Inflation politics - maybe Hankey is right

2,217 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by DiabloWags
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm assuming voters rip the GOP a big one on abortion - SCOTUS and the Senate (thanks Joe) certainly have created a furor on this board. But like it or not, the polls still have Dems in trouble. Under Biden, the unemployment rate is lower and the economy has rapidly grown over the past two years. The culprit is what Americans now identify the most important problem today - high inflation. The government reported yesterday that prices rose 8.3 percent over the 12 months ending in April. High inflation has not persisted like this since four decades ago - before the internet didn't exist for you young-ins.


So what does that mean - the President and FED read the polls and hit the panic button and overreact. The Federal Reserve has increased interest rates more that anticapted. The central bank's chair, Jerome Powell, said he is aiming for a "soft landing" which given the FED's history is humorous. The stock market just entered an official "Bear Market." April's rate was higher than most experts expected. That could push policymakers to get more aggressive and increase the risk of a future recession.

Like it or not, the incumbent President gets nailed for the economy. I'm sure I will get into an argument on this, but a lot of inflationary pressures started before Biden. Life has gotten more expensive for the residents of pretty much every country, not just America, due to C-19 disruptions and then came Ukraine. In the US, massive federal spending packages to provide relief from COVID began under President Trump with mostly bipartisan support. President Biden continued this spending spree with the American Rescue Plan, also with some bi-partisan support, which continues to fuel the economy, but all of this stimulus may also be overheating things, leading to excessive demand for goods and services, contributing to supply chain overload, shortages, and rising inflation. But this was a bipartisan effort less we forget and what was the alternative? And hopefully Biden does something to discourage any further massive infusion to supply with BBB (or has Manchin kill it).

The power to tame inflation really resides with the FED. More raises in interest rates to try and bring prices down, will also likely mean an economic slowdown, pain for American workers and families, and a decline in stock, housing, and other asset markets, which is political poison. It is a global problem, and Biden isn't alone among world leaders tanking in the polls. Voters almost always blame Presidents for economic problems (and credit them for economic gains), whether or not their policies are the actual cause.


Gas prices are surging around the world. Unflattering stickers have been popping up at gas stations and pumps across America. There are tens of thousands of videos of TikTokers and Twiterhead supposedly placing "I did that!" stickers on gas pumps. It is the new Brandon. Every time Biden proposes and new spending it is now called a precursor to more "Bidenflation." Biden's initial response to inflation fears, so far, has been to create a bogeyman greedy corporations, but even on the left he is getting killed - Dems up for reelection and other like Warren are saying corporations are always greedy. They didn't suddenly remember to become greedy in the past year.

You can talk about the wedge issues like abortion all you want, but for Biden and the midterms, it is likely about focusing on issues that voters care about most.

Why inflation is President Biden's biggest political problemhttps://www.brookings.edu blog fixgov 2022/02/17







BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Inflation is right up there with Violent Crime among issues independent voters care about most along with Election Integrity.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think inflation is going to be a problem in November. I think the recession the Fed causes will be a problem though so that's a distinction without a difference.

I don't think there is any debate that Democrats are going to pay a price at the midterm elections. The only question is how will things be in 2024 after 3 years of no government legislation because that will determine whether Biden gets a second term.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's say it is divided government after November. Doesn't the GOP have to come-up with their own economic plan? . They tried being the party of no during Obama and that backfired. It is really hard to defeat an incumbent President, The wheels really have to fall off the economy like with Bush senior of have a huge pandemic like Tromp. As much as Trump alienated people, he probably wins without the pandemic.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Let's say it is divided government after November. Doesn't the GOP have to come-up with their own economic plan?
Are you being serious right now? Maybe after they come up with their beautiful replacement for Obamacare. Is it still two weeks away or am I confusing it with their infrastructure bill?

