American Politics

[EihTooms]

I give Spidy a pass because he's not particularly versed in economics. But you know better than that. It's the difference between the Fed Funds Rate and the inflation rate that shows whether monetary policy is tight or loose. The Fed Funds rate by itself is meaningless.

By your reasoning, when the Turkish equivalent of the Fed Funds rate was at 12.5% in mid 2022, monetary policy was contractionary, because the rate was high. Well, at the same time inflation was running 75% and GDP growth was galloping along at 7. 6% YoY. Erdogan, the Turkish president who controls the central bank, was letting it rip.

That's kind of like what was happening under Fed Chairmen Arthur Burns and G. William Miller from 1975 to 1979. CPI inflation was higher than the Fed Funds rate more often than not, even though inflation was high, in the range of 5% to 12%. But the difference wasn't anywhere nearly as extreme as Turkey's.

Volker replaced Miller, and under his leadership the Fed jacked up the Fed Funds rate to a maximum of 22% in July, 1981, during Reagan's first term. At that time, CPI inflation was running about 11%. That represents a real interest rate of 11%. At the tail end of the 1982/1983 recession, Fed Funds flattened out around 9%, while CPI inflation bottomed at 2. 6%. Monetary policy was still very much contractionary. Yes, it resulted in sharply higher unemployment and two recessions, during the end of Carter's term and the first half of Reagan's first term. That's what it took to slay the inflation beast. Lots of pain.

But from the 2nd half of 1983 through to the end of Reagan's 2nd term, GDP growth was very good by today's standards, from 2. 7% to 8. 6% per annum (YoY). Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from its peak of 10.8% in October, 1982 to around 5% to 5. 5% and the end of Reagan's time in office, which was lower than the unemployment rate anytime during Carter's administration.

Please note I'm not crediting or blaming Carter or Reagan with recessions, booms, or employment, even though I believe in the longer term some of Reagan's changes to the tax system were very beneficial. I'm just pointing out how economic statistics varied through time, using their terms as references. It wasn't the party of the president that was the biggest driver of events, it was the Fed. And oil prices (detrimental to the economy during Carter's term and Reagan's first term and beneficial in Reagan's 2nd term) would be second. These are related. Oil price shocks drove inflation, which drove Fed policy.

Calculate it any way you want. Spidy and I are very well versed on economic results that matter in the real world. You are not. You are very well versed on the results your academic theories ought to have produced but never have in the real world.

Your "real interest rate" concept existed under Carter when inflation was rising the same as it existed under Reagan when the rate of inflation was declining virtually every month and quarter as it had been since before he took office.

Even by your assessment above, Carter faced even worse economic hurdles than Reagan did yet his policies and stewardship did not produce rising to skyrocketing unemployment rates into double digits for a whopping 10 consecutive months and his annual average jobs creation dwarfed that of Reagan's. And he did it without tripling the National Debt as Reagan did.

[EihTooms]

By the way, Israel isn't part of Arabia.

My reference to Arabia was the same as yours to "the Arab world", along with my reference to the Middle East.

[Tiny 12]

Oh, so your recommendation is to "save" $14.4 Billion by not supporting the one functional democracy in Arabia and the Middle East at the very moment of a terrorist attack greater than any since the Holocaust.

By the way, Israel isn't part of Arabia.

[Tiny 12]

I don't. Stop making up strawman arguments for positions I didn't take that any numbskull could win.

And stop changing the subject. Volcker was already lowering the Fed Funds Rates by the time Reagan took office.

See your local bank if you are concerned about interest rates. The bank president might be some guy named Bill Jones, not Paul Volcker.

Feds interest rate history: The federal funds rate from 1981 to the present

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/fed...al-funds-rate/

See the chart.

As stated in the text, 1980 was the high point for Fed Funds Rates. Reagan's years in office, especially those first, second and third years, were gifted with almost constant reports of lowered Fed Funds Rates, not rising rates.

His Great Reagan / Repub Recession began in the final quarter of 1981, really confirmed by the first quarter of 1982. His whopping 10 consecutive months of 10%+ Unemployment Rates began in September 1982, just 2 months before the Fed hit its lower target range.

That series of 10%+ Unemployment Rates went far beyond and years after the Fed Funds Rates hit their peak and began "drifting downward sharply".

