps you should ask yourself why you are stuck in such a rut?
You may want to take a look at what your guy is doing, and how the majority of Americans see your guy as a total failure.
Actually, it's almost time to think about the next election, we Republicans are looking forward, not backward.
Your link to the baby formula problem did not work. I will tell you upfront, I am sick of Biden's blame game. He needs to just do his job, and work less on excuses. most people find this nauseating.
He causes his own problems always a day late. You listen to his blame game, I am not up for that. I consider myself too intelligent to listen to his non-sensical excuses.Being provably responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths due to Covid is "I felt and still do that Trump did a great job with handling COVID." in you mind??? WOW!!!
Almost every responsible medical type associated with Trump's Covid response is on record saying so. And so many others have crunched the numbers to come to the same conclusion.
"He causes his own problems always a day late. " - A claim to which you have proved zero proof or facts
Why did you never say you were SICK of Trump's blame game, at which he excelled. Because you didn't, it makes your claim about Biden basically meaningless and purely partisan."Being provably responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths due to Covid is "I felt and still do that Trump did a great job with handling COVID." in you mind??? WOW!!!"
Really --- I do feel he did a good job I have listed all that I felt he did many times. I feel he earned my support and appreciation.
How do you feel about the 600,000 Biden killed on his shift? Is that not what you accused Trump of killing 400,000 Americans/ So how do you feel about Biden killing so many? Love to hear your excuses. He was not hit with a surprise virus as Trump was... He was hit with a virus plus vaccines, testing supplies, medications well in the works, and OWS. Yet he killed so many... He did nothing --- oh forgot he tossed out some money... He did nothing else Zero...
Your attitude sickens me in regards to supporting such a man. What has he done to make an attempt to curb death? he never even pushed the plan to trace.
Trump did not play the blame game, and when he did it was wanted. This old fool just stumbles around in the dark, half the time not even knowing what he speaks. He's your guy, hope you are satisfied with him... I can't imagine what the toll would be if COVID hit while this old fool was in the WH. 600,000! And he had all the tools
You are in the minority .. Thank God"You are in the minority" - Prove your claim with facts
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02800-9
Trump Death Clock
531,377
Estimated Portion U.S. COVID-19 Deaths Due To POTUS Inaction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … h-counter/
https://www.businessinsider.com/analysi … ble-2021-2
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … eline.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … lth-policy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 7f1de234ac
"Birx recalls 'very difficult' call with Trump, says hundreds of thousands of Covid deaths were preventable
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … d-n1262283
No, it is pretty clear to those with an open mind that YOU are in the minority, Thank God.
"Trump did not play the blame game," - That, of course, is a Lie, since you KNOW that not to be true. Trump blamed EVERYBODY else but himself. And that is a provable fact.YOU ARE DEFLECTING
I see you are spinning out of control with all the links. We have already ascertained that 400,000 died of COVID on Trump's watch. That's a fact. You can come up with 100 links to say why they died under Trump's watch.
What I asked is for you to how you felt about the 600,000 Biden killed? You have asked me that question in regard to the people that died under Trump. 400.000... You deflected. Why did so many more die on Bidens watch?
And here is the latest poll from a left outlet. Like I said you are in the minority. As are liberals in general.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … 0041797934How am i DEFLECTING? Is giving you the facts you say you want deflecting. I think it is more like you sticking your head in the sand because you don't want to believe what people like Dr. Brix and Dr. Fauci prove.
As usual you are misusing numbers or simply don't understand them.
The point is, it is well documented that Trump's poor response that led to most of the people who died on his watch, shouldn't have.
On the other hand, none of the deaths on Biden's watch are due to his mismanagement (with one caveat). That caveat is that Biden let his guard down on the testing regime when Omicron hit and he was slow to respond. (See how easy it is point out flaws in a president, even one I think is great, yet you think Trump was flawless, sort of like the Pope.) Anyway, if any deaths occurred because of that slowness, then they are on Biden.
BUT, those deaths would pale in comparison to the massacre Trump caused.I never said Trump was flawless, I said he was hit with a virus that we could not even identify and had no defense against it but mitigations and to work toward getting vaccines. He did all of that. He was told it would take many years before a vaccine could be redeveloped By Fauci. he pushed ahead worked his ass off and got us two vaccines
within a year. He took the advice from his team and locked down the country, he let Faichi initiate mitigations. He did everything he humanly could do. This man did not just talk, he gave us solutions. So you think whatever you please. For me, I feel he did the best job he could, and never, never hide... Never Do you know how stupid it sounds to blame one president for killing 400,000 Americans, and saying they should not have died, and not realize that old fool has had 600.000 died on his time. You make excuses such as Biden let his guard down on the testing regime". This sounds so ridiculous. In light of what Trump faced.
What led to 600,000 that died on Bidens time?
At this point, I must say have no respect for your thoughts on this subject. We totally disagree on No room for discussion. I would feel my self unintelligent to continue the conversation. I have said it before believe what you please, that's on you.
Amazing, you complain when I don't provide links and now you complain when I provide links. You know who does that? High scoring RWA followers.
The only people to blame for the baby formula shortage are the manufactures.
"The Democrats going after a duly elected president from before he won the election to smear him in every respect. " - You mean like the Trump Republicans like you are doing to Biden now? The difference is, the Democrats didn't need to use lies and deceit like the Trump Republicans are, the Democrats had truth and facts on their side.
No.
I think non-Trump Republicans should 1) form their own party or 2) form the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
"Rick Scott's plan has no Republican support. " - That is not entirely true. Real Republicans don't buy into it (but there aren't many of them anymore), but Trump Republicans love it. Trump backs it. The MAGA base loves it.
At least these Republicans favor it:
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel:
Senator Ron Johnson
Senator Mike Braun
Senator Marco Rubio
Newt Gingrich:
Senator Tommy Tuberville:
Congressman Matt Gaetz:
Arizona Senate Candidate Jim Lamon:
Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Mehmet Oz
North Carolina Senate candidate Ted Budd
To name just a few.
"We are not enjoying watching the destruction of America. " - [i]That is because Trump has already destroyed it a lot and is now trying to finish the job. Fortunately, President Biden has repaired a lot of the damage and will continue to do so.Not sure how you or anyone else could say Trump destroyed this Country. The downfall started on day one of the Biden administration and has continued until this day. Biden has caused every bit of the damage. Thank God the polls show the majority of Americans have come to that very conclusion.
HE has single-handedly tried to tear down America. As I have said I have faith in Americans to dump this entire party in Nov."Not sure how you or anyone else could say Trump destroyed this Country." - Because we have eyes and a brain.
Other than Afghanistan, you can't point to a single thing to support your false and factless belief that "HE (meaning Biden) has single-handedly tried to tear down America."
Since the polls showed Trump in even WORSE position yet you think Trump did a great job, why do you believe the polls now instead of then? Since I doubt you will answer that, it means that your claim has no validity.
If you truly believe that, you must have some data no one else has to bolster your claim. If not, it is just so much histrionics and hyperbole.I would not think you would go down that road. Biden's pills are so bad across the board. Even with Democrats in his own state.
Are you saying Biden has good polls? So odd...
I never paid much attention toTrump's polls. I always felt he was doing more than a good job, and could have cared very little about what Democrats thought of him. Still don't.
All and all Trump's job ratings polls were better than Bidens has been for over a year now. he had slumped but would stay in the high 40s even though Covid -- Biden has not seen a high 40'w in a long while.
"Are you saying Biden has good polls? So odd..." - Why is it odd? You made that statement up so you could say "So odd". Now try telling the truth.
BTW, when you compare month by month, Biden is doing much better in the polls than Trump did.
Joe Biden's Presidential Job Approval Ratings
% Approve Polling dates
Latest job approval rating 41 Apr 1-19, 2022
Term average to date 47 Jan 20, 2021-present
Highest job approval rating to date 57 Jan 21-Feb 2 and Apr 1-21, 2021
Lowest job approval rating to date 40 Jan 3-16, 2022
Trump didn't come close to those numbers in his first year according to you chart.
Rather, Scott says he wants to “review,” “fix” and “preserve” those social programs - That is government speak for killing programs. You know as well as I that once Medicare sunsets, there will be a huge fight to reauthorize it. While normal Republicans may want to keep it, Trump Republicans (who are in charge now) will try to kill it. So, I disagree with FactCheck's conclusion, they aren''t even TECHINICALLY correct and in practice, the Democrats are correct.
If Scott's plan is accepted as many on your side want, then Social Security, Medicare, and other similar programs will SUNSET. That means end. Congress will have to do something it is not very good at anymore, act in a bipartisan manner to save them.Not sure how I became involved in a conversation about Rick Scott. I do not support him or his ideas.
Not sure the left should be concerned about Scott, I would be more concerned about a few others that will run if Trump decides not to run."Not sure the left should be concerned about Scott" - [i]I think the Left has a lot to worry about from Scott given the list of supporters Faye and I offered you to which you had no comment.
So, why are you and Faye offering me anything on Scott? I have never shown any interest in him or actually have brought him up at all. As I said I feel is too moderate for me.
I had no comment because I don't really care about him or his agenda. I always respond to Faye. Here is the reply I had to the comment in regard to Scott.
You need to be less accusatory and more to read ongoing conversations. Again Scott does not concern me, I don't care for him or his agenda.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4243746Scott is too moderate for you? - unbelievable!!
Why unbelievable his policies do not interest me. I feel he is a pretty much phony politician. He foes whatever way the wind blows sort of like Biden. Tell them whatever they want to hear. He flip-flops.
I always look way back and follow the crumbs as I did with Biden.
Scott is trying to present himself as a changed man, from tea party darling to moderate Republican. BS
He does not have a chance ...
What EXACTLY has the media "lied" about?? You provided no facts, no context with your assertion.
I believe high prices are here to stay. They never go away or get reduced. It's a matter of wages catching up to the prices so that people can afford things again. Gas prices may go down a little bit, but I don't think they will ever return to their pre-inflation levels.
The feds can raise interest rates to moderate inflation, but it takes two consecutive down turns of the GDP to enter a recession. The job market is starting to recover, hopefully that will help prevent a recession.
There are some economist who are using the PCE index to measure what people are spending their money on, instead of the CPI. PCE = Personal Consumption Expenditure.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pce.aspI have faith that a new administration will right the ship. We can not continue down this destructive path, when will you realize this?
When you realize it was Trump who put us on this path. Save for Afghanistan, everything President Biden has done has improved things.
In light of the mess we are currently in - My gosh, this is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a while.
Biden is a confused man that needs to be removed, hopefully, the new Congress will hear the people's cries and impeach him quickly.
"Joe continues to rack up WAPO Pinocchio's" - How can they? They ran out of them with Trump.[/i
WAPO says this about Pinocchios - [i]President Trump continues to be the king of Pinocchios, amassing 295 from our fact checks since May 2019, with an average rating of 3.64 Pinocchios. (That basically means he almost always received Four Pinocchios when we rated him.) But former vice president Joe Biden was no slouch either, earning 51 Pinocchios with an average rating of 2.67.
Until Biden passes 3.64, then your complaint is just so much unfounded partisanship.This is not about Trump, this is about a current president that lies frequently, either out of confusion or just barefaced lying.
It is about Trump because he is still in the limelight and will never leave.. Now he is endorsing candidates for his MAGA party. His sick ego has to win, even if he loses. He will convince himself and others he has won.
To me, that is sickening and impacts our government politically and morally. Just look at Jan.6 and everything leading up to it, including afterwards up until today.
Trump has over 10,000 verifiable lies on the books, including the election was stolen from him and Jan. 6. I doubt very seriously about Trump being confused when he lies. He knew and still knows exactly what he can get away with.
He distracts people from focusing on his lies by making them believe that his agenda is more important than his immorality. He has done a great job with his base and the Evangelical Christians.Yes, Trump is very much still in the mix. He has a big base that will follow him no matter what. The rest of us will vote for however the Republicans run... Once again we are searching for an American first agenda. We see the alternative as a party that has the country in a huge mess. Do you honestly think the Democrats have a chance in the next election?
We watch problems developed almost every day, problems that this administration creates.
Biden goes from one problem to the next and blames everyone but himself for what he creates. We hit 1 million COVID deaths... Most of those deaths, some 600,000, happened after Biden took office in January 2021. Politically, Biden now owns the pandemic. He promised to get control of the virus --- we have 600,000 more deaths.
He has failed at every turn. So I would think Democrats would own up, and work on finding a better candidate instead of worrying about Trump. Trump will most likely run, so maybe they should dig up another witchhunt. In my view, the Democratic party is a vile party, that would do anything I mean anything to maintain power.
I have no respect for anyone at this point that supports this president or his administration. Harsh word -- but my truth. I am pulling for America and an American first agenda. A man after this mess we have our work cut out for us.Can we really afford an America first agenda? I mean don't get me wrong, I want to see many domestic issues get a whole lot more attention than they do. But with the global nature of our economy and the fact that countries are so intertwined and interdependent, I fear that an "America first" agenda could lead our country into looking a lot like North Korea. I don't want to see isolationism. I don't want to see a retreat from NATO or diminished support for Ukraine.
Isn't North Korea, or more likely Russia, where Trump was taking us? I haven't thought of it like that, but it is true.
Other than Afghanistan, I think President Biden has done a pretty good job given what he had to work with and the total blockage by Trump Republicans.
(You want to know who aren't Trump Republicans and did put America First? They were the Republicans who signed on to the bi-partisan infrastructure bill that Trump tried to kill.)
Do you think Trump would have handed Ukraine over to Putin on a silver platter?
But it has EVERYTHING to about the veracity of your claims. Since you don't apply the measures to Trump, then you don't have the right to imply Biden is worse than Trump.
I bet at least one person on here is going to say this is President Biden's fault to:
EU cuts growth forecasts and raises inflation outlook as impact of Ukraine war continuesYou might be right, but my bet would be on two or three blaming Trump. After all, Trump is responsible for all the world's ills and will be for at least the next decade.
Got to thinking about this --- most of Europe and many other nations received stimulus as we did in the US.and have had the same supply and demand problems as the US, as well as rising energy costs, and dealt with the pandemic, and a war... It would be odd if many EU countries were not having inflation. Plus the euro is falling -- Euro to US Dollar Exchange Rate is at a current down. from 1.0354 the previous market day and down from 1.208 one year ago. This is a change of -0.22% from one year ago.
This is a very bad sign. What happens to inflation when currency drops?
inflation tends to devalue a currency since inflation can be equated with a decrease in a money's buying power. As a result, high inflation tends to also see their currencies weaken relative to other currencies.
I think this is a very scary indication of what could come in regard to the world economy, this could lead to serious problems for all. Deeper than a mere recession.
We are going no place but down, and this writing was on the wall for a good 9 months.I remember reading that Europe didn't really give out a stimulus in the way America did, so I did a little digging. I did find this where they put together an almost $900 B package at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021.
I couldn't find where they gave out more than that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/worl … virus.html
Here is where they seem to provide more to people and businesses. How much is part of the $900 B and how much went to purchase of Covid supplies, I don't know.
But it seems Europe's total "stimulus" falls well short of America's roughly $5 T
Further, the EU's population is at least 120% of the US. So it still begs the question of whether our stimulus had very much to with our inflation since it apparently didn't have much to do with their inflation - which is as bad as our..IT did fall short of what the US offered citizens.
Don't forget that much of Europe already gives far more to their people, and than when the jobs end so does the income (taxes). That leaves Europe paying the same freebies...but without the income to support it.
The result would seem to be the same; static or increased demand with badly falling supply. Inflation, in other words.Good point. In my view, at the moment, the odds of a recession in Europe, the US, and China are significant and increasing monthly, and a collapse in one region will raise the odds of collapse in the others. Right now, record-high inflation does not make things any easier. I have no confidence we have the right president or Congress up to the task they may soon confront.
We have a bunch that plays the blame game and just does not solve any problems. Can you think of any problems that Biden has up against been solved?- Expanding the testing regimen (although there is still more to do because of the variants.
- Spinning up vaccination production beyond what was left him so that people in large numbers could get vaccinated early than what was possible under Trump
- Getting everyone who wanted to be vaccinated, vaccinated.'
- Saving people who were still suffering from joblessness and the pandemic that Republicans wanted to leave to suffer
- Forcing a bi-partisan infrastructure plan in spite of the opposition from Trump and Trump Republicans opposed
- Reinvigorating NATO after Trump almost killed it.
- Bringing NATO and Europe together to confront Putin
- Leading the resupply effort for Ukraine so well that Ukraine is winning the war.
- Bringing America back as the leader of the world after Trump abrogated that responsibility
- Rejoining the Paris climate accord and WHO after Trump did so much damage by withdrawing from them
- Reversing the perception that America was all about authoritarianism and opposed to democratic ones..
- He solved the backward lurch of our federal courts by appointing more QUALIFIED federal judges than any of his predecessors save one (Reagan, he is one short)
Those are just from the top of my head (except the last one, I found that on BBC)He did not expand testing in fact over Christmas the nation ran out so short of test kits Joe came up with the barian storm to send free tests. I got mine in March...
Trump had in place agreements to buy 400 million doses of the authorized vaccines, which were both two-dose vaccines — not enough for the entire U.S. adult population.
It’s also true that five days after Biden became president, he announced his administration had reached agreements with Moderna and Pfizer to buy a combined additional 200 million doses. That purchase was finalized on Feb. 11 and brought the total U.S. supply to 600 million, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people.
bi-partisan infrastructure Bill this was his only deed.
The rest of your list is a bunch of nothing not worth addressing. Sorry, these are just not deeds in my view and took little to no energy. Just words. I know you like the list. I will not give a list of his failings.
I find it strange you continue to support Biden. Yesterday NBC released a poll --- only 16% feel the country is going in the right direction 75% felt we are headed in the wrong direction. Biden's approval rate was 39% with a 56% disapproval rate. May be time to toss in the towel on this one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … 0041797934"He did not expand testing" - Please tell the truth.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/b … -free-2022
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/b … 00m-pledge
Since January 2021, the Administration has taken significant action to dramatically increase the nation’s overall COVID-19 testing supply, the number of tests authorized for use in the U.S., and the number of places where Americans can get a test, while lowering costs for consumers and increasing access to free tests. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … -for-free/
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/03/ … sting.html
https://khn.org/news/article/biden-kept … ing-drops/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/biden-a … ncing.html
YES, Biden DID increase Covid testing in 2021! And then increased it even more when it fell off in the Fall of 2021. That is the truth
I base my support of Biden on objective facts, not propaganda driven emotion.
You can't give a list of his failings because it is only one or two in length.
Sharlee:
"We have a bunch that plays the blame game and just does not solve any problems. Can you think of any problems that Biden has up against been solved?"
Talk about the blame game! So much for you guy Durham! I know this is a little off topic, but it was the only way I knew of how to reach you..
WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he pushed information meant to cast suspicions on Donald Trump and Russia in the run-up to that year’s election.
The case against Michael Sussmann was the first courtroom test of special counsel John Durham since his appointment three years ago to search for misconduct during the investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. The verdict marks a clear setback for Durham’s work, especially since Trump supporters have looked to the probe to expose what they contend was egregious bias by law enforcement officials who investigated the ex-president’s campaign.
The jury deliberated for several hours Friday afternoon and Tuesday morning before reaching its verdict.Sharlee asks " Can you think of any problems that Biden has up against been solved?", which means she doesn't read our responses carefully for we have all presented many lists of the problems President Biden has solved. But she appears so unreasonably biased that they don't register.
Are you actually surprised? The amount of different Biden bashing threads she posts per week borders on obsession. Take a look at any given moment on the first page and she'll have something like 20 different anti-Biden threads. Nothing positive about her own party at all. All negativity.
I can step right up and admit I am very dissatisfied with Biden as well as the current administration. Sheer truth, no argument to be had there. Polls continue to show I am in the majority. I am in the disapprove column. Have been from day one.
I will answer your comment out of politeness. Although I will drop it there. I have no interest
in continuing a conversation in regards to the verdict. I am choosing my conversations carefully. So, please take no offense.
I naturally did see the news today, and the Sussman verdict. The trial was speedy and did certainly reveal some information on several things, one being how Sussman fit into the timeline. And most importantly was the sworn testimony from Baker, which did in my view bode well for Durham --- Baker's Testimony stood out to me as a big piece of the puzzle. Although the FBI found no there, there. The Clinton campaign still ran the lie to the media.
"Baker himself took the stand and testified that the FBI's investigation "did not reveal there was some kind of surreptitious communications channel."
"We concluded there was no substance. We couldn’t confirm it. We could not confirm there was a surreptitious communications channel," Baker said, noting the investigation was "several weeks, maybe a month, maybe a month and a half."
"There was nothing there," he said. " James Baker
It will be interesting to see where he takes his investigation. Not sure I would consider it a setback, he did certainly obtain a trial of testimony from Baker, and several FBI agents. That investigated Sussemens claim and found no evidence of it being true. Documents are very important
when in a court of law. I assume Durham will continue putting all the pieces together.
I have no other opinion on the direction the investigation will go or if Durham will even continue.When the DOJ brings cases to trial, the conviction rate is something like 95%. That he failed when the department convicts at such a high rate is definitely a massive failure.
And so what that Clinton's campaign heard about the potential link between Trump and Alfa Bank. They sent it to the media so the media could investigate it further. That's one of the things the media is good at, digging deeper into rumors to see if there is any truth. Not sure why you think that's scandalous in any way.
Durham's goal has always been to show that the origins of the Russia Investigation were faulty. The problem is though that this trial, and any future Durham trial, will ever negate the fact that Trump's Campaign did collude with members of Russian Intelligence. So unless he can negate Manafort's actions, America will still know that Trump's Campaign worked directly with a country that we consider to be an enemy of our interests."That he failed when the department convicts at such a high rate is definitely a massive failure." - And failed spectacularly! The jury spent almost no time at all in coming back with an innocent verdict. Just think, millions of dollars wasted in such a weak case
"Durham's goal has always been to show that the origins of the Russia Investigation were faulty." - Very true. And he hasn't even come close establishing virtually anything to support his claim.
"The Clinton campaign still ran the lie to the media." - Show us the stories the Clinton Campaign released to support your claim. I don't recall any. As you often say, "where is your evidence?"
It was in the testimony of the Clinton Campaign person in the Sussman trial. Clinton personally approved informing three separate media outlets. Very common knowledge if you were following the trial, or the bluster of Faux News when that testimony came out that the world must have ended.
Thanks and no, I really haven't followed it that much. It was a show trial without any real merit.
That doesn't fly, common sense tells me. Their social support structure has been constant over the decades. According to your theory, Europe should have been experiencing high inflation for decades.
So why haven't they?
Why is it that ONLY after the pandemic did supply fall short of demand and at no other time in recent memory, including after the Great Recession of 2008?
Nobody on this forum would, we are smarter than that.
FINALLY, in this story I found something good to say about Trump. Even though he killed TPP (sadly, to the delight of many Democrats) he did reinvigorate an informal defense alignment against China called the Quad - America, Australia, Japan, and India which is a loose security pack to protect against Chinese expansionism.
I don't know how many times the group got together during Trump's tenure, but under Biden in his first year or so, it has met four times, twice in person including this week. China is not happy. Xi calls it the "Indo-Pacific NATO", which they say they aren't.
criticalthreats.orgThe first tangible results of Biden's response to the Abbott caused formula shortage arrived over the weekend. It was 39 tons of special need baby formula that arrived by military airlift.
Who is to blame for this debacle? Firstly, Abbott and their unsafe production plant which led to the recall of 49% of the formula out there. Secondly, it appears to be the FDA, which needs an IG investigation over their slow response.
Thirdly, is, surprisingly to me, the lack of compaction in the baby formula market, but domestically and internationally (relative to America). It seems to me this would be one of the many products that could have many producers here and abroad. For some reason (that also needs investigation) it is limited to just three major producers in America and a set of regulations that seem to make importing the product almost impossible.
I am glad to see that Biden is solving the problem even though Congress should be. Trump Republicans, I hear, are fighting a solution.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/politics … index.htmlI hate to ask this question and it is somewhat rhetorical, but did lactose intolerant infants die before there was this type of formula?
This is an interesting article that puts part of the blame for the shortage on Trump's up to 17% trade tariffs.
https://www.newsweek.com/baby-formula-s … ca-1708188Yes, I have heard reports of several children who are lactose intolerant getting hospitalized or dying as a result of the shortage.
Well, I wasn't going to blame Trump for this one, but I guess I should have. I thought is was just the stringent regulations that was keeping the rest of the world out of the baby formula market.
"It seems to me this would be one of the many products that could have many producers here and abroad."
I could be way off base here but it seems to me, from many bits and pieces of information, that the requirements for design and production of baby formula borders on that used for drugs. A very complex product (didn't I see that Biden is requiring priority for the raw materials, some of which are not easy to get) with a great deal of governmental oversight and requirements - something that is only going to be available to those with very deep pockets.
In addition it has, I'm sure, gone the way of most manufacturing in this country in that it again takes deep pockets to build and operate the facilities to produce the product competitively. Not something that Mom and Pop can do in their basement.
Not sure I agree with these kinds of things, but it does result in a safer (though obviously not perfect) product and a cheaper one.Yes, I have heard reports about the same thing.
My thought, however, is that even with the stringent regulations allegedly in order to protect babies (obviously, I can see political fingerprints all over this), the barriers to entry are not as severe as with other oligopolies such as car manufacturing.You may be right...but it took Musk, with his billions, to start a new car company. And he very nearly went under from what I read.
I think it extremely difficult for a start up company in manufacturing, competing with established megacorporations to compete successfully any more. Nearly impossible, in fact. Add that a new custom design for baby formula is required, with all the health benefits/risks, to the regulations and I have no difficulty understanding why there aren't more.
Plus, of course, that there has been no problem with the existing companies to provide the necessary supply and the competition is even more fierce. Then figure just how big corporations sink newcomers to their field (lowering prices until the newcomer dies) and I just don't see it happening.
Are we to the point where we can call out the hypocrisy of being the same people that claim to not want the government to take over industry and yet be the same people that are calling this 'Biden's baby formula' crisis?
And people wonder why the left is fine regulating certain things as companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing - even when it comes to keeping babies safe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/us/a … ation.htmlCan we also call out the hypocrisy of creating laws...and then not enforcing them? It is my understanding that production was stopped because the plant was not following the law...and had not been for some time.
And then can we go further and question the hypocrisy of a president that refuses to even try to enforce our immigration laws, instead helping to violate them? The hypocrisy of a city on fire that does nothing to stop rioting? The hypocrisy of another President that created a whole new class of fake "citizens" while also ignoring immigration laws?
This was not Biden's baby formula crises; it may be his finest hour even though he DID take too long to respond.Further understanding would also note that according to the whistleblower in the case, 'alleged company employees falsified documents and hid information from FDA inspectors.'
As to your deflection to other non-hypocrisy examples and false claims that we should not follow the laws pertaining to asylum or that people were not arrested during the riots, I'll avoid that road when it's littered with such falsehoods."And then can we go further and question the hypocrisy of a president that refuses to even try to enforce our immigration laws, instead helping to violate them? " - I don't understand why it is so easy for him to lie like that?
I have theories. None of them are flattering and I just got off a one month ban courtesy of Sharlee and Savvy, so I'll keep them to myself. When he's that outlandish, not really worth engaging. Maybe we should let him spew his garbage and ignore him.
I agree, but I am like a moth drawn to a flame, especially given the existential threat these Trump Republican pose to the continued existence of our democracy. Other than the Civil War, I am not sure there has been a greater threat to America than there is today with these purveyors of lies and conspiracy theories. And that is saying something given America almost came to a similar end around 1800 with the Adams - Jefferson election.
Did you see the Lincoln Project's latest ad? It's spot on and hilarious/scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmO5DkecMCUWere those pictures of the women Trump sexually assaulted?
Princess Di, Jackie Kennedy, and I'm not sure of the third one.
Melania.
Enjoy!
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat … lwiDVpodHA
Miss you, Valeant, nice to see you back.
Gotta be careful not to get emotionally involved with rightwing types.
Facebook buddy just posted that after 911, we didn't ban planes. We just secured the cockpits. Secure the schools.
My retort was that we did more than secure the cockpits. We eliminated any access to that kind of dangerous weapon by removing the chance of taking control and turning it into a weapon.
On top of that, the severe restrictions of Second Amendment rights aboard airplanes seems to be accepted practice now. Why are those limits accepted, but not in other situations?Also, as it turned out, that school district spent $500,000 "securing" Robb Elementary. Lot of good that did. The ONLY solution is less guns in the wrong hands.
The kid bought the assault weapons legally in Texas and nothing popped on his background check. Given the horrible home life he had, I wonder how he avoided showing up on somebody's radar as a threat.
Another problem solved after a notorious Trump University-type rip-off style "for-profit" college bilked thousands of students.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics … index.htmlOther than inflation and its consequences, the economic good news keeps coming.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/03/economy/ … index.htmlYep, but those are some pretty important 'other thans.' Like; other than bleeding out from stab wounds, my health is pretty good.
GAWait till inflation gets really high, like in 1979 and 1980, you might be close. You will be spot on when inflation gets to what Argentina is currently experiencing - 23%! Right now, my guess we are experiencing flesh wounds by comparison.
In comparisons like Argentina, our 'other' problems may seem like "flesh wounds" but they are still bleeding. I wouldn't put all the inflation blame on Pres. Biden, Pres. Trump's stimulus started the ball rolling, but I think the Biden administration's follow-up actions made it worse. They doubled down on policies that were more panacea than solutions.
My criticism is that I think his administration knew this. Most things, (really wanted to say 'everything'), they have done, (like the recent student debt forgiveness), appear designed to get Democrat votes rather than solve problems.
GA"appear designed to get Democrat votes rather than solve problems."
Right out of their playbook. However, Democrats buy gas, and food, pay utility bills, pay rent, and buy cars (new and used). If one is to believe polls, about 75% of Democrats support the Job Biden is doing. Not sure this old ploy will still work with growing inflation, and less cash in everyone's pocket.
In my view, this administration has time and time again proven to be ill equipt to handle crisis situations. It would seem many Americans, Democrats and Republicans have or should be aware of the problems their sheer ineptness has caused.Actually, many Americans are aware that inflation is a global issue, which severely ties the hands of any American administration. That taking an America First stance when the American economy is tied into so may global markets and public health concerns (Covid origins) was a failed policy stance.
They are also rightly noting that oil companies are favoring profits over increased oil production and that that dip in production which led to the price spikes was done on Trump's watch in April of 2020.
And Biden is solving the baby formula crisis while still putting the health and safety as the primary goal. The previous president proved he would have sacrificed public health and risked American lives in a similar situation (meat packing plants)."Actually, many Americans are aware that inflation is a global issue, which severely ties the hands of any American administration. " - Oops, careful there Valeant, you are telling the truth there and some people don't like that, lol
Sharlee:
It is easy to generalize and say these problems were all caused by this administrations' sheer ineptness. In large part, the ineptness is caused by a dysfunctional congress, not willing to cooperate with Biden.
We all know you enjoy watching Biden's poll numbers sinking. What if Trump were president right now, as a great problem solver, how would he solve the following problems? This is what Biden has on his plate right now. Please fill in if there are any I left out. Tell us how you think Trump would solve each one of those problems.
Putin and Ukraine
The virus
Climate change
Inflation
Infrastructure
Racism
Supply chain
Unemployment
Immigration
Mass shootings
Energy
Health care
China and Taiwan
Iran
Here is what the recent Pew Research Center (5/12/2022) says what is important to democrats as well as republicans:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … try-today/Trump on:
Putin and Ukraine - Go ahead, Sir. You're fantastic, it's yours.
The virus - It'll go away on its own.
Climate change - Doesn't exist.
Inflation - He did have Russia and Saudi relations, probably could have talked them into increasing oil production.
Infrastructure - Had four years, doesn't understand how to work with Congress to solve this.
Racism - Doesn't exist.
Supply chain - His relationship with China was so good, I'm sure this would be no problem. (sarcasm)
Unemployment - Once vaccines were out, like Biden, he would have been fine.
Immigration - Go away or we will take your kids.
Mass shootings - Here, have more guns.
Energy - Probably would have been good on oil and gas, renewables, not so much.
Health care - How can I eliminate Obamacare, with no backup plan in place, in a second term.
China and Taiwan - Some big, beautiful threats should do the trick.
Iran - If I assassinate another general, and get my own soldiers attacked, that should solve the issue."We all know you enjoy watching Biden's poll numbers sinking. What if Trump were president right now," - My guess is she thought Trump's numbers were great since she never brought them up like she does with Biden. I think there is a definition for that.
Here is how Trump DID respond to some of those you listed:
- Putin and Ukraine: He effectively helped Putin in his battle with Ukraine
- The Virus: He effectively made the pandemic get worse and lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths
- Climate change: His policies helped make the point of no return become sooner rather then push it further out into the future.
- Infrastructure: Biden did what he couldn't - get a bipartisan infrastructure bill through Congress.
- Racism: His embracement of white supremacists and his hate speech made it worse
- Immigration: His sometimes inhumane policies have made it worse as well as help stunt GDP growth.
- Mass Shootings: His lack of action and pro-everybody-having-a-gun stance effectively encouraged mass shootings
- Energy: Obama had already made us energy independent. I could try to put the energy companies slow down in production during his administration on him, but I won't. It was their previous bad financial policies and the pandemic that are behind it
- Health Care: It got worse under his watch.
- China and Taiwan: I bet Taiwan is breathing a sigh of relief now that Trump is gone.
- Iran:Iran will probably join the nuclear club because of him.Thanks for the list... Ultimately it proves my point, that he can't solve any problems. ZERO. He plays the blame game well though.
All presidents face problems, so few have caused so many problems, and had such a problem solving any.That's what I thought. You have blind faith on Trump's problem solving abilities, but not a clue as to how he would solve any of those problems. Speaking of the blame game that is precisely what you are doing with Biden. Many of the problems on the list were started by Trump. Just read the previous replies.