Republicans are not interested in providing any answers, certainly not when it could possibly help someone else. They are going to celebrate every day during this impending recession because they think it helps them. Why would they want to cut that short and let Biden get any credit?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:

Let's say it is divided government after November. Doesn't the GOP have to come-up with their own economic plan?
Are you being serious right now? Maybe after they come up with their beautiful replacement for Obamacare. Is it still two weeks away or am I confusing it with their infrastructure bill?

Republicans are not interested in providing any answers, certainly not when it could possibly help someone else. They are going to celebrate every day during this impending recession because they think it helps them. Why would they want to cut that short and let Biden get any credit?
Two years is a long time in political and economic cycles. But point taken, if the economy is in the crapper, why help unless Biden gives you something,. I would say see RR and Tip O'Neil, but those were different times.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:

Let's say it is divided government after November. Doesn't the GOP have to come-up with their own economic plan?
Are you being serious right now? Maybe after they come up with their beautiful replacement for Obamacare. Is it still two weeks away or am I confusing it with their infrastructure bill?

Republicans are not interested in providing any answers, certainly not when it could possibly help someone else. They are going to celebrate every day during this impending recession because they think it helps them. Why would they want to cut that short and let Biden get any credit?
Two years is a long time in political and economic cycles. But point taken, if the economy is in the crapper, why help unless Biden gives you something,. I would say see RR and Tip O'Neil, but those were different times.


There was no magic to RR and Tip O'Neil. A huge portion of the Democratic House were racist conservatives. That group has long since moved to the Republican Party.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:

Let's say it is divided government after November. Doesn't the GOP have to come-up with their own economic plan?
Are you being serious right now? Maybe after they come up with their beautiful replacement for Obamacare. Is it still two weeks away or am I confusing it with their infrastructure bill?

Republicans are not interested in providing any answers, certainly not when it could possibly help someone else. They are going to celebrate every day during this impending recession because they think it helps them. Why would they want to cut that short and let Biden get any credit?

You said it. The GOP spends all of its time and energy working to cancel Democrats. It's another example of Republicans doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

I'm assuming voters rip the GOP a big one on abortion - SCOTUS and the Senate (thanks Joe) certainly have created a furor on this board. But like it or not, the polls still have Dems in trouble. Under Biden, the unemployment rate is lower and the economy has rapidly grown over the past two years. The culprit is what Americans now identify the most important problem today - high inflation. The government reported yesterday that prices rose 8.3 percent over the 12 months ending in April. High inflation has not persisted like this since four decades ago - before the internet didn't exist for you young-ins.


So what does that mean - the President and FED read the polls and hit the panic button and overreact. The Federal Reserve has increased interest rates more that anticapted. The central bank's chair, Jerome Powell, said he is aiming for a "soft landing" which given the FED's history is humorous. The stock market just entered an official "Bear Market." April's rate was higher than most experts expected. That could push policymakers to get more aggressive and increase the risk of a future recession.

Like it or not, the incumbent President gets nailed for the economy. I'm sure I will get into an argument on this, but a lot of inflationary pressures started before Biden. Life has gotten more expensive for the residents of pretty much every country, not just America, due to C-19 disruptions and then came Ukraine. In the US, massive federal spending packages to provide relief from COVID began under President Trump with mostly bipartisan support. President Biden continued this spending spree with the American Rescue Plan, also with some bi-partisan support, which continues to fuel the economy, but all of this stimulus may also be overheating things, leading to excessive demand for goods and services, contributing to supply chain overload, shortages, and rising inflation. But this was a bipartisan effort less we forget and what was the alternative? And hopefully Biden does something to discourage any further massive infusion to supply with BBB (or has Manchin kill it).

The power to tame inflation really resides with the FED. More raises in interest rates to try and bring prices down, will also likely mean an economic slowdown, pain for American workers and families, and a decline in stock, housing, and other asset markets, which is political poison. It is a global problem, and Biden isn't alone among world leaders tanking in the polls. Voters almost always blame Presidents for economic problems (and credit them for economic gains), whether or not their policies are the actual cause.