Are you now blaming declining Fed Funds Rates, "drifting downward sharply", for plunging us into the Great Reagan / Repub Recession and causing those months of 10%+ Unemployment Rates? LOL.

Seems to me just almost 3 years ago we were hearing hysterical predictions of a Great Biden / Dem Recession and double digit Unemployment Rates by now due in part to rising Fed Funds Rates because Biden's thoroughly understandable stimulus measures were not dime perfect in the face of totally unkown and unprecedented future conditions re Trump's Pandemic, his Trump / Repub-apponted Fed Chairman and the likely outcome of that first midterm.

Bidenomics has not benefitted from a single month or report of "drifting downward sharply" Fed Funds Rates. Not one.

Reaganomics was gifted with practically every month of his presidency accompanying a rosy report of "drifting downward sharply" Fed Funds Rates. Yet, in the end, his Repub policies and stewardship wound up tripling the National Debt while producing a pathetic Job Gains result compared to Carter, when Fed Funds Rates were also on the rise and hit a record high, and virtually every other Dem who didn't get hit with a Niagara Falls Economic Crash and Jobs Destruction from the outgoing Repub as he was taking the Oath of Office.

I give Spidy a pass because he's not particularly versed in economics. But you know better than that. It's the difference between the Fed Funds Rate and the inflation rate that shows whether monetary policy is tight or loose. The Fed Funds rate by itself is meaningless.

By your reasoning, when the Turkish equivalent of the Fed Funds rate was at 12.5% in mid 2022, monetary policy was contractionary, because the rate was high. Well, at the same time inflation was running 75% and GDP growth was galloping along at 7. 6% YoY. Erdogan, the Turkish president who controls the central bank, was letting it rip.

That's kind of like what was happening under Fed Chairmen Arthur Burns and G. William Miller from 1975 to 1979. CPI inflation was higher than the Fed Funds rate more often than not, even though inflation was high, in the range of 5% to 12%. But the difference wasn't anywhere nearly as extreme as Turkey's.

Volker replaced Miller, and under his leadership the Fed jacked up the Fed Funds rate to a maximum of 22% in July, 1981, during Reagan's first term. At that time, CPI inflation was running about 11%. That represents a real interest rate of 11%. At the tail end of the 1982/1983 recession, Fed Funds flattened out around 9%, while CPI inflation bottomed at 2. 6%. Monetary policy was still very much contractionary. Yes, it resulted in sharply higher unemployment and two recessions, during the end of Carter's term and the first half of Reagan's first term. That's what it took to slay the inflation beast. Lots of pain.

But from the 2nd half of 1983 through to the end of Reagan's 2nd term, GDP growth was very good by today's standards, from 2. 7% to 8. 6% per annum (YoY). Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from its peak of 10.8% in October, 1982 to around 5% to 5. 5% and the end of Reagan's time in office, which was lower than the unemployment rate anytime during Carter's administration.

Please note I'm not crediting or blaming Carter or Reagan with recessions, booms, or employment, even though I believe in the longer term some of Reagan's changes to the tax system were very beneficial. I'm just pointing out how economic statistics varied through time, using their terms as references. It wasn't the party of the president that was the biggest driver of events, it was the Fed. And oil prices (detrimental to the economy during Carter's term and Reagan's first term and beneficial in Reagan's 2nd term) would be second. These are related. Oil price shocks drove inflation, which drove Fed policy.

[Tiny 12]

Oh, so your recommendation is to "save" $14.4 Billion by not supporting the one functional democracy in Arabia and the Middle East at the very moment of a terrorist attack greater than any since the Holocaust. And where a win for the terrorists is also a win for Putin. And all while Putin, Xi and the rest of the authoritarian dictator world is watching, waiting and hoping their comrade ChristoFascist Mike does "well for them" by seeing to it that YOUR recommendation prevails.

Good to know.

Now we know you would have applauded Trump "saving" America about a $100 Million when he spent 2 years defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response teams from those Chinese labs if only you had known about it in 2018 and 2019.

Congratulations. You have just defined and epitomized crap Repub policies and stewardship and illustrated why their consistent producing and presiding over every Great Economic Disaster and Historic Jobs Destruction of the past 100 years and NONE of the boom times and Historic Jobs Gains has most definitely not been a matter of "economic cycles", "bad Repub luck", a witches curse on Repubs or a series of wild coincidences.