All presidents face problems, so few have caused so many problems, and had such a problem solving any.
Again, that is a gross generalization.I must say you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I have not, and never did say Trump could solve all problems. I have said he was a great problem solver, and he averted problems. This is just my honest view. The fact is we did not have such a list of problems under Trump, except COVID. I think he did a good job with COVID. He did have 200,000 die on his watch. Which was a period we had few therapeutic, and no vaccines. Biden lost now over 400,000 Americans, with therapeutic and vaccines. He pretty much did nothing to save lives. He tossed tons of money at the problem that started us into a downfall into inflation. We had no inflation underTrump, even in the worst of COVID, prices were steady, our ports were up and running, and we were pretty much energy independent.
We had no problems with China threatening to take China and Taiwan or Putin waring with a neighboring country.
He did not cause anything on your list. Not one.
In my view, we would have not had any of the problems on your list if Trump was still president, except for the ongoing health insurance problem.
Trump did have two mass school shootings on time in office. I believe Obama holds the record for most mass school shootings which was 5, and Biden, well he has not been in office for two
years and has had 2.
Maybe you should take some time and have a good long look at the man you voted for, and stop trying foolishly try to put lipstick on a pig.
It baffles me to see anyone even make an attempt to defend Biden's job performance.When Biden took over, there had been 400,000 deaths not 200,000. And many of the deaths after he took over were anti-vax Republicans thanks to Trump being the only President not to give a PSA to the country. Never in the history of our country have we had a former President work so hard to undermine to one to follow. Deny the peaceful transfer of power, delay the transition, and tell his voters that the next administration was illegitimate. Those things have an effect, and you see that in the Covid deaths.
We had no inflation under Trump because the economy wasn't fully opened. And no, prices were not steady during Covid as the gas industry nearly collapsed, causing Trump to cut oil production, leading to the price spikes we see today since that production has not rebounded but demand has.
Love your rose-colored glasses though to only say it was Biden's stimulus and not the other two that also led to inflation.
And yes, Covid was because Trump's Administration ignored the warnings about Wuhan, being too stupid to realize that America can be affected by global issues and that America First is not realistic in today's world: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322"I must say you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I have not, and never did say Trump could solve all problems. " - Did we say he did? That was a Wilderness ploy.
"I have said he was a great problem solver, and he averted problems. This is just my honest view. " - Yes you have, many, many times. Just one problem, it is demonstrably not true
'Peoplepower - Do you want to provide the list of the problems Trump had or created. I'll start you off - setting the stage for the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.
School shootings - 2? You are obviously living in Trump's alternate reality. 2 is not even close, there were 139!!!! Of those, 18 would be classified as mass shootings.
As to Obama, you are wrong there as well. Obama had 9 mass shootings over 8 years. Compare that to Trump's 18 over 4 years. As I said alternate reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … tates#2019
"Maybe you should take some time and have a good long look at the man you voted for," - I have for the last 40 years and for the most part, I like what I have seen as have most Americans (which is why he got elected).
I would suggest you do the same for the guy that has conned your for the last 5 yearsSharlee: I never implied Trump could solve all problems as you said.
This is what I said:
What if Trump were president right now, as a great problem solver, how would he solve the following problems?
You are putting words in my mouth.I spend more time explaining my comments --- You asked me how would Trump solve a long list of problems. I simply said " I never said he COULD solve every problem... Why would I go through a long list of problems and try to even speculate how anyone would solve them?
How in the world would you think I would be able to suggest how Trump would solve your list of problems?
I have said very clearly, I don't think we would be seeing the majority of the problems we have today if Trump were president. That is again my view. He seems to be one step ahead of problems, we had very few problems while he was president that affected Americans'
everyday lives.
I am not spending as much time here, so my response not speedy.Sharlee:
An empathetic person would understand that Biden has a lot on his plate and many are not of his own doing. That is why I made the list, but since you hate Biden as president, I expected you to miss that point.
"Trump seems to be one step ahead of problems, we had very few problems while he was president that affected Americans'
everyday lives".
Trump waited too long to respond to the virus, causing thousands of needless deaths.
Jan. 6 insurrection has affected this country in ways that no other president has ever done. His MAGA movement continues to divide not only our system of government, but the entire country to not trust the election system ever again.
He has control of the GOP over gun control which has affected those who are no longer living, including school age children. His response is to arm the teachers and lock the doors.
But I'm sure those things don't affect you personally, so you are good to go.
You reminded me your forum wasn't about Trump, not about Biden's poor poll numbers. Let me remind you. This forum is about What are the great things Biden has done as president, not about how low his poll numbers are...Have a great day.Simply put Donald Trump has been a provably unmitigated disaster from before Day One.
While we have proved that view many times over, the Trump supporters aren't able to do the same. They treat Trump like they treat God - just believe without proof.
I even created a forum specifically for them to explain why their views are correct. They couldn't do it."If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data." Joe Biden
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … evented-e/
When Trump left office he had handled COVID for a year, with 400,000 dying
Biden -- With all that he was provided to fight COVID -- "If the Biden had done his job, had done his job from the tie he took over, 600,000 more people would still be alive.
Follow the timeline --- I have no intention of offering it again, Each time I have I get crickets from you.
I did realize it makes some uncomfortable to view Bidens polls, and that this thread was put up to converse about what Biden has done positively. Although it is nothing more than a place to bash the GOP and Trump.
So, I constructed a thread to chronologize Biden s polls. A very simple thread to discuss Bidens polls. But, you brought over your Trump parade to that thread.
It is hard to figure out how someone could be so obsessed with one man.
I am done replying to your comments. Have a wonderful life.Isn't it amazing how some people misuse facts? For example, under Trump, some 400,000 people died - most unnecessarily due to Trump's policies or lack their of.
They occurred in two waves and, most importantly (a point missed by those drawing comparisons) it started from zero and with no infections. Even though states (some of them Red states) tried to do the right thing by attempting to limit transmission - something Trump refused to do at the federal level.
Then, around April, Trump decided he had had enough and campaigned to "reopen the economy" no matter how many people that killed. Most Red States joined him. As a result, the pandemic took off big time in June and didn't slow down until February. It was expected to get worse during the Fall - Winter, but Trump made is MUCH worse!!
In the end, by Feb 28, 2021, when Biden policies would have started having an effect, 528,000 people had died or 44,000 per month. Note, there were no new variants during that timeframe, just poor management. (a second significant point ignored by those trying to compare with Biden)
Then comes Biden and manages to get half of America vaccinated, (mainly left-leaning independents and Democrats) by May. At that time the MUCH MORE deadly Delta variant arrives. (A third major point purposefully ignored by those trying to compare with Biden.)
But note, cases did not increase to the levels seen under Trump's third wave. Neither did deaths. If fact, they didn't exceed Trump's first or third waves. Also, the demographics have changed because of Biden's success in getting much of America vaccinated - the vast majority of those dying were Trump Republicans because everyone else was vaccinated.
Then, in October, comes the MUCH MORE transmissible Omicron variant (again ignored by those doing faulty comparative analysis with Biden) and "Cases" skyrocketed to the highest levels seen to-date. But "Deaths" did not as a percentage of cases. In Raw Numbers, only Trump's third wave exceeded these deaths.
Finally, there was another minor surge in "Cases" due to the ignored second variant of Omicron. But because Biden was so successful in vaccination, not even Trump Republicans deaths increased.
In total, 495,000 people died in the period where Biden policies would have played a role. (But a much more detailed analysis will find many of those are also attributable to Trump's failure.) That works out to be 33,000 per month.
As we see, simply throwing raw numbers out there (sort of like polls) is totally misleading and, in this case, reflects the opposite of the truth.
The FACTS clearly show that Trump's monthly death toll is 33.3% HIGHER than Bidens.
That is how real analysis is conducted and I can see why some don't want to engage anymore.Also remember Dr. Brix and her statement to the house select subcommittee back in October.
"I believe if we had fully implemented the mask mandates, the reduction in indoor dining, the getting friends and family to understand the risk of gathering in private homes, and we had increased testing, that we probably could have decreased fatalities into the 30 percent less to 40 percent less range,” Dr. Birx testified, according to excerpts provided by the committee.
she also lashed out at Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford neuroradiologist who became an adviser to Mr. Trump and advocated for allowing the virus to spread through much of the population in order to let otherwise healthy people build up immunity against it. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump sowed quite a bit of disdain during that time for any type of mitigation and it carried right on over to people shunning the vaccine when it was available.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 037470002/Thank you Faye and Scott:
According to Mary Trump's book I found that Trump and His dad were taught by a friend of theirs to put a positive spin on almost everything. His name was Norman Vincent Peale of The Power of Positive Thinking fame.
They tried to apply that construct to almost everything, even if they had to lie. Trump still uses that today as evidenced by his conning of wining the election.
I think what he didn't realize or understand is if the virus isn't stopped in the early stages, its spread rate multiplies exponentially. His con-artist brain got in the way of reality and we paid the price for it.
Too bad, but Trumpians, including Sharlee, see Trump through rose colored glasses.
"In my view, this administration has time and time again proven to be ill equipt to handle crisis situations." - Yep, that is your view alright. Fortunately for the rest of us, it does not match reality.
Biden's job approval rate shows you are in the minority.
16% in U.S. satisfied with direction of country; down six points since April
Biden's job approval, 41%, unchanged from last month
Job approval of Congress remains low at 18%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/393038/sat … teady.aspx
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/Again, I have to remind you that popularity polls do not reflect objective, fact-based reality. It only reflects subjective emotion.
So at what point do you shift your blame to Congress. If 41% approve of Biden, but only 18% think Congress is doing a good job, why wouldn't you believe Congress is the big issue to why issues are not being solved?
Your own stats display your failed logic.Oh, I blame Congress, more than Biden --- I have not seen any threads on the subject. I could rip into most, on both sides. We need to clean house of the do-nothing relics in Congress. They sit there and are watching America struggle, and do little to nothing. My logic --- Ultimately Biden is the president, he needs to act like one. He needs better advisories, and aids, those he has have failed him.
This Congress is in need of new blood. Hopefully, in Nov, we will see new faces.Is it faces or is it philosophy? Take infrastructure. That should be an easy bipartisan issue, but you've got a whole party that obstructs it, then tries to claim credit for its passage.
Biden's Administration isn't even fully staffed due to the obstruction of noted insurrection-loving GOP members Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. You blame advisors, but not those taking unprecedented steps in obstructing the appointment of many of the positions needed to run an effective government.So true, spot on, and reflective of reality, Valeant.
I have to agree, to a point. Most of the Republicans (those that didn't vote to impeach or convict Trump) have go in both houses and probably 20 - 30% of the Democrats. (Credence won't like the ones I would let go but their willingness not to negotiate puts them on my hit list.)
Sharlee: I never implied Trump could solve all problems as you said. This is what I said:
What if Trump were president right now, as a great problem solver, how would he solve the following problems?
You are putting words in my mouth.I am willing to negotiate, I just don't want the democrats to fold up like lawn chairs making unreasonable concessions to Republicans, that they, themselves, would never consider were the tables reversed.
Too often, the Republicans always get what they want without having to fire a shot.I suspect you are, Credence, but I don't hold the same opinion of the Squad and their followers. ( I can't think of Democrat on the Senate side, even Sanders, who doesn't know when to fold 'em)
If what they want is to paralyze Congress, you are so correct. Because they are in the minority in the House and even in the Senate, their agenda is currently stymied.
I actually have my hopes up for increasing our seats in the Senate.
This is my current prediction of the battleground elections:
- GA: Warnock
- PA: Fetterman (D)
- AZ: Kelly (D)
- NV: Cortez-Masto (D - shaky)
- NH: Hassen (D - shaky)
- NC: Toss Up
- OH: Vance (R)
- FL: Rubio (R - shaky)
- WI: D
- MO: R
The remainder are incumbents and solid Ds or Rs
As I have shown Wilderness, while the ARP did contribute to inflation, studies show (and I provided them) that the effect was small and temporary. Being that, in my mind at least, takes them off the table as playing a significant role in today's inflation - there are so many other much more important factors.
Personally, I wouldn't put any of the stimulus packages in the Trump administration as playing any role in today's inflation. Good economic policy (let alone humanitarian) demanded those programs.
As to the impact of the recent student debt forgiveness policy, on inflation (although you might not of meant that) is nil. What it did was right a wrong which all fair-minded people should agree with. The loans he forgave were the same kind of financial obligations people were conned into with the Trump University. In this case, it dealt with a different corrupt "for-profit" rip-off institution.
As a rule, I am not in favor of forgiving any legitimate student debt. Making it easier to pay off, I would support, just not forgiving it.
President Biden is solving more problems - this one about solar energy.
"As part of his multi-pronged approach to accelerate the transition to clean energy made here in America and reduce energy costs, the President on Monday will invoke the Defense Production Act to rapidly expand domestic production of critical clean energy technologies," the source told CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics … index.htmlPresident Biden repeatedly asks oil companies to increase supply to help the American people. Yey, repeatedly, the oil companies ignore him. Why?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics … index.htmlI wonder how he intends to increase refinery capacities. Perhaps wave a wand, aka Harry Potter, and instantly double the size of all the refineries in the country? Does he really think he has the authority, or ability, to force oil companies to build more refineries? Or does he think he can convince Elon Musk to build them so as to fill up the Teslas? (That might actually be true, knowing Biden!)
It remains to be seen if he has the authority. It has been reported that Biden's New push for cleaner energy has the big investors pulling back from investing in oil companies, and want companies to pay back investors.
The oil industry has a worker shortage as well as problems getting supplies they need such as steel and sand. The worst problem is the ongoing supply chain problems. The point from which you drill a rig to the point that you can turn it online takes about six to eight months typically, and then they can't move the oil with any speed.
As well as many environmental regulations that have been reversed.
I see bigger and bigger problems developing for Biden in regard to energy. When big investors pull back the writing is on the wall.
Biden cam in like a drunk sailor swinging at the oil companies, they are swinging back., and they have long experience at it. This man never thinks out decisions. He causes his own problems, in my view.Biden doesn't have the authority to force a company to produce anything they don't want to. Thinking back to Trump requesting companies to produce ventilators, masks and other things not in their normal catalog, well, Biden is no Trump and after his actions and accusations against the oil companies it is doubtful that he could request a bucket of sand from them and get it.
And that doesn't address the means, or ability, to quickly produce additional gasoline. I guess he could build another refinery (though probably illegal, too), but it would years before it refined a drop of oil.
So...perhaps he does think he is Harry and can simply wave a wand and have it all magically happen. Most of his plans do depend on magic to actually produce the results he claims they will (like injecting trillions of dollars into the economy without causing inflation).Biden possesses magical thinking. I never mentioned this before, but your comment touched on how Biden does seem to say a lot, and believe his own words, even if not true or his plans have no chance of coming to fruition.
(Magical thinking, is the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world. Magical thinking presumes a causal link between one's inner, personal experience and the external physical world.)
Biden is a man that takes a fish story far beyond belief. He seems to like to make things up, and build himself a fantastically interesting life using his imagination. In reality, In my view, he is a little man always looking through the glass, but never being invited in."Biden possesses magical thinking." - One more time you are unfairly projecting Trump onto President Biden. Although I guess I could say possessing "magical" thinking is still better than not thinking at all, which is another Trump characteristic. In FACT, your whole comment is simply projecting Trump onto Biden.
You know, in a way that was my thought, too - Trump though he magically won that election despite all reports to the contrary.
And Biden thinks he has a golden touch and can accomplish anything he wants without repercussions. Like shutting down drilling, injecting trillions into the economy, etc. Unfortunately, those repercussions are coming home to bite him with a vengeance."And Biden thinks he has a golden touch and can accomplish anything he wants without repercussions. " - Besides your active imagination, what makes you think that?
"Like shutting down drilling, " - A Right-Wing LIE that you keep repeating
"injecting trillions into the economy," - Which did something Conservatives hate doing - help people. It also had little to do with inflation.
Yes, it is biting him with a vengence, even though he had almost nothing to with inflation. One of the problems with being a President."injecting trillions into the economy," - Which did something Conservatives hate doing - help people. It also had little to do with inflation."
Taking the lead from you, a left wing LIE that you keep repeating. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about economics (including you) understands what happens when demand skyrockets without supply doing the same. Helping people or not, all that money (demand) without supply (production) is the primary reason for our inflation.And people who know how to read (including you) should have read the economic analysis on ARP which shows it had a - and I will repeat it for the 10th time - a small, temorary impact on inflation. Repeat after me - the American Rescue Plan had a SMALL, TEMPORARY impact on inflation. Got it now?
WE will see within weeks the second quarter of disastrous stats, businesses are already cutting back and letting workers go -- we will within months be in a DEEP recession. I guess you just listen to Biden --- "Our economy is great" Laughable. Get back to you on this one in a few weeks.
Here again you try to mislead us.
EVERYBODY - what Sharlee is talking about with "businesses are already cutting back and letting workers go -" is the Crypto currency businesses laying off workers because of mounting pressure against their sketchy business.
Here is what Sharlee finds "laughable":
- Near record low unemployment numbers
- Record high GDP
- Robust GDP growth
- Record business profits
And the list goes on.
Her counter to all of that good news is a single thing - inflation. Inflation which has an oversized impact on public opinion because it hits close to home and blinds most people from the overall picture.
What she also doesn't say is that the ONLY reason recession MIGHT be in the future is the fact that to fight inflation, the Fed must slow down the economy. The TRUTH is they walk a tightrope of trying to slow down the economy enough to cool inflation but not so much that it causes inflation.
It is very tricky and history shows they often, but not always, end up with a little recession. I think twice in their history did they end up with a large recession. THOSE are the facts of the matter.Anyone interested in the long list of companies laying off workers, and you have the time to go over the length list please visit --- Myself, I think it wise to see what this country is facing in regard to our economy, and how quickly it is collapsing. Not pretty to face, but factual. This administration is not friendly to businesses. And this will add to more and more citizens finding themselves out of work. https://intellizence.com/insights/layof … s-layoffs/
https://www.autonews.com/automakers-sup … ping-plant
The second quarter will be as bad or worse than the first quarter, and the interest rate hike (yesterday) was as always too little too late). DAY LATE BUCK SHORT BIDEN.
We will have our media running with the word recession due to two lousy quarters.
Near record low unemployment numbers ---numbers reflect workers returning to jobs after COVID. We have more than 11 million unfilled jobs.
"The number of unfilled job openings hit a record 11.4 million in December — by far the highest recorded in the 21 years the Labor Department has tracked that figure. And it had edged down only slightly by the last business day of February, the most recent figure available when it stood at 11.3 million."
GDP grew due to all the free cash this fool poured into that quarter... And sent us plunging quickly into inflation, which is and will become worse in the coming months.
Yes, many businesses have profited off all the spending. At this point, it is being reported many are starting to use credit cards more frequently
Unemployment --- Unemployment — The unemployment rate plunged during Biden’s first 14 months, down to 3.6% in March from 6.4% when he took office.
“There have been only three months in the last 50 years where the unemployment rate in America is lower than it is now,” Biden said of the most recent report.
That’s correct, THOUGH Biden FAILED to mention that those three months were during Trump’s presidency. The rate was 3.5% in September 2019 and again in January and February 2020. So even the jobless rate is not quite back to where it was before the pandemic. https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/biden … ly-update/
Record high GDP --- yes this is due to all the free cash Biden flooded our economy with, and sent us into the inflation we are seeing today and will become worse quickly. It is being reported many are using credit more frequently "Consumer credit card debt and annual percentage rates are heading to an all-time high" https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/10/consume … -high.html
We are well set up for recession -- within weeks the media will be touting the ugly word --- RECESSION.
All due to Biden's unrealistic policies. And my list could also go on. Biden has ruined our economy.
I must say your list looks somewhat ridiculous in the light of what the country is experiencing. Have you seen the Stock market this morning all gains LOST!
Wonder how many Americans are feeling this morning? As I said we are headed for a very hard recession. I feel we are in for a full-blown depression if this fool is not removed soon.
This is Obama's third term on steroids. SickeningEVERYBODY - please read Sharlee's sources. Her rhetoric attempts to lay all of these "layoffs" at Biden's feet. You will find that most layoffs are for other than macro-economic reasons and that a bunch of the "layoffs" are NOT Americans and that many of the companies are foreign-owned.
GDP growth forecasts - https://www.philadelphiafed.org/surveys … ths%20ago.
"We have more than 11 million unfilled jobs." - Why do you hang that out there without context?? It is deceiving.
You caught Biden (or his staff) not paying attention to details. He should have said last 70 years and increased the number of times it was lower to 41 times,Everyone that was laid off was living and working in America...Fact
https://intellizence.com/insights/layof … s-layoffs/June 2022 - TomTom, the geolocation technology specialist, will reset the organization as it improves its mapmaking technology, strengthening its competitive position. This will have an intended impact on approximately 500 employees in the Maps unit, equivalent to around 10% of the total global headcount. - NOT economy related
June 2022 - The Denver-based customer service company Startek plans to lay off over 472 workers at the facility in Farmington. The company blamed a client’s “unexpected” decision to end a contract that was unforeseen and out of the control of the Startek organization. The vast majority are customer care representatives. - Apparetnly not economy related.
June 2022
Coinbase will extend its hiring freeze and revoke accepted offers from some candidates who haven’t started their roles yet. The third-largest crypto exchange by volume, Coinbase began to slow hiring two weeks ago, but this move is more drastic.[/i\] - NO layoffs
[i]May 2022 - BBC Four and CBBC will end as linear TV channels over the next few years, described as “a blueprint to build a digital-first public service media organization”. 1,000 jobs will be cut over the next few years. - NOTHING to do with the economy.
May 2022 - Dubai-headquartered mobility startup SWVL is planning to lay off 32% of its workforce means that around 400 people will lose their jobs at the mobility company. The effect of an economic downturn has also affected their finances leading them to cut costs; the top of the list is letting go of employees. - FOREIGN owned and doesn't say whose economy.
May 2022 - Getir, the $12B instant delivery startup, plans to lay off 14% of staff globally and cut aggressive expansion plans. The Turkish company employs some 32,000 people in the nine markets where it operates, which would work out to 4,480 people impacted by the downsizing. - FOREIGN-owned and how many American workers are part of the layoff? It doesn't say why they are doing this but it certainly isn't the American economy.
May 2022 - Swedish payments giant Klarna has laid off about 700 employees, or 10% of its workforce, citing Russia’s war on Ukraine and inflation. FOREIGN-owned and it doesn't say how many, if any, are American.
May 2022 - Around 75 percent of Bengaluru-based health tech business MFine’s personnel have been let off tin May. Around 600 workers have been affected by this. FOREIGN, NOT American
May 2022
Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding’s joint venture in Russia AliExpress has laid off about 40% of its employees since the invasion of Ukraine as the war has severely disrupted cross-border business. It was the most-visited online marketplace and the most-downloaded shopping app in Russia in 2021. - FOREIGN, NOT American..
That is just a small sample from YOUR source.The other things you forgot to mention were:
1. Every month thousands of people leave their jobs and even more find other work.
2. May's Job Growth was something like 390,000.
Actually, he DOES (contrary to what I just told Sharlee). I forgot about the Defense Production Act. With that, he could force the oil industry to produce and refine more oil.
We already know BIden doesn't have such authority (which didn't stop Trump, btw). Because this is America and not the authoritarian state you guys seem to want, all he can do is try to persuade them to do the right thing Whether they do or not is up to them and their conscience.
The oil industry also deosn't have the desire to find more workers, invest in more infrastructure, or buy more steel and sand.
What environmental regulations have been reversed?
"This man never thinks out decisions. " - Again, you are unfairly projecting Trump on to Biden.
Wilderness is right on the mark.
"The United States, according to independent analyst Paul Sankey, is "structurally short" on refining capacity for the first time in decades. U.S. capacity is down nearly 1 million barrels from before the pandemic to 17.9 million bpd as of February, the latest federal data available
.May 31, 2022"
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi … available.
"According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States will be using about 95% of its refining capacity in June. Yet, we’re refining about a million barrels per day less than we were just a couple of years ago. Why?" "“We’re still dealing with COVID hangover, you could call it,” said Hugh Daigle, who teaches petroleum engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.
When COVID-19 hit and demand for fuel fell dramatically, a lot of refining companies shut plants down, he said.
“Some refineries just shut down because of lack of demand, and they’re NOT COMING BACK. Then there was some weather-related issues also,” Daigle said. Last year’s freeze in Texas knocked several refineries offline, and some are still not operating at full capacity."
It takes a lot of money and time to build refineries. Additionally, “investors do not want to see companies pouring money into organic oil and gas growth,” Gabelman said.
The long-term prospects for fossil fuels are uncertain. Most investors don’t want to be asked to chip in for long-term growth. In the present economic climate, they’re demanding a quicker return on their investment.
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/05/23/ … re-plants/
No one will invest to build refineries with old Joe's regulations, and big Green deal plans Who would?
Biden has us in a bind, one we will not get out of until he leaves office.""The United States, according to independent analyst Paul Sankey, is" - Yes, I am sure that is true, but it happened under Trump's watch, not Biden's
Trump LEFT US in a bind.
Inside President BIden's tough decision to "normalize" relations with a murdering state an leader. It seems he is being pregmatic and seeking the greater good for the American people although.
I suppose I could take the Conservative's view and say the American people be damned if it means talking to a murderer like the Saudi de facto leader.
Politically, this is probably go down like his decision to continue Trump's abondonment of Afghanistan.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/1 … n-00039679Oh my, this is so funny, just remembering your vilification of Trump for not handling the prince for "having Jamal Khashoggi murdered...
I will leave it there... so very funnyYep, I am well aware of that. Big difference though, Trump didn't seem to have a problem with the prince murdering a journalist and didn't say one unkind word against him. Nor did he bring up any national security interests nor try to lower YOUR gas prices. He just wanted to be friendly with a murder.
Biden, on the other hand, did vilify Saudi Arabia AND the prince as well as impose many penalties on the Kingdom, as was laid out in the article. President Biden is going to take a lot of political heat for doing what he thinks will help the American people (which you don't seem to want him to do), something Trump never did.
My jury is still out on whether it is worthwhile (it is definitely not a "good thing") for Biden to do this. That said, he is privey to a LOT MORE information than you or I that might justify taking such an action."Yep, I am well aware of that. Big difference though, Trump didn't seem to have a problem with the prince murdering a journalist and didn't say one unkind word against him. Nor did he bring up any national security interests nor try to lower YOUR gas prices. He just wanted to be friendly with a murder."
He also never begged the prince to pump more oil. In my view this is disgusting. Trump worked to buy less and less oil from the middle east.
Biden sure did vilify the prince, he always says what one would want to hear, and now --- kisses his ass. In my view, this is a very poor characteristic in a man. Says one thing does another. Yikes
Helps America, he has caused this problem with his reckless spending and poor policies.
Trump brought America to the brink of being totally oil independent.
And no it will not be worth Biden begging, he will be told to get out and don't let the door hit ya. he is an unintelligent man, with cognitive problems IMO."He also never begged the prince to pump more oil. " - How do you know? Besides, neither did Biden. Like ANY GOOD PRESIDENT, he asked oil producers to produce more oil in order to lower YOUR gas prices. You sure have a strange way of saying thank you Joe Biden.
"Trump brought America to the brink of being totally oil independent." - And you keep repeating that lie as well, WHY? It is been PROVED to you MANY times that it was OBAMA who got America energy independent. FACTS MATTER.
Thank God the majority of Americans are aware of the problems Biden has caused, and are being heard in polls daily.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … -rcna33875
"But first: How low can President Biden’s economic poll numbers go?
Answer: Just look at these numbers in Fox News’ latest national survey that was released Wednesday night.
Biden’s overall job rating among registered voters stands at 43%, which is higher than other recent national surveys, including our NBC News poll (where Biden was at 39%).
But approval of Biden’s handling of the economy is at 29%, and his handling of inflation is even lower, at 23%.
What’s more, Republicans hold a 19-point lead in the poll on which party better handles inflation and rising prices, with 55% picking Republicans versus 36% preferring Democrats. "Not only has the Conservatives on the Supreme Court ended the lives of tens of thousands of Americans in the future, they will do the same to tens of thousands of women now that they have made them second class citizens by taking away control over their own bodies.
We have officially entered the Dark Ages of American history as bad as it was with Dred Scott and the rollback of the 14th and 15th Amendments in the late 1800s.
Conservatives have made America a sad nation to live in.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics … index.htmlWhat did I tell you, Conservatives now want to ban same-sex marriages and contraceptives.
Thomas calls for reviewing cases on gay marriage and contraception
The Roberts Court will go down in history as being as bad as any Supreme Court that ever existed.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics … index.html
I wonder when they will bring back Dred Scott and Separate but Equal? Thomas must really hate his race.You notice that he left out going after Loving v Virginia , which overturned laws banning interracial marriage. #AbortTheCourt
I think Thomas is gay and he is covering it up. Remember the anti-gay congressmen who was caught in the toilet stall doing footsie with his neighbor in the next stall?
Yep, I sure do. I wouldn't be surprised. Another possibility is that Thomas is getting back at America for the investigation into his sexual abuse of Anita Hill.
I wonder if he and ly'n Kavanaugh compare notes on their sexcapades when they aren't off screwing America?That sure read like being gay is a bad thing. Do you think there is something wrong with being gay?
GAI assume you mean it is Thomas who finds being gay is a bad thing.
Personally, I don't understand it and I get a viseral reaction watching two men kiss, ugh. But, being a good liberal, I get passed my emotions and realize that it is as natural as being straight (or having control over one's own body), so I get over it. Frankly, it is none of my business on how God made them.You assume wrong kemosabe.
But your closing is spot on for me too. (except for the 'good liberal' part. ;-)
GAI have a gay son who lives with a gay partner. Since he has come out, he couldn't be happier and neither can we. I just don't like the hypocrites who are gay, but are hiding behind an anti-gay façade, especially those in power who can influence others.
I also don't believe that gay can be prayed away. We had known for many years that his relationship with women was different, but his life was miserable and he made others miserable as well, until he came out and then there was a sea change of difference.
The irony is they are like chick magnets. Women are really attracted to them because I guess they feel safe.
MikeAnd you feel Thomas is hiding that he is gay? And you think you have the right to make that statement. If Iwas of your mindset, I could say, I think PP is gay and just hiding it. But should I, do I have the right to do so?
I noticed in your comment you did not say --- My son is gay. You said he lives with a gay partner. Curious.Sharlee:
And you feel Thomas is hiding that he is gay? And you think you have the right to make that statement. If Iwas of your mindset, I could say, I think PP is gay and just hiding it. But should I, do I have the right to do so?
I was replying to Scott reference to Thomas being a hypocrite. I am surprised for one who is a stickler to context, you didn't consider the context of my reply.
I noticed in your comment you did not say --- My son is gay. You said he lives with a gay partner. Curious.
This is what I said;
"I have a gay son who lives with a gay partner." I'll reword it for you; My son and his partner or both gay and they live together.
Sharlee: I guess it's your turn to come after me because you have nothing better to do."PEOPLEPOWER73 WROTE:
I think Thomas is gay and he is covering it up. Remember the anti-gay congressmen who was caught in the toilet stall doing footsie with his neighbor in the next stall?"
The context is very clear. Why do you feel Thomas is gay?Sharlee: I should have said he might be gay. Do you like that better? Last time I looked, the first amendment gives me the right to say, I think he is gay. I did not say he is gay, emphatically.
I don't have to defend myself against you, but I'm going to play your game just to accommodate you. But you must have better things to do.
What you copied is my reply to Scott. That is not the context; Here is the context.
This is what Scott said in his reply to Faye's comments about Thomas:
What did I tell you, Conservatives now want to ban same-sex marriages and contraceptives.
Thomas calls for reviewing cases on gay marriage and contraception
The Roberts Court will go down in history as being as bad as any Supreme Court that ever existed.
I was trying to be sarcastic in reference to Scott's comment about Thomas being a hypocrite. It also made me think of Congressman, Larry Craig who was supposed to be ant-gay, but was caught in a sting operation soliciting for "favors." I also has seen others who speak out against gay's, who turn out to be gay themselves.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … f-his-work
Think:
1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.
2. direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.I am going to offer my apology, If I misunderstood the comment, I am sorry. It seemed very much to be an unfair disparaging comment against Thomas.
I went back over the entire conversation, I clearly see you were being expressive, using sarcasm. As you know I do the same, toooooo often. Again sorry.
Sharlee: One apology is good enough. It's O,K. We can still be "frendemies" and hopefully discuss our differences.
I said this before, anyone who is against abortion is against contraception.
I have never heard anyone complain that a condom ever killed anyone. That instantly destroys the only complaint about contraception that the far right has.
Wilderness: Conservatives are only concerned until the baby is born.
What if the mother can't afford to care for the baby and she goes on welfare?
Then conservatives complain about she and the baby are living off the nanny state.
But I know the answer to that as well, get rid of entitlement programs.
Oh, I know then the mother and baby are homeless and living on the street.
And the answer to that is get rid of liberals and we should all become self-righteous, gun toting conservatives...problem solved.As nearly every time the subject arises (99.5%?), liberals refuse to even discuss the rights of the person in the womb. As a person's life will always trump any argument such as you make, or any argument of a woman's rights to her body, the argument dies with both sides simply screaming their mantra at the other.
Or do you consider a child's life unimportant - similar to a pet that CAN be owned by a person? And then assume that you are right, that any other opinion is false and therefore not to be considered?Wilderness:
Don't give me loaded questions. I'm not buying it.
What right does the person in the womb have when it is born to a poor mother who can't afford it, or one who is born out of wedlock, or when the child is born deformed or health issued of the mother or the person in the womb.
The problem here is conservatives only consider the rights of the person in the womb, not the rights of the mother who is carrying that person or her circumstances.
To conservatives, she is only provides the vessel for the person in the womb. It is life before birth, but how about life after the birth?There are only a few states that permit assisted suicide (euthanasia)...except for the child still in the womb. We change the label to "abortion" rather than "euthanasia", but the effect is the same.