Gas prices are surging around the world. Unflattering stickers have been popping up at gas stations and pumps across America. There are tens of thousands of videos of TikTokers and Twiterhead supposedly placing "I did that!" stickers on gas pumps. It is the new Brandon. Every time Biden proposes and new spending it is now called a precursor to more "Bidenflation." Biden's initial response to inflation fears, so far, has been to create a bogeyman greedy corporations, but even on the left he is getting killed - Dems up for reelection and other like Warren are saying corporations are always greedy. They didn't suddenly remember to become greedy in the past year.

You can talk about the wedge issues like abortion all you want, but for Biden and the midterms, it is likely about focusing on issues that voters care about most.

Why inflation is President Biden's biggest political problemhttps://www.brookings.edu blog fixgov 2022/02/17









None of what you have presented here is anything new.
You're stating the obvious.

So is the prospect that on a political basis, there really is nothing that Biden can do about it.
People vote with their pocket books, even if they dont fully understand where inflation comes from or failed to take am Econ.1 course at their local JC to learn about the basics of supply and demand


DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most American's have no idea of how the economy works or the impact that OPEC (now OPEC+) or the Federal Reserve has on inflation. 99% of Trumpers are dumber than dumb and have no clue. We see it all the time on social media whenever they open their mouth. No college degree. No intelligence. Only the "feeling" that correlation implies causation.

And then there are those at the other extreme, the liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders that dont have a clue either. They'll blame the oil companies, never mind that oil is a global commodity. They propose absurd policies that they think will lower energy prices, like Warren wanting to ban Nat-Gas exports. That's why Biden will get the "blame" for inflation.

None of these people have a clue what this chart below means . . .

M2 (M2SL) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Janet, say it ain't so
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

wifeisafurd said:

I'm assuming voters rip the GOP a big one on abortion - SCOTUS and the Senate (thanks Joe) certainly have created a furor on this board. But like it or not, the polls still have Dems in trouble. Under Biden, the unemployment rate is lower and the economy has rapidly grown over the past two years. The culprit is what Americans now identify the most important problem today - high inflation. The government reported yesterday that prices rose 8.3 percent over the 12 months ending in April. High inflation has not persisted like this since four decades ago - before the internet didn't exist for you young-ins.


So what does that mean - the President and FED read the polls and hit the panic button and overreact. The Federal Reserve has increased interest rates more that anticapted. The central bank's chair, Jerome Powell, said he is aiming for a "soft landing" which given the FED's history is humorous. The stock market just entered an official "Bear Market." April's rate was higher than most experts expected. That could push policymakers to get more aggressive and increase the risk of a future recession.

Like it or not, the incumbent President gets nailed for the economy. I'm sure I will get into an argument on this, but a lot of inflationary pressures started before Biden. Life has gotten more expensive for the residents of pretty much every country, not just America, due to C-19 disruptions and then came Ukraine. In the US, massive federal spending packages to provide relief from COVID began under President Trump with mostly bipartisan support. President Biden continued this spending spree with the American Rescue Plan, also with some bi-partisan support, which continues to fuel the economy, but all of this stimulus may also be overheating things, leading to excessive demand for goods and services, contributing to supply chain overload, shortages, and rising inflation. But this was a bipartisan effort less we forget and what was the alternative? And hopefully Biden does something to discourage any further massive infusion to supply with BBB (or has Manchin kill it).

The power to tame inflation really resides with the FED. More raises in interest rates to try and bring prices down, will also likely mean an economic slowdown, pain for American workers and families, and a decline in stock, housing, and other asset markets, which is political poison. It is a global problem, and Biden isn't alone among world leaders tanking in the polls. Voters almost always blame Presidents for economic problems (and credit them for economic gains), whether or not their policies are the actual cause.


Gas prices are surging around the world. Unflattering stickers have been popping up at gas stations and pumps across America. There are tens of thousands of videos of TikTokers and Twiterhead supposedly placing "I did that!" stickers on gas pumps. It is the new Brandon. Every time Biden proposes and new spending it is now called a precursor to more "Bidenflation." Biden's initial response to inflation fears, so far, has been to create a bogeyman greedy corporations, but even on the left he is getting killed - Dems up for reelection and other like Warren are saying corporations are always greedy. They didn't suddenly remember to become greedy in the past year.