My views on the Israeli / Palestinian situation are about as far away from "Repub policies and stewardship" as you can get. No prominent Republican I'm aware of would agree with me, while quite a few Democrats, and a significant number of left-of-center Israeli Jews would. I haven't gone full fledged Rashida Tlaib, as I do believe Hamas shares a huge share of the responsibility for what's happening, and believe it's unrealistic to expect Israelis to give back land confiscated from Palestinians in the 1940's. I do however believe Netanyahu has worked hand in hand with the Qataris and others to support Hamas and torpedo the Palestinian Authority. (The Palestinian Authority would accept a two state solution while Hamas is dead set on the destruction of Israel.) Netanyahu and some of the reactionary parties in his coalition, the ones who represent Jewish settlers on the West Bank, want to do everything they can to prevent a two state solution, even if it leaves Israel and Hamas with perpetual war. And even if it means Gaza will continue to be the world's largest open air prison camp.

I wonder how this would have turned out if the USA hadn't backed Israel at every turn. Maybe there never would have been a 9/11, or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we wouldn't be a pariah in the Arab world. And just maybe Israelis and Palestinians would have come to a two state solution, and be living together today in peace. And yes, maybe our national debt wouldn't be as high. If that makes me a piece of shit, then so be it. But don't label me as a piece of shit Republican based on my beliefs about Israel and Palestine. And please note I used the word "maybe." I don't necessarily believe all those positive outcomes would have occurred, but can't help but believe the world would be a better place if the USA hadn't always unconditionally supported Israel.

[EihTooms]

WRONG. Biden and the Senators would add $14.4 billion to the deficit through additional spending on Israel, rather than taking the $14.4 billion from the IRS. Thus you have to subtract the $14.4 billion from the CBO's $26.8 billion estimate of foregone revenues. The actual increase in spending would be $26.8 billion - $14.4 billion = $12.4 billion.

So what kind of return is the government receiving on that $14.4 billion it's giving the IRS? Well, the CBO provided this year-by-year estimate of outlays (from $14.4 billion aid to Israel) and foregone revenues (from the reduction in the additional $80 billion allocated to the IRS):

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...p_Act_2024.pdf

I entered the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, and the government's internal rate of return (IRR) on the 14.4 billion is 22%. The government gets back $1. 86 (being 26.8/14.4) for every dollar it "invests" in the IRS. The 22% IRR a good return for a business. But not a great return. One of my old employers required an estimated 20% IRR on any projects we undertook.

But the investor here is the United States Government, and its business is taking money out of the pockets of its citizens and businesses. If I bought a gun and got a monopoly on extorting money I'd make a hell of a lot higher return on my investment than 22% a year. I'd make millions off that $800 handgun!

This is another illustration how inefficient our federal government is, and why more of the power of the purse and power to spend should be vested in state and local governments.

Oh, so your recommendation is to "save" $14.4 Billion by not supporting the one functional democracy in Arabia and the Middle East at the very moment of a terrorist attack greater than any since the Holocaust. And where a win for the terrorists is also a win for Putin. And all while Putin, Xi and the rest of the authoritarian dictator world is watching, waiting and hoping their comrade ChristoFascist Mike does "well for them" by seeing to it that YOUR recommendation prevails.

Good to know.

Now we know you would have applauded Trump "saving" America about a $100 Million when he spent 2 years defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response teams from those Chinese labs if only you had known about it in 2018 and 2019.

Congratulations. You have just defined and epitomized crap Repub policies and stewardship and illustrated why their consistent producing and presiding over every Great Economic Disaster and Historic Jobs Destruction of the past 100 years and NONE of the boom times and Historic Jobs Gains has most definitely not been a matter of "economic cycles", "bad Repub luck", a witches curse on Repubs or a series of wild coincidences.

[EihTooms]

You're trying to change the subject. How do you propose that the Democratic Party ensure that the mainstream media spouts the party line 100% of the time? Or that Democrats win a much higher percentage of Congressional Districts than justified by the popular vote?