So yes, the mother (except for the extremely rare case of danger to the mother) is but a vessel for it. Much as parents are responsible for the care of a child after birth, she is responsible for that care before. Unless I'm mistaken (could be) there are even legal cases of child abuse/endangerment when a child is born addicted to heroin or other drug - does that not say something about that life? Some states charge a murderer with two counts of murder when the victim is a pregnant woman - what does that say about that life?
My entire point is that we desperately need to come to grips on what is a person - when does that zygote become human...and just as desperately refuse to even discuss it. So we have a continual battle over abortion.
Although I will grant you that even if we DID choose a point of "personhood", and make it a legal definition, we would STILL have that battle because no one today is willing to compromise. It is always "Give me what I want and ALL that I want or I will continue to fight. No compromise is possible, even if I agree to one".Wilderness: You have nothing to worry about. The conservatives are winning. They have been working on this since the Goldwater days.
They now have the majority in the supreme court they want, thanks to Trump and that will last beyond my lifetime. I don't know about yours.
We have the division of the red states and the blue states where red state governors control the electors. Thanks to Trump's excuse of voter fraud that allowed them to change the laws.
And it's just a matter of time before Thomas and his justices ban same sex marriage and contraceptives. After that they will ban vasectomies and I don't know where we will go from there, but just use your imagination.
You are right, there is no compromising, but I think the conservative are going to take over the country. They are much better at messaging than liberals. The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper with a bunch of words. Roe was overturned because the word Abortion is not to be found in the constitution.
It has nothing to do with "Stare decisis" which means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court's decision.You may be right that conservatives are better at "messaging", whatever you mean by that. But liberals are far, far better at using and manipulating the media. Of the two, I think the media wins hands down. This is easily detected by simply looking at the gains by liberals in the last few decades. The country has become far more liberal, and both parties have shifted considerably left of where they were just 50 years ago. Personally I find much of it to be a good thing, but that is a far cry from any acceptance of goals from the far left.
Stare decisis is a valid concept...until it isn't. When a previous court has made an obvious error (whether intentional or not) then a different court has not only the opportunity but the duty to reverse it. If it can.Wilderness:
You may be right that conservatives are better at "messaging", whatever you mean by that.
Here is what I mean by that. Frank Luntz wrote the GOP play book of Say this Not That. Here are 14 words that he says republicans should never use.
https://www.businessinsider.com/reveale … an-2011-10"But liberals are far, far better at using and manipulating the media. " - Actually, you are WAY off the mark there too. Since Mainstream Media reports the Truth and there is rarely, nowadays anyway, any good that Conservatives do, Liberals do not need to "use and manipulate the media".
On the other hand, Trump Republicans have a built-pn propaganda arm in the Right-Wing media to carry their false message.
"The country has become far more liberal, and both parties have shifted considerably left of where they were just 50 years ago. " - I am not certain what nation you are talking about, but it certainly isn't America.
Yes, when the error is morally egregious like declaring slaves not to be American, But it was never wrong to give women the liberty to control their own body."Liberals do not need to "use and manipulate the media"
LOL For sure. That's why they hire media CEO's to put on their dog and pony show in Prime Time: Because they do not need to use the skills, expertise and good will of the media.
This has to be one of, if not the most, comical thing you've posted.I really have to wonder which alternate universe you live in - certainly not this one.
Why would say that gay thing about Thomas, do you have reason to think he is gay?
GAGA:
This is what Scott said in his reply to Faye's comments about Thomas:
What did I tell you, Conservatives now want to ban same-sex marriages and contraceptives.
Thomas calls for reviewing cases on gay marriage and contraception
The Roberts Court will go down in history as being as bad as any Supreme Court that ever existed.
I was trying to be sarcastic in reference to Scott's comment about Thomas being a hypocrite. It also made me think of Congressman, Larry Craig who was supposed to be ant-gay, but was caught in a sting operation soliciting for "favors." I also has seen others who speak out against gay's, who turn out to be gay themselves.
Are you and Sharlee now, the Thomas police?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … f-his-workGA:
This is what Scott said in his reply to Faye's comments about Thomas:
What did I tell you, Conservatives now want to ban same-sex marriages and contraceptives.
Thomas calls for reviewing cases on gay marriage and contraception
The Roberts Court will go down in history as being as bad as any Supreme Court that ever existed.
I was trying to be sarcastic in reference to Scott's comment about Thomas being a hypocrite. It also made me think of Congressman, Larry Craig who was supposed to be ant-gay, but was caught in a sting operation soliciting for "favors." I also have seen others who speak out against gay's, who turn out to be gay themselves.
Are you and Sharlee now, the Thomas police?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … f-his-workNope, no policing here. I knew what you meant and how you meant it. Even in your context, it was a crappy thing to say. It still inferred the negative stuff you defended as 'not what you meant'.
No citations or fines Mike, just a deserved poke. You know better.
GAGA: Thanks for judging me. I really appreciate it. I will try to do better next time.
I think it was a crappy thing that Thomas said Just because they overturned Roe, he wants to continue on to ban contraceptives and same sex marriages. I don't know how you feel about it, but I feel pretty crappy.Sarcasm is a dangerous tool. It almost never works for me.
To your description of Thomas's words as being crappy, that works for me. Your view on that is as valid as mine. But your other "crappy" words about the gay stuff were just a cheap shot.
On a more neutral note, Justice Thomas's words could very well be that slippery-slope scenario that we [C]onservatives frequently use as our opposition to some proposed liberal efforts. I don't think the government has any business intruding in those choices. I also think those issues are a lesser caliber than the Roe issue.
I was surprised when I heard the quotes of his words. They don't seem very 'Supreme Courtish', relative to past ones. Rather than a closed explanation and determination specific to the case, his quotes do seem to say this door is still open. I dunno. I do think any critique of his words will have to be on each issue first, not the inference as an 'all'.
GA
This is what Conservatives are going after next - Same Sex Marriages (but not mixed marrigaes), Contraceptives, Sodomy, in fact anything based on the right to privacy because at the federal level, they do not believe American citizens have any right to privacy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/opinions … index.htmlMr. Esoteric, I saw the news this morning. One pro-lifer indicated that it is THE GOAL to make abortion illegal in the United States. Yes, Clarence Thomas indicated that he wants to look into things such as contraception, same sex marriages as not supported by the Constitution. Yes, the regressives have gone totally insane. Of course the more retrogressive states are clamping down on women's reproductive rights.
How sad is ir that a witness against Trump must be protected from harm by Trump Republicans!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics … index.htmlWell, for ANYBODY who just watched the testimony in front of the Jan 6 Select Committee today should have ALL DOUBT REMOVED about Trump and Company's culpability in conspiring to commit several crimes against the United States.
Trump is Toast (and also a lunatic).Scott; It appears, Hannity, a former bar tender has more influence over Trump than most other people. I want to know were the firearms that were allowed into the riots on Jan. 6 ever confiscated? They even had snipers up in trees for God's sake.
Another problem sloved by Biden.
'Inside Biden's successful six-month bid to expand NATO'
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics … index.htmlThis week’s G-7 meeting in Germany brings to mind the apocryphal Mark Twain quip that “History doesn’t repeat itself — but it rhymes.” Or swap out if you like Santayana’s familiar (and authentic) axiom: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This G-7 has to be judged the worst G-7 meeting since the one in Japan in 1979 that also took place amid a global energy crisis and rising inflation. The other factor these two summits, 43 years apart, have in common: an out-to-lunch American president.
Both the 1979 meeting and this week’s meeting attempted to create an oil buyers’ cartel to limit oil imports but with opposite targets in mind. In 1979, the G-7 wanted to limit imports from the Middle East (the attempt failed immediately). Today the G-7 wants to limit imports from Russia (through the indirect means of a “price cap” that amounts to the same thing as a quota) while begging the Middle East, and especially the dominant producer Saudi Arabia, to increase oil exports to the West.
As in 1979, when the other G-7 leaders were harsh toward President Jimmy Carter at the summit, this week France’s Emmanuel Macron tried gently to talk sense into President Biden, who seems to be trying to emulate all of Carter’s policy mistakes. On the eve of Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia to grovel for more oil production, Macron advised him that the Saudis and other top Persian Gulf producers are close to current maximum capacity and as such aren’t able to bail out Biden even if they wanted to." read more warning it's ugly...
https://nypost.com/2022/06/28/joe-biden … my-carter/"“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”" - So true and it describes Conservatives to a "T".
I see you are back to helping Putin win his genocide against Ukraine by poo-pooing what the G-7 is trying to accomplish.
The rest is unfair and untrue criticism of Biden from a Biden-hater.The G7 is an old boys club, nothing else but... They do nothing but attend photo ops. Biden was once again an embarrassment and had to be led around in a daze
You really ought to study up on history and current events. Maybe that will help you not embarrass yourself with such rediculous, unsupported, factless statements.
Just my opinion. Biden has involved us in a proxy war. That will drag on for years, and nato is putting very little cash into supporting this BIDEN War.
Like I said It's an Old Boys Club.I think it can be viewed as a proxy war too, but I think it is a right and necessary involvement. Pres. Biden gets a nod from me on this one.
It doesn't take any hyperbolic references to history's lessons to see Russia's move on Ukraine, if successful, as a prelude to a Nato-nation challenge next. That would draw us into a full-blown WW.
GASorry, he certainly is the president, and he did literally nothing when Russia started amassing troops on the Ukraine border. He ignored the blatantly obvious problem that was about to happen. He ignores all problems In my view are in a full-blown proxy war that will stand to cost billions and drag on most likely for years.
I feel the country is in trouble with Biden in the White House.
It is just simpler to say at this point, We Must agree to disagree. I have always respected your opinion, but in this case, we are miles apart.I'm not sure we do disagree. You spoke to specific actions, I wasn't. I was talking about his support for Ukraine at a critical moment. Not whether his actions helped or hurt, he has stayed in a fight I think he should have.
I don't recall any pre-invasion solutions that would have impacted that troop build-up. What do you think he should have done—pre-invasion, that would have stopped Putin?
Set that direction aside. I responded to the point: " Biden has involved us in a proxy war. "
What choices do you think he had, again—pre-invasion, that could have stopped Putin?
GA"I don't recall any pre-invasion solutions that would have impacted that troop build-up. What do you think he should have done—pre-invasion, that would have stopped Putin?"
Well, first we need to consider Biden and NATO had ample time to come up with some solutions, in my view. To understand where I formed my view, starting with the Russian troop build-up. It certainly did not happen overnight, in fact, it took many months to build up Putin's massive troops on the Ukraine border. I think if you pursue the timeline of how long it took Putin to amass troops, and when the US knew of the buildup of Putin's troops on the Ukraine border, you might be shocked at how little was done over those many months to dissuade Putin. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/1 … ink-of-war
To answer your question --- in my view, some form of sanctions would have been worth a try, maybe Europe (Nato) could have tweaked the amount of oil they were purchasing. I could think of several sanctions that might have worked. The big one would have not to have come into the office and out and out kiss Russia and Germany's ass with Nordstrom2.
I have always appreciated an administration that jumped on a problem before it became a giant problem.
Perhaps Russia realized it was time to invade, "while the getting was good".
I mean any world leader would be blind not to realize that the US had elected a very weak president. (this does not refer to his age, but his reputation).
We will never know what a good strategist could have come up with. I would think something should have been tried to prevent the mess we see now.
So, Do you really feel nothing could have been done to avert this war?
I will continue to be optimistic that the country will right itself. I trust Americans when push comes to shove will rally and set this ship on the right course.I think Forbes wraps it up nicely.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp … isis-well/In my view, the entire war should have been avoided. Biden had many months to use sanctions and diplomacy but did nothing until Russia had boots on the ground in Ukraine. Just my view. He is always a day late and a buck short, in my view.
I did read the article you offered it was a good spin but no win with me.Great and spot on by a somewhat conservative source. Only those who are hiding from the truth won't read it.
Yes, I really think there was nothing, short of bringing Ukraine into Nato before the invasion, (probably not a possibility), that Pres. Biden could have done.
I think this invasion was probably planned along with the Crimea invasion 8 or 9 years ago. Some might say he could have found an excuse to put American boots on the ground before the invasion. I don't think that is realistic.
This die was cast well before Pres. Biden came along. Sanction talk is a public panacea. Apparently, we have put on the strongest sanctions we could get support for, and it hasn't slowed Putin at all. Recent oil analysis shows that Russia has an Eastern market that can easily replace most of its lost Western market. So much for sanctions.
GA"Yes, I really think there was nothing, short of bringing Ukraine into Nato before the invasion, (probably not a possibility), the Pres. Biden could have done."
I can respect that point of view, it remains a popular view. Do you ever wonder why NATO did not consider letting Ukraine join?
One train of thought --- "If Ukraine were a NATO member, the alliance would be obligated to defend it against Russia and other adversaries. U.S. officials say they will not appease Mr. Putin by undermining a policy enshrined in NATO’s original 1949 treaty that grants any European nation the right to ask to join." To read more https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/p … raine.html
I can agree Putin planted the seed long ago, and Putin just needed the right opportunity to walk into Ukraine. He saw it and man did he jump on it.
And yes, Russia’s Oil Revenue Soars Despite Sanctions, Study Finds
Rising oil prices more than offset a decline in export volumes during the first 100 days of the assault on Ukraine. New York Times.I hit the paywall on your link, so I can only answer your 1st NATO question, from what I have gathered.
Prior to the Crimean invasion, Ukraine was sort of a 'stepchild' nation still struggling from the breakup of the USSR. Now, 8 years after Crimea, and except for the political highlights during the Trump administration, she was not much on the public's mind.
It seems that Ukraine was, (is?), a pretty corrupt nation. Their government was really negatively described by most reputable sources. In short, it was an unstable and untrustworthy government. It seems NATO even gave Ukraine an evaluation list of some big changes in government accountability and process that had to be fixed before an invitation could, (I don't think it was 'would'), be considered, (I think this was around the Crimea time frame). Most estimates were it would take Ukraine decades to stabilize enough for consideration.
That seems a reasonable explanation of why NATO didn't invite them in. Sounds right to me.
But then came Zelenskii. He is pro-West. The government he replaced was Pro-Russia. So obviously Zelenskii and Ukraine get a positive presentation in the West.
Putin attacks and now she's a 'damsel in distress', and since she is potentially pro-West if she survives, she is our damsel in distress in the public's mind.
Add that to the West's need to stop Putin now, before we can't, and she gets invitation discussions.
Does that reasoning match any of the stuff you found in your ventures?
GAPretty much covers a bit about Uknriane's past, and their present. I can remember lots going on in 2011, infact they were thought of as one of the top three corrupt countries. Corruption was widespread in Ukrainian society.
At that point, they did not meet the criteria to become a NATO Nation.
I can also remember in Trump's first couple of years he was leary of
of Ukraine's reputation in regard to corruption.Of course you know i have to remark that is like the pot calling the kettle black, lol.
With Zelinsky came the first real move to push back on the corruption in Ukraine. Some in the West were saying he was moving to slow, but I think it is very hard to get rid of something so entrenched in society.
Then Putin happened.
So much for THOSE sanctions. While it is of no nevermind to Putin, his society is suffering as is his military-industrial complex due to, among many other things, the export controls.
While the current high oil prices are keeping money flowing in, it may be drying up a bit. Oil has fallen (I am not sure why) 16% since early June, Gas prices have dropped 50 cents a gallon in my part of Florida.
But for the rest of it, I absolutely agree with you. This was Putin's plan and nothing short of going nuclear was going to stop him. That may have been what Western intelligence was telling him.
"Well, first we need to consider Biden and NATO had ample time to come up with some solutions, in my view. " - You offered "some sort of scantions". You don't think Western leaders' fear of driving Putin to do worse things are legitimate? I did notice that only those who wanted early sanctions (and I will admit I was, for a time, one of those) didn't have access to important intelligence about what Putin might do when you poke the bear in the eye.
"I mean any world leader would be blind not to realize that the US had elected a very weak president. " - Actually, everyone knows the opposite is true.
This is from June 2021,
The election of Joe Biden as president has led to a dramatic shift in America’s international image. Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, publics around the world held the United States in low regard, with most opposed to his foreign policies. This was especially true among key American allies and partners. Now, a new Pew Research Center survey of 16 publics finds a significant uptick in ratings for the U.S., with strong support for Biden and several of his major policy initiatives.
Now, in Jun 2022,
International Attitudes Toward the U.S., NATO and Russia in a Time of Crisis
Most say U.S. is reliable partner, and ratings for Biden are mostly positive – although down significantly from last year."The big one would have not to have come into the office and out and out kiss Russia and Germany's ass with Nordstrom2." - So you think turning allies into enemies like Trump did is great policy?
"Sorry, he certainly is the president, and he did literally nothing when Russia started amassing troops on the Ukraine border. " - Just shaking my head in disbelief at how wrong that claim is.
Biden did that? All on his own. You blame Biden and not Putin. Interesting. It is impossible to counter that kind of illogic.
53 people were cooked to death in Texas, so sicko Greg Abbott, so-called governor, decided to use this tragedy to blame Biden. Well, since he opened that door, I put the blame directly at the feet of conservatives!! THEY,and only they, are responsible for encouraging migrants to cross Biden's CLOSED borders.
Shame on you Abbott. Shame on you Conservatives.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/us/san-a … index.htmlOf course. Biden has done so much to cut the numbers of people crossing the border illegally - he promised to give citizenship to all during his campaign. He refuses to deport anyone from the interior. He picks them up at the border and flies them all over the country. He tried to end title 42. He has certainly CLOSED the border, and we only see more crossing than at any time in our past.
It is certainly the Conservatives that are encouraging illegal crossings, isn't it?Am I missing something or did Congress pass any substantive immigration legislation in the last year and a half? Or are we actually still living under Mr Trump's immigration policy?
"Biden has done so much to cut the numbers of people crossing the border illegally" - Remember, he has to overcome the massive conservative effort to bring migrants to the boder. It is the Conservatives fault.
"he promised to give citizenship to all during his campaign. " - Probabaly a gross exageration or intentional misrepresenting the truth.
" He tried to end title 42. " - It was no longer needed
'He refuses to deport anyone from the interior. " -A lie https://unitedwedream.org/our-work/prot … tions-now/Absolutely, conservatives have made a major effort to bring illegal aliens to the border and help them cross illegally. Not.
Yes, it was a gross exaggeration - a campaign promise that he knew he could not deliver on. But to those ignorant of American politics it was a promise they expect to be fulfilled.
Needed or not, it was just another way to get illegals into the country...and Biden tried his best to eliminate it in another move to bring them in.
Sorry, but your link does not have anything to say about deportation from the interior. You really need to read (and listen) to your own links before posting them."Absolutely, conservatives have made a major effort to bring illegal aliens to the border and help them cross illegally. Not." - Then you ignore your own comments which is full of invitations to migrants to come to the border because almost daily, you falsely claim that Biden has an open border policy. You have been given so much evidence that he does, your claims to the contrary have to be classified as lies.
Actually, the link does. To deport that many people, they have to come from the interior, because according to your own numbers there aren't that many border crossers (most of those are simply turned away) to deport.Your tangent with Wilderness: conservatives are responsible for the increased border numbers' is irresistible. You'll have to kick me out.
You're nuts Scott. That claim is nuts. It's like saying, sshh, don't say it out loud and it won't be true.' And you have planted your flag on that.
That's the basics. For the details, look at this administration's border forces interactions. There are dozens, (probably), of specifics that could be compared to support your claim. Just saying it's because they talk about it isn't one of them. The illegal crossers don't need to hear it from the Republicans, they hear it and see it from every source available to them.
GAIf it were only a few comments that the American border is open here and there, I would agree with you. But, it is not. It is a drumbeat from the right FALSELY telling the world our borders are open, even though they are not.
It is conservative propaganda (since the claim is not true) plain and simple. Desperate people listen to the lies and react by taking the trek across Mexico only to find the border closed and that they have been lied to.
Now, I will admit the propaganda that Wilderness puts out there about open borders doesn't reach the ears of potential migrants, but Fake Fox News does, loudly.
So no, I don't think my claim is crazy, it is spot on.
Also, another reason for the increased apprehensions is how effective Biden's (actually it is Trump's) closed border policy is. It turns out a goodly number of those apprehensions of from people turned away at the border who try to reenter later.
Another Great Thing Biden Has Done --- And sooner than I predicted ....
Key Fed GDP tracker turns negative, signaling recession is here
The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model estimates -1.0% growth for Q2
The Federal Reserve's key real-time model for tracking U.S. economic activity has turned negative, signaling that the nation could already have entered a recession.
The GDPNow gauge, a widely watched measurement from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank, indicated Thursday that real gross domestic product shrank by 1.0% in the second quarter from April through June.
While the official advance estimate of Q2 performance will not be released for another month, this preliminary reading shows the second quarter in a row of negative growth in the economy after GDP contracted 1.6% in Q1.
If further readings confirm that the economy did, indeed, shrink in Q2, the technical criteria for a recession – which is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth – will be met. However, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the authority that makes the official determination.
Economists expect some economic slowdown from the interest rate hikes that the Fed implemented as it attempts to rein in inflation, which hit a four-decade high in May.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that there was some risk that policymakers might go too far in slowing economic growth, but that failing to bring inflation to heel represents a greater risk.
The GDPNow tracker already signaled earlier this month that the economy was headed for the imminent recession when it showed two weeks ago that economic growth in the spring flat to 0%.
Depression may be looming... Most likely. When did we have our last Depression?I am not surprised by those results. That is the game the fed is playing in trying to reduce inflation Only once did a conservative FED drive us into a depression (a liberal one never has), and that was the Great Depression. This proves yet again, Conservatives are not good for the economy.
I suppose your solution is for high growth and even higher inflation.Not sure how you can turn the tables --- oh well pretty funny to follow your logic.
I wasn't presenting logic, just facts from which you should be able to draw the appropriate conclusions.
When Garrett Dickman,a forest ecologist with the National Park Service, drove through Yosemite National Park early this week, he passed through a diverse band of large trees -- conifer, red fir, lodgepole pine -- and noticed a grim pattern: many of the trees were either dead or dying.
"There's a big shift happening right now, and it's right in front of our eyes." The consequences of the climate crisis -- more wildfires, devastating drought, sea level rise, flooding, ecological disease -- are plaguing the country's national parks. Most recently, unprecedented flash flooding overwhelmed Yellowstone National Park and some of its surrounding areas. - And yet Conservatives tie Biden's hands to do anything about it! Why do they do that??
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/02/us/natio … index.htmlWell, Biden managed to cut gasoline use. Not something people appreciate, but he did it!
(Wonder if Dickman ever saw a forest with gypsy moths, or if he simply writes off dying trees to climate change - no need to actually find a reason if one is right there on hand, one that has the approval of liberals.)Why are you in so much denial of reality?
And, if you are correct about Biden somehow stopping people from driving, why are they driving at record levels now?Because I'm smart enough to understand that as prices nearly double, usage will fall below what it otherwise would have been.
Wilderness: It sure isn't stopping people from usage on this 4th of July.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel … redictionsThe problem with that is that the price of gas has declined a lot in the last 30 days.
Also, core inflation as eased two months in a row.
I suspect the July report for June ought to bring some relief given that oil prices have fallen in June 7.8% for WTI.
That should mean a leveling, or decrease of food prices in July (if oil holds near current prices) Used car prices also moderated in May.
All news conservatives hate to hear.Not sure where you are getting your economic information from, but many economists this past week have stated we are in a recession.
The second quarter states are due very soon, and that should do it...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gugge … 1656689368
Guggenheim warns U.S. economy likely entered recession during the second quarter
ECONOMY
Fed GDP tracker shows the economy could be on the brink of a recession
PUBLISHED TUE, JUN 7 20222:43 PM EDTUPDATED TUE, JUN 7 202210:15 PM EDT
thumbnail
Jeff Cox
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/fed-gdp … ssion.html
Yahoo Finance
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-gdp-c … 46851.html
US economy contracted more than initially reported in Q1 as consumption dropped
Wed, June 29, 2022 at 8:38 AM
Atlanta Fed Predicts Negative Second-Quarter Growth ...https://www.theepochtimes.com › atlanta-fed-predicts-n...
3 days ago — The U.S. economy is expected to contract in the second quarter, ... Predicts Negative Second-Quarter Growth, Indicating Recession Has Begun. https://www.theepochtimes.com/atlanta-f … 69416.html
Atlanta Fed's GDP model indicates US economy in recession
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/atlant … on/2628418
And not sure you have heard lots of predictions of a winter food shortage in the US...
And, Joe was not successful at getting any gas from the Saudis. So, not sure we will see gas prices go anywhere but up.
"All news conservatives hate to hear."
As a Democrat, I can assume you do not keep up with other media outlets that actually are predicting a serious long recession.
I am interested in why you feel inflation is improving? All I have read is that we are in a recession. And it will be a painfully long recovery.Personally, I'm figuring on 2 years of recession at a minimum. Two years of no IRA earnings, 2 years of high prices (inflation isn't going down any time soon), 2 years of tightening my belt. As someone nearing the end of an active life style that's going to hurt; by the time things improve I won't be capable of enjoying play time much.
I agree we are in for at least a 2-year recession. I think we are in a perfect type of storm that will cause pain to most that live on limited incomes, and the poor.
2024 can't come soon enough.Since neither of you know much about economics, I must take your pronostications with a bottle of salt.
One does not need to know much actually. And I am sure a large majority of Americans look at the economy in one respect --- their pocketbooks, their savings, their 401ks. While many ruminate on Abortion and another meaningless Trump investigation. This country is in real trouble, with a capital T. I expect in the fall many will wake up to the fact we are headed for some serious financial problems. The "look over here game "will have many scratching their heads, and realizing what a huge mess Biden has made, at every turn.
June 17, 2022
Stock market's fall has wiped out $3 trillion in retirement savings this year
"The U.S. stock market rout that has put U.S. equities in a bear market isn't just reducing the net worth of billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. It's also taking a toll on Americans' retirement savings, wiping out trillions of dollars in value.
The selloff has erased nearly $3 trillion from U.S. retirement accounts, according to Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. By her calculations, 401(k) plan participants have lost about $1.4 trillion from their accounts since the end of 2021. People with IRAs — most of which are 401(k) rollovers — have lost $2 trillion this year.
This year's stock slump is the most severe market downturn since March of 2020, when COVID-19 erupted in the U.S. Historically, 401(k) investments take about two years after a market decline of this size to regain their previous value. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-dro … his%20year
https://news.yahoo.com/americans-lost-m … 17811.html
Abortion, Gay rights, the new green deal, and all the fluff will very quickly become fodder, and will not seem as important as feeding one's family, paying double for gas, and utilities,. You know the everyday type of worries most Americans live with.
Yeah --- people vote with their pocketbooks. And Biden has pretty much alienated the greater majority of Americans."One does not need to know much [about economics] actually." What a typical conservative response, ROFL. That perfectly illustrates the conservative mindset against education.
My sources are solid, and I certainly respect the information they offered.
Not sure what you are referring in regard to "That perfectly illustrates the conservative mindset against education."
Like I said my sources have summed up the problems that Biden's inflation has caused. I realize it must be stressful to read the articles I offered, I mean voting for such a failure must be distressing to you,
It's hard being in the minority.Interesting that he does not refute your facts but does manage to make a snide comment about conservatives. What an argument!
Yes, when I put up sources to that helped me form or gleaned my view. As a rule, he just lashes out in all directions when he sees facts. I realize he does not stay up on all current news, he is selective, and selective of sources he gets his information (CNN).
It's hard to face all the current fires that we see in America, we have never had to live under such turmoil. Makes one wonder, what next?
Dr. Mark, this country is sinking due to the heaviness of hate. Hate that has been carefully planned, and fed to keep it growing.He was talking about Wilderness.
Yes, the Jan 6 committee is bringing to light all of the hate Trump and his supporters are putting this country through.Wilderness has nothing to do with the conversation we were having or the remark Dr. Mark offered me directly.
Dr. Mark was responding to what you said to me --- I am very accustomed to your jabs, some here are not, and find them, perhaps uncalled for.
"One does not need to know much [about economics] actually." What a typical conservative response, ROFL. That perfectly illustrates the conservative mindset against education."
You once again tossed a vague insult my way. He directed his comment to me and said this in regards to your insulting comment ----
Dr. Mark's comment was addressed to me --- Interesting that he does not refute your facts but does manage to make a snide comment about conservatives. What an argument!
Here is the entire conversation that promoted your jab at me -
"SHARLEE01 WROTE:
One does not need to know much actually. And I am sure a large majority of Americans look at the economy in one respect --- their pocketbooks, their savings, their 401ks. While many ruminate on Abortion and another meaningless Trump investigation. This country is in real trouble, with a capital T. I expect in the fall many will wake up to the fact we are headed for some serious financial problems. The "look over here game "will have many scratching their heads, and realizing what a huge mess Biden has made, at every turn.
June 17, 2022
Stock market's fall has wiped out $3 trillion in retirement savings this year
"The U.S. stock market rout that has put U.S. equities in a bear market isn't just reducing the net worth of billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. It's also taking a toll on Americans' retirement savings, wiping out trillions of dollars in value.
The selloff has erased nearly $3 trillion from U.S. retirement accounts, according to Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. By her calculations, 401(k) plan participants have lost about $1.4 trillion from their accounts since the end of 2021. People with IRAs — most of which are 401(k) rollovers — have lost $2 trillion this year.
This year's stock slump is the most severe market downturn since March of 2020, when COVID-19 erupted in the U.S. Historically, 401(k) investments take about two years after a market decline of this size to regain their previous value. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-dro … his%20year
https://news.yahoo.com/americans-lost-m … 17811.html
Abortion, Gay rights, the new green deal, and all the fluff will very quickly become fodder, and will not seem as important as feeding one's family, paying double for gas, and utilities,. You know the everyday type of worries most Americans live with"
.
Your reply --- Yeah --- people vote with their pocketbooks. And Biden has pretty much alienated the greater majority of Americans.
"One does not need to know much [about economics] actually." What a typical conservative response, ROFL. That perfectly illustrates the conservative mindset against education.I'll let Dr. Mark correct me, if it is needed, but I don't think it is.
It is a shame you don't understand the import of your slam against the importance of understanding economics and, by implication, education.
Because average Americans do not understand economics, they will never understand that BIden has nothing to do with the current inflation problems. That is what the lack of education gets you, a warped view of reality.
As to Conservatives. This goes further back than the Catholic suppression of education in the Middle Ages, but that is a good place to start. Conservative Christians (actually any conservative religion) have, historically, opposed education because it contradicts theological teachings.
There isn't a period in history where that isn't true and it is certainly true today in America. Hence, my observation.Not sure you have followed this conversation. I have virtually laid it out for you.
I can assure you when I comment on the country's economic problems, I reach the subject and offer sources that helped me come to my view.
I offer accounts from economists, as well as persons that have done their research.
Biden's policies have driven our economy into the ground in my view. So, to keep it honest --- I have no respect for your evaluation of what has caused our current economic problems. It is very obvious you are not even admitting to the problems.
"As to Conservatives. This goes further back than the Catholic suppression of education in the Middle Ages, but that is a good place to start. Conservative Christians (actually any conservative religion) have, historically, opposed education because it contradicts theological teachings."
This is all kind of crazy --- What in the hell does this have to do with our conversation? What a ridiculous deflection.You did it again MyEsoteric. Said something too rich to resist.
Your thought about the importance of understanding economics, at least the basics, is spot on, but your thought about who that is important to could use some help.
Even after the latest administration's 'economic' statement, (it had predecessors), about gas stations, you defend their 'knowledge' and claim that the Biden administration's actions have nothing to do with this inflation. You say the American public, (conservatives), just doesn't have the knowledge to understand.
I think I have a basic understanding of economics, (at least the Cliff Notes Econ 101 level), and Google is my friend. She told me gas stations earn, on average, two cents per gallon sold, yet this administration casts blame on their owner's unpatriotic greed.
Surely someone at the White House knows about Google?
It looks like it isn't just the conservatives that have a lack of economic understanding. And speaking of implications, your defense implies they aren't the only ones seeing a warped reality.
I think this administration has done a lot to worsen this inflation.
GAWell, if you did not buy the week's blame game, wait a few days. The list is getting long, sooner or later this bunch will run out of fingers to point.
The more I read, makes me wonder if the US will survive much more of the Biden economy?
"Look, here's where we are. We have the fastest-growing economy in the world. The world. The world," President Biden on Jimmy Kimmel
CNN fact checked
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/politics … index.html
And he whispered. the all three "the world"As I said several times before, I will not be surprised if we go into a short, small recession. Personally, I support the goal of reducing inflation. You apparently just like to use it as an unfair club to bash Biden with.
If you want to know what constitutes small and large recessions, I will be happy to give you a free copy of my book on the subject.BEA will share U.S. GDP data for Q2 2022 on July 28. If that data shows negative economic growth, it’s likely that the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the nonprofit academic organization that officially declares recession periods in the U.S., will argue that the economy has entered one.
It depends on where you get your information from as to whether we are entering a recession or not. This is from Fortune, June 30.
https://fortune.com/2022/06/30/what-is- … -analysis/It does seem likely. But so long as it is a mild one on the order of those in 1949, 1960, 1969, 1990, and 2001, it should be a good thing as it will reduce inflation. That is the goal of the Fed in putting the brakes on the economy. They just hope they didn't hit them too hard.
Unlike other recessions, I doubt it will increase unemployment much since businesses are still struggling to find workers. Now they won't have to struggle as much.Perhaps you should be more reliant on economists to predict the economy, as I am. I can remember you saying inflation would only be around for a couple of months. We will be adding a full point in the coming days to our inflation rate, and officially be in a recession. A hard recession to boot.
Sharlee gets her info from a reliable economist, not CNN touts.Besides my education in economics, where do you think I (and CNN) gets their information from?