You can talk about the wedge issues like abortion all you want, but for Biden and the midterms, it is likely about focusing on issues that voters care about most.

Why inflation is President Biden's biggest political problemhttps://www.brookings.edu blog fixgov 2022/02/17









None of what you have presented here is anything new.



yup.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Drove through OC and filled up whlle there.

I was greeted with this:

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is not pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


He's toast.
Thanks to Jerome Powell.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.
he / him
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.



BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


??? Joe, say it ain't so.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
he / him
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader George Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).

Clinton definitely passed income tax increases on the high income earners (note not saying wealthy) and increased payroll taxes on high income earners (note not saying wealthy), and he imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes, which was somewhat regressive and unpopular.

I really don't think the numbers reflect a jobless recovery. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. Admittedly real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. Nevertheless, with additional taxes and employment, the Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. The reduced deficit kept interest rates down, and during the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, certainly respectable relative to today's economy (the intitial years problem were disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. The result was the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.


And how did Clinton respond:

1) He signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
2) He signed massive welfare reform which substantially reduced spending
3) He pushed through NAFTA
4) He pushed and won an increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs
5) He reduced federal spending below 3%

By raising income taxes and reducing capital gains and reducing speeding he kept inflation below 2.4% in his second term, and he created a boom economy. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000rowth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year, which is outstanding. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. And oh yes, wages went up. And then Al Gore ran away from Clinton's record.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).
John Mitchell? The only John Mitchell I'm aware of was the Attorney General in the Nixon administration during Watergate.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.


Remember, Trump threatened to veto and called the spending bill a disgrace and demanded lawmakers to amend it. He eventually signed it and prevented unemployment benefits from lapsing for millions of Americans. Didn't you receive your checks?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).

Clinton definitely passed income tax increases on the high income earners (note not saying wealthy) and increased payroll taxes on high income earners (note not saying wealthy), and he imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes, which was somewhat regressive and unpopular.

I really don't think the numbers reflect a jobless recovery. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. Admittedly real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. Nevertheless, with additional taxes and employment, the Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. The reduced deficit kept interest rates down, and during the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, certainly respectable relative to today's economy (the intitial years problem were disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. The result was the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.


And how did Clinton respond:

1) He signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
2) He signed massive welfare reform which substantially reduced spending
3) He pushed through NAFTA
4) He pushed and won an increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs
5) He reduced federal spending below 3%

By raising income taxes and reducing capital gains and reducing speeding he kept inflation below 2.4% in his second term, and he created a boom economy. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000rowth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year, which is outstanding. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. And oh yes, wages went up. And then Al Gore ran away from Clinton's record.


You are deflecting by shifting away from the time period we are talking about, which is the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. In his 2nd term he definitely acted to the likings of the conservatives and helped cause a stock market bubble through capital gains tax cuts and helped cause the financial collapse of the following decade through financial deregulation.

But in the beginning, Clinton campaigned on national healthcare. In January 1993 he established a cabinet level task force on it. In September 1993 he delivered a major speech to a joint session of Congress specifically on healthcare. In November 1993 the legislation was introduced and the fight was on. Nearly a year later, in September 1994, John Mitchell declared it dead.

Also, job growth was 450k in 1992 and 2.5 million in 1993. The term "jobless recovery" was literally created by economist Nick Perna to describe the recovery from the 1991 recession.
he / him
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).
John Mitchell? The only John Mitchell I'm aware of was the Attorney General in the Nixon administration during Watergate.
George Mitchell was the Democratic Majority Leader
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

George Mitchell was the Democratic Majority Leader


Correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:


Remember, Trump threatened to veto and called the spending bill a disgrace and demanded lawmakers to amend it. He eventually signed it and prevented unemployment benefits from lapsing for millions of Americans. Didn't you receive your checks?