You only need to look at a graph of real interest rates to understand what was happening during Carter's and Reagan's administrations. Real rates shot up to around 6% at the end of Carter's administration and stayed there through most of Reagan's terms. Under Tooms Rules, this is Carter's responsibility, because Carter appointed Volcker as Fed Chairman. And Volcker, a Democrat, aggressively pursued much-needed anti-inflationary monetary policy, which adversely affected GDP growth and employment. Or that's the logic you and Spidy apply to Powell anyway. Spidy's complaining about our current measly 2.2% real rate.

I don't. Stop making up strawman arguments for positions I didn't take that any numbskull could win.

And stop changing the subject. Volcker was already lowering the Fed Funds Rates by the time Reagan took office.

See your local bank if you are concerned about interest rates. The bank president might be some guy named Bill Jones, not Paul Volcker.

Feds interest rate history: The federal funds rate from 1981 to the present

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/fed...al-funds-rate/

The fed funds rate began the decade at a target level of 14 percent in January 1980. By the time officials concluded a conference call on Dec. 5, 1980, they hiked the target range by 2 percentage points to 19-20 percent, its highest ever.
......
Rates began drifting downward sharply, falling first to a target range of 13-14 percent on Nov. 2, 1982, then down to 11.5-12 percent on July 20, 1982. After some oscillation, interest rates havent eclipsed 10 percent since November 1984. The effective fed funds rate averaged at 9.97 percent during this 10-year period

See the chart.

As stated in the text, 1980 was the high point for Fed Funds Rates. Reagan's years in office, especially those first, second and third years, were gifted with almost constant reports of lowered Fed Funds Rates, not rising rates.

His Great Reagan / Repub Recession began in the final quarter of 1981, really confirmed by the first quarter of 1982. His whopping 10 consecutive months of 10%+ Unemployment Rates began in September 1982, just 2 months before the Fed hit its lower target range.

That series of 10%+ Unemployment Rates went far beyond and years after the Fed Funds Rates hit their peak and began "drifting downward sharply".

Are you now blaming declining Fed Funds Rates, "drifting downward sharply", for plunging us into the Great Reagan / Repub Recession and causing those months of 10%+ Unemployment Rates? LOL.

Seems to me just almost 3 years ago we were hearing hysterical predictions of a Great Biden / Dem Recession and double digit Unemployment Rates by now due in part to rising Fed Funds Rates because Biden's thoroughly understandable stimulus measures were not dime perfect in the face of totally unkown and unprecedented future conditions re Trump's Pandemic, his Trump / Repub-apponted Fed Chairman and the likely outcome of that first midterm.

Bidenomics has not benefitted from a single month or report of "drifting downward sharply" Fed Funds Rates. Not one.

Reaganomics was gifted with practically every month of his presidency accompanying a rosy report of "drifting downward sharply" Fed Funds Rates. Yet, in the end, his Repub policies and stewardship wound up tripling the National Debt while producing a pathetic Job Gains result compared to Carter, when Fed Funds Rates were also on the rise and hit a record high, and virtually every other Dem who didn't get hit with a Niagara Falls Economic Crash and Jobs Destruction from the outgoing Repub as he was taking the Oath of Office.

[Tiny 12]

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/wh...riffs-3cad4097

Did you see the Letters to the Editor? They butchered Cass' editorial.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-d...ustry-fc9fd0c7

Oren Cass’s “Why Trump Is Right About Tariffs” (Review, Oct. 28) errs most fundamentally by assuming higher tariffs can—costs and corruption notwithstanding—reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Leaving aside whether said deficit is actually an economic problem (it isn’t), reams of evidence show that tariffs don’t offer a solution.

For example, a 2017 Peterson Institute examination of 183 countries found that those with higher tariffs tended to have larger trade deficits. The U.S. International Trade Commission, also in 2017, calculated that a 10% increase in U.S. tariffs would cause a small long-run increase in the trade deficit. And despite President Trump’s tariffs, the U.S. trade deficit in goods was a smidgen higher during his tenure (averaging 4.2% of GDP) than during President Obama’s last year in office (4%).

National trade balances are driven by macroeconomic forces—primarily national savings and investment patterns—that are immune to changes in trade policy. Without altering these, higher tariffs that reduce imports will also reduce exports, thanks to a stronger U.S. dollar, higher input costs and foreign retaliation. National welfare declines, but the trade deficit doesn’t.

Scott Lincicome

General Economics and Cato Institute

Raleigh, N.C.

