Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 4,096 to 4,110 of 14464
-
09-26-22 22:17 #10369
Posts: 2579The rich will say he was a good "house slave"
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
He was too busy shooting hoops and smokin weed and having big parties snorting coke etc.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/o...elle-26jm0xq5g
Here's something in line with the rest of his self serving 8 yr ghost payroll gig.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/...cing-disparity
https://twitter.com/robrousseau/stat...93879392772102
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...e-obama-233032
-
09-26-22 22:09 #10368
Posts: 428Yes Obama made it easy for Trump to turn around the economy
Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
-
09-26-22 21:20 #10367
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1 [View Original Post]
-
09-26-22 20:25 #10366
Posts: 1129Does Donnie "the Devil" have Decency?
Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf, couldn't even spell "decency", let alone have enough of it, to do the honorable thing and perform the peaceful transference of power.
-
09-26-22 20:07 #10365
Posts: 1129Bothsidesism rears its ugly head
Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
Try looking at "the man in the mirror", as the one who remains the real problem, for their politics, stand for nothing and falls for everything.
-
09-26-22 19:52 #10364
Posts: 2579Well
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
You are much more astute about these matters than everyone else around here.
Here's a question, aren't Barry Husseins numbers largely skewed by the fact that the economy imploded right before he took the "bestest" ghost payroll gig of all time in Jan 2009.
Largely in part at the behest of BUBBA repealing Glass Steagal, tanking GWs #s and propping up Barry Husseins after the market inevitably recovered.
-
09-26-22 19:26 #10363
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.google.com/search?q=larry+summers+inflation&rlz=1 C1 CHBD_enUS898 US898&biw=1920&bih=969&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3 A1%2 Ccd_min%3 A12%2 F1%2 F2020%2 Ccd_max%3 A03%2 F10%2 F2021&tbm=nws.
Maybe this will make sense to you. I'm quoting from the Financial Times, which is behind a paywall, so no link. This is Summers, in his own words, in an interview with Martin Wolf.
If you look at the economy at the beginning of this year, prevailing forecasts were that Covid would reduce wages and salaries to American households by $20 bn-$30 bn a month, with that figure declining over the year. So, that would be a $250 bn-$300 bn hole in wages and salaries over the course of the year.
So, I look at this hole and then I see $900 bn of stimulus in the December package, $1. 9 tn of stimulus in the recently passed package and $2 tn in the savings overhang, which is also likely to be spent. I see the Fed with its foot on the accelerator as hard as any Fed has ever done.
That could manifest itself, as a much smaller period of excess did during the Vietnam war, in rising inflation and a ratcheting-up of inflation expectations. It could, as has often happened, manifest itself in the Federal Reserve feeling a need for a sharp and surprising increase in interest rates, and the subsequent deceleration of the economy into recession.
It could manifest itself in a period of euphoric boom and optimism that leads to unsustainable bubbles, or it could all work out well. But, it doesn't seem to me that the preponderant probability is that it will work out well. So I'm concerned that what is being done is substantially excessive.
So you've got a $2 trillion savings overhang, wages reduced by $250 to $300 billion per year, and Biden et al helicopter drop $1. 9 trillion into the economy! That's almost 10% of GDP! Crazy! Nuts! No wonder the labor force participation rate hasn't bounced back to where it should be, despite there being 2X more job openings than people looking for jobs.
As to cherry picking Summers' scenarios, he said probably one of two things would happen.
1. High inflation and / or stagflation, or.
2. The Fed slams on the breaks so hard to prevent high inflation so that we go into a deep recession.
Well, "1" has already happened. "2" may be next. For completeness sake, the third possibility he threw out was that the Fed might adroitly avoid high inflation or recession. Well, that didn't come to pass.
-
09-26-22 19:13 #10362
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
Blinder and Watson studied the comparative economic performance from Truman's elected term through Obama's first term in 2012. They excluded certain causes, and identified some possible causes. Excluded as causes were age and experience of the president, which political party controlled Congress, and quality of economy inherited (as Democrats tended to take over when times were more difficult). Further, fiscal and monetary policy did not seem to be possible causes. Changes in tax policy had little impact; for example, Clinton raised taxes while Reagan cut them, but both had strong growth. Interest rates had typically risen under Democrats and fallen under Republicans, which theoretically should have favored Republicans. Democrats did benefit from lower oil prices, larger increases in productivity, and better global conditions.
Blinder and Watson concluded that: "Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. ".
In other words, it wasn't party's policies or governance that accounted for over or under performance, it was blind luck.
I refuse to do more than scan the "Balance" article. Looking over the sections on taxation and climate, it's partisan bullshit. The USA has had the most progressive tax system in the OECD for a long time, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And why would Democrats' climate change policies affect economic performance?