Another cool story.
He threatened to veto the omnibus bill.
Not the Cares Act. You're terribly misinformed.

Trump was bragging about how big and unprecedented the CARES ACT spending was.

His own remarks:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-signing-h-r-748-cares-act/
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oval Office
4:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much. This is a very important day.

I'll sign the single-biggest economic relief package in American history and, I must say, or any other package, by the way. It's twice as large as any relief ever signed. It's $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 potentially billion dollars trillion dollars. So you're talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that.

And this will deliver urgently needed relief to our nation's families, workers, and businesses. And that's what this is all about.

And it got a 96 to nothing. And, I don't know, what was the number in Congress?

PARTICIPANT: A voice vote.

THE PRESIDENT: A voice? It was fantastic.

PARTICIPANT: I think it was just as close.

THE PRESIDENT: That's pretty amazing. That's about the same thing. Right, Kevin?

LEADER MCCARTHY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So, that's fantastic. But I want to thank Republicans and Democrats for coming together, setting aside their differences, and putting America first.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Oval Office
4:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much. This is a very important day.

I'll sign the single-biggest economic relief package in American history and, I must say, or any other package, by the way. It's twice as large as any relief ever signed. It's $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 potentially billion dollars trillion dollars. So you're talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that.

And this will deliver urgently needed relief to our nation's families, workers, and businesses. And that's what this is all about.

And it got a 96 to nothing. And, I don't know, what was the number in Congress?

PARTICIPANT: A voice vote.

THE PRESIDENT: A voice? It was fantastic.

PARTICIPANT: I think it was just as close.

THE PRESIDENT: That's pretty amazing. That's about the same thing. Right, Kevin?

LEADER MCCARTHY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So, that's fantastic. But I want to thank Republicans and Democrats for coming together, setting aside their differences, and putting America first.


I had almost forgotten what a buffoon this guy is.

chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The attempt to pin inflation on Biden - which will sadly work on low information voters - is misguided at best:
https://tyt.com/stories/53PsQvIKiZFzQPRRk91p2q
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

The attempt to pin inflation on Biden - which will sadly work on low information voters - is misguided at best:
https://tyt.com/stories/53PsQvIKiZFzQPRRk91p2q


This article is not able to quantify the correlation between the use of swaps and the alleged "inflating" of commodity prices via futures markets. The author literally admits this.

The thesis here is literally based on a "hunch".

It also ignores position limits levied by the CFTC on all futures markets. And it ignores margin being raised by the clearing firm to reflect trading volatility.

The article tries to make it sound as though the actual producer of the commodity (is dominated) by Wall Street speculators.

Do markets get out of whack as traders jump on a trend? Of course they do.

But this article fails to connect the dots as to why the swap market is the "tail" that is wagging the "dog".



OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).

Clinton definitely passed income tax increases on the high income earners (note not saying wealthy) and increased payroll taxes on high income earners (note not saying wealthy), and he imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes, which was somewhat regressive and unpopular.

I really don't think the numbers reflect a jobless recovery. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. Admittedly real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. Nevertheless, with additional taxes and employment, the Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. The reduced deficit kept interest rates down, and during the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, certainly respectable relative to today's economy (the intitial years problem were disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. The result was the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.


And how did Clinton respond:

1) He signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
2) He signed massive welfare reform which substantially reduced spending
3) He pushed through NAFTA
4) He pushed and won an increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs
5) He reduced federal spending below 3%

By raising income taxes and reducing capital gains and reducing speeding he kept inflation below 2.4% in his second term, and he created a boom economy. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000rowth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year, which is outstanding. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. And oh yes, wages went up. And then Al Gore ran away from Clinton's record.


You are deflecting by shifting away from the time period we are talking about, which is the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. In his 2nd term he definitely acted to the likings of the conservatives and helped cause a stock market bubble through capital gains tax cuts and helped cause the financial collapse of the following decade through financial deregulation.

But in the beginning, Clinton campaigned on national healthcare. In January 1993 he established a cabinet level task force on it. In September 1993 he delivered a major speech to a joint session of Congress specifically on healthcare. In November 1993 the legislation was introduced and the fight was on. Nearly a year later, in September 1994, John Mitchell declared it dead.

Also, job growth was 450k in 1992 and 2.5 million in 1993. The term "jobless recovery" was literally created by economist Nick Perna to describe the recovery from the 1991 recession.
You are correct, and had his last 6 years gone like the first two who knows what would have happened. But in 1993-94 Hillary's Bill happened and was shot down causing a tremendous backlash in Congress, and likewise and change in strategy by Bill. Thank goodness for the former and enjoyed the latter. Bill was a good one much like JK for economically based Repubs.

Now we have a toss up for the worst ever between Jimmy C. and Joey B. I guess I better qualify that with the behavior of the Trumpeter being the worst, but not his Presidency.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).

Clinton definitely passed income tax increases on the high income earners (note not saying wealthy) and increased payroll taxes on high income earners (note not saying wealthy), and he imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes, which was somewhat regressive and unpopular.

I really don't think the numbers reflect a jobless recovery. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. Admittedly real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. Nevertheless, with additional taxes and employment, the Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. The reduced deficit kept interest rates down, and during the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, certainly respectable relative to today's economy (the intitial years problem were disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. The result was the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.


And how did Clinton respond:

1) He signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
2) He signed massive welfare reform which substantially reduced spending
3) He pushed through NAFTA
4) He pushed and won an increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs
5) He reduced federal spending below 3%

By raising income taxes and reducing capital gains and reducing speeding he kept inflation below 2.4% in his second term, and he created a boom economy. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000rowth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year, which is outstanding. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. And oh yes, wages went up. And then Al Gore ran away from Clinton's record.


You are deflecting by shifting away from the time period we are talking about, which is the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. In his 2nd term he definitely acted to the likings of the conservatives and helped cause a stock market bubble through capital gains tax cuts and helped cause the financial collapse of the following decade through financial deregulation.

But in the beginning, Clinton campaigned on national healthcare. In January 1993 he established a cabinet level task force on it. In September 1993 he delivered a major speech to a joint session of Congress specifically on healthcare. In November 1993 the legislation was introduced and the fight was on. Nearly a year later, in September 1994, John Mitchell declared it dead.

Also, job growth was 450k in 1992 and 2.5 million in 1993. The term "jobless recovery" was literally created by economist Nick Perna to describe the recovery from the 1991 recession.
You are correct, and had his last 6 years gone like the first two who knows what would have happened. But in 1993-94 Hillary's Bill happened and was shot down causing a tremendous backlash in Congress, and likewise and change in strategy by Bill. Thank goodness for the former and enjoyed the latter. Bill was a good one much like JK for economically based Repubs.

Now we have a toss up for the worst ever between Jimmy C. and Joey B. I guess I better qualify that with the behavior of the Trumpeter being the worst, but not his Presidency.


Bush II and Trump are easily the worst of the Presidents mentioned.
he / him
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

DiabloWags said:

BearForce2 said:



Janet, say it ain't so


When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.

As pointed out in the OP there were several huge spending bills passed with bi-partisan support during a pandemic. I'm not sure there was much choice. The pain of juicing the economy is now seen in inflation. Janet is pointing out anything new (like me). I'm not sure where the Biden Administration is going on BBB, but my sense is that most economists like Yellen and a lot of legislators will oppose another big spending bill.

The problem is most voters don't like pain, nor do politicians. Clinton was willing to impose some form of austerity (or discipline or whatever you want to call it) to bring inflation down, and it brought him a second term. But in the short run the Dems loss Congress. I'm not sure where Biden is going. Maybe you guys know.


Bill Clinton tried to pass a national healthcare program before he lost Congress. Inflation was under 3% in the timeframe you are speaking of. Not sure what you are talking about.


In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the promise of a stimulus package (sound familiar?). But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, the FED chair, and soon accepted what became known as "the financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cutall in an effort to avoid inflation, and keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. The deal with Greenspan is well documented.

For six of eight years, Clinton then governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. it was probably the last time deficit hawks ruled the roost or tried to claim they were a fiscal conservative.






We had a jobless recovery during the campaign and job growth accelerated in 1993. The need for stimulus had passed. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy and pushed for national healthcare. Spending grew ~14% his first term and inflation was a non-issue.
Let me start with my biases which is I voted for Clinton and liked him. OTOH, I remember things differently than you state.

You mean he pushed the national HillaryCare that Majority Leader John Mitchell, of the then Democratic majority , declared dead on arrival? Anyone who lived during that period knows he supported his wife's legislation about as much as he wanted to have sex with her (and not someone else).

Clinton definitely passed income tax increases on the high income earners (note not saying wealthy) and increased payroll taxes on high income earners (note not saying wealthy), and he imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes, which was somewhat regressive and unpopular.

I really don't think the numbers reflect a jobless recovery. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. Admittedly real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. Nevertheless, with additional taxes and employment, the Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. The reduced deficit kept interest rates down, and during the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, certainly respectable relative to today's economy (the intitial years problem were disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. The result was the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.


And how did Clinton respond:

1) He signed a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
2) He signed massive welfare reform which substantially reduced spending
3) He pushed through NAFTA
4) He pushed and won an increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs
5) He reduced federal spending below 3%

By raising income taxes and reducing capital gains and reducing speeding he kept inflation below 2.4% in his second term, and he created a boom economy. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000rowth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year, which is outstanding. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. And oh yes, wages went up. And then Al Gore ran away from Clinton's record.


You are deflecting by shifting away from the time period we are talking about, which is the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. In his 2nd term he definitely acted to the likings of the conservatives and helped cause a stock market bubble through capital gains tax cuts and helped cause the financial collapse of the following decade through financial deregulation.

But in the beginning, Clinton campaigned on national healthcare. In January 1993 he established a cabinet level task force on it. In September 1993 he delivered a major speech to a joint session of Congress specifically on healthcare. In November 1993 the legislation was introduced and the fight was on. Nearly a year later, in September 1994, John Mitchell declared it dead.

Also, job growth was 450k in 1992 and 2.5 million in 1993. The term "jobless recovery" was literally created by economist Nick Perna to describe the recovery from the 1991 recession.
You are correct, and had his last 6 years gone like the first two who knows what would have happened. But in 1993-94 Hillary's Bill happened and was shot down causing a tremendous backlash in Congress, and likewise and change in strategy by Bill. Thank goodness for the former and enjoyed the latter. Bill was a good one much like JK for economically based Repubs.

Now we have a toss up for the worst ever between Jimmy C. and Joey B. I guess I better qualify that with the behavior of the Trumpeter being the worst, but not his Presidency.


Bush II and Trump are easily the worst of the Presidents mentioned.
If you count only the good economic outcomes under Trump and ignore any negative ones AND you ignore all the good under Biden and only count the bad, Trump is still a worse president but it allows you to pretend he did economy good. In reality, Trump benefited from the Obama economy and Biden is paying the price for the Trump economy and COVID.

That's life - the guy behind the resolute desk gets the credit/blame for what happens on his watch. Except in Trump's case the guy behind the resolute desk was a Russian. But, you know, that's just a detail.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

DiabloWags said:




When someone points out a $1.9 Trillion spending bill by Joe Biden, but conveniently IGNORES the $2.2 Trillion CARES ACT signed into law by Donald Trump.

Yawn.


Remember, Trump threatened to veto and called the spending bill a disgrace and demanded lawmakers to amend it. He eventually signed it and prevented unemployment benefits from lapsing for millions of Americans. Didn't you receive your checks?

When someone confuses the annual Omnibus Bill with that of the $2.2 Trillion Dollar CARES ACT.

I still cant believe you're a Cal alum.
Seriously.

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.