By asking rhetorically, “Does making things matter?” Mr. Cass sneaks in a fallacy as if it’s a fact. Americans do make things. Manufacturing output is now very near the all-time high that it hit on the eve of the financial crisis. Further, as reported by Colin Grabow, “In 2021, [the U.S.] ranked second in the share of global manufacturing output at 15.92 percent—greater than Japan, Germany, and South Korea combined—and the sector by itself would constitute the world’s eighth-largest economy. The United States was the world’s fourth-largest steel producer in 2020, second-largest automaker in 2021, and largest aerospace exporter in 2021.”

It’s therefore unsurprising—except, perhaps, to Messrs. Cass and Trump—that U.S. industrial capacity is also today near its all-time high.

Prof. Donald J. Boudreaux

Mercatus Center, George Mason U.

Fairfax, Va.

High tariffs on goods such as steel or aluminum would shield domestic producers from foreign competition, providing them a short-term boost. But they would make producing goods much more expensive for the U.S. businesses buying the metal. Given tariffs tend to be passed on to consumers, this also means the public has less money to spend on other products.

Even businesses in the “protected” industries are harmed. When other nations impose retaliatory tariffs, U.S. producers would lose market access to hundreds of millions of consumers. Shielding industries from foreign competition also leads to inefficiency. Free trade forces domestic producers to up their game, whereas tariffs make them less productive. In the long run, they make less of their product.

Ben Ramanauskas

[MarquisdeSade1]

Nothing to see here folks just move along.

https://apnews.com/article/connectic...968ffdaa0b6369

[Tiny 12]

So you make up a straw man argument for something I never said, offer zero refutation against my pointing out how the American electorate has never shown a preference for that mythical "better handling" of the economy by Repubs when we REALLY NEED it to be well-handled at the point when favorite and repeated disastrous Repub policies and stewardship have it Crashing down around our ears and wiping out millions of jobs, because there isn't any to offer, also zero refutation of any "new" and as yet undiscovered info on what the hell Reagan and his policies or stewardship did to reduce inflation and the unemployment rate for his first 3 years in office rather than plunge us into the worst Repub downturn since the Great Repub Depression, again because there isn't any, and consider that "sinking" my argument?

Meanwhile, even that 3% more popular vote for Repubs in the midterms that you are clinging to, a good chunk of which went to George Santos for impersonating a normal human being that could at least temporarily fool a few New York State residence, still does not come close to that 22 point advantage on the economy that you loved so much and still counts as one of the poorest gains in Congress for the out of WH Party in that particular midterm of all time.

LOL. I love when you admonish me for "being better than that" after you make up a straw man argument I never made and then can't refute one actual significant point I make. Yeah, apparently I am "better" than what you fabricate to argue against. And, of course, your misstating it is all the more reason I apparently must repeat it as often as I do. LOL.

You're trying to change the subject. How do you propose that the Democratic Party ensure that the mainstream media spouts the party line 100% of the time? Or that Democrats win a much higher percentage of Congressional Districts than justified by the popular vote?

You only need to look at a graph of real interest rates to understand what was happening during Carter's and Reagan's administrations. Real rates shot up to around 6% at the end of Carter's administration and stayed there through most of Reagan's terms. Under Tooms Rules, this is Carter's responsibility, because Carter appointed Volcker as Fed Chairman. And Volcker, a Democrat, aggressively pursued much-needed anti-inflationary monetary policy, which adversely affected GDP growth and employment. Or that's the logic you and Spidy apply to Powell anyway. Spidy's complaining about our current measly 2.2% real rate.

[Tiny 12]

Guess what, everybody. Separating Israel support from the rest the way Repub ChristoFascist Mike wants it done does NOT save money. It will ADD $26 Billon to the Trump / Repub's mounting deficits!

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Repub economic policy and stewardship always adds to their economic disaster deficits with no meaningful positive gain in jobs, GDP, economic recovery and expansion, national security, etc to show for it. *.

Quite the opposite of what Biden and the Dems have done for America.

*Otherwise promoted in MSM as, "handling the economy better than the Democrats. " LOL.

House GOPs Israel-IRS bill could add more than $26 billion to deficit: CBO

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...d-deficit-cbo/#text=It%20 is%20%2426%20 billion. ,Office%20 (CBO)%20 said%20 Wednesday.