As to Evonimics and New Republic, Mediabiasfactcheck.com indicates they're about as far left as you can get. I've got better things to do than read those.
I can't read your New York Times OPINION piece unless I'm a subscriber.
The market watch article agrees at least in part with my earlier reply to one of your posts. The outperformance is because recessions have occurred predominately during Republican administrations. The writer attributes this to three possible causes.
Luck.
Factors a president has no control over, like a sudden increase in oil prices.
Deregulation implemented during Republican administrations.
He fails to list a pandemic.
Given that I believe deregulation is a bull shit explanation, at least from what I've observed in my lifetime, I continue to believe the relationship between the party of the president and measures like GDP growth, median household income, median weekly wages, and unemployment is mostly spurious. I do give the Republicans some credit however for higher median weekly wages, higher median household income, and lower unemployment pre-COVID, in 2019, because of the corporate tax cut and deregulation.
On that last point, I haven't forgotten about your earlier post that included a couple of links, including one that used IRS tax statistics to show that lower income Americans haven't seen much wage growth during the Trump years, pre-COVID. I actually don't disagree with that, but suspect the IRS data will show that from the 50th percentile on up, we did very well. I just haven't had the time to download the IRS's excel tables and look at the data. But I will. I'll be back!
-
09-26-22 16:50 #10361
Posts: 2579You like links? I got links for ya
-
09-26-22 15:47 #10360
Posts: 5481Trump's Fed Chairman should apologize to America
So says leading economist Jeremy Siegel.
I see Siegel agrees with Summers and me that the earliest cause of persistently high inflation in the wake of Trump's Pandemic's global economic destruction is that Trump's Fed Chairman appointment was just not good at his job.
Wharton's Siegel says Jerome Powell owes 'the American people an apology'
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/whar...ndroidappshare
"Honestly, I think Chairman Powell should offer the American people an apology for such poor monetary policy that he has pursued, and the Fed has pursued, over the past few years, Siegel said.
...
Siegel said on CNBCs Squawk Box that persistently high inflation in 2022 is due in large part to mistakes made by the Fed in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, which caused economic shutdowns around the world and big drops in global markets, and that the Feds pivot to fast rate hikes would cause more economic damage.
And he barely triggered a recession in Carter's strong, job-creating economy at all. It was over just a few weeks after it began.
-
09-26-22 14:12 #10359
Posts: 1604Really?
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Tell me again that President Biden has lost more jobs than Donnie the Dumbass and provide a source that proves it. Unless, of course, you don't consider "jobs lost during the pandemic" to be either an economic factor or a pandemic factor.
I'll wait, gladly.
-
09-26-22 07:28 #10358
Posts: 5481Meanwhile
Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":
Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S....can_presidents#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/demo...conomy-4771839
https://evonomics.com/economists-agr...eight-reasons/
https://newrepublic.com/article/1662...s-vs-democrats
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...s-economy.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ts-11611158787
-
09-26-22 07:10 #10357
Posts: 5481To be more precise about what Larry Summers predicted, when and why he predicted it
It turns out Summer's earliest but strangely rarely cited observation that Trump's Fed Chair appointee Powell was "behind the curve" on inflation, in other words Not Very Good At His Job, was dead on correct. Few other highly regarded economists disagree.
But on Biden? Summers' strangely too often cited opinion gets slammed by other highly regarded economists:
Is Larry Summers really right about inflation and Biden?
The Harvard economist is getting plaudits for the warnings he issued early last year, but some Administration officials and economists are questioning the basis of his arguments.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...tion-and-biden
He certainly had those inflationary concerns very early, an economist said, of Summers. He also put out plenty of other scenariosenough that he almost couldnt be wrong.
-
09-26-22 05:10 #10356
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
However, I must quibble about "other portions of inflation are not on him." Look at what Larry Summers, the most influential Democratic Party economist of the last 30 years, was saying before and after Biden et al passed the American Rescue Plan. He said it would supercharge inflation. And it did. I posted this before and it bears repeating.
"Larry Summers, the top economic adviser to former President Obama, warned in an op-ed on Friday that President Biden's proposed COVID-19 relief package is too big and could overheat the economy. Summers, the Treasury secretary under former President Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post that the proposed $1. 9 trillion stimulus could ignite inflationary pressures "of a kind we have not seen in a generation." He said the risk of inflation could have "consequences for the dollar and financial stability." "Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown," Summers wrote."
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5...us-is-too-big/
-
09-26-22 04:51 #10355
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hou...de-11659895350
That said, and while I agree with you about carried interest, I do like Sinema, a lot. Not only is she blonde and bisexual, but the woman has a head on her shoulders. We'd be stuck with at least another $2.5 trillion in pork laden spending and higher taxes if not for her and Joe Manchin.