And no, I never said inflation would only be around for a couple of months. You know who WAS saying that? The vast majority of economists you rely on. Only ONE got it right and even he covered his bases by saying there were EQUAL chances of long inflation, short inflation, and no inflation. Go back and read ALL of the words Summers said. I did.
A full point? That means what, 9.6% inflation for June? That is your educated guess? Since fuel prices FELL for most of June, I doubt it will come from there. Did food prices skyrocket in June? Used car prices? (they went down in Jan, Feb, Mar, and Apr. They were up in May and may be unchanged in June.
I wouldn't be surprised if it inflation didn't fall by 1 point for June. If not then, then even more likely in July unless something strange happens.
What is your criteria for a "hard" recession?
Yes, I did read the article you offered, it is one of the sources I respect.
That is "Conservatives" writ large, not individual exceptions to the rule.
Obviously, people like William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk.
Tell me, did Biden blame the mom and pops who run gas stations or did he blame the gas COMPANIES who sell the gas to those stations. I think you will find it is the latter, not what you claimed.
And from I see, hear, and read - oil companies have historically as well as currently made decisions with improve their already large bottom lines at the expense of the American consumers.
As I and Faye keep asking Sharlee, specifically, what are the policies that Biden has implemented that had significant, long-lasting negative impact on inflation.Pres. Biden's message: "My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump . . ."
Over half of gas stations are owned by individual small business owners. Even if the tweet is charitably read to mean "oil" companies, it is still baloney. Oil companies own only about 5% of all gas stations.
Your rationale wants the public to believe, that even though oil companies only own 5%, he was really talking to them and not the 95% of gas stations that earn two or three pennies per gallon.
Nope, I ain't buying your interpretation of the statement. I found it to be the 'former', not the "latter."
As for your closing request, I will leave the specifics for you and Sharlee to argue about. I agree with her, so she can carry the ball.
GAIt would seem a bit on the foolish side for anyone to defend Biden's latest remark in regards to why gas is so high.
I will save my energy for whatever Biden comes up with next week."Over half of gas stations are owned by individual small business owners." - So, are you trying to imply that the oil companies DON'T set the prices and rules that mom and pop stations MUST follow if they hope to sell that gasoline brand? There are very few "independent" stations out there, most are franchises of the oil company. So, your figures are way off as to who controls what a gas station does. Consequently, I'll stick with the "latter" since that reflects reality.
https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/You are 'sticking' with an unsupportable position. Even the link you offered supports what I said about gas station owners.
From your link:
"Who owns gas stations?
Looking at those big signs along the freeway — Shell, 76, Chevron, ExxonMobil — it may seem like gas stations are all owned by big oil companies. In reality, the majority of owners are individual operators who only own a single station."
"Franchisees who pay name-brand gas refineries royalties (anywhere from 3% to 14% of revenue) to use their branding" (following the trail of oil company franchisees finds their franchise agreements are about branding and do not include pricing restrictions or mandates.)
"Most major oil companies have backed out of the retail business because selling gas generally isn’t very profitable.
According to IBISWorld, gas stations make an average margin of just 1.4% on their fuel."
There is more from your link, but Google has better ones.
DO OIL COMPANIES SET THE GAS PRICE FOR FRANCHISEES
Pick your poison. The 1st-page listings have plenty of sources that also debunk your "franchisee" thought.
As you will see, both your link and my friend Google's links, support everything I said as being accurate.
As a side note: a quick look at oil company brand franchise agreements finds that, unlike McDonalds-type franchises, gas brand franchises don't dictate operations, especially prices, they set brand-use parameters.
Considering the tweet that started this: Pres. Biden said: "My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump . . ."
I will rely on data from people that know more about what they are talking about than I do and stick with the "former".
GAGA and Scott: Here is everything that you wanted to know about gasoline, oil, and oil companies and how pricing is determined. These are 2021 figures but the concept is the same. Only the numbers have been changed to protect the innocent...just thought I would throw that in there.
https://www.convenience.org/Media/conve … Gas-Prices
MikeYour link describes what I also found. It generally supports the point, (that the tweet was purposely inaccurate and inflammatory), regardless of any possible 'technical' defenses of 'what he meant was . . . ' (that's not a jab just at this exchange, but at any that try to twist the words to mean something else).
GA
My link made my point, most gas stations are operated by brand name franchise who are subject to the oil companies franchise terms and restrictions. These people are by no means independent operators who control their own fate.
Tell, if Shell raised the price of gas 40 cents a gallon, is the Shell franchisee free to buy cheaper gas elsewhere? I think not. Therefore, the oil company effectively sets the price at franchised gas stations.
Independent, on the other hand, can go find other suppliers.Have it your way, it has too many dead ends for me.
GA
I have time and again (from the moment Biden walked into the White House} offered what policies I felt not only would cause problems with inflation, and have caused inflation.
As I have pointed out before, you don't fully follow threads and jump in at inappropriate times, and just don't comprehend the context of conversations. As you did a few days ago with a conversation I was having with Dr.Mark.
I pointed out the problem, and you did not address my comment, and now you have moved on to make the statement --"As I and Faye keep asking Sharlee, specifically, what are the policies that Biden has implemented that had significant, long-lasting negative impact on inflation."
I can assure you I have frequently pointed out how Biden's policies in my view have caused inflation. I have even constructed threads on the subject.
Recently I added a thread on Biden emptying our oil reserves and supplying China the benefit of filling their reserves with our oil.
This is certainly adding to the inflationary problem in the US.
Here are a few more threads that indicate my thoughts on how Biden's policies have caused inflation
Did Putin Really Cause America's Inflation?
WAPO Points To Biden's Possible Next Blunder
Gas or Food ? Gas or Rent? Gas or Paying For Utilities?
Want A Good Giggle? The Biden-Harris Inflation Plan
Hey, Have What's Happening At The Border? Nothing Good
US Dollar Decline What Could We Be Headed For?
Will Joe Create Higher Inflation Trying To Buy The Young Vote
Actually, there are many more threads where I address the Biden economy and a real road trip to where we are today.
So not sure how one could say I don't follow the policies Biden has implemented that have affected our inflation problems.
Yes, it is apparent many don't join in on some of my threads, but I can certainly backtrack and show each of Biden's building blocks to his now wall of inflation. Some prefer to look where the media directs them, I prefer to look there... the many problems media would like to stay under a carpet.
I have always been very polite on HP and answered questions posed. However, when questions become so repetitive, I walk away from a conversation."I have time and again (from the moment Biden walked into the White House} offered what policies I felt not only would cause problems with inflation, and have caused inflation."
It certainly can be debated that the American Rescue Plan had a negative impact on our current financial situation. It can also be argued that there were many positives. But aside from that one piece of legislation, I'm not aware or do not see other policies enacted under this administration that would be linked to current inflation. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Am I missing something?The root cause goes all the way back to the first day of his presidency. Right from the get-go, Biden abandoned energy independence and embraced the spending and printing of trillions of dollars, while we were just reopening our economy. On Jan 27, 2021 --
Biden on Jan 27, 2022, signed a series of executive orders that prioritize climate change across all levels of government and put the U.S. on track to curb planet-warming carbon emissions.
He orders the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development. Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development. In addition to the pause on leasing, Biden will direct the federal government to conserve 30% of federal lands and water by 2030 and find ways to double offshore wind production by that
This series of actions kick off the president’s agenda to reduce the country’s emissions and establish stricter targets under the Paris climate accord. Which also kicked off the oil companies to pull back on an exploration of leases, due to a lack of confidence in this new administration.
To this day that oil companies have made it clear they are not investing in new refiners or exploring current owned leases.
In my view - His poor decision to penalize the oil and gas industry killed good-paying American jobs, hurt our already struggling post-COVID economy, made our country more reliant on foreign energy sources and impacts those who rely on affordable and reliable energy. He bit his nose off to spite his face. Then he started trying to blame oil companies for what he caused and begging, even threatening them to produce and refine, more oil. Recently he even tried to blame gas station owners for the high cost of gas.
He followed up with record Government spending with his American Rescue Plan Pouring 1.9 trillion into a shakey economy and pushing it into inflation. And followed with his $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill.
With his lack of problem-solving, he has let now close to two million migrants into America wait for asylum decisions. The influx and cost of migrants have cost taxpayer billion of local and Federal funds.
His foreign policy has entered us into a war commitment, which he admits "we will be in it as long as we need to be".
Our stalled shipping ports, which have been not talked about much as of late, but are still severely backed up, and no fix in sight --- Inflation is also a measure of the rate of rising prices of goods and services in an economy. Inflation can occur when prices rise due to increases in production costs, such as raw materials and wages. A surge in demand for products and services can cause inflation as consumers are willing to pay more for the product.
In my view, all of the above provided a perfect storm for inflation. Biden appears to lack problem-solving abilities and makes poor decisions to make problems much worse, as he has with all the problems that led to our current recession.
I appreciate you will feel the need to rebut each of my points. I think I could save you energy. I have done my research on my view, and I truly feel Biden's policies as well as poor decisions, have been the largest contributing factor to the inflation we see today.Sharlee: I guess you didn't read Faye's article on why president's don't have that much power over controlling the economy. It is basically a matter of timing when they enter the business cycle and the feds policies.
Here it is again.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publica … c-managersI did read the articles, both from good sources. Both make good sense, and one could see well throughout, much of what I can agree with.
I have a different view in regard to Biden. Take Bill Clinton, I feel he was a president that was very intelligent and thought out any policies he pursued. Some presidents just fly below the radar and rely on Congress to come up with and pursue policies. This is wise much of the time, in the case of a president that is not let's say realistic about what the American people desire. Most presidents, come into the office and get accustomed to the temperature of the water, and don't shake the boat with policies that could sink the boat. Biden sunk the boat within weeks so needed to rebuild the boat, and his boat keeps falling apart due to his poor policies and decisions.
At this point, many Americans (somewhat proven by his sinking polls) are wearing lifejackets, and feel very shaky if they will not go down with Biden.
Take Clinton --- The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy.
One can see he made hard decisions that led to his winning policies, and a better outcome for America.
I don't think you realize I am not automatically biased when it comes to Biden. I am critical of his policies. As I applaud one president (Clinton) for his wonderful sound decision makeing. This bias is sticky gleaned from what I see him doing.
Yes, I voted for Clinton, and yes I crossed lines, I respected his strength, his agenda, his prudent problem-solving. In the end, I would have voted him in for a third term if I could have. He was a good president, even with all the scandal I could have well looked the other way. He had a good agenda and was a good policy maker. Biden in my view is not, he just is not suitable for the job.
"Biden on Jan 27, 2022, signed a series of executive orders that prioritize climate change across all levels of government and put the U.S. on track to curb planet-warming carbon emissions." - I know, terrible wasn't it? What was he thinking trying to save world from conservatives, lol
"He orders the secretary of the Interior Department ..." - Please explain, if you can, how that policy drove inflation? Did it somehow magically take the supply of oil OFF the market? Did the number of barrels of oil being produced DECLINE? I don't think so.
"He followed up with record Government spending with his American Rescue Plan Pouring 1.9 trillion into a shakey economy ... " - Here we are back to understanding economics. When the economy is shaky and sliding downhill, you WANT to put in a stimulus. When the economy is robust and flying high (which it wasn't) you DON'T WANT to put in a stimulus. Since neither of those two conditions are true, that is why the American Rescue Plan had so little effect on inflation.
As to the infrastructure bill, that has had ZERO impact on inflation so far, because very little money from it has been spent.
So far, none of Biden's policies (I think you listed two, maybe three) had much to do with inflation.
The "perfect storm" is, as I laid out before,:
1. The original decision to put the supply chain on a "just-in-time" basis. That was a disaster just waiting to happen. It took a pandemic to set it off.
2. Pent-up demand that was suddenly released
3. A logistical system that was still suffering from the pandemic and wasn't up to the job to move product to market. This interferes with supply.
4. Lots of retirements which depressed the workforce. This interferes with supply.
5. The pandemic continuing to keep people out of the workforce because they kept getting infected and had to quarantine. This interferes with supply. (That is what is mostly behind the airline problems.)
Bottomline, Supply could not keep up with Demand and ergo - INFLATION.
I don't see one Biden policy in there, do you?" - I know, terrible wasn't it? What was he thinking trying to save world from conservatives, lol"
This statement makes zero sense in regard to the subject of Biden's attack on energy from the very first days he was in office. His is an unhinged remark.
"He orders the secretary of the Interior Department ..." - Please explain, if you can, how that policy drove inflation? Did it somehow magically take the supply of oil OFF the market? Did the number of barrels of oil being produced DECLINE? I don't think so."
Again you left out the full context, in the paragraphs that follow. --- that gives way to context of why I feel Biden's attack on energy added to our current inflation, and high gas prices. I realize fully you are prone to grabbing a sentence and ignoring the content of a complete paragraph that add context to a statement.
Here are the paragraphs that you grabbed a few words from --- which explain why I feel his poor police decision caused inflation/
"He orders the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development. Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development. In addition to the pause on leasing, Biden will direct the federal government to conserve 30% of federal lands and water by 2030 and find ways to double offshore wind production.
This series of actions kick off the president’s agenda to reduce the country’s emissions and establish stricter targets under the Paris climate accord. Which also kicked off the oil companies to pull back on an exploration of leases, due to a lack of confidence in this new administration.
To this day that oil companies have made it clear they are not investing in new refiners or exploring current owned leases."
The rest of your comment is just pretty much your view, and as I have repeatedly explained, I prefer to get my economic information from an economist. I look to several opinions before offering my view. You are well known for not being able to back up your views, and I just prefer the expert's views.
Yes, supply can still not keep up with demand due to our backed-up seaports, which have been apparent for over a year now, and nothing is done to solve the problem...
June 7, 2022
Port congestion is easing. But supply chain congestion isn’t going away soon.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newslett … lumes-rise
"For the first time in two months, the Port of Los Angeles expects inbound container volumes will exceed year-earlier levels.
That’s according to estimates as of early Tuesday from LA’s Wabtec Port Optimizer showing 26 vessels with about 127,000 20-foot containers are scheduled to be offloaded this week, which is a 0.4% increase from the same week in 2021. Next week, the number increases to 27 ships loaded with 137,000 TEUs, up 15.1% from a year earlier.
The port’s tracking data are fluid and revised almost daily, so it’s too soon to say whether this is a blip or the start of a bigger wave of goods from Asia now that China is loosening Covid restrictions. (Check out the latest on those developments here."
This president has not fixed any of the problems America is plagued with. He is incapable of doing the job of president and is ruining the country before our eyes.
From our ports to our southern border, to our energy crisis --- he does nothing, zero, In fact, as I have shown he created these problems and continues to be in a cognitive daze.
I blame Congress for letting him remain in office. In past years, this man would have been removed due to incompetence. IMOI forgot one - China's zero Covid policy. That is a big driver of American inflation.
I actually read almost everything you write in the forums I follow. And as to Biden policies, Faye and I have asked more than once what those are. You either do not answer or have a non-answer like "I have time and again (from the moment Biden walked into the White House} offered what policies I felt not only would cause problems with inflation, and have caused inflation." I beg to differ.
The ONLY policy you have mentioned is the very much needed American Rescue Plan, which had, as I have shown, only temporary and minor influence on inflation. Period.
Nobody has said "So not sure how one could say I don't follow the policies Biden ...". I am sure you do. It is just that you don't name them when you make broad, unsupported statements like "Biden Caused Inflation", which is patently, provably untrue.
Latest estimate: -2.1 percent — July 1, 2022
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2022 is -2.1 percent on July 1, down
https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/at … wth-in-q2/
'Atlanta Fed Forecasts Official Recession With Negative GDP Growth in Q2"
Second-quarter is a disaster!
TODAY "JULY 5, 2022 BY MICHAEL MAHARREY
On July 1, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta lowered its Q2 GDP projection to -2.1%, officially forecasting a recession.
So, much for Jerome Powell’s “soft landing.”
A recession is technically defined as back-to-back quarters of negative GDP growth. If the Atlanta Fed’s projection of negative growth in Q2 comes to pass, it will couple with the first-quarter decline of -1.6% to put the US economy solidly in recession territory.
The Atlanta Fed lowered its projection after analyzing the Manufacturing ISM Report On Business from the Institute for Supply Management and the construction report from the US Census Bureau, which came in relatively flat. According to the bank, “The nowcasts of second-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth and real gross private domestic investment growth decreased from 1.7% and -13.2%, respectively, to 0.8% and -15.2%, respectively."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gdps-e … 1656526262
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-gdp-c … 46851.html
Much of our current economic problems are Biden's fault. And it will keep getting worse with him in office.
I can remember you telling me many months ago, how we would have short inflation.
Perhaps you should do some reading, and search for well-educated economists to glean your views in regard to inflation/recession/depression.
In my view, Biden has blamed his inflation on just about everyone, and everything. Now even on gas station owners. He is not fit to do the job of president, neither physically nor mentally., he is a great embarrassment to the Nation, and needs to be impeached due to incompetence."Much of our current economic problems are Biden's fault. " - Although I know you will ignore this yet again - Prove It! Give us hard comparative data to prove your claim in nothing more than partisan bias made up out of whole cloth.
"Biden has blamed his inflation on just about everyone, and everything. "- This is also untrue. But it is your view, so give us your basis. I have heard Biden blame many things - all correct. Who/what did Biden blame that wasn't true? You clearly have something in mind. It certainly wasn't gas station owners. (He asked them to lower prices, but he didn't blame them of gouging - many of us think the gas companies are doing that but the gas station owners are just passing along the price increases.)
BTW, gas is down another 10 cents here.
The ONLY president who has not been fit for the job in American history is Trump. Biden is plenty qualify, but you cannot allow yourself to believe that.
Finally, I suspect I have read/listened to more on economics that you ever thought of doing. You just parrot what other right-wing fanatics talking points are.
"Biden's inflation", LOL. You keep saying it but never PROVING it. Faye asked you a very long time ago to point out which of Biden's policies caused the inflation we see today. You ignored her. WHY?
I know, so you can keep pushing a lie.
The best you can come up with is Biden's life saving American Rescue Plan. That has already been proved to you many times over that its affect was minor and transitory.
So you have come up with Nothing!!!
The fact that a President gets stuck with the blame as part of the job, it doesn't even come close to proving he is responsibile.
I have offered not my opinion on the economy, but economist's views, hence my many links to articles that provide economic information.
Not sure how anyone would have not noted that.
"Guggenheim warns U.S. economy likely entered recession during the second quarter" - I got from a couple of posts ago from you that PREDICTIONS were bad. Why are you relying on them now?
As to the 7.8% drop in oil prices, I took the WTI price on June 1 and subtracted the price of oil on June 30. Then I divided by the June 1 price. Pretty simple really.
Regarding your scare tactics with the Fed data. I commented on that a few days ago. I noted those results should be a surprise to know one who understands economics. The Fed is doing what you want and trying to put the brakes on inflation. To do that, they have to slow the economy way down, almost (hopefully) to the point of recession although they try not to.
Since you seem to be criticizing their effort, does that mean you don't want them battling inflation anymore?
As to news sources, those who want the truth don't watch Fake Fox News, Newsmax, or OAN. I am sure there are a couple of right wing media outlets who aren't Trump propagandists, but I don't know of any.
Instead we watch and/or read CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC, Politico, The Hill and the like. You know, those that are reliable and tell the whole story.
No, more people since March have been cutting back on driving, and in June it has become even worse,
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394190/gas … -poor.aspx
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stressed … 09960.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … rices-soar
https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-n … b4605.html
Not sure why you feel people are driving more with the price of gas at record highs? It's been all over the media how people are driving less due to skyrocketing gas prices.The biggest surprise – car travel – will set a new record despite historically high gas prices (that was early June, BTW, they are down a lot today) with 42 million people hitting the road. for the July 4th weekend.
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/06/from-s … -july-4th/
According to Reuters - Driving in the first three months of 2022 was up 5.6%, or 40.2 billion miles to 753.7 billion miles and driving surpassed each monthly tally versus 2019. - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americ … us%202019.
According to Reuters - U.S. driving soars in 2021 to 3.23 trillion miles, up 11.2% - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-dri … 022-02-18/
I trust hard data more than opinion polls which is why I know people are driving more. It has been all over the media how many people are actually driving more despite high gas prices.Your Newsroom article --- Please note word PREDICTS
"ORLANDO, Fla. (Jun 21, 2022) – Summer travel is already in full swing and Independence Day will be no exception as AAA predicts 47.9 million people will travel 50 miles or more from home over the holiday weekend (June 30 – July 4)"
Your Reuters is a May article. That sort of said it all --- not current.
And your second Reuters article is ancient.
February 18, 2022
4:54 PM EST
Last Updated 4 months ago
U.S. driving soars in 2021 to 3.23 trillion miles, up 11.2%
My articles are all very current, which just speak of more current information.
I also have been reading lots about more families's have started living off of credit cards to purchase gas and food.
Your guy is heading us into what some are saying now, a possible not recession but depression.Shaking head at your objection to AAA, an expert in travel. I suppose you believe Hannity more. Of course, it is a prediction, duh. The weekend isn't holiday isn't over yet.
One of your articles was a useless poll, in the face of facts.
The next was based on that useless poll
The next two were, at best, using data a month more current (maybe) than mine and both before the drop in gas prices.
No doubt debt is increasing people are still on a buying spree from the pandemic. Most of it is in mortgages and student loans.
According to the St Lous Fed, credit card debt fell in the 1st quarter and the 2nd quarter numbers aren't out yet. Those who ARE using credit cards to help with living expenses are the two younger generations. It doesn't appear to be happening to the boomer generation."Shaking head at your objection to AAA, an expert in travel." PREDICTION. which they do just about every Holiday, and much of the time they don't hit the mark.
As you can see all my links are to very good non - bias outlets.
Cooling has cooled in may, and June
ECONOMY
Cooling Consumer Spending Points to Further Economic Slowdown
Household spending in May rose at the slowest rate this year; some economists see a second-straight quarterly contraction
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation- … 1656531317
Reuter --- U.S. consumer spending, underlying inflation slow in May
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ … ing-rises-
moderately-inflation-pushes-higher-2022-06-30/
US Consumer Spending Cools in Sign of Economy on Weaker Footing
May inflation-adjusted outlays drops 0.4% on goods decline
On annual basis, core inflation was lowest since November
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … inflation-
adjusted-spending-declines-for-first-time-this-year#xj4y7vzkg
Consumer spending growth slows in May, as higher prices weigh on the economy's good news is that we still have savings, but the bad news is that inflation is burning a hole in consumers’ pockets,’ one economist said
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business … g-economy/
It is being reported people are starting to live on credit cards...
Credit card debt is at record highs
Consumer credit card debt and annual percentage rates are heading to an all-time high
PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 10 2022
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/10/consume … -high.html
June 9 2022
Credit Card Debt on the Rise as Americans Continue Spending Despite Rising Inflation
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-wort … inflation/
Credit Card Balances Spike, Surpassing Pre-Pandemic Peak
Credit card debt reaches a new record high, following a pandemic-era decline https://www.investopedia.com/credit-car … ak-5341375
You don't seem to stay well updated on the failing economy. I do.
The second quarter is going to be worse than the first quarter, so start thinking of excuses.
You need to do a bit of research that is current."much of the time they don't hit the mark." - You do realize that none of those you list hit the mark very often either. So why are you treating me different that yourself?? It is ok for you but not me? Very conservative of you.
As to the rest, as I said before, that is to be expected as the Fed fights inflation which you, based on your criticisms, apparently disagree with them doing.
Why do you make stupid and untrue statements as "You need to do a bit of research that is current." since you are WELL AWARE my data is as current as yours and often from the same source. Rediculous.The dates on your article are not current, and in regards to inflation/economy, it rapidly changes monthly.
I don't find you keep current, just my opinion. Your research is mainly from CNN, and I don't consider them relevant to address economy issues.Your data is not as current, or easy enough to prove, check the dates on your links. The economy is rapidly changing, one needs to realize that fact, and research current information.
Boy, when you find a phrase (untrue as it may be) you certainly stick with it.
The anticipation of a recession is having the DESIRED effect, a curb on inflation. Futures markets are tumbling which should mean lower prices at the store and pump in the near future.
Cotton is not alone in its precipitous fall. All commodities have dropped in price, as investors anticipate lower demand in the near future as they brace for a possible recession. Crude oil, metals, and other crops have also taken a nasty beating in recent weeks.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/07/investin … index.htmlMost of Sharlee's rage against Biden is pure bunk - but not all of it. The Afghanistan debacle is the one really terrible thing Biden did. Believe it or not, the draconian strangulation of Roe v. Wade apparently prevented another.
Apparently, in a deal with McConnell for something, Biden was about to nominate an anti-women judge from Kentucky to the US District Court of Eastern Kentucky. But the Roe decision saved Biden a big embarrassment and America another blow to liberty, put that decision on hold. Now that it has come to light, it is probably dead.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics … index.htmlIn my opinion, presidents get too much credit when the economy does well and too much blame when it slumps. The boom-and-bust cycles that are inherent in capitalist economies depend on forces that are largely independent of any president’s actions.
During normal times when mild fluctuations ripple around the economy, the task of keeping things on a stable growth path depends mainly on the actions of the Federal Reserve. During normal times, monetary policy is thought to be powerful enough to offset fluctuations in the economy on its own. Presidents don't control monetary policy or interest rates. That's the realm of the Fed.
But during a severe crisis, the president can have an impact on fiscal policy, an essential component of the response to deep recessions. But as the Recession of 2007 showed, during a deep downturn monetary policy alone isn’t enough to turn the economy around. Help from fiscal policy is needed.
The president alone can’t determine fiscal policy. That requires the cooperation of Congress.
We seem to be in a new era that the President and Congress are consistently at odds. Therefore, very little is likely to get done at all.
The truth is that the president's ability to impact the economy and markets is generally indirect and marginal.
It's Congress that sets tax rates, passes spending bills, and writes laws regulating the economy.
So what's Congress up to? Anything?
"Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. Even in areas where the president really does have power to shape the economy — appointing Federal Reserve governors, steering fiscal and regulatory policy, responding to crises and external shocks — the relationship between presidential action and economic outcome is often uncertain and hard to prove."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/upsh … think.html
This is a very interesting read on the timing of a presidency in terms of where we are in the economic cycle.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publica … c-managersFaye: I couldn't read the NYT piece because I don't have the subscription. However, I did read the other link and I found it very interesting about the timing of presidents and when they enter the business cycle.
So there could still be hope that Biden can be in a positive upswing to the cycle while still in office. If Trump runs again and wins, he would more than likely inherit that upswing in the business cycle and claim it as a success for his administration.
Thanks for the article. I knew about the fact that each president inherits the national debt of the previous president. That would be another thing Trump would inherit from Biden as well.President Biden is the third consecutive Democratic president to take office during/impending or in the immediate aftermath of a recession. And like the previous two, he will likely ride the natural business cycle back up and receive credit for the recovery.
"What's more, presidents do not control the business cycle, even if the business cycle plays a part in the outcomes of presidential elections. Since 1990, their economic records have instead been dominated by four events: the 1990-1991 recession, the late-1990s bubble bursting, the 2007-2008 housing crash, and the 2020 pandemic. None of these events was fundamentally a function of presidential policy, yet all four occurred at times that fed the perception that Democrats bring better economic news than Republicans. With the pandemic economy sure to recede, President Biden is set to become the next beneficiary of this accident of timing"Faye: I hope you are right, because Trump is going to do everything in his power to get elected. Once he becomes president, he becomes immune from all the Jan.6 fiasco he created and is able to pardon all his guilty cohorts in crime.
"If Trump runs again and wins, he would more than likely inherit that upswing i" - Like he did in 2016.
Faye,
Have you read my series (or my book) on Recessions, Depressions, and Panics?
What it clearly shows that in periods when conservative economic theory is in play, the economy is very volatile and very prone to recessions of one type or another. When "liberal", (i.e. marco) economic theory is dominant, the economy settles down and what recessions may happen are almost always mild.
"the third consecutive Democratic president to take office during/impending or in the immediate aftermath of a recession" Shouldn't folks who vote GOP be asking themselves why? Maybe you should stop voting GOP so recessions don't happen. What amazes me is how America will expect a Dem president to fix everything in two years or they give congress back to the GOP. Their messes can't be fixed that fast! Connect the dots America.
Funny, ultimately Biden more or less opened up a "quasi" pipeline to not only Russia, but with his latest big blunder he opened a form of a pipeline for American oil to end up in China. I mean Joe said he was opening up our reservice to help make gas prices go down... He certainly did not say or indicate anything about selling our oil to other countries, and ultimately China. And gosh, it sure took journalists a long time to put two and two together.
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President ---- Better yet, has President Joe Biden done anything positive, at all?
Joe's latest BS is much being ignored by leftwing media... Hopefully, American's become aware of what Biden is doing, while we all continue to talk about what we are spoon-fed.
GOP hammers Biden for allowing emergency oil reserves to go to China: 'compromising our energy security
The top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee says Americans deserve answers' on China receiving oil from U.S. stockpiles
Several GOP lawmakers sharply criticized President Joe Biden on Thursday following reports of emergency U.S. oil being sent to China and other nations.
More than five million barrels of oil released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) have been diverted to European and Asian nations instead of U.S. refiners, Reuters reported Wednesday, citing customs data. Biden has ordered the Department of Energy to release a total of about 260 million barrels of oil stored in the SPR over the last eight months to combat record fuel prices hitting American consumers.
"The American people deserve answers as to why our emergency energy reserves are being sent to foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party, compromising our energy security and national security," House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"President Biden needs to remember that our strategic energy reserves are for emergencies, not to cover up bad policies. America needs to flip the switch and increase our capacity to produce and refine oil here at home," she continued. "Now is not the time to use our strategic stockpile."
McMorris Rodgers and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the top Republican on the panel's energy subcommittee, penned a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in early June, demanding information about how the administration's SPR policy was emboldening China. The two GOP leaders noted similar reports that China had purchased oil from U.S. emergency reserves to bolster its own stockpile.
McMorris Rodgers told Fox News that the committee has still not received a response from Granholm on the administration's "mismanagement" of U.S. oil stockpiles. "What do they have to hide?" she added.
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant for national emergencies – not policy blunders," Upton tweeted Thursday. "The administration still has not answered congressional questions on its mismanagement of the SPR."
Meanwhile, the SPR's level has fallen to about 492 million barrels of oil, the lowest level since December 1985, according to the Energy Information Administration. The current level is also 20% lower than its level recorded days prior to Biden's first release in late November.
The SPR was established by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act to help the U.S. mitigate the impacts of future "severe energy supply interruptions."
"After multiple failed attempts to lower U.S. gas prices by robbing our emergency strategic petroleum reserve, will someone please inform the decision-makers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that we have much larger and more strategic undeveloped energy resources that can be extracted, processed, and utilized cleaner and safer right here at home benefiting American workers and businesses?" House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., told Fox News Digital. --- read more
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/go … y-security
Funny, ultimately this fool more or less opened up a "quasi" pipeline to not only Russia, but with his latest big blunder he opened a pipeline of American oil to China.
I must ask, what next?Sharlee: Here is the real reason we sell crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) to other countries. This is from the Market Watch Link article listed below:
“Exports are profitable and they allow some refiners to send products that don’t meet U.S. specifications overseas where the formulae are less stringent,” Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, told MarketWatch. OPIS is a unit of Dow Jones & Co., publisher of MarketWatch.
“The refiners also export ‘other oils’…that have no home in the U.S.,” he said. “Their argument is that this allows them to run at 95% of capacity or more. If the exports were restricted, they would have to run lower.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-t … 1657217775I am well aware of why the US sells oil. We do not but on a rare occasion tap into our reserves.
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was originally created for emergencies—to be used in the face of severe disruptions to the global oil supply. To date, the U.S. has only ordered three emergency releases from the reserve. In 1991, when war broke out in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. released 17.2 million barrels of oil. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated oil production along the Gulf Coast, 20.8 million barrels were released. And in 2011, the U.S. and IEA jointly released 60 million barrels of oil when the civil war in Libya disrupted oil supplies.
But global emergencies are not the only time the U.S. taps into its oil reserves. The U.S. also periodically conducts sales to private companies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to test its readiness or raise revenue. And the country can also use the reserve to help private companies recover from smaller-scale disasters, such as extreme weather or shipping channel closures." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi … um-reserve
Biden has awarded contracts on round one of historic oil sales from the strategic reserve.
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Energy said on Thursday it has awarded contracts for 30 million barrels of crude oil in the initial round of the largest sale ever from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in response to price hikes caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-04-21/
The US Is Depleting Its Strategic Petroleum Reserve Faster Than It Looks
The composition of the US crude cache will be the next key development for energy markets.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … #xj4y7vzkg
Biden has left our oil reserves dangerously low. In my view this is all about his push for green energy, He is ripping down the country, and is leaving us very vulnerable. He is out and out dangerous. It is also clear many don't realize how dangerous he is. There are journalists responsible enough to warn us, but not many look for reputable media outlets.
This administration lies right to our faces... So dangerous. He is trying to tear America apart as quickly as he can with reckless dangerous decisions to push far-left ideologies.
88% Of Americans Say U.S. Is On the Wrong Track... Thank God, I am not alone in my view https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnad … 523621287aI guess it is too soon for the Fact Checkers to debunk this latest Trump Republican BS.
It is clear the Trump Republicans DO NOT WANT our oil refineries to run at 95% capacity. That is cool, they don't know what they are talking about anyway. But Biden keeps trying to help America and Americans while the Trump Republicans continue their campaign to tear us down.Helping America by selling our oil reserves? And asking our oil companies to pump more, makes zero sense.
Do you really believe that BS? That is a shame if you do.
I am well aware of why the US sells oil. We do not but on a rare occasion tap into our reserves.
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was originally created for emergencies—to be used in the face of severe disruptions to the global oil supply. To date, the U.S. has only ordered three emergency releases from the reserve. In 1991, when war broke out in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. released 17.2 million barrels of oil. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated oil production along the Gulf Coast, 20.8 million barrels were released. And in 2011, the U.S. and IEA jointly released 60 million barrels of oil when the civil war in Libya disrupted oil supplies.
But global emergencies are not the only time the U.S. taps into its oil reserves. The U.S. also periodically conducts sales to private companies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to test its readiness or raise revenue. And the country can also use the reserve to help private companies recover from smaller-scale disasters, such as extreme weather or shipping channel closures." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi … um-reserve
Biden has awarded contracts on round one of historic oil sales from the strategic reserve.
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Energy said on Thursday it has awarded contracts for 30 million barrels of crude oil in the initial round of the largest sale ever from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in response to price hikes caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-04-21/
The US Is Depleting Its Strategic Petroleum Reserve Faster Than It Looks
The composition of the US crude cache will be the next key development for energy markets.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … #xj4y7vzkg
Biden has left our oil reserves dangerously low. In my view this is all about his push for green energy, He is ripping down the country, and is leaving us very vulnerable. He is out and out dangerous. It is also clear many don't realize how dangerous he is. There are journalists responsible enough to warn us, but not many look for reputable media outlets.
This administration lies right to our faces... So dangerous. He is trying to tear America apart as quickly as he can with reckless dangerous decisions to push far-left ideologies.
88% Of Americans Say U.S. Is On the Wrong Track... Thank God, I am not alone in my view https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnad … 523621287aYes, I believe every report I have offered in regard to Biden emptying our oil reserves and much of it ending up in China ....
And here once again are the sources that also believe it.
I am well aware of why the US sells oil. We do not but on a rare occasion tap into our reserves.
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was originally created for emergencies—to be used in the face of severe disruptions to the global oil supply. To date, the U.S. has only ordered three emergency releases from the reserve. In 1991, when war broke out in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. released 17.2 million barrels of oil. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated oil production along the Gulf Coast, 20.8 million barrels were released. And in 2011, the U.S. and IEA jointly released 60 million barrels of oil when the civil war in Libya disrupted oil supplies.
But global emergencies are not the only time the U.S. taps into its oil reserves. The U.S. also periodically conducts sales to private companies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to test its readiness or raise revenue. And the country can also use the reserve to help private companies recover from smaller-scale disasters, such as extreme weather or shipping channel closures." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi … um-reserve
Biden has awarded contracts on round one of historic oil sales from the strategic reserve.
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Energy said on Thursday it has awarded contracts for 30 million barrels of crude oil in the initial round of the largest sale ever from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in response to price hikes caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-04-21/
The US Is Depleting Its Strategic Petroleum Reserve Faster Than It Looks
The composition of the US crude cache will be the next key development for energy markets.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … #xj4y7vzkg
Biden has left our oil reserves dangerously low. In my view this is all about his push for green energy, He is ripping down the country, and is leaving us very vulnerable. He is out and out dangerous. It is also clear many don't realize how dangerous he is. There are journalists responsible enough to warn us, but not many look for reputable media outlets.
This administration lies right to our faces... So dangerous. He is trying to tear America apart as quickly as he can with reckless dangerous decisions to push far-left ideologies.
88% Of Americans Say U.S. Is On the Wrong Track... Thank God, I am not alone in my view https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnad … 523621287a
You deflect, my comment is in regard to Biden selling oil from the reserve and then heading to beg oil from King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,” and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, you know the prince that has alleged was responsible for the 2018 Istanbul murder of Saudi-American dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
How in the hell can you in your wildest dream think that the Republicans would not want to keep Trump's energy policies?
He is selling our reserves much of what is going to China. I don't think we have ever, I mean ever had a more dangerous president and a more unintelligent one.
Very odd you would blame Republicans for the horrible mess this country is in. But, liberals are well known for having that characteristic. Comical"You deflect, my comment is in ..." - No, you ignore the obvious. What the Right-wing media is feeding you is total BS. I am very surprised you fall for it time and again.
Your oil conspiracy is as stupid as there attack on being educated (which is what Woke means) or denying educating our kids about about real American history, the good, bad, and ugly. Republicans want to do what Russian does and change or hide history to there own political ends, e.g. critical race theory, a legal construct. This all an effort to divide America.
"
He is selling our reserves much of what is going to China. " - [i]Why do you insist on passing along the Republican propaganda lies?"He is selling our reserves much of what is going to China. " - [i]Why do you insist on passing along the Republican propaganda lies?"
This very statement is illogical, in light of the wide media coverage of this report about how Biden has depleted our oil reserves and has been exporting it to sell on the open market, and it is being reported China is buying our oil to top off their own reserves.
First of all, I do not speak propaganda. I have offered several links to reputable media outlets that are reporting this story. Second of all, it is not propaganda --- The report of Biden depleting our oil reserves, and that China is benefiting from buying our reserve oil is not propaganda, but a fact. You need to watch your accuzations. You appear foolish in light of the widespread reporting on this story.
Not sure how you could deny all the media reports of Biden's blunder in regard to depleting our Emergency oil reserves, However, most media outlets have truely been providing reports on this dangerous problem. Once again here are just a few -----
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … #xj4y7vzkg
https://nhjournal.com/nh-dems-silent-as … -china-eu/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … #xj4y7vzkg
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-u-se … 00418.html
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/go … y-security
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-07-05/
https://freebeacon.com/national-securit … gas-giant/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … il-to-eur/
I would think by Monday, the media will be slamming Biden for this dangerous policy.
I am certainly shocked that you can just come out and deny this is happening. Is that part of your new "wokeness", ignoring what is in front of you?Yes, President Biden is sending out million barrels from the United States' Strategic Oil Reserve to help bring down gas prices. It's one of the only strategies available to him.
But we must raise the question of whether energy companies are deliberately sitting on their hands to keep prices and profits high.
What about American oil producers increasing output?? Exxon has tripled its purchases of its own stock from investors, a financial tactic used to reduce the number of shares they have outstanding and boost their earnings per share. The company announced it will spend up to thirty billion dollars on buybacks between now and the end of 2024. Chevron said that it will devote ten billion dollars this year to buybacks, double its previous target.
"A major factor holding back U.S crude production, according to industry analysts, is the attitude of the smaller energy firms, which contribute to a sizable portion of total output. “We are not adding any growth capital due to higher prices: we are staying disciplined,” Lee Tillman, the chief executive of Marathon, told Wall Street analysts last week. Scott Sheffield, the C.E.O. of Pioneer, has been even more explicit. “Whether it’s a hundred-and-fifty-dollar oil, two-hundred-dollar oil, or a hundred-dollar oil, we’re not going to change our growth plans,”
What do we do when will companies will not pump? When they choose profit over adding substantial production capacity?
The biggest reason oil production isn’t increasing is that American energy/oil companies and Wall Street investors are not sure that prices will stay high long enough for them to make a profit from drilling lots of new wells.
"Executives at 141 oil companies surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in mid-March offered several reasons why they weren’t pumping more oil. They said they were short of workers and sand, which is used to fracture shale fields to coax oil out of rock. But the most salient reason—the one offered by 60% of respondents—was that investors don’t want companies to produce a lot more oil, fearing that it will hasten the end of high oil prices."
https://www.1012industryreport.com/supp … roduction/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu … eering/amp"Yes, President Biden is sending out million barrels from the United States' Strategic Oil Reserve to help bring down gas prices. It's one of the only strategies available to him."
This is not a viable solution, it was and is a dangerous perhaps at best bandaid, that has not worked. He has been selling our reservice for many months, and now we are at a dangerous low.
This clearly once again was a poor decision that has backfired. And provided cheap oil to China to fill their reserves.
"But we must raise the question of whether energy companies are deliberately sitting on their hands to keep prices and profits high."
No question, it is very clear they are... as is OPEC. And why would they not? They have investors that are not willing to gamble on the president which is all for green energy and putting them out of business. They are not investing in anything new, and just pumping what they did during the COVID crisis. Which is not sufficient to support the US back up and running. They are hanging Biden out there to be ridiculed and pushed out of office due to low approval from Americans.
Maybe he should not have tweaked their noses the moment he came into office --- just a very poor logic on his part, and in the end, will cost him and the Dems dearly.
"What about American oil producers increasing output?? Exxon has tripled the purchases of its own stock from investors, a financial tactic used to reduce the number of shares they have outstanding and boost their earnings per share. The company announced it will spend up to thirty billion dollars on buybacks between now and the end of 2024. Chevron said that it will devote ten billion dollars this year to buybacks, double its previous target.
And why would the oil companies not be loyal to investors, and buy back their shares? They are businesses, they are not in business for anyone but their investors. You may want to realize that. As any business, they do what they feel is best for the company, and the best policies to make money. This is capitalism, is it not? This is why we are ONE of the richest Nations. I have always invested in oil, and expect to keep doing so. In fact, Exxon is one of the few stocks likely to deliver solid returns for the next decade or even more. With a market value of $367 billion Evvon towers over every other energy producer, both globally and in the U.S.the company is on its way to hauling in $222 billion in revenues this year.
"What do we do when will companies will not pump? When they choose profit over adding substantial production capacity?"
Well at this point we can't depend on our reserves due to Biden selling them and decreasing them to a historic low. It would also seem he has put us in a very precarious position of paying a premium if we should want to restore them. He has caused a very big problem, and never, I mean never should have messed with our oil companies and ultimately OPEC.
I don't care what reasons the oil companies give, it all leads back to Biden's green push, and his coming in slamming them with regulations, and then having the audacity to demand they pump more. The bottom line, we need a new president, one willing to work with the oil companies.
This entire mess could have been avoided if we had a president that was intelligent enough to understand the problems of pushing the oil industry into a corner. They are not in any respect going to have Biden threatening their very existence.
They don't play games, they perfectly know they hold all the cards.Sharlee: You say Biden has made the oil reserve dangerously low, but you fail to give any metrics. This is from my post previous post that you did not comment on.
Sharlee: The SPR has a capacity of 700 million barrels. This is from Wikipedia, not media hype that Biden is emptying the SPR. Do the math.
On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.
According to legislation already in place, the amount of oil in the reserve could fall to as little as 238 million barrels by 2028.[11] This will be a 67% reduction to the oil in the reservoir since 2010.I added current metrics to my last comment to you, you may have missed it. I also offered my source. It is very obvious you feel this is not a problem. Just as ECO claims it did not even happen to call it propaganda.
I think it is clear I feel this was a reckless, dangerous move on Biden's part to deplete our oil reserves. You feel it is no big deal, and ECo well he just denies it happened.
I guess it all comes down to mindset.Sharlee. It is your use of the words "deplete and dangerously" I guess you do not believe this.
According to legislation already in place, the amount of oil in the reserve could fall to as little as 238 million barrels by 2028.[11] This will be a 67% reduction to the oil in the reservoir since 2010.
To me, this is not a depletion or dangerously low capacity. More than likely additional oil will be added to the reserve to bring it back to capacity. as they have done through the years.
This is from the Department of Energy and outlines Biden's plan, but also the exchange program with major oil companies.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-ann … -strategicI don't think you understand the problem. The article you posted does show who was given contracts to buy our reserves. Every company on that list export oil out, and ultimately much of the oil ends up in China.
Citing customs data, Reuters traced that the fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66 shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe. Meanwhile, Atlantic Trading & Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies, exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each. Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance refinery in India, an industry source said.
What is most notable is that a third cargo headed to US arch-enemy, China, which is now directly benefiting at the expense of US consumers as a result of Biden's escalating panic to undo the consequences of his catastrophic green policies by selling the most valuable US assets directly to Beijing!
But what is even scarier is the following exchange, in which the White House simply had no response when asked if the US is selling its emergency reserve oil to China.
This is a quote from the article you offered please note the name of the companies, and compare them to the article I offered in this comment.
"Combined with 3.3 million barrels of SPR crude oil scheduled for delivery this month from emergency exchanges authorized earlier this year, a total of 17 companies responded to the notice, submitting 124 bids for evaluation. Contracts were awarded to the following nine companies:
Atlantic Trading & Marketing, Inc. (1.85 million barrels)
Chevron USA (0.90 million barrels)
Equinor Marketing & Trading (2.05 million barrels)
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (5.15 million barrels)
Marathon Petroleum Supply and Trading LLC (8.51 million barrels)
Motiva Enterprises LLC (4.20 million barrels)
Phillips 66 Company (1.30 million barrels)
Shell Trading (US) Company (0.700 million barrels)
Valero Marketing and Supply Company (11.65 million barrels)"
Every one of these companies exports our oil, and has contracts to buy oil from our reserves. to export, and sell on the open market.
My point we have never outwardly sold so much of our reserves.
No this is not a normal procedure. An I said I feel we will be seeing a lot about this selling of our service in the next weeks.
China, which is now directly benefiting at the expense of the American consumers as a result of Biden's escalating panic to undo the consequences of his catastrophic green policies by selling the most valuable US assets directly to Beijing !
This latest blunder could be one of his worst. No president has ever done this to this exstent."and ultimately much of the oil ends up in China." - You have never offered any proof other than an assumption by the Right
You listed details about where much of the oil is going in some detail, that is good and useful. BUT THEN you declare -
What is most notable is that a third cargo headed to US arch-enemy, China, and left it at that. No quote, no numbers, nothing. Frankly, I don't believe you.
"My point we have never outwardly sold so much of our reserves." - AND my point is that we have never had a reason to do so. Now We Do.
"China, which is now directly benefiting at the expense of the American consumers as a result of Biden's escalating panic to undo the consequences of his catastrophic green policies by selling the most valuable US assets directly to Beijing !" - You sure you don't work for Tucker Carlson and his friends in the Russian KBG? That is pure propaganda without an ounce of truth to it - YET you write it. Why?The information was from an article PP posted. I was responding to him.
And frankly, I don't care if you believe me. I have offered numerous links to add sources to where I got my information and view. You as always jump in without following a conversation. You become confused about what is being discussed, and go off with ridiculous analogies.
You need to try to follow a full conversation and read the sources. Many of your comments don't pertain to the conversation. You lash out with simple insults, which make it hard to respect your view."And frankly, I don't care if you believe me. I have offered numerous links to add sources to where I got my information and view. " - I know and no you don't. You deflected from my implied question about your source for "What is most notable is that a third cargo headed to US arch-enemy, China,". You just hung that false claim out there. You provided no quote, like you did with the other examples. You provided no numbers, like you did with the other examples. You provided NOTHING to back up a ridiculous statement.
This quote was from an article I offered --- It is the writer's thoughts. I by no means intend to add my stats again, I suggest you back up and read the conversation I was having with PP. I offered states as well as links to back up every stat. In this particular conversation, I did not add a stat without a reputable source.
What is ridiculous is your conduct. You do realize others that have perhaps followed this conversation can see each and every word I said, along with quotes and links to my quotes.
I would think PP could even chime in and inform you that I have provided many links to back up where I gleaned my views.
I did not see your request to see the source of that quote. As I said PP knew what I was referring to, and the link to that quote was offered in a previous comment to HIM. You do not follow complete conversations.
Once again here is the link https://news.yahoo.com/why-u-sending-em … 00418.html
"Citing customs data, Reuters traced that the fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66 shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe. Meanwhile, Atlantic Trading & Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies, exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each. Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance refinery in India, an industry source said.
What is most notable is that a THIRD CARGO headed to US arch-enemy, China, which is now directly benefiting at the expense of US consumers as a result of Biden's escalating panic to undo the consequences of his catastrophic green policies by selling the most valuable US assets directly to Beijing!
But what is even scarier is the following exchange, in which the White House simply had no response when asked if the US is selling its emergency reserve oil to China."
I suggest you not jump into a conversation without making yourself aware of the full conversation, You are getting bits and pieces between what is being discussed, and it is more than apparent you don't grasp what PP and I were discussing.You presented an article that made three claims. 1) oil went to Italy, with supporting detail, 2) oil went to the Netherlands with supporting detail, (both from Reuters), and 3) an unsupported hyperbolic claim that some oil is going to China that WAS NOT from Reuters (or at least that I can find), but the implication from the article is that it was - a form of a lie.
You used this article as your voice, so you own it, unsupported hyperbole and all.Once again it appears you don't follow a conversation. Here is a permalink to a comment I directed at you with many links in regards to our reserve oil going to China. This is all over the news, not sure of what your problem is. Here are just a couple of what you will find at the permalink with my comment addressed to you.
Headline --- NH Dems Silent as Biden Admin Ships Oil From U.S. Emergency Reserves to China, EU
Posted to Energy July 06,
https://nhjournal.com/nh-dems-silent-as … -china-eu/
Bloomberg --- Much of Biden’s Oil Release Will Likely End Up in China, India
Supplies will consist of sour crude U.S. refiners are shunning
Asian countries have been active buyers of U.S. sour crude
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … #xj4y7vzkg
Yahoo -- Why Is The U.S. Sending Its Emergency Oil Reserves To China
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-u-se … 00418.html
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4253221
You don't read, you lash out, for reasons unknown. You may not like others' views, but not cool to insult them. In fact, it shows a lack of social skills.
"You used this article as your voice, so you own it, unsupported hyperbole and all.
I use articles as sources to form views. It is helpful to read facts.s and well-dedicated views before forming an opinion. I don't ascribe to groupthink, I form my views by reading, and recovering others' logical views, as well as facts.
I form my own voice using information. I don't let emotions or drama sway my view. In my view you do use emotion, to guide your views, facts are ignored if they get in the way.
But misusing the words "deplete" and "dangerous" gets into the realm of disinformation (since it is neither being depleted nor is it dangerous).
I certainly have added several factual articles that provide factual stats on what our oil reserves are at this point, showing that they are depleted, in fact, we have not witnessed this low since 1984. So how dare you claim my use of the word depleted is misinformation. Your conduct is uncalled for. Keep your snide remarks to yourself. You are well known here to post misinformation, as well as very hyperbolic statements. And, in my opinion, selling off our emergency oil reserves is very dangerous.
Do you ever read sources? Our reserves have been depleted. Where have you been this is being repeated by almost every media outlet. Not CNN, but pretty much all the very well-respected outlets.
Bloomberg ---- The US Is Depleting Its Strategic Petroleum Reserve Faster Than It Looks
The composition of the US crude cache will be the next key development for energy markets.
Maybe read these links, and see what is factually a problem.
April 2022 --- Under Biden, U.S. oil reserves to drop by 40 percent
The sale of 180 million barrels of oil is one of many that will reduce reserves to levels not recorded since 1984.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/b … -rcna22855
JULY 2022 --- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-07-05/
U.S. emergency oil reserve draws by 6.9 mln barrels to the lowest since 198
If you have a problem with my posts and feel they contain misinformation, report the post. I will be doing the same in regard to your posts.SInce I do my best to post facts and I don't repeat propaganda and assuming HP is honest, I am not worried - so have at it.
Let's give some recent examples of what HP may find interesting.
"JULY 2022 --- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-07-05/
U.S. emergency oil reserve draws by 6.9 mln barrels to the lowest since 198" - You misleadingly present this as a "sky is falling" piece of information. But YOU KNOW that isn't all of the story. Mike presented you the other piece, that Congress planned for the reserves to fall, by a lot. The use of your "source" is what is called misleading information.
OR
"April 2022 --- Under Biden, U.S. oil reserves to drop by 40 percent
The sale of 180 million barrels of oil is one of many that will reduce reserves to levels not recorded since 1984.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/b … -rcna22855" - ANOTHER Sky is Falling claim. Again you ignore what Mike provided you From it, you know that Congress also allows for this as well. Consequently, this qualifies as maliciously misleading information as well.
Further, your "source" simply reported a fact and you tried to turn it into Armageddon. But it is still misinformation.
What turns all of this into Disinformation is your chicken little use of "deplete" in conjunction with "dangerous". It is neither, which makes their use a lie and therefor disinformation.I fully realize you take offense at any information that does not suit your agenda. Take it up with Bloomberg, Reuters, NBC, and any one of the reputable sources I posted to share that they actually share my view.
Guess you might want to report this information to HP. I supported my views with reputable sources.
The truth is you very rarely support anything you say, and become overly argumentive when one does not agree with you. I am not the only one that has shared this sentiment with you.
I will step away as I can see this conversation has become personal. Mike can speak for himself, and he actually is very well versed in social skills, and I respect how he conducts himself.
PP -- You offered a historical account of why we at times sell oil reservice. And offer good links to substantiate his thoughts. It is clear you chose to look at the current situation by looking backward. I choose to look at the here and now, our current problems with oil, and our current long-time threats China poses. And bring up the fact that Biden is ultimately providing China an opportunity to buy our oil and enrich their nation, at our expense. It is also a fact that our reserves are at a historic low.
I did not disagree with the facts you have offered in regard to our oil reserves, and what we have done in the past. I am sharing what is happening currently. Your logic and information are sound and proved your point. But you deflected off subject from your first comment.
My concern was clearly from my first post on this subject --- why are we selling oil to China at such a precarious time? And why has Biden depleted our reserves to such a low level?
It is obvious you feel differently in regard to Biden selling our oil reserves, you are applying what was done prior. However, none of the prior situations where we tapped our reserves compare to Biden's reasoning.
I feel Biden has depleted our reserves to a very low point, at a time we may truely need them here in America. . The reserves are to be used for emergencies. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a vital national security asset that must be maintained in case of serious future supply disruptions. Biden is gambling with our security, in my view.Sharlee:
You have listed Telesur as one of your sources. I think Venezuela does business with Putin.
Telesur (officially stylized as teleSUR) is a Latin American terrestrial and satellite television network headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela and sponsored primarily by the government of Venezuela,[1] with additional funding from the governments of Cuba and Nicaragua.[2] It was launched in 2005, under the government of Hugo Chávez, with the aim of being "a Latin socialist answer to CNN".[1]
Your link about about NH Journal:
https://nhjournal.com/nh-dems-silent-as … -china-eu/
Michael Graham is a right wing media host. who runs the NH Journal.
Your other links about us selling oil to other countries;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … #xj4y7vzkg
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-u-se … 00418.html
There are two types of crude oil stored in the SPR: Sweet Crude and Sour Crude. Our refineries don't like sour crude, therefore we sell it o other countries where it is refined by their facilities. This includes China and India and all the other countries you have listed. This is last years article, but the reasons are still current.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … %20prices.
I know you are not going to like this, but this is straight from the White House.
Historic Release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a Bridge Through the Crisis
"After consultation with allies and partners, the President will announce the largest release of oil reserves in history, putting one million additional barrels on the market per day on average – every day – for the next six months. The scale of this release is unprecedented: the world has never had a release of oil reserves at this 1 million per day rate for this length of time. This record release will provide a historic amount of supply to serve as bridge until the end of the year when domestic production ramps up.
The Department of Energy will use the revenue from the release to restock the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in future years. This will provide a signal of future demand and help encourage domestic production today, and will ensure the continued readiness of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to future emergencies.
President Biden is coordinating this action with allies and partners around the world, and other countries are expected to join in this action, bringing the total release to well over an average 1 million barrels per day."I can respect you may find my sources ones you may not appreciate. We all have media outlets we prefer. I skip around, and when doing research look at several outlets. If I see a real continuity in a report, I am more apt to believe the information.
I am aware of what types of crude we keep in reserves, just due to reading articles that offered that info. As I am aware we have sold our oil all over the world for decades, including sales to China, as well as many other countries. Not sure if you are not confusing the subject. My concern is the amount currently being drained from SPR. And has this record depletion put the country at risk of not being able to provide for any given emergency in America?
I think your research on the agency is commendable. However, we have our lines crossed.
It much appears Biden is going to will deplete the reservice to the lowest it has ever been in our history. And has made a weak promise to replenish the stock in the future. This in my opinion is an unprecedented gamble.
Yes, it would seem many countries would be pleased with the US emptying the reserve, and filling their reserves, as Russia and China are doing presently, with the current dumping of our oil into the marketplace.
IT does not seem you have considered we are having a true problem with our oil companies refusing to explore more fields, or build refineries. So, common sense should tell you we at no other time in our history need to maintain our reserves.
But, It's obvious you are not seeing the entire picture that I am. Where will he get oil if the US needs oil? He certainly has not been able to get it from our oil companies or OPEC... So where?
This is a poor gamble and I predict he will cause a greater problem from his carlessness.
The US is filling China's reserves. Guess that could put them in a good position to wage, and pay for a war.
"This will provide a signal of future demand and help encourage domestic production"
Really? The contracts to purchase reserve oil were given to US companies, all of which sell to China. These companies will not pump, until the threat of the green agenda is gone in my view. They and their investors will have a huge profit from this Federal deal to sell our reserves.
I would think their stocks will go up mightily, which will make their investors happy, and they will keep buying back shares.
Not sure if other countries have released any oil from their reserves, I do know that back in the spring Germany did release a very small amount, as did the UK. I think Biden will be holding the bag on this one. Have you read about any other country doing so?"It much appears Biden is going to will deplete the reservice to the lowest it has ever been in our history. " - So what, if it still more than we need?
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/10836978 … russia-war
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/10908141 … prices-spr
For the rest of it, I can't join the "sky-is-falling" (when it isn't) crowd.
(BTW, I didn't realize you were so dumb, Mike, lol)Scott:
I think I just found the Rosetta Stone for the source of the concern about depleting the SPR. It's from the GOP House to The Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. It's in .pdf format. It's all the right wing talking points the media has been reporting about the "depletion of the SPR."
https://republicans-energycommerce.hous … Letter.pdfThis Chicken-Little "Sky-is-Falling" scare tactic is emblematic of the lack of logic employed by those against Biden - "The SPR was once the largest government owned stockpile of oil in the world; however, at the current rate of releases, it could be nearly depleted within the decade. .
They were very careful to state something that was true in order to deceive the reader (a favorite tactic used on this forum). Why does it deceive? Because it doesn't give the full story. And that story, of course, is that Biden's drawdown isn't going to last a decade! It is going to last 180 days.
By omitting that part, doesn't that make the claim a lie?Yes it does. It is a half truth, if nothing else. I think this is how all this BS got started, especially with Fox News. I have no respect for the GOP congress.
Here is the weasel wording:
At the current pace, the SPR inventory will decline from its peak capacity of 727 million barrels to approximately 130 million barrels by 2031.
That's nine years from now at the current rate.
I wonder if Granholm replied to these idiots? I'm going to look around.
PP Quick question ( I was aware of the letter) did you find any of the concerns the Congressmen brought up in the letter concerning you?
No need to write a book just even a yes or no will do. We have pretty much covered the subject.
SharI know you don't want it, but my put is Nope. It is just a bunch of partisan sniping.
I would have asked, However, I did know what the answer would be. No guessing there. However, I was unsure if PeoplePower would not find one or two points he might agree with in that letter. He seems very open-minded to common sense.
The letter he posted was compelling and provided some very good information. The Congressmen make some good points and ask a few good questions.Sharlee: It's easier if I tell you what I don't like in the letter.
I don't like the term "rapidly depleting" It's not being rapidly depleted.
This is weasel wording: "At the current pace, the SPR inventory will decline from its peak capacity of 727 million barrels to approximately 130 million barrels by 2031" That means the drawdown has to continue at the same pace for the next nine years. I don't think that will happen.
"As you are aware, the Biden Administration recently announced the largest SPR drawdown in history, with plans to release up to 260 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR from October 2021 through October 2022."
The term up to 260 million barrels. Anything less than 260 barrels is still up to 260. If it was 100 barrels, it would still be up to 260. That's a technique that is used in window advertisements.. If you buy now you can save up to 50%. If you saved 5%, you are still saving up to 50%.
But these are the kinds of half truths that get picked up by the media and create misinformation to the public.
I would like to see Granholm's reply to these people. I tried to find her reply back to them, but to no avail. Maybe she never replied.What you described is classic mis- and disinformation techniques.
Have you noticed that everything Biden has done to help with inflation you oppose? That is telling about what you want to have happen,
Could you offer any policy or even an action that has helped with bringing down inflation? I can't think of one thing.
I will assume you feel his selling our oil reserves has helped or may help. We can agree to disagree on that point, I truely feel this has already backfired and will be a move he will regret. The media is just picking up on this, and I think they will play it up.
However, I am curious as to what policies or actions you feel Biden has done to help with inflation.
It is also obvious that nobody else, other than your side, thinks it is a problem either. There is a reason for that - because it isn't.
You are correct, the Dems have encouraged Biden to tap the reserves. It is the Republicans that feel it is a dangerous move to deplete our reserves. https://thehill.com/policy/transportati … -oil-from/
July 8, 2022 --- President Biden sold nearly 1 million barrels of oil from US Strategic Reserves to Chinese state-owned company that Hunter Biden invested in: Report
"The Department of Energy received 126 bids from 16 companies for the “price-competitive sale of 30 million barrels of SPR crude oil.” The Department of Energy awarded “price-competitive” oil to 12 companies – one of which was Unipec America, Inc.
Unipec is the trading division of China Petrochemical Corporation – which is also known as the Sinopec Corp. The Biden administration sold nearly 1 million barrels of “price-competitive” oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Sinopec – which is wholly owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
BHR Partners – a private equity firm Hunter Biden co-founded in 2013 – bought a $1.7 billion stake in Sinopec Marketing in 2015, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
The New York Post reported, “BHR is primarily owned by Chinese investors, including the state-controlled Bank of China.” BHR claimed to have managed the equivalent of $2.4 billion.
Chris Clark, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, told the New York Times in December that his client “no longer holds any interest, directly or indirectly, in either BHR or Skaneateles.” Skaneateles LLC is Biden’s personal company.
However, the Washington Examiner reported in March that Hunter was still listed as a part-owner of the firm.
“But business records from China’s National Credit Information Publicity System accessed Tuesday continue to identify Skaneateles as a 10% owner in BHR, and Washington, D.C., business records continue to list Biden as the only beneficial owner of Skaneateles,” the report stated.
The outlet noted, “It’s possible that China’s business registry hasn’t yet been updated to reflect a potential transfer or sale of Skaneateles’s 10% stake in BHR to another party.” https://politpost.com/2022/07/08/presid … in-report/
This certainly needs immediate clarification. Is Hunter still doing business with this company, and how much has he been paid in the past from this company, for what...
It does not surprise me that the sales of our oil reserves are being depleted. Can't imagine if we changed the name to Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Come on Mike, you are giving her indigestible facts, lol. Those are very annoying to high scoring RWA followers and they dig in their heels and respond with talking points given to them by others.
Here is more inflation news Biden-haters can falsely blame the president for - terrible inflation in Egypt, lol.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/business … index.htmlHere is a clear observation about other Nations compared to America. I realize Biden has stated this "
Biden said, "First of all, (a recession is) not inevitable. Secondly, we’re in a stronger position than any nation in the world to overcome this inflation. It’s bad. Isn’t it kind of interesting? If it’s my fault, why is it the case in every other major industrial country in the world that inflation is higher? You ask yourself that? I’m not being a wise guy."
He lied, or perhaps due to his cognitive disabilities, he was confused.
Do other advanced economies have higher inflation than the United States?
Data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, say Biden was not correct.
Looking at the most recent monthly inflation numbers, more than a dozen OECD members had a higher inflation rate than the United States’ 8.6%. These were predominantly Baltic and Eastern European nations, which have been hit especially hard by the consequences of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
But a larger number of OECD members had inflation rates lower than 8.6%, and these include all but one member of the G-7 group, which is limited to the world’s very largest democratic economies.
Among the G-7 nations, Germany’s most recent inflation rate was 7.9%, the United Kingdom’s was 7.8%, Italy’s and Canada’s were 6.8%, and France’s was 5.2%. (The final G-7 member, Japan, hasn’t released current inflation numbers.)"Do other advanced economies have higher inflation than the United States? " - You bet they do!
Change in annual inflation rate from 1st Q 2020 to 1st Q 2022 (before the perturbations caused by Russia's war)- from highest to lowest:
- Israel
- Greece
- Italy
- Spain
- Portugal
- Estonia
- Denmark
- Belgium
- Finland
- Ireland
- Lithuania
- Russia
- Latvia
- Sweden
- Netherlands
- Turkey
- Slovenia
- South Korea
AND THEN the United States.
Also, I don't expect you to understand why you have to take the war out of the picture but any professional analyst will tell you must to have a fair comparison. Therefore your point estimates of today's inflation rates don't mean much because they could change tomorrow.Again context ---
Biden's statement --- "First of all, (a recession is) not inevitable. Secondly, we’re in a stronger position than ANY nation in the world to overcome this inflation. It’s bad. Isn’t it kind of interesting? If it’s my fault, why is it the case in EVERY OTHER major industrial country in the world that inflation is higher? You ask yourself that?
I’m not being a wise guy."
Note words every other... Maybe Biden does not comprehend the meaning of every other. He either lied or was again confused, or just says anything that he feels like saying.1. A recession IS NOT inevitable. Highly likely maybe, but not inevitable. So Biden told the truth and your implication is false.
2. Overcoming inflation - Given our otherwise good economy, that is probably also true
3. Stated poorly, but a great question. If inflation is Biden's fault, why do so many other industrialized nations have high inflation as well. (I know you will focus on the choice of words to the exclusion of the truth of the question)
"Just says anything that he feels like saying" - Again, given your history of ignoring Trump for doing that, what gives you the authority (besides Biden hate) to make such a claim. It is simply hypocritical.I have offered sources, I suggest you read them.
You mean those that "describe" what he said? Aren't those just conversation starters or fodder for unfair attacks on the speaker?
I, for one, try not to take things a face value (those that do either have an agenda, lack curiosity, or aren't capable of looking deeper). That is why I try to bring context, education, experience, logic, analysis, etc into the equation.
Egypt. has been having high inflation problems for many years, in 2017, the inflation was at a record high.
Biden recently claimed our inflation rate was lower than most countries, this was ultimately proven to be not true.---
Biden said, "First of all, (a recession is) not inevitable. Secondly, we’re in a stronger position than any nation in the world to overcome this inflation. It’s bad. Isn’t it kind of interesting? If it’s my fault, why is it the case in every other major industrial country in the world that inflation is higher? You ask yourself that? I’m not being a wise guy."
"Do other advanced economies have higher inflation than the United States?
If this is what Biden meant, he would be wrong.
We turned to data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations.
Looking at the most recent monthly inflation numbers, more than a dozen OECD members had a higher inflation rate than the United States’ 8.6%. These were predominantly Baltic and Eastern European nations, which have been hit especially hard by the consequences of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
But a larger number of OECD members had inflation rates lower than 8.6%, and these include all but one member of the G-7 group, which is limited to the world’s very largest democratic economies.
Among the G-7 nations, Germany’s most recent inflation rate was 7.9%, the United Kingdom’s was 7.8%, Italy’s and Canada’s were 6.8%, and France’s was 5.2%. (The final G-7 member, Japan, hasn’t released current inflation numbers.)"
CNN had to dig deep on this article.
Biden delivers again - Solid Job Growth and stable unemployment. Also, it would seem this is anti-inflationary as well since the shortage of workers is partly responsible for inflation. More people working means less pressure on inflationary wage growth.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/jobs-da … d=86306953Biden will visit Saudi Arabia in July, a nation he had once called a 'pariah'
"Biden had pledged to change the way the United States deals with Saudi Arabia, promising to stand up for human rights. It was after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — something U.S. intelligence has determined was approved by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman"
"I would make it very clear," Biden said during a Democratic debate in November 2019. "We were not going to sell more weapons to them. We were going to make them pay the price, and make them the pariah that they are. There's very little redeeming value in the present government of Saudi Arabia."
It seems Biden is looking for oil "in all the wrong places".
In my view, just another poor decision, that will leave him with egg on his face.Sharlee: Trump was an economic nationalist. He wanted to keep everything in America when in fact the world economies are operating in a global market place. Trump levied taxes on imports that we had to pay for from China.
Biden deals in the global market place. Oil is a global commodity. Selling crude oil that we don't use is a way of stabilizing oil prices on the world market.
It is one of the only commodities that can be bought and sold on the futures market while it is still in the ground. Prices can be raised and lowered based on global supply and demand.
The SPR is controlled by The Department of Energy and I don't think they are going to let that inventory get depleted or dangerously low as you keep saying.
Here is their web site where you can view the various contracts in .pdf, format they have for the sale of oil.
https://www.spr.doe.gov/doeec/OilSale.htmTrump certainly was for fair trade, and he certainly sold out excess oil on the open market. He did not deplete our oil reserves but exported excess oil.
Not sure how anyone could make excuses for Biden's latest blunder. He has our oil reserves at a historical low, and this is very dangerous.
"Biden deals in the global market place. Oil is a global commodity. Selling crude oil that we don't use is a way of stabilizing oil prices on the world market. "
Do some reading on why we keep oil reserves... My gosh, what a statement. The oil we don't use... He has not stabilized anything, he has aided China in building a huge oil reserve, which puts them in a more powerful position.
How in the world can you rectify Biden selling oil from court oil
reserves?
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world's largest supply of emergency crude oil was established primarily to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products and to carry out obligations of the United States under the international energy program. The federally-owned oil stocks are stored in huge underground salt caverns at four sites along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. The sheer size of the SPR (authorized storage capacity of 714 million barrels) makes it a significant deterrent to oil import cutoffs and a key tool in foreign policy.
SPR oil is sold competitively when the President finds, pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), that a sale is required. Such conditions have only existed three times, most recently in June 2011 when the President directed a sale of 30 million barrels of crude oil to offset disruptions in supply due to unrest in Libya. During this severe energy supply interruption, the United States acted in coordination with its partners in the International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA countries released altogether a total of 60 million barrels of petroleum."
What will happen when we run out of oil reserves?
Energy. A sudden loss of oil supplies would make it impossible to meet energy needs.
I certainly am aware of what emergencies caused the US to tap into reserves. The reserves are not meant to be sold..
"The SPR is controlled by The Department of Energy and I don't think they are going to let that inventory get depleted or dangerously low as you keep saying."
March 2022 -- Biden orders 'unprecedented' release of oil reserves
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60936468
June 2022 -- U.S. to sell up to 45 mln bbls oil from reserve as part of historic release
"WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday said it was selling up to 45 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of the Biden administration's previously announced,largest-ever release from the stockpile."
July 2022 --- Why Is The U.S. Sending Its Emergency Oil Reserves To China?
https://www.yahoo.com/video/why-u-sendi … 00418.html
Before just assuming, perhaps research what is and has been going on. I assume this week the crap will hit the fan on this big Biden blunder.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 022-06-14/
April 2022 --- Under Biden, U.S. oil reserves to drop by 40 percent
The sale of 180 million barrels of oil is one of many that will reduce reserves to levels not recorded since 1984.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/b … -rcna22855
June 2022 --- US Depleting Oil Reserves --- The US Is Depleting Its Strategic Petroleum Reserve Faster Than It Looks
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … #xj4y7vzkg
Biden has caused a problem that leaves the US very vulnerable, and we could lack the oil we could need in an unforeseen emergency.
he is reckless and dangerous and makes unsound decisions that make no sense. He is literally tearing the country down.
Your comment dances around a very dangerous situation Boden has put the country in.
And once again Trump is not our president.I can say I expected this
denial from ECO, but not you.Sharlee: The SPR has a capacity of 700 million barrels. This is from Wikipedia, not media hype that Biden is emptying the SPR. Do the math.
On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.
According to legislation already in place, the amount of oil in the reserve could fall to as little as 238 million barrels by 2028.[11] This will be a 67% reduction to the oil in the reservoir since 2010.
Here is the total drawdown since 2015
Drawdowns since 2015
Since 2015, Congress has been selling the oil in the reserve to fund the deficit, in unpublicized sales. The U.S. Department of Energy has run seven sales since 2017, selling more than 132 million barrels, or about 18.2% of what had been in the reserve.[9][37]
According to legislation already in place, the amount of oil in the reserve could fall to as little as 238 million barrels by 2028. This will be a 67% reduction of oil in the reserve since 2010.[11]
The legislation is summarized below:
• The Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 404), enacted in 2015, includes authorization for funding an SPR modernization program to support improvements deemed necessary to preserve the long-term integrity and utility of SPR's infrastructure by selling up to $2 billion worth of SPR crude oil in fiscal years 2017 through 2020. Although the estimated volumes presented in the chart above are based on an assumed oil price of $50 per barrel, the actual final sales volumes will depend on how SPR decides to allocate the sales volumes across those fiscal years and the actual price of crude oil at the time of the sales. For the Section 404 sales, SPR must get an appropriation from Congress to approve its requested sales revenue target.[38]
• Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[38]
• The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, enacted in December 2015, calls for SPR sales totaling 66 million barrels from fiscal years 2023 through 2025.[38]
• The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, calls for the sale of 25 million barrels of SPR crude oil for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. The first portion of these sales is expected in late spring 2017.[38]
• In December 2016, the DOE announced it would begin the sale of 190 million barrels (30,000,000 m3) in January 2017.[27]
• The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted in December 2017, calls for the sale of 7 million barrels over the two-year period of FY 2026 through FY 2027.[11]
• The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, enacted in February 2018, calls for the sale of 30 million barrels over the four-year period of FY 2022 through FY 2025, 35 million barrels in FY 2026, and 35 million barrels in FY 2027.[11]
• In November 2021, the White House announced the release of 50 million barrels (7,900,000 m3) to address high gasoline prices.[39][40]
• On March 1, 2022, President Biden announced the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[41]
• On March 31, 2022, President Biden announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days.[10][42]
Here is the link to the entire article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic … m_Reserve_(United_States)When Trump left we were at 638 million bbl in 2020. He was attempting to bring the reserve back to 700 million barrels filling it back up to capacity
June 2022 --- Being current is important
"According to actualized data from the U.S. Department of Energy, the country's Strategic Petroleum reserve has reached its lowest levels.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) data showed that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of the country, which is the stockpile of crude oil maintained by the government, intended for emergency use only, has dipped to its lowest levels since 1985.
The figures indicated that the SPR had been reduced by 5.4, 9.4, and 13.4 million barrels of oil (bbl) in January, February, and March, and 18.4, 24.1, and 25.2 million bbl in April, May, and June, respectively. The data also shows that inevitably the petroleum reserve by JUNE 24, 2022 of the current year has a TOTAL OF 497.9 million barrels of oil (bbl), 234.43 million bbl of sweet, and 263.5 million bbl sour.
The latest time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve REACHED ITS LOWEST below 500 million barrels was in 1985, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration records. The U.S. is estimated to consume approximately 19.78 million barrels of petroleum per day, which leads to the conclusion that the country has enough oil to last 25.17 days if all petroleum production and imports were banned.
The U.S. administration is allowed to release the most significant oil storage reserves from facilities in Texas and Louisiana from the SPR should a “severe energy supply interruption” THREATEN the U.S. economy or national security.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to fill the reserve to the top in the spring of 2020 during the decrease in petroleum prices. Finally, the reserve only increased by roughly four million barrels, from an average of 634.9 million bbl in 2019 to 638 million bbl in 2020.
By the end of the year, the U.S. administration released 50 million bbl amid to relief the rising prices, leading the drop of SPR to 593.6 million bbl. By January, current President Biden released 13 million bbl from the reserve. The release of 1 million bbl per day for six months was approved in March in light of the energy emergency.
Source https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/US- … -0014.html
I think I will stick with the pros math and opinions
Wiki is not the very best source to keep current. The article you posted This page was last edited on 2 October 2019.
This latest Biden blunder will be in the spotlight in the next week. Not sure how anyone could condone his poor decision. And in the end, once again he has caused a very serious problem.
We are now in the position if we want to bring our oil reserves back up to what it was when Trump left we will be paying top dollar.
And for what, Biden thought he could bring gas prices down. What a very poor dangerous decision.
It may be time to toss in the towel on your guy. 88% of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Things change. Didn't you once say you voted for Bill Clinton and Obama, both capable and competent men. What changed to make you vote for a very competent con man and incapable leader who was, from the get go, obviously unfit for the job?
Things are looking better for Biden, vis-a-vis keeping the Senate. A combination of the Supreme Court and Trump are really hurting the Trump Republican Party.
Pennsylvania - FLIP to D - Oz is missing in action. POLL - Fetterman (D) +9
Nevada - KEEP D - Maybe. Laxalt has name recognition but says Roe v Wade was "a Joke". POLL - Masto (D) +3.2
Georgia - KEEP D - It is Walker who is the Joke. POLL - Warnock (D) +1.6
Arizona - KEEP D - Kelly is well liked in AZ and his biggest GOP threat is being killed by Trump. POLL - Kelly (D) +4 to +10, depending upon the opponent
Wisconsin - FLIP D - Johnson is one of the most hated men in the Senate and a lightning rod of controversy.
New Hampshire - KEEP D - Hassan is well liked, doing a number on the Supreme Court decisions and even disagrees with Biden on a couple of issues. POLL - Hassan (D) +4
North Carolina - KEEP R - This is closer to being a toss up. POLL - Budd (R) +3.8
Florida - KEEP R - Sad to say that Rubio has a strong Latino base here and Democrats seem to keep ignoring them. POLL - RUBIO (R) +9
Ohio - KEEP R - Only because Ohio keeps voting Republican, but Ds have a chance here because Ryan is popular and anti-Pelosi. There candidate is terrible. - POLL - VANCE (R) +2
Colorado - KEEP D - Bennet is the incumbent and Colorado keeps trending Blue at the State level. POLL - Bennett (D) +13
Democrats may pick up the two needed to offset Manchin and Sinema on crucial votes regarding voting rights, abortion, and the filibuster.88% of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. I would guess many are very dissatisfied with Congress.
That is true, on a national level. But I am not talking about running for president.
PP -- Just a quick note --- I will step away from our conversation in regard to the current low oil reserves. I appreciate your view, and the links you provided. You are coming at the subject from a different angle one could say. However, I see your point, and it is certainly an optional way to look at the situation. I do see a problem brewing with this release from our emergency reserve oil supply going to China. It is too lengthy of conversation for an online conversation. I think tomorrow's Sunday news shows will touch on the subject.
You might see ECO has jumped in well in the middle of our back and forth. The conversation has become muddled in my view, and I know when to head out a back door...
Please don't feel I am being rude by leaving the conversation.This is SO true. Clearly, the Jan 6 committee investigation was worth it because now the public knows who and what was behind only the third insurrection in American history (something Conservatives want to hide from you and not teach in school)
"(CNN)c- Whether or not Donald Trump ends up facing criminal charges, the House committee probing the US Capitol insurrection has scored a critical win over the ex-President by thwarting his effort to cover up the true horror of that day of infamy".
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/politics … index.htmlBut does the public really know, or are not many really interested? Ratings say it looked as if they were. Ratings were good for the first TV hearing. But then fizzles out. I will not be watching due to the committee did not clarify Hutchenson's testimony. Just lost faith in their ability to pursue a fair hearing. They are willing to let her testimony stand without even listening to the three secret service men's claims. I would feel many more will stop watching for that reason alone.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … riorities/Your source is an opinion piece by a right-leaning media type. I thought you hated opinion pieces. You always criticize me when I use one.
This was not entirely OP at all --- it offered straight-up ratings on the Jan 6th hearings. Just providing head counts from each hearing that was telecasted. I used the source due to it provides stats on viewers, for each past hearing.
Do you feel they are not being truthful with the ratings, and the number of viewers that watched the hearings? I used this article to back up my view that the hearings have fizzled. I did not want to make that claim without a source of how I came about that view.
I did not make mention the author's view at all. Strictly used the rating info to prove my view.
Yet I feel Joe Concha did give a great case for the view he did ultimately share. I think many have lost interest in the hearings, for many reasons. Which I need not share, it would require much of my opinion. But the decreasing viewer's numbers say a lot."This was not entirely OP at all --- it offered straight-up ratings on the Jan 6th hearings." - It turned into disinformation opinion when he didn't included the rest of the story. He skewed one fact while omitting others to get the reader, like you, to believe something that is clearly (based other information I provided you) not true. In effect, he lied, even though a small piece of what he wrote was true.. - (BTW - virtually ALL opinion pieces have facts in them.)
The increasing public interest says a lot as well.
Have these so-called "witnesses" come forward? I don't think so. Why not? Have their names been given to the committee? Who knows. I am not entirely certain anymore that these three specific men even exist.
Has the Committee spoken to most every other Secret Service agent involved in Jan 6? It seems like the answer to that question is yes.
"Engel isn’t the only Secret Service employee to speak with committee investigators. Two people who spoke with POLITICO about Engel’s interview said the panel has interviewed multiple agency personnel, in sessions that have taken hours. Some of those interviewed have been called back in for repeat questioning."
Maybe the Committee has already corroborated Hutchinson's testimony and Ornato's story and don't need these three mystery men. Maybe, after hearing Hutchinson's testimony about that event, they called back some of those involved. Who knows.
What I AM certain of is they would not have had Hutchinson testify as she did without have each and every claim she made backed-up with corroborating evidence. The Committee is nothing if not professional, thorough, and deliberate. I doubt nobody but Trump acolytes question their honesty.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/0 … k-00037748
No. We won't. We are concerned when our democracy and constitution are under attack. We also are no afraid of learning the truth.
Funny how ratings show differently. And who's truth Hutchenson's secondhand account or the truth of the three secret service men? Have you heard their testimony? No, because the committee is not providing their firsthand information.
" We also are no afraid of learning the truth."
So, am I to assume you hope to hear from them?Seems as though these secret service have not made themselves available to the committee as others have. I've seen several of the committee members welcome them back to testify and they have not presented themselves. I don't know, what do you think that says? If Mr Cipollone corroborates key elements of Miss Hutchinson's testimony, then do we really need a subpoena to bring Mr Ornato back before the committee for really irrelevant details? I for one, don't really care if he grabbed the steering wheel or through a plate at a wall.
I have not heard or read any report that would indicate "Seems as though these secret services have not made themselves available to the committee as others have." In fact, I did read this July 7, 2022
"The Secret Service is doubling down on its denial of an alleged altercation between former President Trump and his security detail on Jan. 6 of last year, providing a rare defense of Trump’s actions that day amid mounting evidence that he tried to orchestrate a coup from the White House."
I think Cipolloni will take the fifth, more than answer any questions. He by no means will want any chance of lying under oath. You see they would go after him if he by chance said something untrue, unlike they did with Hutcheson. her entire testimony needs clarifying. Why would you feel Cipolloni could give evidence of what went on in the limo ride back to the White House? Have I totally missed something?
YES, we need to clarify the testimony that others that were in the car claim. I don't care if he grabs the wheel either, I do care about lying. If she lied about one thing she certainly needs all of her testimony vetted.
I have altogether lost interest in the investigation.
To many more serious problems in the country at this point to worry about the accusations that Trump planned the Jan 6th attack. Thus far nothing leads me to believe he planned anything.
I will leave the Jan 6th hearing to thoughts that are interested, and it looks like the Hey look here, not there has failed. Just looking at the rating speaks volumes. Plus the subject has fizzled on social media.
Too much turmoil in the administration, and I feel more to come. My eyes are on the ball.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/secret-denia … 08803.htmlThe secret service may be doubling down on its denial of the limo incident but they have not presented themselves to the committee again to testify. That speaks volumes. Should the committee issue subpoenas for them? I feel that what went on in that limo is pretty irrelevant to the bigger picture. I do not expect to hear Mr Cipollone testifying to anything about the limo but it has already been reported that he does corroborate key elements of not only Ms Hutchinson's testimony but others who have come before her. That will speak volumes. Conversely, it doesn't look like the secret service agents are coming forward. That speaks volumes also.
"It was an eight-hour interview. We went through a lot of stuff," Kinzinger said. "But at no point was there any contradiction of what anybody said. But the rest I'll have to leave to the presentation for the committee."
It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. I find it vitally important in light of the fact that Mr Trump seems to be planning to run in 2024.I would expect it is the committee's responsibility to vet any testimony before airing it live on TV. It is also their responsibility to get in touch with witnesses and make appointments to give their testimony to clarify what she said.
I have no problem with any other witnesses, they all gave almost entirely firsthand information. I will trust they were truthful. Hutchinson's testimony is secondhand and now questionable.
I don't feel the other witness's testimony needs cooperation. Hopefully, he is giving some form of new testimony, otherwise, why waste time.
I have no idea if Trump will run in 2024. At this point, it does not pose a problem in my view. I do know if Trump runs against t Biden, I will vote for Trump. I have hopes that 2024 will bring two new candidates to choose from. This would be optimal in my view."I would expect it is the committee's responsibility to vet any testimony before airing it live on TV. " - They did. They are professional, They are thorough. They are methodical. They are honest.
" It is also their responsibility to get in touch with witnesses and make appointments to give their testimony to clarify what she said." - Please provide your source saying they didn't.
You will vote for Trump which means you will vote to destroy America - SAD.And all this is written in stone because it's your view? Oh well, I find your opinion faulty.
In my opinion, I have never witnessed such turmoil in America and the worst president in my lifetime. So you can bet if Biden and Trump were to run, I would vote for Trump. I always vote, and I always vote for the better of the two.
And the reason he IS going to run is to attempt to do an end run around DOJ indicting him. He is hoping they won't because he is a potential candidate in 2024.
The case for sedition is SO STRONG, I hope DOJ won't have a choice but to indict. (And of course there is the fall back of Georgia indicting him as well.)
Sharlee: From The Hill;
"Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said on Sunday the panel plans to detail portions of former Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s recent eight-hour testimony in its upcoming hearings.
“At no point was there any contradiction of what anybody said, but the rest I’ll have to leave to the presentation for the committee,” Kinzinger told George Stephanopoulos, anchor of ABC’s “This Week.”
Cipollone testified before the committee behind closed doors on Friday after the panel subpoenaed him late last month.
The subpoena came after explosive public testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
Hutchinson told the House committee that Cipollone warned her “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump went to the Capitol on Jan. 6 and urged Meadows to take action on the day of the riot.
Other moments of Hutchinson’s testimony have come into question after Secret Service agents reportedly indicated they were prepared to refute her allegations that Trump lunged for the steering wheel of his Secret Service vehicle on Jan. 6 in attempts to go to the Capitol.
Kinzinger’s comments on Sunday were in line with multiple other members of the House panel, who said on other Sunday talk shows that Cipollone did not contradict other witnesses.
“We’re not going to bring somebody in and just sit around and ask them about what other people said, too,” Kinzinger said on ABC. “We’re getting their information, their front, their position.”I don't intend to watch the hearings any longer but will look or media highlights. I am not confident that Cipollone will cooperate, I think he will answer questions very carefully, and take the fifth much of the time.
Cipollone has already cooperated. Just because you didn't hear it on Fox-Trump News, doesn't mean he didn't.
I am sure he answered very carefully and he didn't take the fifth once, that we know of. BTW, why should he, he did his damndest to stop Trump from breaking the law. He failed, obviously, but he tried.
VanityFair --- "However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer not asked about Hutchinson’s quote, but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it." https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07 … -committee
If leaks are true -- Cipollone did not contradict other witnesses.
And in my view, he may share new information. Otherwise, I would think they need not call him.
We will need to see if Cipolloni confirms Hutchenson's testimony when he appears to openly testify. At this time there are many articles(leaks) that he did not.And, of course, as Faye said, the incident in the Beast is a nothing-burger, inconsequential, a deflection the bad guys are using to hide the truth.
""The Secret Service is doubling down on its denial of an alleged altercation between former President Trump and his security detail " - Snopes basically Debunked that - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secre … utchinson/
"I think Cipolloni will take the fifth, more than answer any questions. " - It turns out he DIDN'T take the Fifth. If fact, he corroborated many of the things Hutchinson and others said. He also offered new revelations, which I guess we will find out tomorrow or Thursday. Finally, he only claimed executive privilege on just a couple of question in the eight hours. I think he will provide the cement that holds everything together.
I keep asking you what makes you think Hutchinson LIED about what Ornato said. Nobody but you is saying she did. Why can't you accept that?"I think Cipolloni will take the fifth, more than answer any questions. " - It turns out he DIDN'T take the Fifth. If fact, he corroborated many of the things Hutchinson and others said."
NO HE DID NOT!
Odd I can's confirm that statement. Can you offer a source? The only information I could find on what he was questioned about by the Committee was a CNN which does not include names. But here is the only thing they came up with, that can't be confirmed.
July 8, 2022 -- Headline "Jan. 6 panel didn't specifically ask Cipollone about Hutchinson's testimony on legal consequences of going to Capitol during riot, sources say"
(CNN full article ) "Two PEOPLE familiar with former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone's testimony Friday told CNN that the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, DID MOT ASK HIM IF HE TOLD then-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson the day of the attack that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol.
If asked, he would not have confirmed that particular statement, the sources said.
A separate source familiar with the committee told CNN, "The select committee sought information about Cipollone's views on Trump going to the Capitol on January 6," implying that the committee's questions were focused on Cipollone's perspective as opposed to his take on other witness' testimony.
"Mr. Cipollone provided a great deal of new information relevant to the select committee's investigation, which further underscores President Trump's supreme dereliction of duty," the source said. "The committee will show much of this to the American people in the days ahead."
The source also added that no one has refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony under oath.
Three different sources familiar with Cipollone's testimony characterized it as very important and extremely helpful and told CNN it will become evident in upcoming public committee hearings."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics … index.html
I did not note that " He also offered new revelations" only that he was "Cipollone's testimony characterized it as very important and extremely helpful ".
Second source -- "Cipollone was launched into the spotlight last week when former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson gave her explosive testimony. She recalled Cipollone telling her that then-President Donald Trump would be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he went to the Capitol on January 6 in an attempt to halt the certification of Joe Biden as the next president.
However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer not asked about Hutchinson’s quote, but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it."
VanityFiar --- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07 … -committee
It would seem your comment possesses misinformation of a hyperbolic nature.
Perhaps you found a source that would confirm the information in your comment. I do think when he is testifying live, he will take the fifth as needed.
I never said she lied, ever --- I have said her testimony needs clarifying. I certainly am not willing to disregard the three secret servicemen leaked accounts either. I Have no idea at this point who is being truthful. I will consider her story tainted until the committee vets it with these men's testimony. I am and have not called her a liar.
Who the hell are "we"? I don't care anymore what you think then you care what I think. It appears you feel your opinion is the only one that matters. Let me tell you a secret it only matters to you. Not sure anyone here desires for you to speak for them. You don't respond to the context of comments, you just comment, you make accusations that are accusatory. As you did in your comment claiming I called Hutchenson a liar.
It seems to me you seek to argue, you seek to push your ideologies, you seek perhaps for self-esteem.
You won't find it on an online chat."Odd I can's confirm that statement. Can you offer a source? " - FIrst, let me rephrase a little. Cipollone did not contradict anybody else's testimony. And now - Of course, easy peasy since I watch, read, and listen to real news reporting.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/raskin-sa … committee/
https://www.newsweek.com/cipollone-corr … ey-1723225
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics … index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/09/us/p … trump.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rep-kinzinge … 06744.html"I never said she lied, ever --- I have said her testimony needs clarifying." - What do you think "I have said her testimony needs clarifying." implies? You didn't take her statement under oath as true. That impies you think she lied.
" I will consider her story tainted until the committee vets it with these men's testimony. " - Also implies you think she lied and that only the testimony of these three specific men (whoever they are) and no one else will convince you she didn't hear Ornato relate his story about what happened in the Beast.
As I said before, my opinion is based on facts, good logic, and the whole story, not just the pieces to fit someone's narrative.
I can't find current reports or surveys about whether Americans are paying attention to the Jan 6th news. This is the latest I could find and it is published Jun 23, not that long after the hearings started on June 9 and before the blockbuster hearing on June 28. Interest can only have increased since this was written.
"About 6 in 10 Americans say that they are closely following “news” about the January 6 committee, but only one-third are closely following the committee hearings, and even fewer are watching them, even in part.
Overall, the share of Americans paying attention to the committee has not budged since early April, but the share of Democrats has risen significantly while the share of Republicans has declined." (One can understand why - the TRUTH hurts and is painful to watch).
Also, "The ABC/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans view the committee’s investigation as “fair and impartial”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 … -hearings/
(Note that the criteria that the Hill's opinion piece used was who was watching the Committee "Hearing" and NOT who is paying attention to the news from the hearings. By framing it that way, it is easy to deceive people from reality)All your data is old, and long before Hutchenson testified.
My only point was citizens were not tuning in to the hearings. You deflect.
here is my comment, please note the context
SHARLEE01 WROTE:
But does the public really know, or are not many really interested? Ratings say it looked as if they were. Ratings were good for the first TV hearing. But then fizzles out. I will not be watching due to the committee did not clarify Hutchenson's testimony. Just lost faith in their ability to pursue a fair hearing. They are willing to let her testimony stand without even listening to the three secret service men's claims. I would feel many more will stop watching for that reason alone.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … riorities/
Mike, Faye, and I have pointed that exact thing out to her on multiple occasions, sometimes with direct questions. All we have gotten back that I have seen is crickets.
Why she doesn't perceive that America is under serious assault by Trump World, second only to the Civil War, is beyond me, but she clearly does not see the threat.
As to learning TRUTH. I compare it to this. Trying to convince an Evangelical they are wrong is nye impossible. But when one does come back to reality, they crash out of their former mindset and often swing far in the other direction. That is what will happen to Trumpers when the TRUTH finally sets them free from the cult of personality they are in.
What difference does it make. There are larger issues here. Don't know why they even questioned her if they couldn't confirm her testimony.
"What difference does it make."
We have heard that before.
GAYes, as in "what difference does it make if the Trump World has American democracy under attack."
Great response. Very well said, and I can understand why you won't join in. It has gotten very fluffy up in here. BAS
The committee said they have no reason to doubt her testimony. Her lawyer has said that she stands behind it also. So all we have is a couple of secret service agents making some noise but not coming forward to actually come before the committee again.
So all we have is "So all we have is a couple of secret service agents making some noise".
You discredit these men so casually. Her testimony is unraveling
"However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer not asked about Hutchinson’s quote, but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it."
VanityFiar -" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07 … -committee
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics … index.html
Sorry, but it appears you care little about getting to the truth in the case of Hutchenson's testimony.I discredit them because they have not come forward to clarify and testify under oath. Ms Hutchinson's testimony is not unraveling in my opinion, it was under oath. Like I said before they have basically thrown grenades and run. I think that was the idea though. You're essentially saying that you believe these agents accusations through the press but not the testimony from someone under oath? Mr. Cipollone, I believe would have nothing to testify to this matter as he was not in the room when this happened. I'd reconsider my thoughts on them once they come before the committee again and testify under oath but it looks unlikely to happen.
" You're essentially saying that you believe these agents' accusations through the press but not the testimony from someone under oath?"
I never have said she was lying or I believed the agents... So watch it... I have said repeatedly her information needs clarification Even more so with the Cipollone leak. If these half-ass committees are going to investigate and take their findings on TV they had better vet the testimony.
This is shaping up to be a ridiculous investigation that only gives one side, and that side's info is questionable.
I don't buy into hangem high just because we want to and we can.
Disgusting.
IKt would seem no one will confirm anything this woman said under oath.
As I said it is up to the committees to vet testimony and clarify it when there is a doubt of the truth.
As I said --- more information in regards to -- "However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer not asked about Hutchinson’s quote, but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it."
VanityFiar -" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07 … -committee
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics … index.html
her entire testimony needs vetting, and if found to be untrue recanted publicly at one of the live hearings.Why were these agents able go to the media immediately and make these claims but then not go to the committee to testify under oath? No credibility whatsoever in that. You're talking about throwing this whole woman's testimony in the trash over a couple of agents who will not come before the committee again?? And if Mr Cipollone corroborates key elements of her testimony, then what?
The secret service came out with a statement that day after her testimony, saying they would cooperate fully with the committee. In my view, they were offering the opportunity to talk with agents without any forms of subpoenas.
It will certainly benefit her if Cipollone confirmed her testimony in regards to what she claimed included him.
I would'd ask the same what if he should discredit her accounts? Will he just be the fourth person that is perhaps not telling the truth?Right now she's the only one who testified under oath. That says a lot. The others threw grenades and ran. I do not think that Mr Cipollone has anything to add on this as it seems he was not in the room when this conversation took place. I would hope that these agents step forward and testify under oath and if they are being ignored by the committee then I would expect to see them in the media again reporting that they are being ignored. It seems by all accounts they have not come forward.
"Maybe" a couple of Secret Service agents. Was one of them Ornato? If so, his veracity, according to other agents, is highly questionable.
Precisely, I was very impressed and somewhat surprised with all the other witnesses' testimony. Hutchensons testimony has made me wonder what is true, what is perhaps not true, and whether can I believe any further witnesses if their testimony was not vetted. It is an issue if the information may have been contrived, and not true.
It seems like some are willing to pick and choose who is being truthful. How does one do that?I'm more concerned that these agents have made accusations and have not come forward to testify to them under oath. Meanwhile several others have recounted their similar situations where Mr. Ornato denied being part of conversations. He seems to have a pattern of lying or at least memory lapses.
They had no trouble taking to the media immediately after her testimony so I would assume that they would not have any problems returning to the media if the committee was ignoring them currently. It's been crickets from them though.
It generally seems like those in Mr Trump's sphere have similar tactics. Throw grenades and run.
Is it not an issue when our Congress holds hearings with witnesses giving testimony under oath, and the testimony is second and, and questioned by others that claim to have firsthand information? Does it matter if the testimony is vetted for truth, before presenting it to the public?
Perhaps we are to just pick and choose what we want to believe, instead of simply having this woman's testimony clarified by hearing from the three men that have claimed the information is not accurate.
I guess we have ended up at a time in our history that it may be justified to just say --- What does it matter.
Actually, I thought this commotion intended to present larger issues, thus far we hear more of "Trump said this"... No deeds, but as always, Trump said this..." No real evidence just a bunch of words.
And know the words, the stories need not even be investigated for truth.
So what are the larger issues?So, let's not focus on minutia, but on the larger issue. Did or did not Trump attempt to illegally usurp the election process? This goes far beyond he said, she said or even the attempted insurrection itself. That is a crime.
The attempt to undermine the democratic process is the charge that I hold against him, and the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that he did.Oh, the voice of common sense. And finally!
It is very clear Trump usurped the election process. And it is so blatantly clear on that day Democracy was made a shame for a couple of hours. However, can we not agree and elaborate that after all was over on that very eve " Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.!!!!"
The business of the election was done, as should be.
There is a preponderance of the evidence that points to Trump claiming election fraud, and continually sharing that view with anyone, I mean anyone that would and will still listen.
Will his words be enough to charge him with a crime? I have no idea. One thing I do know is, that he will be a martyr. Someone that will leave a big footprint and a long-lasting America First Agenda.
So, what in the world do you suggest we do if he is not charged with
"something"? Do you think he will just fold up his tent?
Will we be lucky enough to see two spanking new candidates in 2024?
All our back and forth here on HP's always seem to end up with no real answers, no logical solutions.
Only lot's of spinning in circles.
Have you ever been to a rally with 30 thousand people screaming
"we love you"?
What about these people, do you think they will just fade back to having no voice?
My friend we are in trouble, we can hope and we can pray we get those two new candidates, because oh boy do we need them.
As always, so refreshing to converse with you. No spinning, I am not even dizzy.I agree, to a point. The problem, as I see it, with the attack on Hutchinson's testimony is the same as the problem with the Big Lie - because it is false, it undermines the whole process.
Because Sharlee has been convinced her testimony is not true, she now refuses to watch anymore testimony because they may all be liars as well, regardless of whether they are under oath or not. I think it is a big deal because it goes to the credibility of what the Commission is doing.
And the Trump World will do anything, say anything to discredit the Committee and hide the TRUTH.Again I must reorient you... I have not called Hutchenson's testimony or anyone's testimony untrue. You are sharing misinformation in regard to what I have said on this thread.
I already provided a couple of examples of where you implied she lied, there are many, many more. The very fact we are even discussing this means you think she lied.
And Faye says it all with "Right now she's the only one who testified under oath. That says a lot. The others threw grenades and ran. " You believe the mysterious, anonymous sources while the rest of us believe Hutchinson.You have supplied no samples, you are once again just saying something that is misleading. The fact is I have never called her or anyone else on this site a liar. You can easily provide a permalink to any of my posts to prove your point. I can also provide HP with all of the permalinks to where you have personally insulted me.
I suggest you stop. I consider your ongoing insults as personal harassment. I
In regard to Faye, I respect her right to share her view, in the case of Hutcheson's testimony needing clarification, we disagree. And I might add, it is her view, and we all have a right to disagree.
Time to step away from this conversation, the groupthink is somewhat appalling, in my view.Sharlee: It seems to me, you are basing your "clarification of Hutchinson's testimony under oath" on secret's services claim of Hutchinson's lying. The irony is they made their claims while not under oath, while claiming they are willing to come forward to testify.
The problem is they haven't testified. So therefore, you are not going to watch any further Jan. 6 hearings until you hear from the secret services agents testimony, under oath.
In Cipollone's testimony, he stated he does not contradict any of the witness statements. I take that to mean Hutchinson's as well...Please correct me if I'm wrong.OH my, and it goes on. Onc again I am or did not hope to imply either of the four were or are lying. I simply would like to have the opportunity to have what she said clarified, to get either substantiate her testimony or discredit it.
I would think if three persons did give a different account than hers and theirs matched. I would probably believe the three men with their first-hand information. That's my thoughts on the subject. I in no respect called any of them liars. I have no idea what the facts are, it would seem three secret service men claimed her "account was not accurate"... Hey, her account may be close to accurate or share some facts while others are not as clear.
And yes, these men were not under oath when they leaked their tale...
I can assume all were at some point interviewed by the committee. Perhaps not? If they were the under-oath interview info that could be brought forward, this certainly would be the easiest thing to do.
I just hope the committees will come out with a statement to clarify the info.
A simple analogy --- if you were accused of doing something very bazaar that was being bandied about on TV. And the person offering this story was giving it from a secondhand account. Although three persons were with you and could clarify what they witnessed firsthand, were not even contacted to give testimony to clarify the event. Even after these persons let the media know they felt this secondhand information had in some way been let's say skewed. Would you be satisfied letting the entire country believe you had done something very bazaar?
I have admitted from the start I felt the committee was uneven and biased, there is only one side being offered, and not good context, but well-constructed questions. Thee is no cross to examine a complete picture. I also have watched all of the hearings and given my thoughts on what I saw. I said the testimony was damming, and shocking, and I believed it truthful due to the persons being under oath and giving first-hand information. I watched Hutchenson's testimony, and gave her the benefit of doubt, due to her being under oath --- Until the three men stepped up and made their claims. At that point, I feel it prudent, and fair to clarify her testimony. Not even sure why my common sense thoughts have caused such turmoil on this chat?
I can assure you if this was a 'shoe on the other foot" you would be perhaps asking the same.
I did not watch Cipollone's live testimony. All thus far I have seen leaks. Which I posted... Not sure when he will testify,? I will see what the media has to say about his testimony when he offers it.
Here is what I thus far have read on Cipollone
CNN -- "Jan. 6 panel didn't specifically ask Cipollone about Hutchinson's testimony on legal consequences of going to Capitol during riot, sources say"
"(CNN)Two people familiar with former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone's testimony Friday told CNN that the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, did not ask him if he told then-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson the day of the attack that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol.
If asked, he would not have confirmed that particular statement, the sources said."
If this LEAK is true ---He said he would not have confirmed that particular statement.
So, did Hutchenson also state a bit of first-hand information that can't be confirmed? her claim was that Cipollone told her that --- "that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol."
If the leak is true, his statement denying telling her that also needs clarification.
Perhaps he will be able to clarify this live when giving testimony under oath.
I suggest you read this article it is a leaked account but at this point all we have to go by.
I have not read --"In Cipollone's testimony, he stated he does not contradict any of the witness statements."
Actually, he would not need to if not asked to clarify certain statements
And if they don't ask him to back up any statements that he would have knowledge of, I would say this is a ruse to keep facts hidden.
I am sure the interesting parts of the hearings will get media coverage. I don't have the need to watch them. I actually wish there was not a shadow on the hearings, I found them interesting. Now, I am not sure of what is true, and what has been dished up for my viewing.
Maybe all will be rectified when they have the next live hearing. I certainly could appreciate that effort, and feel very good about the fact they took a step back and clarified this woman's testimony."I would think if three persons did give a different account than hers and theirs matched" - Evem if they did contradict the story under oath, how does that discredit Hutchinson?
I feel sorry for half of this country who have been led to believe by Fox and MAGA news that the hearings are a dog and pony show and refuse to watch the hearings.
I feel sorry for those who still believe the election was stolen from Trump.
I feel sorry for the former head of the Oath Keepers and an average citizen who testified about attacking the capitol based on Trump and companies lies.
I feel sorry for those who think the hearings are biased and require cross-examination of witnesses. What more do they need to realize Trump is a master con artist who conned half of this country into believing he lost the election and was justified in trying to overthrow our democratic republic?
I feel sorry for the Georgia Secretary of State who was asked to find 11,000 more votes to falsely prove that Trump won the election.
I feel sorry for Trump having to surround himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear and then trying to act on those lies. In my view, they and Trump all suffered from willful ignorance and should be held accountable.
I feel sorry for those who were injured and died in a senseless act of someone not accepting the fact that he lost an election.
I feel sorry for those who counted and recounted ballots and the courts who who were asked 61 times to prove that the election was fraudulent.
I feel sorry for those who worked with Trump and asked for pardons because they knew they were guilty.
I will feel sorry for the country if Trump and his cohorts get re-elected and become immune to any prosecution for their criminal acts.
You don't have to CALL somebody a liar in order to clearly get that message across. The examples I gave you clearly show that.
IF I have been insulting to me, then you have been insulting to me (and Mike). Personally, I ignore your insults as they come with the territory.
Eso, If we let them they will water down our brine against them through death by a thousand cuts.
Conservatives are the masters of "bait and switch"tactics. We all know that there is no denying what has happened.
There is already enough evidence to hang Trump and his co-conspirators.
I can't believe that in this time something that is as outrageous as all this is being sold to us by conservatives as mere politics or just another day at the races.
There is more than enough evidence to have Trump and his co-conspirators indicted, outside of Hutchinson's testimony, without giving the opposition an opportunity to nit pick it all into irrelevancy.
We now have the good senator from South Carolina ordered to show up and testify before the committee. We also have Bannon by the conjones, probably attempting to save his own hide. I am not about to let him or any of the others get away with this.
BINGO - although I might have phrased it as "why even put her on TV, if they couldn't confirm her testimony?" And you know they did/
Trump's pick to replace Rev Warnock as Georgia's Senator is a walking, talking gaffe machine. He far outpaces another well known producer of gaffes - President Biden. There is a difference however. While Biden's gaffes may use a couple of words or a sentence, Herschel Walker's makes paragraph long gaffes. A recent example:
""Since we don't control the air, our good air decided to float over to China's bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then -- now we got we to clean that back up." WOW!! (I'll leave the "decided" go and put it down as a figure of speech.)
There is also this which is 1) right up Trump's alley and 2) the Evangelical Christians decided wasn't a sin afterall.
And the public acknowledgment of having three children with women he was not married to.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/politics … index.htmlHe also thinks we have 52 States. The 2022 midterm line up of Trumpists candidates is appalling.
He is just a big dummy. I hate jocks. The Republicans insult me by even considering having someone like this even compete for a seat on the Senate.
Hopefully 9.1% is the top since it was driven by record high gas prices which have now subsided substantially. I can now get gas at $4.21/gal, after my 5 cent rebate. A 9.1% increase over last year means what cost $10.00 now costs $10.091 instead of the $10.02 we had been getting two years ago.
Core inflation was 5.9%, which is the third consecutive month it declined since its high of 6.5% in March. For comparison, the core inflation rate in 2020 was about 2.2%
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/economy/ … index.html
(I find it interesting - but not surprising - that the media headlines, including CNN, report the more volatile increase to 9.1% rather than the three month decline in the Core Inflation which, in the long-term, is more important to people.)
To build a bit on some positive points I made above is this analysis titled "3 reasons not to panic about decades-high inflation"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/investin … index.htmlThis is an example of why Biden is a real president and Trump was a fake one. Do you see Trump ever giving credit where credit is due?
Jerusalem (CNN) As President Joe Biden arrived here on Wednesday, he is doing something he has never done on a foreign trip: Embracing one of his predecessor's legacy achievements.
While much of his foreign travel in his first 18 months in office has focused on reversing the foreign policy of former President Donald Trump and shoring up battered alliances, Biden on his first trip to the Middle East will embrace the Trump-era Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries and pursue an expansion of growing Arab-Israeli security and economic ties.
As I recall, however, the Abraham Accords was more Jarad's doing rather than Trump's.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/politics … index.htmlAlso:
"Mexico agreed on Tuesday to invest $1.5 billion in technology at its border with the U.S. following a meeting between President Biden and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. " (The Hill)
Mr Trump never got them to pay for his grand wall but President Biden was able to broker this deal. It looks like a productive agreement with some concrete moves.Yep. Solved as more illegals cross our southern border than we have ever seen before. Solved...as long as you WANT millions of migrants feeding off of your pocketbook.
Remember, that is the Conservatives fault for inviting them to come with your talk of open borders that weren't really open.
Also remember, migrants, illegal or otherwise, pay for themselves through taxes and value added to the society.Both statements being absolutely false to fact, I have to wonder where you get them? Imagination?
Yes, this is so obvious. Modernizing our infrastructures at our points of entry is excellent, and should make it much better for trucks, and travelers. However, not sure if Biden realizes the large majority of migrants don't present at the border crossings. This is a political ploy, a "yeh, look what I am doing at our border"
He needs to temporarily close our border until we handle the 3 million migrants since he came into office.
The cost of migrants is unexpected at this point. American citizens are suffering from a recession. Time to consider our problems, and at the best close the border temporarily, until we can come up with better solutions to handling asylum seekers.
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President --- This weak president has unleashed Russia, China, and now Iran? Good job Joe.
Can you even believe what has occurred in America in 18 months? It's unreal, hard to take in. I guess that's why some just can't take it in.
In my view, this man is very dangerous and should be impeached. he is tearing America apart, right from its very roots.Can"t think of a greater waste of time and energy than trying to figure out what Government is doing with our lives. My time and energy goes into self government and free trade which Governments would call black market.
They don't own me and not the boss of me.I myself have figured out what this president and his administration are trying to do. They are pushing government dependency, and new ideologies are forced down our throats. What they have done is pissed off the majority of our citizens, which in my view, is a very good thing. Americans, are not on board with jin the crazy.
In my opinion for some American, it was fun for a while but quickly awakened to the fact they are not up for what's being dished up.Each president keeps getting worse. Anarchist is a fast growing group worldwide because the super rich and Government have been working together. History repeats itself , till the abuse gets too great, then the power of :We the People
: Are the ones who changes things for the positive. Not :We the Government:Yes, it is the people --- And here in America, I feel we are well on the way to ridding ourselves of government overreach.
The fastest growing states are south and west due to less restrictions and more freedom. US has a better start than what we have in Canada with :We are all Trudeau sheep:. He actually controls the laws and media, and loves China's dictatorships. People are really getting sick and tired of him.
I must agree, the southern states are growing, and much might certainly have to do with `the ideology "hey government hands off".
July 13 2022
"TOP STATES FOR BUSINESS
These are America’s 10 cheapest states to live in as inflation surges
" POINTS
Inflation is almost impossible to escape nowadays, but some states are more affordable than others.
Working families are looking to live in places where they get more for their dollar.
CNBC’s exclusive America’s Top States for Business study ranks the states based on an index of prices for a broad range of goods and services."
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/13/these-a … ve-in.html
In my view, Biden is in China's pocket. He Is a pure kiss but Globalist, and I feel cares little about the Average American. This is not a new view, I have followed him throughout his political career, and have always had this sentiment.While it is definitely your view (and few others), it is a wrong view.
Globalism is good for the economy.
We know conservatives care little about the Average American, that is what my book will be partly about.
As climate change makes everywhere in America but the Northwest and Northeast uninhabitable, doing business in those places won't mean much."While it is definitely your view (and few others), it is a wrong view.
Globalism is good for the economy."
Not sure why you feel your view is the last word. Seems odd
'We know conservatives care little about the average American"
I disagree, In my view, no, "we don't all know"... That is your opinion, not all's opinions.
If we are serious about climate change we need to turn to China ( the country that most of the world looks to for just about everything) the biggest polluter in the world. Do you see anyone tweaking their nose? I don't. And last I looked we have one atmosphere and is relatively ridiculous to not accept that fact.
It is a good step for humankind to seek out clean energy, but do it in an intelligent manner. Look to stop the biggest polluter in the world, China.
It all seems so hypocrtacal to me.
A friend I have in California said to me the other day on the phone --- "We have current brownouts, we are doing our part"
My reply --- Thank you're doing my part too because we are not having a brownout. So get back to me when our Government goes after China."Not sure why you feel your view is the last word. Seems odd" - Why odd? The fact is, Biden is NOT in China's pocket. Since that is a fact, I don't have a view to be the last word. The TRUTH is the last word. Your view is just a repetition of right-wing propaganda
As to the Globalism part - 1)why is it odd that that is just common sense and 2) I would be surprised you could find even one conservative economist who won't agree with that statement.
BTW - GAS here is down to $4.19.
""we don't all know"" - Why did you add the word "ALL" in my statement when it wasn't there?
It is an opinion based on observation which I will provide in detail in my book about it.
"It is a good step for humankind to seek out clean energy, but do it in an intelligent manner. Look to stop the biggest polluter in the world, China." - AS WELL as stopping the SECOND biggest polluter in the world. Besides, China is contributing a lot toward reducing emissions - just ask them (and remember, you used a Venezuelan source recently)
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-11/09/c … a%20shows.
But if you don't believe them (I don't, even their facts since I don't know the source), maybe you will believe the Climate Action Tracker (which is not very nice to China) that shows China headed in the right direction, as terrible as they are.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
As compared to their assessment of the US. (better but still not good)
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/
With Manchin killing are climate change policy, they may change their rating.
""We have current brownouts, we are doing our part" - Are they doing that on purpose or because of the massive heat waves and droughts there?
Also - Remember who quit the Paris Climate Accord and started getting rid of carbon reducing regulations - hint, it wasn't China
Finally - what would you propose our government DO to China instead of reducing our own emmissions?It is my view Biden is in China's pocket. Nothing more
I do not agree with your view in regard to Globamisuim would be good for America at this particular juncture.
"BTW - GAS here is down to $4.19."
That is good to hear, our gas prices remain high. I live in a swing state. I presume you may live in a Republican-run state. I note that many Rep states are having lower prices. Not sure why?
"MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
While it is definitely your view (and few others), it is a wrong view.
Globalism is good for the economy.
We know conservatives care little about the Average American, that is what my book will be partly about.
As climate change makes everywhere in America but the Northwest and Northeast uninhabitable, doing business in those places won't mean much."
NOTE THE WORDS WE KNOW.
I came back at you with "we don't all know. How were you referring to when you said, "we know"?
Sorry lost interest in the conversation, and it's obvious we don't agree on any of what you put forth.
So, chalk it up as our views are too far apart to discuss.
There is a reason all of those states made CNBC's list - almost all POOR states which have the added benefit of forcing 10-year old girls to carry to term.
To understand the comment you have replied to visit the permalink that this comment was in response...
My conversation with Castelpaloma was in regard to southern states, and that many are moving to some.
Those states were listed due to fewer problems with inflation.
"These are America’s 10 cheapest states to live in as inflation surges
PUBLISHED WED, JUL 13 2022"
My source or the ongoing conversation has nothing to do with abortion laws.
Just what is making southern states attractive to some Americans.
And actually, the influx of new businesses in some southern states could possibly improve their economies.I understand what your comment was in response to, I read it as well. But your comment addressed inflation, and not people moving to the South. You offered a source that shows the South is doing better on inflation than others. My response is that is because most of them are some of the poorest states in America - meaning they aren't doing that great businesswise.
I know your comment had noting to do with abortion, I was just pointing out a fact about those same states which will impact people and businesses wanting to move there.My point was simple and clear, many southern states are having an influx of people moving to other states, as well as businesses. Many move due to cheaper taxes, and lower cost of living.
The southern states are benefitting from new business and new citizens.
Forbes did a great article on how many from Democratic states are moving south into southern Republican states mostly due to better costs of living.
https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement … e-to-from/
Sharlee: Biden isn't doing the modernizing. It's Mexico's President who is spending 1.5 billion. And they don't even know what the modernizing entails at this point.
A large part of our economy is based on migrants working in jobs that the average America couldn't even afford to do for what corporations pay these workers. If we close the borders, even temporarily, it will add to the inflation and bring our agriculture and hotel economies to a halt. It's all about the division of labor in this country.
Here is what BBC says about all of this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62120057
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255613"A large part of our economy is based on migrants working in jobs that the average America couldn't even afford to do for what corporations pay these workers."
If illegals can afford to hold those jobs, then so can Americans. All it takes is a large subsidy from government to do so...which we are providing to both illegals and Americans.
It is certainly true that we have a labor shortage in the country right now, due to short sighted and stupid COVID responses, but the answer is not to encourage and help illegals to cross into the country where we will support them from the tax base.I have read the specifics of the US/Mexican agreement. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … statement/
As I shared in my comment, it is an excellent idea, a very positive venture. But must correct this statement from your comment It is a joint venture, as well as a joint expenditure on the part of the US and Mexico.
"Sharlee: Biden isn't doing the modernizing. It's Mexico's President who is spending 1.5 billion. And they don't even know what the modernizing entails at this point."
Second source -- https://thehill.com/policy/internationa … structure/
" Mexico agreed on Tuesday to invest $1.5 billion in technology at its border with the U.S. following a meeting between President Biden and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
In a joint statement released by the White House, the two leaders said they would fund a JOINT infrastructure effort to improve security and efficiency at the southern border.
The statement said that the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed into law last fall would CONTRIBUTE $3.4 billion to 26 modernization projects at land ports of entry and that Mexico agreed to invest $1.5 billion in “border infrastructure” over the next two years.
“Borders that are more resilient, more efficient, and safer, will enhance our shared commerce,” the joint statement read. “We are committed like never before to completing a multi-year joint U.S.-Mexico border infrastructure modernization effort for projects along the 2,000-mile border.”
“The JOINT effort seeks to align priorities, unite border communities, and make the flow of commerce and people more secure and efficient,” the statement continued. "
I am also aware of the need for workers from other countries to fill jobs in the US. I can also tell you it does not only apply to low waged workers, jobs many Americans won't do. My son owns a software company, and the majority of his 800 workers are from other countries. They are paid the same wage, and sometimes more due to experience as an Americans.(. Between 2000 and 2019, the overall number of STEM workers in the United States increased by 44.5 percent, from 7.5 million to more than 10.8 million.) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … ted-states
I have shared my sentiment many times in regard to migrants. I feel we have laws, and I respect migrants to follow our laws when hoping to work in the country, as well as our asylum laws.
I agree we need workers, unskilled and skilled workers. America has real problems due to the problems with poor education, and the high cost to educate our young. for STEM jobs of the future.
"However, not sure if Biden realizes the large majority of migrants don't present at the border crossings." - 1) That is a right-wing myth. Until Title 42, the vast majority of "apprehensions" were at a Port of Entry. After Title 42, the ONLY place immigrants could go is between ports of entry. THEREFORE, the conclusion you want drawn is a false conclusion. 2) Again, perception is shaded when you don't tell the who story like "apprehensions" are near ALL TIME LOWS when compared to 2000. 3) perceptions are also altered from reality when you don't report the HUGE number of returns. Given that rate is so high, it drives the number of individuals captured WAY down. Bottom line, the number of INDIVIDUALS crossing the border probably isn't all that high? 4) Finally, what has any of that to do with Biden's agreement with Mexico?,
"He needs to temporarily close our border " - It IS temporarily closed. It has been since he took office.
What 3 million migrants?
Studies repeated show migrants help the economy, they don't hurt it. Another RIght-Wing Myth.
This is older but I hope everyone will take a few minutes to read. It's packed with studies and data relating to immigrants and our economy. The myths have been thoroughly debunked. The characterization of immigrants, as people who drain public resources is not backed by the data. Unauthorized immigrants aren't usually eligible for federal benefits, for instance, and multiple studies have found that immigrants help the economy grow.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/econom … -s-economyProblem is, Faye, is the Right simply does not want to hear this as it contradicts the myths they want to spread. TRUTH is irrelevant to them.
Same as Faye; find the average wage of an illegal alien, find the average cost of educating their children and calculate their income taxes. Then talk about TRUTH and myth.
The thing is, they have already done that (which has been provided to you multiple times) and they have found migrants, illegal or otherwise, are a NET GAIN to the American economy.
Find us a COMPREHENSIVE study that shows otherwise. Work at backing up your false view.
Assuming you refer to illegal aliens rather than "immigrants" (those that have completed the task of becoming a citizen or at a minimum received permission to live here), you might want to do your own research rather than accepting the word of someone promoting illegal border crossings.
Start with a nuclear family of 4. Find the average wage of an illegal alien. Assume they have an SS# (most don't) and find the tax rate for that average income. Add in sales tax for that income. Now find what the average cost is to educate a child for one year and add in the cost of more ESL teachers and compare that to the taxes paid. Compare the two.
You will find that illegal aliens do not pay taxes for even the cost of educating their children, let alone:
Extra cost of more police protection
Extra cost of infrastructure maintenance such as roads
Extra cost of interpreters for courts and other govt. entities
Extra cost of welfare programs (yes, many get welfare of one kind or another, from free school lunches on up to EBT cards.
Extra cost auto insurance for uninsured drivers
Extra cost for ICE agents
Extra cost for unpaid health care
When you have actually researched the cost of illegal aliens inhabiting the country, and what they contribute in the way of taxes, then you can talk about whether they "drain public resources". If you are honest you will find they don't even begin to cover the cost to the tax base. They can't as their income is not sufficient to do so.
Manchin does it again. All the more reason for the Democrats to pick up two more seats in the Senate - right now, that seems possible.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/14/politics … index.htmlYep, he did it again, put country before party. No wonder you guys are upset with him.
GANope, he put his own personal views ahead of world health. He wants to kill the planet to save it from inflation, so to speak. It makes sense, less people to buy things, less demand, less inflation.
That is your view, a criticism of his view. My view is different. Imagine that.
My view doesn't include polemics like "he wants to kill the planet." It includes the realities of Manchin's objections, which your criticism doesn't say are wrong, but just not in line with your 'Big Picture'.
GAA view, yes, but one based on logic and facts.
It is a fact that if America and the world doesn't do something very, very quickly, (that used to be very quickly and not long before that, quickly) inflation will seem like a bump in the road.
It is a fact that Manchin has very close ties with the coal industry. In fact, I think part of his wealth depends on coal doing well. He is not unbiased on this issue.
It is a fact that he was FOR the climate portion of this deal - before he wasn't.
It is a fact he was FOR the tax increase on the wealthy portion of this deal - before he wasn't.
Based on that, I think my view has legs.
So well said --- one can only imagine (but yet many won't) what raising taxes on the rich at this point could do to the Country. I would think many economists today will have a real, "are you nuts fest".
It is clear in my view, that Manchin is an intelligent man that does not play games due to his party affiliation. He is doing his job and looking out for the American people.
WeeHeeHee, what a roller coaster!
I feel the Democrats are scrambling before the Nov elections, tossing out a ploy to attract votes from Americans that the main mantra is "tax the rich.
In regards to our poor economy, taxing the rich would be a disaster.
One would think Biden would have learned his lesson with big oil, not to tweak the noses of big businesses. They are in business to make money. What I have witnessed over my life is, that when big businesses are over-taxed, they cut their costs, lay off, and ultimately add to rising unemployment, and inflation.
Thank God for people like Manchin.Update Manchin --- Manchin denies he opposes Democratic spending bill, says he'll wait until August to decide
Manchin says the notion that he opposes the bill was leaked to the media to pressure him
"Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Friday pushed back on reports that he had ruled out including tax hikes and climate change subsidies within the Democrats' party-line spending bill, saying he would wait until July inflation numbers are out next month to decide.
Manchin told West Virginia MetroNews that claims he had walked away from the negotiating table were widely overblown. The centrist Democrat claimed to only have expressed caution about moving forward with the package before having a clear picture of inflation and the national economy.
"I said can we just wait until the inflation figures come out [for] July, until we know if the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates," said Manchin. "Then make the decision on what we can do and how much we can do."
Manchin said that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., took that request as an indication that he would not support raising taxes or tackling climate change. He further claimed that leaks to the media saying as much were an attempt to pressure him into capitulating.
"I guess they just tried to put pressure on me," said Manchin. "But they've been doing that for over a year now — it doesn't make any sense
at all."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-ma … l-possibleThe super-rich are different than the rest of us. A lot of them pay very little in income taxes.
Some of the world's wealthiest executives, including Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk, pay little to no taxes compared to their wealth, as detailed in a ProPublica report.
Most Americans earn income through their labor, such as wages, salaries or other employer-provided benefits.
However, the top 1% often receive income from interest, dividends, capital gains or rent, from their investments, known as capital income.
While most people contribute taxes through their paycheck, the top 1% may not see income on their tax returns. Here's why: There are several ways to delay or avoid taxes on investments.
For example, if someone has $1 million in stock that grows to $2 million, they won't owe taxes on the profit until they sell.
Moreover, they may lessen the tax bite by timing the sale or offsetting profits with other losses.
The affluent may hold assets until they die, avoiding capital gains taxes, and providing heirs with inherited property valued on their date of death.
American billionaires grew their wealth by 55%, or $1.6 trillion, during the pandemic
It's clear the wealthy have found ways to avoid taxes. Isn't it time for them to just pay their fair share?
https://www.propublica.org/article/the- … income-taxFaye, all of what you believe is very much true. However, do you really understand the ways of that 1%? They did not become wealthy being a great friend to society. I am very realistic in my view of big business.
Again, they are in business to make money. What I have witnessed over my life is, that when big businesses are over-taxed, they cut their costs, lay off, and ultimately add to rising unemployment, and inflation.
Ultimately hurting "the Most Americans" you speak of.
And most do pay their fair share. You need to think of the taxes that are being paid by the people they employ, as well as the many taxes that come with doing business.
Ultimately big businesses pay in the majority that goes into our coffers yearly, via the people they employ.
Tweaking their noses will only hurt the people they employ.
It all sounds so wonderful coming out of a politician's mouth... As a rule, they could care very little about the citizens that would be hurt by overly taxing big business.I completely understand your point of view. It's valid and realistic. I suppose at the same time I have this hope that we could expect more of corporations. I think they're up for the task. Maybe it's pie in the sky but I've always felt that the approach has been welfare for corporations and admonishing everyone else to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
When corporations get special handouts from the government, we have to pay more in taxes to make up for these hidden tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes.
How do corporations get this corporate welfare? Follow the money. They spend hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaign contributions.
An even more insidious example of corporate welfare occurs when corporations don't pay their workers a living wage. As a result, those workers often have to rely on programs like Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, and other safety nets. It's sort of a vicious cycle.
Which means you and I and other taxpayers end up subsidizing these low wages so those corporations can enjoy even higher profits for their executives and wealthy investors.
Ultimately I believe we should really be cutting corporate welfare, unnecessary and unwarranted aid for dependent corporations. It's time for them to tighten their belts a bit and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I think they're up for the task.
I think that the view that you are presenting has been widely accepted and status quo but I don't know if it's worked so well for us. I think it's time to try a different avenue.With current inflation, they certainly won't look kindly to the threat of taxes being raised. Like I said look at how Biden's doing after pushing the oil industry.
It's in no way wise especially at this juncture to push big business.
It is not that your sentiment is not logical, it's just not what big business will put up with. Just not the time to make such a serious change in our tax laws. Our economy is really not good and looks as if it could get worse. This would be a huge blunder on the part of Congress if they passed new tax laws that increase taxes on big businesses. Many had hard times during COVID, and I can't imagine what we would be looking at if taxes are raised on the big businesses.
I pull for big business, if they thrive they offer employment, and oppretuities to make a good living. I don't look at them as enemies. They keep our coffers full and are one of the richest nations in the world.
You claim you are for cutting corporate welfare, me, I am for jobs, and getting Americans off welfare. And if taxed more, they will tighten their belts, and cut their costs and jobs.I don't think we should be looking at it in terms of corporate taxes are being raised but rather being brought back to the point they were in the past.
We have a shameful American reality of people working full time but still not earning enough to lift them and their families out of poverty. It’s hard work being poor in America. Forget about the stereotype of lazy folks grabbing government handouts that are paid for by those who are self-reliant and industrious. The truth is that millions of poor people work full time, but their wages are so low that a 40-hour week isn’t enough to lift them out of poverty.
Politico looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. Changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
Mr. Trump's administration previously marketed its plan to give huge tax cuts to the richest U.S. households/corporations with a bold but fanciful claim: that these tax cuts will trickle down to help American workers by boosting economy-wide productivity and hence wages. But did they? They didn't and they actually never have.
Since World War II, productivity and wage growth in the U.S. economy have been significantly greater in periods with higher corporate tax rates.
Real-world data shows weak-at-best links between corporate tax cuts and wage growth.
I don't know, to me it seems that companies get the breaks, higher profits and full-time workers continue to struggle.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 … t-wealthy/
https://www.epi.org/publication/cutting … can-wages/They keep our coffers full … “. More like they keep “their” coffers full. Who are the “ours” that you are referring to?
No denying they keep their coffers full. That's sort of the name of the game, and big business has the winning hand. just due to offering jobs, which in the long run. workers pay taxes and add to America's wealth.
So, do we chase them away or have them cut costs? Who ultimately losses in either scenario? I feel not only do the workers lose but the nation's coffers are depleted. Can run a country without cash.
My use of "our was to refer to all Americans
Because in the end when a nation's funds are depleted the majority in a given Nation will feel it.Consider the flip side
Why should taxpayers subsidize Poverty wages at large profitable corporations?
"The largest welfare recipient in
America happens to be the wealthiest family in America, the
Walton family; a family that owns the largest corporation in
America, Walmart. This is a family that is worth over $200
billion. It is a family that has become $50 billion wealthier
since March of 2020 during the worst public health crisis in
over 100 years.
This corporation that they own, Walmart, made over $15
billion in profit last year alone, and yet despite this massive
family wealth, despite these very high corporate profits,
Walmart pays wages so low that tens of thousands of their
employees are forced to rely on public assistance in order to
survive. They are forced to rely on food stamps to feed their
children, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. They are forced to go
into public housing to put a roof over their heads, paid for by
U.S. taxpayers. And they are forced to go on Medicaid to get
the health care they need, all of which is paid by U.S. Citizens"
Taken from Bernie Sanders testimony before Congress in 2021.
A new government watchdog report found that Amazon, Walmart, and McDonald’s were among the top employers of SNAP and Medicaid recipients.
Taxpayers are the ones who pick up the tab for employees at large corporations whose paychecks won't cover basic necessities.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHR … g44967.htmWorkers at Walmarts are there by choice, they are doing minimum wage work, that takes little skills.
Many in our society don't thrive and don't seek higher education or skills that could bring them better wages.
I by no means feel these types of workers should be paid more. And in my view, no one is forcing them to do anything. People make choices in life...
Thank God for Walmarts, and the jobs they offer unskilled persons or persons that just hope to work to fill their time. Walmart also hires special needs workers, which I think is wonderful.
"A new government watchdog report found that Amazon, Walmart, and McDonald’s were among the top employers of SNAP and Medicaid recipients."
I would very much think this would be true. These jobs are low-paying jobs.
What would you like to see, these companies pay higher wages to unskilled people? If so, you can expect your cheap goods to go up.
Taxpayers have always paid for the less fortunate,
Better education is the way out of poverty.Sharlee, You know as well as I do that education at a higher level is not an option for everyone due to the expense or just the aptitude of the individual. Yes, thank all the Gods, for the Walmarts, Amazon's and McDonald's of the world. In my state, unskilled or manual labor positions such as these make up the majority of jobs available.
But should we as taxpayers foot the bill for endless corporate welfare by way of tax breaks for these companies while we also have to foot the bill for the social safety net programs needed as these corporations don't pay a living wage?
Seems to me that the only ones getting the screws put to them here are tax paying citizens.
Wouldn't a living wage mean less Medicare? Less food stamps? Less bankruptcy and so on?
And ultimately, our society needs these workers. We need fast food workers, grocery workers, warehouse workers and the like. There's absolutely no shame in that. We can't all be doctors ,nurses teachers & lawyers. Society doesn't even support such a notion. We are all needed and play our part.
I want to say that I think several folks here on this forum need a good long visit to your nearest Southern / hillbilly state. There is a reality, a dimension to life that many in more urban centers aren't cognizant of.
I'd, respectfully say, Sharlee, your post has an elitist twang."Sharlee, You know as well as I do that education at a higher level is not an option for everyone due to the expense or just the aptitude of the individual."
Neither is it a given to produce a high salary. Nor is it necessary to have a degree to earn that mythical "living wage" and a good deal more. There are many blue collar jobs that pay very well...IF you have the skill.
You need to take a good look at this corporate welfare that you feel is so common. If you do, I think you find that the large majority of tax breaks are supposed to be for the benefit of the people, such as a break for building in a depressed neighborhood. Which tax breaks do you consider "corporate welfare", and why were they enacted? What was the purpose behind them?
"Wouldn't a living wage mean less Medicare? Less food stamps? Less bankruptcy and so on?"
A nice theory, but not one based on reality. The reality of paying more (particularly when legislated rather than from market forces) is that inflation goes up and those getting a raise are no better off than they were before. We saw it in Seattle where the minimum wage was increased in order to allow people to pay rent...and the cost of renting rose even faster. We saw it recently when wages rose dramatically...and inflation is near double digit with the large majority of people actually losing buying power.
On top of that, liberals in this country WILL find a reason to hand out money. It doesn't matter how much wages increase, they will maintain the welfare roles, growing them as they do.
So no, increasing wages will not reduce medicaid (certainly not medicare), or food stamps, or less bankruptcy (people that live beyond their means will not change their philosophy and people in poverty do not take out bankruptcy)."So no, increasing wages will not reduce medicaid (certainly not medicare), or food stamps, or less bankruptcy."
When income rises beyond threshold, you are no longer eligible for any of these. They are means tested programs.
"Neither is it a given to produce a high salary"
So what do you propose we do with all of these low-paying jobs that need to be filled? Someone needs to work at Walmart, McDonald's and the like. At full time they do not make enough to cover living expenses and yes end up using/qualifying for government programs. There are roles/jobs to fill at all levels in our society both skilled and unskilled. Only the skilled deserve to make a living?? And it's awfully utopian to envision a society that consists of only skilled workers, it's not reality."When income rises beyond threshold, you are no longer eligible for any of these. They are means tested programs."
With the "means" constantly increasing. That was kind of the point - if you increase the income that test will be modified to remain a giveaway program. Politicians have little to work with outside of your money, and they are NOT going to stop doing it.
*shrug* Leave them to the kids in our world. To the elderly that just want a few dollars. To those that don't WANT a good salary to go with their good skill set. There are lots of people that do not wish to put forth the effort to earn a good wage."Means"tested is a measure of a family's income against the federal poverty line. It's not a sliding scale. Once you go over the defined income you no longer receive benefits. It's as simple as that.
But if these jobs aren't meant to make a living from, who do you propose does them? These corporations wouldn't be in business if they didn't have workers eager to make a living. You think they would really survive off of our teenagers as workers? Our elderly?
They'd surely fold faster that way then if they had to pay a living wage.
"Sharlee, You know as well as I do that education at a higher level is not an option for everyone due to the expense or just the aptitude of the individual."
So, are you proposing that business owners need to pay more for unskilled workers? As I said would increase prices on your burger... This does not make sense to me, in any respect.
Yes, as I said we could increase taxes on big business, and they can cut many of these unskilled workers, and raise the prices of their goods. So who wins?
Our taxes would supplement those that are unable to find minimum wage jobs.
It's a circle, a circle that has no outlet.
I realize that some southern states are more or fewer welfare states. This is unfortunate. But it is and has been part of American society for as long as I can remember.
Citizens in America need to take a hard look that America needs better education for all, not welfare, not Government that gives financial support but a Government that offers better education. Funny, how this problem is never really looked at.Even if we became the most educated Nation on Earth, Walmart would still need workers in order to make their profits and remain in business. And the same can be said for all of the other unskilled jobs that are an integral part of our economy and society. The need for people to fill these jobs is always going to be there.
I agree with you, it's a circle that never ends. I think I'm viewing it in the opposite direction as you.
We have hard working folks out here in these unskilled jobs, essentially for many places they are the only game in town. It doesn't sit well with me that a corporation can rake in lots of tax breaks/incentives while their workers struggle to make ends meet. The corporate welfare comes out of our pocket as does the subsidies for their workers who are below the poverty line. This makes no sense and who wins? The corporations do.
I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that if you put in an honest 40 hour work week you should be able to support yourself. Just because you earned a degree doesn't mean you're more worthy.
I'm certainly not proposing that your Walmart clerk should make as much as your doctor or even your plumber but I find it ludicrous that that your 40-hour a week clerk has to draw food stamps to live.You folks have covered the basics of the 'two sides' of the coin, so how about the core of the coin those sides are attached to: What is the value a wage should be based on?
One idea is that it is the value of the labor that should be the benchmark, the other side says it is the needs of the worker that supplies that labor. The other discussions about the details; min. wage v. living wage; which level of taxation or costs kills or makes the deal, etc. are rooted in that question, so you have to answer that one first.
There are future probabilities that I know will cause me to reconsider. Still, I haven't found any valid argument that shakes my belief that the labor provided is the product an employer values. Add value to the labor and the employer will add value to the offered wage.
All this stuff about a 'living wage' has been shone to be misguided. As was mentioned in the Seattle example, (a current example of others found in the last 100 years of economic history), the living wage is an emotional reaction that fails every time. Costs rise with every increase in available money. The wrong logic is used. It should not be the logic of a wage earner; more money equals more opportunity and affordability, that's the emotional reality. The reasoned reality is that the right logic is from the most basic business model every business has to follow to survive: the law of supply and demand.
That's not cold and callous and uncaring, it is the reality 'living wage' supporters must accept before any possible solutions can be found. And we do need to start looking, the future labor market is going to be very stratified.
To the "corporate welfare" thought, that one needs a little consideration too. Just like the 'living wage' argument, it uses the wrong logic. Don't beat up on the corporations, (excepting the bad apples), they're playing by the rules we set for them through our legislators. Those tax breaks aren't charity, they want something from the corporations in return. Condemn the legislators, not the successful businesses.
I think there is room for a discussion about the coming, near-future, change in the workforce paradigm, but as long as the pro-forces, (your perspective), are driven by emotional efforts it isn't going to happen.
GAThe labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work. It is an important labor market measure because it represents the relative amount of labor resources available for the production of goods and services. It is currently at 62.2 percent.
There is a huge demand for skilled workers in many fields that is not being filled. The government is in a perfect position to act as employment agencies to fill these positions. They can develop databases to show where those jobs are on a state by state basis.
They could set up programs to administer aptitude test for those who are applying for those jobs. The job seeker could be matched to the job that fits their aptitude and then trained to do the job.
Out of work coal miners in the Appalachian's region have been successfully taught computer coding. That is not to say all coal miners should be taught coding. But they should be given aptitude test to see what they are good at and then train them and match their aptitude to the job.
That would help solve the problem of people not liking their job and just working for the money.. These types of programs have been very successful with military recruits. In fact I went through one of these programs when I joined the Air Force. I learned electronic fundamentals and radar maintenance, which gave me a very long career in many high tech fields.
This program would also provide work for those administering test and maintaining data bases, but it would also employ instructors as well, including many spin off fields of work.
Many years ago I had a phone conversation with Bernie Sanders and he said they were looking into it, but I never saw anything come of it.We better clear the deck chairs for this one Mike. I can appreciate your effort in offering that workforce information.
But damn, I almost broke my nose on the brick wall of your second paragraph. I even took a break before coming back. I'm either going to be really wrong, (but not intentionally rude), or your comment really is as unappealing as I think it is. It's so nuts, (yep, a broad generalization), that, coming from you it's almost like saying the quiet part out loud.
" The government is in a perfect position to act as employment agencies to fill these positions. They can develop databases to show where those jobs are on a state by state basis."
The Federal government has no business in this. States already do that for free, voluntarily, just as the private industry has been doing for decades, (at no cost to employees). The 'net has exploded that market to one-click availability. Hell no, I don't want the government to have one great database of our lives, or the ability to direct the selection process.
We're going to need changes, but I hope that isn't one of them. The rest was on the same tangent, so we wouldn't get anywhere arguing about them.
GAGA; If it is working so great how come there are still so many people unemployed? The labor force participation rate shows that 33 percent of the people who are eligible to work are still unemployed.
It is not a great database of our lives. It is a database of job openings that could be matched to people in their states. Many people are willing to travel and move to other states to work. Besides the federal government already has database of our lives. It's called a census. It's not a matter of a selection process. It is a matter of advertising job opening on a national level.
It's not just a matter of one click availability. The aptitude tests will match people to jobs that they are suited for doing. The military does this all the time and creates opportunities for people not only in the military, but also when they leave as civilians.
Private employment agencies don't care about whether a person is suited for a job. They just want to get them hired so they can get the commission. Therefore you get people who have jobs, but are just there for the money and are miserable at their jobs
Skilled labor is really going to become even more in demand.. The days of working on assembly lines is over because robots can now do what assembly workers used to do. They can do it more efficiently 24/7 and without the burden of all the benefits that go with a person. in offices, one person on one computer has taken the place of several office workers, because of multi processing aps. In the forums one of the common discussions is education and training people. That is what this program will do for them in the 21st century.
I don't care whether you reply to this or not. At least I got it out of my system. Thanks for your initial reply.
MikeI get a newsletter and job offering letter with jobs open twice daily in an email and I am retired. Most of the open jobs offered to me recently have been for Texas with corporations in Dallas/Ft Worth area. They are based on the info I provided to the site/service such as experience, certificates of achievement in skill areas, education level, and if willing to travel. Usually the job listings letters will have at least 25 offerings in various areas. Again, there are two daily and they are not the same letter, they have different offerings.
Regarding this jobs issue, the read I get is that you think the government can do a better job than states and private agencies are doing. Also, you would trust the government to run the program.
To see if we are on the same page, it's unclear if you mean just a national jobs database that can be accessed or one that also conducts the process of selection and application. I'm thinking you mean the latter. a national database of jobs that is only a list is fine with me if that's all it does.
Also, to save a lot of typing, look at this link's results page, (for my state). No need to click any, just note that the 1st-page listings show that all of the 'benefit' services you say the Feds could supply are already being supplied by the states and the private industry. Including aptitude tests, improvement guidance, training, retraining, etc., etc.
In Maryland, the unemployment offices, (now called career centers), will even connect job seekers with their, (the state), counterpart agencies in other states to help job seekers willing to relocate.
Maybe we can find a specific thing I haven't considered, but all of the things you mentioned can be found in state programs.
Relative to private industry, excepting the unsuccessful bad apples that briefly exist in any industry, I think you are wrong about them. They have to care about more than just filling slots with bodies for cash. To survive they have to be very concerned with the product their customer is paying for. If they only send unsatisfactory minimums their customer will look somewhere else. So I don't see the benefit you offer, much less the need for Fed. involvement in the manner you offer. I think Reagan summed it up in his "I'm from the government . . ." quip.
To your points about the coming labor need changes, I'm with you. And I also think solutions will need some form of federal government involvement, but this jobs idea isn't it.
As for getting it out of your system, there's probably some left. Especially regarding the coming job market changes. I think we will see a time when there aren't enough low-skilled jobs needed for even the lowest of job seeker levels—the ones that don't have the capacity for more education or retraining. The government will have to be a part of that solution. Whaddaya think?
GAJumping in just because. I used your keyword search getting pretty much the same result for me here in Calif. The landing page has 60 articles most were state Employment Development Dept. articles while there also were county specific articles. All of them regard opportunity guidance, training, retraining, and more.
One even caught my attention; Employment Services for Older Workers, of which I bookmarked. A long way to agreeing with your position that, yes, opportunity does exist. It is a matter of discovery, which may be for some the roadblock along with motivation of course. Knowing where to look or having the courage to act. I think you know what I mean.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … s&ip=1
Regard, "I think we will see a time when there aren't enough low-skilled jobs needed for even the lowest of job seeker levels—the ones that don't have the capacity for more education or retraining. The government will have to be a part of that solution. Whaddaya think?"
I think of least here in Calif with a large immigrant workforce (more than 1 in 10), which tend to be unskilled jobs are definitely threatened by technology/modernization. Poking about I see there are robots today to pick apples, oranges, and other orchard bearing fruit.
And, there is development today on a strawberry picker, which is big here for pickers. There is even flower picking machines now. Maybe that is the long range solution to curbing illegal immigration . . . no jobs anymore.
I could ramble more as I poked about seeking job opportunities for high school graduates vs college graduates seeing they both have tons of opportunity. High school graduates most likely would undergo on-the-job training while college, that too, yet maybe more specific to what was studied. For instance someone with an English degree has a ton of opportunities.
The bottom line after poking about is there is opportunity and, yes, a reasonable living can be earned if and only if rent and housing pricing does not go ballistic like it is today IMO. And, of course the willingness to relocate. Another subject . . .That's my thinking also. In reference to your robotic specifics as examples of what's to come, that's part of the point about labor-force changes. We are going to reach a point where we will have a large segment of our workforce with no opportunity for a job because the jobs won't exist. And it won't be their fault. It won't be a laziness or dumbness thing.
We dinosaurs won't see it, but it's coming and our kids better get ready for it. Their government is going to be a big player.
GA
GA: I wasn't aware of those resources being available to job seekers. That's great that they are available. I just wonder how many states have programs like that. I'm not going to go through all the states, but I wonder if that information is getting to the people who need it, and if not, how to make that information available. Perhaps, there should be public service announcements on TV?
I checked California where I live, and they have a similar site, but it requires, having an account before you can even get to what is available on the front page of the site in Maryland.I think Maryland represents the norm of the states, so I am confident the information is getting 'out there' to folks that want to benefit themselves. I see state ads about these services frequently.
As for that 'account' wall, I think that is the starting point for people that want to participate. The outlines of the details of each program are available outside of that portal. It's just a matter of a different 'click'.
I know where your thoughts were in your comment, but the thought that the Feds could do it better and more efficiently stopped me in my tracks. In the midst of our current times governmental swings, there is no way I want more of their involvement in issues like these. Your trust in the government is a lot stronger than mine.
GAGA: There are somethings that lend themselves better at the federal level than the state level. FAA, FCC, FDA, etc. Because their jurisdictions have to work across state lines in order to be effective.
I think it is a good thing to have the states make aptitude tests available, but employment agencies should also make them available as well. I know that would be hard to check, but it's just a thought.
"Even if we became the most educated Nation on Earth, Walmart would still need workers in order to make their profits and remain in business. And the same can be said for all of the other unskilled jobs that are an integral part of our economy and society. The need for people to fill these jobs is always going to be there."
This is true, in days going by these jobs were filled with young people to pay for their education, used as stepping stones to better jobs. Now we have fewer young people going to college. In America we now have I believe it is 64% of our citizens living week to week.
Our Nation is changing, not overnight, but it is accelerating to less and less wealthy, and a dying middle class, with a growing number of poor.
The problem with taxing the rich is just not so cut and dry. We need big business, without them we will in no respect be able to print enough money to support all the poor.But conversely, where would big business be without us?? I mean just sticking with the Walmart example, they need us customers. There's no way around it. Again, a fair wage for a 40-hour work week that keeps an individual off of food stamps is a win for everyone. You really feel that it's more important for a corporation to hold on to more profit rather than pay a living wage?
I just don't see the benefit. You are paying for the corporations tax breaks and you're paying to subsidize their low-paid workers with Medicaid and welfare. . How is this okay?
We are ready supporting the "working poor"You miss understanding what I have tried to say. Big businesses hold the power, if they are heavily taxed, they cut costs, first to go are employees, and they mark products up to make up for their tax losses.
Never said it is a fair game, it is just what history has shown us.
Actually, if inflation gets worse, we will see big businesses cut workers, and raise prices, even higher than what we are experiencing now.
This is capitalism.
So, if Walmarts adopts paying unskilled workers more, do you feel skilled workers will not demand higher wages? or shoulda Walmart workers make what a teacher or a nurse makes? I certainly would not be pleased with such a system.
We have always had to pay for those that can't make ends meet. I would think many would be very satisfied to take these unskilled jobs, and we would have even more young that won't strive to improve in any form of skills. What kind of country will be left with.
It seems you feel this big type of bandaid would help our society, I feel it would do nothing but do harm.No I do not believe that a Walmart clerk should be making as much as a teacher or a nurse. There is a happy medium though. I do not think that someone should put in a 40-hour work week and be forced to take government assistance in order to live so that the corporation they work for can make more profit.
I am also not advocating for them to be "heavily" taxed.
Congress cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). At the time, the Trump administration claimed that its corporate tax cuts would increase the average household income in the United States by $4,000. But years later, there is little indication that the tax cut is even beginning to trickle down in the ways its proponents claimed.
In selling the large corporate tax cut to Congress, the Trump administration claimed that corporate tax cuts would ultimately translate into higher wages for workers. Look where we are, full-time workers who are on public aid.
Just adding a thought that may be a slippery slope in some senses. For instance I know for a fact that some of the workers at the national chain grocery store I shop at employees are purposely shorted on 40 hours/week so they are not considered full time employees, thus when achieved they receive not only higher pay, but different benefit package all agreed upon my union negotiations. Three people I know have two jobs because of that.
I think the practice you have offered is common and has been for many years. Keeping workers under the hour they need to receive benefits.
Would you think this practice would improve or worsen if the business's taxes went up?
The subject that started this vein, was in regard to raising taxes on big business. My main point was about raising taxes on businesses or what could occur if the Federal Government overly taxed "big businesses". Smaller businesses would most likely not suffer from the tax increases that the current administration is considering. Although, that is at this point unseen. I put nothing past this very inept (my view) adminstration
All your points are solid, it actually lends to my view. The business owner looks out for number one and balances what he takes to the bank by adjusting how many they employ, and how much is paid out in wages, and benefits.
Naturally one can't fit all employers into that peg, but I would say one could put the majority in that peg.Yes, your right the 'Bottom Line' is the name of the game - Profit!!! I have no qualm with that, though research has shown me more is paid out to big business subsidies than to individual welfare benefits giving me cause to ponder a little. Not going to argue benefits & features of that.
Just for giggle Musk himself has come out against subsidies, yet has received billions of them. He has also came out against higher taxes. Again, a discussion could be made of the virtues of higher taxes and also for not having higher taxes.
I take no stand only being an observer at this time. However, being an entrepreneur all my life I would take advantage of any opportunity that will benefit me no matter a perk or a buck. Wouldn't anyone? I would think whether a mega corporation or the single mom with two kids squeaking out a living would open the door of opportunity.
Elon Musk is speaking out against government subsidies. Here's a list of the billions of dollars his businesses have received. (Insider, Dec 15, 2021)
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu … ty-2021-12Let's argue about those subsidies. The article's inferences, and the general public pronouncement, is that those billions are corporate welfare. And that the richest man in the world got $4.9 billion of it.
I don't think subsidies, grants, or tax credits are corporate welfare. In a "welfare" issue no contribution is required. Almost all of the article's list involved the recipients doing something, and in most cases, it was to do something the government wanted them to do.
That's not welfare, and counting performance contracts as subsidies is just dishonest. Business Insider gets a 3-turd rating on this one.
GAAre subsidies capitalist? Do you agree that capitalism relies on the trader principle?
Those read like loaded questions. Yes, I do think subsidies are a valid part of capitalism, and that the Trader Principle is the bedrock of capitalism. I will trade you questions: Do you disagree?
Of course, my agreement comes with a string attached: subsidies aren't give-aways, they are exchanges: 'we'll give you this if you do that'. That's a trade, a barter, an exchange of values. Not a give-away or corporate welfare.
That's the capitalistic Trader Principle in action.
GAWell, I'd assert that I believe subsidies violate the trader principle. I think we agree that the Capitalist systems operate under the premise of trading value for value. But also, the trader principle does not allow the use of force.
But subsidies, wherein a government redistributes taxpayers’ funds to another party (usually a business), however, stand in stark contrast to the trader principle, does it not? Such redistribution involves force and no value for value trade occurs.
I'd say that the companies who lobby for and the politicians who grant subsidies are not acting on the trader principle, and therefore such actions are not compatible with capitalism. Subsidies exemplify cronyism. We see situations in which our government rewards companies according to proximity to power, not the value the company creates.Faye:
'I'd say that the companies who lobby for and the politicians who grant subsidies are not acting on the trader principle, and therefore such actions are not compatible with capitalism. Subsidies exemplify cronyism. iwe see situations in which out government rewards companies according to proximity to power, not the value the company creates."
I think this support your point. It is a long read, but I think it exemplifies what you are describing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/1 … uts-359932"It’s not a crazy idea to ask what the public’s getting from this, or could the public expect more for it.”
Yes! This is exactly what I'm trying to convey about subsidies. Thank you!
In real capitalism there are no guaranteed profits. But corporate welfare gives the well‐connected protection from many of the normal risks of business. Corporate welfare can subsidizes failing and mismanaged businesses. In true capitalistic fashion we would allow them to fail. Correct?As subsidies are almost always connected to a company performing some action government wants, why isn't it considered more as a straight purchase rather than a subsidy? Subsidies are generally given without requirements being attached (section 8 housing, for instance), while purchase contracts are always a reciprocal wherein both parties benefit, such as a tax break for building in a depressed zone.
Your link did make something obvious to me. I need to be more clear about what type of "subsidies" I am talking about when I bring this exchange of values stuff into the conversation. Although they are called subsidies, those examples of agro 'welfare' are not what I mean.
Thankfully, I did make that qualification when I started the idea with tsmog. *whew.
GAGA: This is what Faye said about my reply.
"It’s not a crazy idea to ask what the public’s getting from this, or could the public expect more for it.”
Yes! This is exactly what I'm trying to convey about subsidies. Thank you!
In real capitalism there are no guaranteed profits. But corporate welfare gives the well‐connected protection from many of the normal risks of business. Corporate welfare can subsidizes failing and mismanaged businesses. In true capitalistic fashion we would allow them to fail. Correct?Your link has caused me to pause. I agree with Faye's comment—generally. In my comments about subsidies, I started with the Musk subsidies that were being labeled as welfare and I disagree. I don't think those were welfare, they had reciprocal action attached.
However, from there I went off-track and spoke as if all subsidies were like those in the BusinessInsider article. They aren't, as your link pointed out regarding the agro subsidies.
I'm not reversing course on the subsidies I started with, but I'm backing off of the subsidy generalizations. My original point doesn't carry across the board.
GAGA: All you have to do is look at what Trump did with the tariffs placed on China for soybeans. They went elsewhere to buy their soybeans and Trump subsidized the farmers. I don't believe there was any reciprocal action. I agree with Faye, In true capitalism, it is just survival of the fittest.
Would you disagree that a business losing customers or going bankrupt as the direct result of government action deserves, and should receive, a subsidy to compensate them for what government did to them? The soybean farmers come to mind here.
Wilderness: That is a great question and implies guilt on the part of the government. Do they do it because of guilt or to uphold an industry from going down the tubes?
True capitalism is based on letting it go down the tubes and some other entity will make up for the loss in the total scheme of a capitalist economy.
Deregulation has caused a lot of acquisitions and mergers of many companies. Just look at the airline industry.Why does it have to be guilt or saving an industry? Why not a simple recognition of what was done - that government caused the loss and should make it up?
Maybe you're right about "true capitalism", but maybe not, either. Given that exports are quite important to the country, economy, and other business is it possible that it was in the best interests to maintain or grow exports? I don't see it as black and white as you appear to, nor do I find capitalism an evil any more than socialism, marxism, communism or any other form of government/economy.
Did deregulation cause acquisitions and mergers, or did it allow it?Corporate socialism is where we are
today. Government allows corporations to socialize losses and privatize gains. Companies that have failed in the marketplace stick the taxpayers with their losses, but when they make money they get to keep it, and secondly, huge amounts of capital are given to companies by taxpayers. What do we get in return? workers that are paid a wage that allow most to easily qualify for public assistance. Sticking it to the taxpayer once again. A double whammy. I think we need to have a little more of that rugged individualism concept applied to corporations as quickly and easily as it is applied to us citizens. Businesses want to insulate themselves from the rigors of the competitive market, Nope. Sink or swim, survival of the fittest and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. That is what capitalism is all about.Overall, I agree with you. Sink or swim. But at the same time I have been forced (during the big recession) to understand just how much damage can be done, both to individuals and to the country, when an industry fails.
I DO think, though, that your "corporate socialism" is badly overblown. simply giving money to corporations, even in the form of tax breaks, does not happen nearly as often as you appear to think it does. The large majority of such payments are a quid-pro-quo of some kind or another. Perhaps to build where a city or state wants the company to build. Perhaps to hire disabled workers. Perhaps to promote clean energy (thinking of solar cell manufacturers here).
But the "rugged individualism"; does that mean little or no regulation, or just little or no help when things go south? Often because of government actions?
You don't need Trump in this thread Mike. The same point would carry across too many such 'subsidies' already in place decades before Trump came along.
The point you made: a type of subsidy with no reciprocal action, was conceded in the comment you responded to, so your Trump reference was doubly unnecessary. Grandma would say, 'Tsk., Tsk.'
GA
With hundreds of millions of people getting subsidies from the taxpayers' funds, how can you possible claim that it is usually a business getting them? If every single business got free money every single month it wouldn't be even a quarter of the number of entities doing so!
I think your reasoning breaks down at the start of your second paragraph. You introduced a condition, (redistribution), an additional detail that is irrelevant to the point: an exchange of value for value. The point isn't about how that exchange agreement was reached, it is only about the truth of a voluntary agreement of exchange.
To your point of the taxpayers' non-participation in the deal, I think the public partner in the deal is the taxpayers' representatives, and they must be agreeable or there would be no deal, no exchange, no trade. There is no force involved in the subsidy trade. There may be force involved in the government's provision of that subsidy, but that is part of the government and governed trade, not the government to business subsidy trade.
Your point about lobbying seems the same to me. It's not about how the agreement is reached it is that agreement was reached. That's not a defense of lobbying efforts, (or any of the other shady stuff you alluded to), I think there is a lot of shady stuff that goes on that shouldn't go on. But it doesn't affect the distinction of the 'trade' involved in subsidies.
I might be as wrong as I think I am right, but I do think I am. ;-)
GAWithout more specifically defining the 'subsidies' I have been talking about, it turns out I was as wrong as I thought I was right. There are subsidies that don't include a reciprocal exchange.
Oh well, half a loaf is better than none. So half right must be better than all wrong. ;-)
GAReminds me of something I read once. Is the glass half empty or half full? The realist says, "I don't give a damn, I'm thirsty . . . "
Corporations answer to one ruler and that is the board of directors. It's all about making money for the stock holders and the board. As a result they can create what are called negative externalities.
An example is coal burning power plants. They create pollution and affect the environment negatively, but they bring in profits for the corporation.
Senator Joe Manchin, an investor in the coal industry just shot down Biden's regulation of that industry because it affects his and their bottom line. The board could care less about the effects on the environment and climate change as long as they are making a profit. Of course, they create jobs for people in that industry, but it is still about their bottom line."Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., delivered a serious blow to ongoing Senate negotiations for a Democratic budget package, telling Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday that he will not support a bill that includes climate or tax provisions — leaving slimmed-down legislation focused on health care."
It looks like the climate regulations were added to a bill that Manchin felt did not belong. Was the bill just a trojan horse? I have not read it, just a few media articles. But looks like a typical "look here not over there bill.
Manchin claimed he favors a bill that would lower prescription drug prices and extend for two years health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, which would prevent premium increases that many states.
https://rollcall.com/2022/07/18/after-m … e-support/You left out one very important part of the equation; the customer. In the case of coal burning industry, the customer gets cheaper power than they would otherwise. Without that customer the company burning coal would not exist.
So there are the stockholders, the board of directors, the employees and the customer, all of whom are benefitting from those negative externalities.Wilderness, I hate to tell you this, but what you mentioned are not negative externalities, but positive externalities. Corporations actions can cause both types according to economic principals.
You left out the people and the environment. They are not benefitting from the negative externalities. They are suffering from the pollution and the effects it has on the environment and climate change.
That part of the country is experiencing some of the worst heat waves in a decades that can be contributed to green houses gases. I like to think of it as global warming as that pollution has a butterfly effect that can affect the entire world's weather conditions.
When it comes to negative externalities, corporations are like a self nurturing organism, they could care less about the effect they have on people and things. It is still about the bottom line, but that is not to say they can also cause positive externalities as you mentioned."You left out the people and the environment. They are not benefitting from the negative externalities."
Really? You don't see cheap power as a positive? Do you really think that those folks, struggling to get by, would voluntarily accept a much higher power bill to "save the planet"? I disagree.Wilderness: I said what you listed, including cheap power was a positive externality. This is what I said:
"I hate to tell you this, but what you mentioned are not negative externalities, but positive externalities. Corporations actions can cause both types according to economic principals."OK - we're down to arguing over semantics and misunderstandings. Another day, another topic, PP!
Wilderness:
Here is everything you wanted to know about positive and negative externalities, but were afraid to ask.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp
Nope, I never 'agree to disagree.' That is surrender. You must admit you are wrong before the deserved lashes can cleanse your mind of any idea of resistance.
GA ;-o
That's exactly how I see those "subsidies" as well. There are probably a few that are the result of lobbying, without much (if an) "quid pro quo" with the government, but not many. Those myriad of tax breaks and subsidies are government's way of paying a company to do what the government wants them to.
Although I never agree to disagree, I don't have a problem agreeing to agree. ;-)
GA
First, Welfare is a big word that could be used specifically don't you agree. The dictionary says, "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" Who determines if needed or not? For subsidies it says, a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." So, now we have a starting point. Note subsidies "a sum of money Granted. To me that means it is a grant.
I think your choices, "subsidies, grants, or tax credits" are more in the woods of being incentives. Yet, is providing a child with lunch at a public school if and only if they attend to learn thus becoming a contributing member of society also not an incentive? No, seems it is thought of welfare. I disagree. The incentive offered to the child is no different than the incentive offered to the corporation. Something is offered if something is done supposedly beneficial to both parties. If it is welfare to provide that meal it is welfare to provide the subsidy.I think I see the point of your analogy, but I don't agree with it. There may be many rationales, (ie. your comparison to subsidies), and expectations behind the provision of that welfare, (school meals), but there is no agreed exchange, only expectations.
My view is the 'on the other hand' one. A subsidy requires some sort of quid pro quo. It requires an exchange of values. School meals do not include any exchange.
To make sure we are talking about the same "welfare" concept; I am using it as a label, a generalization of what I think is the public's 'general' view of public assistance—something for nothing. That's a harsh description but I think it is right.
As to the definitions, and for this point in particular, I think the innocent use of a label is good enough. Sorta like a conversation with folks that say: "You know what I mean.' (said as either a question or an affirmation). If you don't, more is needed, but if you do, (generic 'you' of course), then it's on to more contentious points.
I'm not saying I don't think there are programs that do meet my idea of 'corporate welfare', but the actions in this discussion, (BusinessInsider's presentation), don't fit that description, for me.
GA
Just a thought, Musk employs over 100,000 people. I can only imagine the tax revenue his employee adds to the bottom line. Corporate welfare relies on, I will scratch your back, you scratch mine. Mutual benefits are derived from subsidies, and tax breaks offered to big businesses.
I am glad he did not head back to South Africa and set up shop in the country he grew up in.
Capitalism seems to work for America, I guess we could change the rules, but I must wonder if the big business would pick up, and move to greener pastures.
But, I would also assume our noses are laying on the ground.
So, what are your thoughts -- would you prefer a win on higher taxes for big business, and just let the chips fall where they may? Gamble while we are already in a recession period?I will repeat:
"I take no stand only being an observer at this time. However, being an entrepreneur all my life I would take advantage of any opportunity that will benefit me no matter a perk or a buck. Wouldn't anyone? I would think whether a mega corporation or the single mom with two kids squeaking out a living would open the door of opportunity."
Just to add a thought. Using a 2019 report by the Small Business Administration 47.3% of the private workforce is by small business. In other words it is not just big businesses that employ the private workforce.
One thing in that regard is to consider if benefits are offered and how those are administered. For instance where I last worked the employee paid 50% of medical insurance for themself and family. There was a 401K only for retirement and employer contribution changed from year to year based on profits earned of course.
According to the SBA a small business is: "It defines small business by firm revenue (ranging from $1 million to over $40 million) and by employment (from 100 to over 1,500 employees).
SBA 2021 Small Business Profile
https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content … States.pdf
Triggered by "More like they keep "their" coffers full." I poked about to satisfy my curiosity. Wow! The amount of money raised for political campaigns and candidates as well as party stuff is amazing. So, far for through June 2022 it is 1.2 billion between both parties. And, also, the money spent. One realizes it is money, money, money and to always follow the money as hinted to by Sharlee with 'Big Business' doing the contributions as well as the significantly wealthy persons.
Anyway if curiosity strikes below are some interesting links to skim for 2022, which is half way through the year now.
Party committee fundraising, 2021-2022 by BallotPedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_committee … _2021-2022
2022 Outside Spending, by Race by Open Secrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespen … php?disp=R
Fundraising Totals: Who Raised the Most? by Open Secrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-o … ing-totals
Being the curios sort I checked those for my region specific races with its candidates here in California. I noticed Kevin McCarthy is on the top of pile. Seems candidates in Calif are in the top four spots. Interesting!
This new poll has some interesting results in it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/upsh … pe=Article
First time in a while - Generic Ballot Ds 41% and Rs 40%
This can be telling as it reflects sentiment after the SC did its terrible thing:
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE (D - R - U):
GUN RELATED: 67% - 5% - 28%
ABORTION RELATED: 67% - 15% - 18%
DEMOCRACY RELATED: 64% - 21% - 15%
ECONOMY RELATED: 25% - 62% - 13%
OTHER: 37% - 40% - 23%
So the question is - Will Gun-Abortion-Democracy outweigh Economy?
WHO SUPPORTS WHICH PARTY the most (plurality)?
Democrats: Women, White college educated, Black, Hispanic (you could have fooled me), 18 - 44 year olds. College grad.
Republican: Men, White w/no college, Other race, 45+, No 4-year degree.
It is interesting to note that the only demographics to score more than 50% are: White w/no college (R), White w/college (D), Black (D), 30 - 44 years old (D), and College grad (D)
(I understand the Ds are looking very much the underdog, but I am no longer sure why.)
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 5 months 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...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 8 months ago
There is good inflation and their is bad inflation. What we experienced from 2009 - 2021 was the good type of inflation, between 1 and 3% a year. What we are experiencing now between 5 and 9% inflation is bad inflation. What we experienced in the 1980s, 10 to 15% inflation is...
- 67
Did Putin Really Cause America's Inflation?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Biden blames everything but his government spending for the monthly growing inflation. Which now is at 8.5%, a 40-year high. Biden has gone through painstaking efforts to shirk responsibility for the state of America's failing economy, blaming meat conglomerates, oil companies,...
- 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...
- 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 20 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...