$26 Billion added to Trump's Repub Policy and Stewardship Disaster deficits just to convince Xi snd Putin that even as little as a Pink Tinkle in the House is enough to cripple America's recovery from the latest Great Repub Economic Disaster and its standing as the recognized Leader of the Free World? Sad.

100% Repub-supported Mike would actually be less harmful and more beneficial to America's economy and national security if he just handed the gavel back to Nancy or over to Hakeem and spent the next 13 months in his Fake Electors tree house praying for guidance on how to outlaw Sex For Pleasure, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Sex Outside of Marriage, Access to Contraception, etc.

WRONG. Biden and the Senators would add $14.4 billion to the deficit through additional spending on Israel, rather than taking the $14.4 billion from the IRS. Thus you have to subtract the $14.4 billion from the CBO's $26.8 billion estimate of foregone revenues. The actual increase in spending would be $26.8 billion - $14.4 billion = $12.4 billion.

So what kind of return is the government receiving on that $14.4 billion it's giving the IRS? Well, the CBO provided this year-by-year estimate of outlays (from $14.4 billion aid to Israel) and foregone revenues (from the reduction in the additional $80 billion allocated to the IRS):

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...p_Act_2024.pdf

I entered the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, and the government's internal rate of return (IRR) on the 14.4 billion is 22%. The government gets back $1. 86 (being 26.8/14.4) for every dollar it "invests" in the IRS. The 22% IRR a good return for a business. But not a great return. One of my old employers required an estimated 20% IRR on any projects we undertook.

But the investor here is the United States Government, and its business is taking money out of the pockets of its citizens and businesses. If I bought a gun and got a monopoly on extorting money I'd make a hell of a lot higher return on my investment than 22% a year. I'd make millions off that $800 handgun!

This is another illustration how inefficient our federal government is, and why more of the power of the purse and power to spend should be vested in state and local governments.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Damn, It looks like Mike Johnson's promoting a bill to fund $14.3 billion for Israel by cutting the IRS's budget by $14.3 billion. It would be part of the $80 billion originally allocated to the agency in the Inflation Reduction Act last year.

I'm actually starting to like this guy!

I was somewhat disgusted with Chip Roy, but see he's insisting any money for Israel include offsetting spending cuts. I'm starting to like him too!

Now admittedly this is a lesser of two evils thing. I don't really believe we should be sending money Israel's way, considering it's a wealthy country. But if the money's coming out of the IRS's hide, well, that makes it somewhat more palatable. "

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/wh...riffs-3cad4097

[EihTooms]

Guess what, everybody. Separating Israel support from the rest the way Repub ChristoFascist Mike wants it done does NOT save money. It will ADD $26 Billon to the Trump / Repub's mounting deficits!

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Repub economic policy and stewardship always adds to their economic disaster deficits with no meaningful positive gain in jobs, GDP, economic recovery and expansion, national security, etc to show for it. *.

Quite the opposite of what Biden and the Dems have done for America.

*Otherwise promoted in MSM as, "handling the economy better than the Democrats. " LOL.

House GOPs Israel-IRS bill could add more than $26 billion to deficit: CBO

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...d-deficit-cbo/#text=It%20 is%20%2426%20 billion. ,Office%20 (CBO)%20 said%20 Wednesday.

$26 Billion added to Trump's Repub Policy and Stewardship Disaster deficits just to convince Xi snd Putin that even as little as a Pink Tinkle in the House is enough to cripple America's recovery from the latest Great Repub Economic Disaster and its standing as the recognized Leader of the Free World? Sad.

100% Repub-supported Mike would actually be less harmful and more beneficial to America's economy and national security if he just handed the gavel back to Nancy or over to Hakeem and spent the next 13 months in his Fake Electors tree house praying for guidance on how to outlaw Sex For Pleasure, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Sex Outside of Marriage, Access to Contraception, etc.

[EihTooms]

I'm starting to worry about you Tooms. I always thought you were a democrat with a little "d". That is, a believer in democracy, and truth, justice and the American Way. Now I'm not so sure.

First you complain that the strongly pro-Democratic Party mainstream media doesn't back the party 100% of the time.

