My point is that despite the shit storm of the issues with the economy due to the pandemic and POOTWH’s incompetence, Brandon’s administration did a fairly decent job of responding to all the myriad of challenges. Of course everyone wanted it fixed overnight but that’s not reality. Also, factor in the I95 bridge repair and clearing the collapsed bridge blocking the Port of Baltimore as feathers in Brandon’s cap.
“Oh yea, those things happened. They did? I don’t recall that. Yea, me neither. Economy sucks.”
Meanwhile, the Dow is up another 173 points. Give corporations tax cuts or give us death.
I find it interesting and of course bullshit, that Trump is making promise to both Wall Street/Silicon and to Unions. You can't keep them both happy. Will they figure it out?
Well he is also saying he will impose a 10% tariff on imports and deport 20 million people. If he actually does those two things....that will be like inflation on steroids.
And corporations hate both of those initiatives. He really has little to offer them. The tax cut is already permanent.
Isn't he also promising them 15% corporate tax?
Did he? I didn't see that. Love to see CBO estimate on that one. Are we going to create MORE jobs than we have today, which we can't even fill?
Dow up 742 points today. But you know, Brandon is decimating the economy, a lot of people are saying unemployment is really 15-20-25-30%, taxes through the roof, gas at $6-$7-$8 a gallon, interest rates as high as 12-13-18% and no relief in site, particularly with the supply chain issues and the backlogs of 20-30-40 days to get ships offloaded. A lot of people are saying.
Are they using Californias gas prices? Prices have gone up, that is definitely true. If the economy keeps going like this then the fed will have to lower interest rates and that would help Biden a lot.
They should be lowering them. It's time and Powell needs to stop the lip service and do it.
The reason they will likely cut rates is because inflation has slowed, not because prices are going up. Halifax was being facetious.
What do you mean about lip service? He's said it's market driven and wants to see inflation be tamed over a period of months. That's finally happening now.
Yeah I know. Prices have gone up is a statement.
He says market driven. I know I heard the interview which is why i call it lip service. I don't think they will lower it anytime soon even though the economy/market is doing well.
Your post was a little confusing.
The market is 100% certain they will cut rates in September when they meet...however if CPI comes in hotter and/or job market takes off again, you never know. That is why they want to see things play out for more than one month.
Gotcha. It's in my head and makes sense but I should draw it out better...
So, my theory of why they wait longer? The economy continues to do well they won't have to lower it until it needs a shot in the arm. Also how many years were interest rates really low? A long time. They may let it ride longer until they have to do something. But yes, you never know, lol!
Yeah...but it's literally CPI and Jobs numbers though. They are absolutely cutting interest rates and want to do it sooner than later...they just need a reason to justify it.
They aren't "forced" to do it. Eh. Lets see in a few months.
Why would you think I mean they are forced to? Their dual mandate/market conditions dictates it to them. Every sign points to a cut in September.
Lets see.
It's my black helicopter theory right now, just let me go with it, lol.
It’s the Biden vs. Trump Economy—and Hell No, It’s Not Even Close
The
facts are clear: Biden has overseen a stronger economy than Trump did.
That reality should dominate his reelection campaign.
Cassidy Araiza/Bloomberg/Getty Images
I’m
going to tell you something that I’m pretty sure you don’t know—and
that you probably won’t even believe. Ready? Real wages are now growing
in the United States at a pace faster than the spike in the cost of
living since the pandemic. More than that: For the first time in
decades, wage growth is consistently stronger in the middle and at the
bottom than at the top.
See,
I told you that you wouldn’t believe it. But it’s right there in a
recent study by David Autor, Arindrajit Dube, and Annie McGrew, three
well-known economists. Dube just wrote up the results
at Project Syndicate, emphasizing: “Importantly, the real wages of the
middle quintile are not only higher today than they were before the
pandemic, but slightly higher than we would expect based on 2015-19
trends. In other words, the typical American worker’s purchasing power
has grown at least as much as it likely would have in the absence of the
global challenges posed by the pandemic and geopolitical conflicts.”
If
you’re waiting to see this reported in the mainstream media, except by
me and my colleague Tim Noah and a small handful of other people, I
advise you to stop. It’s not going to happen. In the mainstream media,
there’s still largely one Joe Biden–era economic story: inflation, gas
prices, people feeling worse off than they did four years ago, and ooh,
did he just forget someone’s name again?
I don’t deny any of the bad news. Inflation has been punishing. Gas prices are about $1 higher per gallon
than they were in 2020 (they were higher in 2019 than 2020 because of
the pandemic-driven downturn); that’s about $15 more to fill a tank, a
lot of money to a working person. Liberals shouldn’t lecture people to
feel good about the economy when they’re just not feeling it. I get
that. I come from West Virginia. People who acutely feel the pain of
higher gas prices aren’t abstractions to me.
And yet … at some
point, don’t facts matter? If this election is going to come down to the
Biden economy versus the Trump economy—which, for those famous swing
voters in those famous six or seven states, it likely will—then facts
had better matter, and Democrats from the White House on down had better
get a lot more aggressive about touting them, because they are
affirmatively on Biden’s side.
Biden took a pretty good swing at Trump last week when Trump raised the old Reagan question, Are you better off than you were four years ago? It
was astonishingly tone-deaf timing on Trump’s part, since in the third
week of March four years ago, the nation had just gone under lockdown
and life was terrifying and out of control and he was a laughingstock.
By March 24, there were 65,800 confirmed Covid cases in the country, and
yet Trump chose that date to make his crazy-sauce Easter Proclamation,
if I may borrow a phrase. Remember? “I think Easter Sunday—you’ll have
packed churches all over our country.” Most families still weren’t even
getting together that Christmas, nine months later.
The Biden campaign on Thursday hit Trump with this ad about Trump’s disastrous pandemic dereliction:
It’s
a pretty good ad, though I think they missed a few clean shots. The one
Trump comment that most stands out in my mind is this gem from late
February: “We have a total of 15. We took in some from Japan—you heard
about that—because they’re American citizens, and they’re in
quarantine.… So, again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a
couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty
good job we’ve done.”
That 15 was never, of course, close to zero. For that matter, he was—of course!—lying about the 15. It was more like 200. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump catalogued 40 times Trump predicted the virus was going away (“It’s gonna go away without a vaccine” was a real winner).
There
are two issues the Biden campaign needs to stress going forward. The
first is the one raised by this new ad—how much is to be gained
politically by reminding the American people of Trump’s hideous handling
of the outbreak. I think at this point it’s hard to say. People
remember nothing. They probably think it wasn’t Trump’s fault, and he
did OK. It’s true that it wasn’t his fault, and let’s remember that he
did lay out the money for Operation Warp Speed.
But he did a lot
of things wrong, including lying to the American people about the
virus’s severity and standing up there at those nightly press
conferences making a total ass of himself. A few hundred thousand people
died who didn’t have to die. It’s essential to remind voters of that,
to tell that narrative. He was a disaster and an embarrassment.
The second issue is the broader comparison of the two economies. Trump’s pre-pandemic economy, as I’ve written before, was good.
Trump haters can’t deny it. It wasn’t because of anything he did. He
passed a tax cut for the rich. It goosed demand a little, and it did
help the stock market. Median household income rose dramatically in one
year, from 2018 to 2019.
But it was not the greatest economy in
the history of the universe. Trump’s jobs numbers in his first two years
lagged behind Barack Obama’s in his last two, 4.5 million to 5.2
million. And both are way behind Biden’s first two-year total of nearly
11 million. And wages, as I noted above, are up. And they’re especially
up for the middle class and the poor. This is what “middle-out
economics” means.
Granted, Democrats have to be careful how they
talk about all this. But they have to find a way, and it has to be
completely free of the backtracking and apologetics Democrats so often
display. Jobs are up. Wages are up. The stock market is way up.
Inequality is down. The deficit is down. Big laws passed under Biden are
opening factories and putting people to work. It’s all true.
Being
sensitive to how people hear things doesn’t mean letting Trump tell
lies about Biden’s record and then hemming and hawing in its defense.
Trump inherited a good economy and didn’t screw it up—until a crisis hit
that he was completely unprepared for and lied about constantly and
refused to take responsibility for. Biden inherited a horrible economy,
got us out of that crisis, suffered through a price crisis that also
affected the rest of the developed world, but is now presiding over the
greatest monthly job growth in history (yes, at 289,000 a month) and is
keeping his core campaign promise of shifting wealth from the top to the
middle and the bottom. Why is it so hard to tell that story, Democrats?
Michael Tomasky is the editor of The New Republic and the author of five books, including his latest and critically acclaimed The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity.
With extensive experience as an editor, columnist, progressive
commentator, and special correspondent for renowned publications such as
The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Daily Beast, and many others, Tomasky has been a trusted voice in political journalism for more than three decades.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
So explain how the president effects the economy? I mean the democratic policies of owning homes is what doomed us in 09. That wasn't the presidents doing under Bush but what the dems brought forth. Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
500 down yesterday. Look for a rally today though.
I was waiting for him to update us on the market yesterday but it never happened.
You know the old saying.. "buy the rumor, sell the news". That could be the case here. People have been buying, expecting the fed to lower rates when better inflation data hits. Then it hits, we spike, we drop. The old term is "profit-takers". Maybe I'm wrong, I'm right aobut 50% of the time on this stuff. But that's my take. Either way, I don't live on equities, they are long term investment. So I am riding it all out.
500 down yesterday. Look for a rally today though.
I was waiting for him to update us on the market yesterday but it never happened.
You know the old saying.. "buy the rumor, sell the news". That could be the case here. People have been buying, expecting the fed to lower rates when better inflation data hits. Then it hits, we spike, we drop. The old term is "profit-takers". Maybe I'm wrong, I'm right aobut 50% of the time on this stuff. But that's my take. Either way, I don't live on equities, they are long term investment. So I am riding it all out.
I haven’t touched my dividends since February. I keep anticipating a big dip that never seemed to happen… yet. If we get a big dip I’ll be buying hand over fist.
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
So explain how the president effects the economy? I mean the democratic policies of owning homes is what doomed us in 09. That wasn't the presidents doing under Bush but what the dems brought forth. Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
So explain the difference between affect and effect
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
If republicans are so unlucky we should probably stop electing them
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
If republicans are so unlucky we should probably stop electing them
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
So explain how the president effects the economy? I mean the democratic policies of owning homes is what doomed us in 09. That wasn't the presidents doing under Bush but what the dems brought forth. Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
So explain the difference between affect and effect
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
So explain how the president effects the economy? I mean the democratic policies of owning homes is what doomed us in 09. That wasn't the presidents doing under Bush but what the dems brought forth. Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
So explain the difference between affect and effect
Your smart enough to find my grammatical errors but knot answer the question. Good pivot.
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?
Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama. That's why i didn't mention him...
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?
Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama. That's why i didn't mention him...
And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?
Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama. That's why i didn't mention him...
And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed. I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP. For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic. There was no policy that caused that. Same with the recession that started in 2008. I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one. It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.
2008 was housing and a democratic bill. I would say that was the leading factor.
It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?
Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama. That's why i didn't mention him...
And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?
Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.
Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?
I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?
Absolutely do not agree.
Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents.
Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
So explain how the president effects the economy? I mean the democratic policies of owning homes is what doomed us in 09. That wasn't the presidents doing under Bush but what the dems brought forth. Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
So explain the difference between affect and effect
Your smart enough to find my grammatical errors but knot answer the question. Good pivot.
So explain how "the president has little to no results of an economy"?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's my black helicopter theory right now, just let me go with it, lol.
It’s the Biden vs. Trump Economy—and Hell No, It’s Not Even Close
The facts are clear: Biden has overseen a stronger economy than Trump did. That reality should dominate his reelection campaign.
I’m going to tell you something that I’m pretty sure you don’t know—and that you probably won’t even believe. Ready? Real wages are now growing in the United States at a pace faster than the spike in the cost of living since the pandemic. More than that: For the first time in decades, wage growth is consistently stronger in the middle and at the bottom than at the top.
See, I told you that you wouldn’t believe it. But it’s right there in a recent study by David Autor, Arindrajit Dube, and Annie McGrew, three well-known economists. Dube just wrote up the results at Project Syndicate, emphasizing: “Importantly, the real wages of the middle quintile are not only higher today than they were before the pandemic, but slightly higher than we would expect based on 2015-19 trends. In other words, the typical American worker’s purchasing power has grown at least as much as it likely would have in the absence of the global challenges posed by the pandemic and geopolitical conflicts.”
If you’re waiting to see this reported in the mainstream media, except by me and my colleague Tim Noah and a small handful of other people, I advise you to stop. It’s not going to happen. In the mainstream media, there’s still largely one Joe Biden–era economic story: inflation, gas prices, people feeling worse off than they did four years ago, and ooh, did he just forget someone’s name again?
I don’t deny any of the bad news. Inflation has been punishing. Gas prices are about $1 higher per gallon than they were in 2020 (they were higher in 2019 than 2020 because of the pandemic-driven downturn); that’s about $15 more to fill a tank, a lot of money to a working person. Liberals shouldn’t lecture people to feel good about the economy when they’re just not feeling it. I get that. I come from West Virginia. People who acutely feel the pain of higher gas prices aren’t abstractions to me.
And yet … at some point, don’t facts matter? If this election is going to come down to the Biden economy versus the Trump economy—which, for those famous swing voters in those famous six or seven states, it likely will—then facts had better matter, and Democrats from the White House on down had better get a lot more aggressive about touting them, because they are affirmatively on Biden’s side.
Biden took a pretty good swing at Trump last week when Trump raised the old Reagan question, Are you better off than you were four years ago? It was astonishingly tone-deaf timing on Trump’s part, since in the third week of March four years ago, the nation had just gone under lockdown and life was terrifying and out of control and he was a laughingstock. By March 24, there were 65,800 confirmed Covid cases in the country, and yet Trump chose that date to make his crazy-sauce Easter Proclamation, if I may borrow a phrase. Remember? “I think Easter Sunday—you’ll have packed churches all over our country.” Most families still weren’t even getting together that Christmas, nine months later.
The Biden campaign on Thursday hit Trump with this ad about Trump’s disastrous pandemic dereliction:
It’s a pretty good ad, though I think they missed a few clean shots. The one Trump comment that most stands out in my mind is this gem from late February: “We have a total of 15. We took in some from Japan—you heard about that—because they’re American citizens, and they’re in quarantine.… So, again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”
That 15 was never, of course, close to zero. For that matter, he was—of course!—lying about the 15. It was more like 200. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump catalogued 40 times Trump predicted the virus was going away (“It’s gonna go away without a vaccine” was a real winner).
There are two issues the Biden campaign needs to stress going forward. The first is the one raised by this new ad—how much is to be gained politically by reminding the American people of Trump’s hideous handling of the outbreak. I think at this point it’s hard to say. People remember nothing. They probably think it wasn’t Trump’s fault, and he did OK. It’s true that it wasn’t his fault, and let’s remember that he did lay out the money for Operation Warp Speed.
But he did a lot of things wrong, including lying to the American people about the virus’s severity and standing up there at those nightly press conferences making a total ass of himself. A few hundred thousand people died who didn’t have to die. It’s essential to remind voters of that, to tell that narrative. He was a disaster and an embarrassment.
The second issue is the broader comparison of the two economies. Trump’s pre-pandemic economy, as I’ve written before, was good. Trump haters can’t deny it. It wasn’t because of anything he did. He passed a tax cut for the rich. It goosed demand a little, and it did help the stock market. Median household income rose dramatically in one year, from 2018 to 2019.
But it was not the greatest economy in the history of the universe. Trump’s jobs numbers in his first two years lagged behind Barack Obama’s in his last two, 4.5 million to 5.2 million. And both are way behind Biden’s first two-year total of nearly 11 million. And wages, as I noted above, are up. And they’re especially up for the middle class and the poor. This is what “middle-out economics” means.
Granted, Democrats have to be careful how they talk about all this. But they have to find a way, and it has to be completely free of the backtracking and apologetics Democrats so often display. Jobs are up. Wages are up. The stock market is way up. Inequality is down. The deficit is down. Big laws passed under Biden are opening factories and putting people to work. It’s all true.
Being sensitive to how people hear things doesn’t mean letting Trump tell lies about Biden’s record and then hemming and hawing in its defense. Trump inherited a good economy and didn’t screw it up—until a crisis hit that he was completely unprepared for and lied about constantly and refused to take responsibility for. Biden inherited a horrible economy, got us out of that crisis, suffered through a price crisis that also affected the rest of the developed world, but is now presiding over the greatest monthly job growth in history (yes, at 289,000 a month) and is keeping his core campaign promise of shifting wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom. Why is it so hard to tell that story, Democrats?
Michael Tomasky is the editor of The New Republic and the author of five books, including his latest and critically acclaimed The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity. With extensive experience as an editor, columnist, progressive commentator, and special correspondent for renowned publications such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Daily Beast, and many others, Tomasky has been a trusted voice in political journalism for more than three decades.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Absolutely do not agree.
Bush got the blame from dems and Obama got the blame from repubs.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
If republicans are so unlucky we should probably stop electing them
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©