3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

In the final two years of Bill Clinton's budgets, there was actually a small surplus. George Bush came in, gave massive tax cuts to the rich, claimed they would pay for themselves, and instead resulted in huge deficits. At the end of Bush's term, came the worst recession for the United States since the Great depression. That's what Barack Obama inherited.

We have covered this topic before.  Spending was at 18.1% of the GDP during the surplus.   The deficits under Bush were due to post 9/11 spending.  

 

The housing bubble burst at the end of Bush's term. 

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Not exactly a ringing defense of the current situation even if your claim was confirmable.

Do you even know the boundaries of the top 10%? 

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

We have covered this topic before.  Spending was at 18.1% of the GDP during the surplus.   The deficits under Bush were due to post 9/11 spending.  

 

The housing bubble burst at the end of Bush's term. 

Really? Massive tax cuts didn't count. Ridiculous comment.

 

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Really? Massive tax cuts didn't count. Ridiculous comment.

 

Define massive. 

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

Define massive. 

It's estimated that if Clinton's taxes were left in place who would have been an 11.7 gain in revenue for the federal govt instead of a 1.7 trillion dollar increase in the debt.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

It's estimated that if Clinton's taxes were left in place who would have been an 11.7 gain in revenue for the federal govt instead of a 1.7 trillion dollar increase in the debt.

 

11.7 what. 

Just now, TedG said:

 

11.7 what. 

Trillion.

 

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It's estimated that if Clinton's taxes were left in place who would have been an 11.7 gain in revenue for the federal govt instead of a 1.7 trillion dollar increase in the debt.

Look what Joe Biden and the Dems did to spending after the COVID spending binge.  Look at the trend before COVID, and the new normal after COVID. 

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Trillion.

 

You are making up numbers. 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

You are making up numbers. 

Actually. I should have written 11.7 b

Trillion up to the present

A post with a trolling neologism to belittle or mock individuals with differing political views and the replies have been removed.

 

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually. I should have written 11.7 b

Trillion up to the present

The debt runup started under Obama. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

Yes......In fact, yes. 

 

Joe Biden is more responsible for high inflation than for abundant jobs

 

The main effect of the president’s economic policies has been to boost prices

 

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/05/11/joe-biden-is-more-responsible-for-high-inflation-than-for-abundant-jobs?utm_campaign=shared_article

 

 

It's only one analysis, and different economists have different views about it. The article doesn't reflect a consensus among analysts.

 

To start with, the article doesn't claim that Biden was responsible for all the inflation, nor that his policies had no impact on job creation.

 

As concerns inflation, the main issue which doesn't seem to be really considered in the article is that housing represents an unusual weight in the CPI (around 35%). There are actually two issues here:

- it is abnormal because the CPI uses fictive rents for owners. It counts costs that actually did not occur, hence the high weight. The outcome is that using the CPI shows a higher level of inflation than by using, for example, the European methodology.

- the high price of housing was more due to structural housing shortage than due to economic policies.

 

As concerns job creation, the article seems to assume that jobs growth was a natural rebound. This is far from obvious. There was still a crisis (actually a recession was seen as a possible scenario at that time) and jobs could not have automatically reached the pre-pandemic level without economic stimuli.

 

The reallity is likely more nuanced: Inflation was only partly due to economic policies (I remember that the Fed estimated the impact at around 2-3% in total over a few years), and job number growth was only partly due to a natural rebound. 

7 hours ago, Dan O said:

Can you spell covid? 

It's spelled C O V I D

Just now, candide said:

To start with, the article doesn't claim that Biden was responsible for all the inflation, nor that his policies had no impact on job creation.

The article states that Biden's policies increased inflation by 4%. 

Just now, TedG said:

The article states that Biden's policies increased inflation by 4%. 

OK, we agree on it. What about the other points I mentioned?

1 minute ago, candide said:

OK, we agree on it. What about the other points I mentioned?

Think about the cumulative impact of an extra 4% on the working man.  Then toss in Biden's disastrous federal budget. 

11 minutes ago, TedG said:

The debt runup started under Obama. 

 

 

 

What don't you understand about the fact that Obama inherited from  Bush the worst recession since the Great depression. A recession that affected pretty much the entire world.

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

Think about the cumulative impact of an extra 4% on the working man.  Then toss in Biden's disastrous federal budget. 

That figure is meaningless without a comparison to what the increase in wages was

14 minutes ago, TedG said:

Think about the cumulative impact of an extra 4% on the working man.  Then toss in Biden's disastrous federal budget. 

The authors' estimate. The Feds estimate is lower.

 

Anyway, what about the other points I mentioned? 

I read that editorial in The economist that you cited and it's full of BS. For one thing, it's claim that employment recovered faster in other G7 Nations except the UK than in the US is just a statistical trick. 

Those countries kept their workers employed through various government programs. That's how they were subsidizing workers. So even though those workers weren't officially unemployed, it was only government money that kept them working, so to speak and off the unemployment rols. In America it was unemployment insurance that was used.

That editorial also had the misfortune to have been published in May of 2023. 

By the end of 2024, there was no doubt that America was doing a lot better than the rest of the G7.

14 hours ago, BritManToo said:

If it's all Trumps fault ...... how come it's happening in every western country.

Is Trump running Australia/Germany/Canada/France?

 

Name one ruler you admire in any country, and show us how he's doing better?

Not only Western countries, many things in Thailand have become unaffordable to most people, even Westerners. Its always Trumps fault to the left wing zealots who have no clue. 

9 hours ago, TedG said:

It's spelled C O V I D

Now apply it to your graph and you have the major cause of inflation and it started with trump and his policies. 

Fun time! 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/newsom-embarrasses-doting-vance-trump-204227846.html