Then you complain about "Repub redrawn districts" in the 2022 election, when Republicans won the House popular vote by 3%. And ended up with a few more representatives in Congress. You're upset about that, which would appear to imply that you believe Democrats should be able to redraw districts but not Republicans.

And you end with a criticism of Mike Johnson trying to claw back $14 billion from an $80 billion increase in funding for the IRS. You want more funding for the police state.

And is the IRS just the tip of the iceberg? What other missions should the police state pursue? Pushing around the media so it supports the Democratic Party 100% of the time, instead of 90% of the time at present? Redrawing those districts so the Democrats can win 100% of the time? Maybe more money for liberal arts education, to indoctrinate our youth? Allowing the teacher's unions, which are strongly pro-Democrat, to insert Party Propaganda into curricula?

What's more pernicious, trying to appoint alternate sets of electors and asking a crowd of your supporters to walk down to the Capitol and show their displeasure? Or the gradual erosion of democratic rights and institutions with the police state and rank-and-file-Democratic-Party-member educators?

Tell me I'm wrong Tooms. I know you're better than this.

And as to linking money for Taiwan, Israel, Ukraine, China and the border into one big package, it's just games as usual in Washington D.C. Undoubtedly if separate voting on the those issues occurred, we'd end up spending less money. And the legislation would more closely reflect the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives. Which most likely is not to give away tens of billions to foreign governments with no accountability.

So you make up a straw man argument for something I never said, offer zero refutation against my pointing out how the American electorate has never shown a preference for that mythical "better handling" of the economy by Repubs when we REALLY NEED it to be well-handled at the point when favorite and repeated disastrous Repub policies and stewardship have it Crashing down around our ears and wiping out millions of jobs, because there isn't any to offer, also zero refutation of any "new" and as yet undiscovered info on what the hell Reagan and his policies or stewardship did to reduce inflation and the unemployment rate for his first 3 years in office rather than plunge us into the worst Repub downturn since the Great Repub Depression, again because there isn't any, and consider that "sinking" my argument?

Meanwhile, even that 3% more popular vote for Repubs in the midterms that you are clinging to, a good chunk of which went to George Santos for impersonating a normal human being that could at least temporarily fool a few New York State residence, still does not come close to that 22 point advantage on the economy that you loved so much and still counts as one of the poorest gains in Congress for the out of WH Party in that particular midterm of all time.

LOL. I love when you admonish me for "being better than that" after you make up a straw man argument I never made and then can't refute one actual significant point I make. Yeah, apparently I am "better" than what you fabricate to argue against. And, of course, your misstating it is all the more reason I apparently must repeat it as often as I do. LOL.

[Tiny 12]

Raising rates fast and hard enough, will crash the economy, that much is certain. His unprecedented fast and hard, 11 x raise, in 17 months, IMHO, was unnecessary and borderline reckless. Again my argument has always been that, a more measured approach to raising rates should have been implemented.

Too Biden's credit, the economy under his stewardship is a true testament, to just how resilient it has been, despite the efforts of a reckless FED, IMHO.

To my point, had he done the same thing, under a Trump administration, Trump would have crucified the FED and accused him of trying to tank the economy and no doubt would have had him replaced. Notice how even out of office, Trump says he'd tell the FEB what to do, if he wins in 2024.

Contrast that with Biden, to his credit, says virtually nothing about the FED and simply goes about the business and stewardship of the economy and the country with even handed keel.

Now that interest rates have significantly been tamed (although it has sightly ticked up, over last 2 months), IMHO there's still no need to raise rates. But we shall see!

What was reckless was waiting around to raise rates above the inflation rate until April, 2023. The Fed should have raised rates shortly after Biden's reckless $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which flooded way too much stimulus money into the economy. Instead it waited until March, 2022. In March, 2022 the Fed Funds rate was 0. 25%, and YoY consumer price inflation was 8. 5%!

I'm glad you're not running our monetary policy. We'd end up like Turkey.

And yes I give Biden credit for not criticizing the Fed or replacing Powell. And yes, Trump pushed the Fed to lower rates and he should not have.

Your lavish praise for Biden is unwarranted. He gave away a lot of money which should have produced a sugar high. Instead we ended up deeper in debt and inflation kicked off earlier in the USA than other places. And after adjusting for inflation, the working man is now making LESS than when Biden took office.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB