Actually not a huge Trump fan. Voted for him zero times and I thought the Republicans were stupid for nominating him to begin with. I prefer him to Biden or Clinton, but that would be true of almost any Republican, as I find the Democrats are more anti-libertarian than the Republicans nearly without exception. I would imagine the Republicans will oppose a massive new spending bill on the heels of by far the biggest deficit in the history of the country, but once you tank the economy with lockdowns there are no really good options and massive deficits are inevitable.
The economy for normal Americans always has sucked even before lockdown. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...d-during-the-2008-financial-crisis-2019-06-19 That was before Covid. Our economy under the second term of Obama and the single term of Trump's grew by low fed interest rates and consumer debt. We haven't had a economy grow based on increased consumer demand in a while which means bubbles will form and eventually bust. Any growth in wages were offset by rent and healthcare cost increases.
NYT coverage consistency aside (both sides agree they are a pretty loathsome outlet but there are still some talented journalists there), the thing you are overlooking is that Trump couldn’t get an infrastructure bill done because of: -White house priorities -What the bill initially actually was (which wasn’t roads and bridges as much as it was another corporate giveaway) -Lack of Republican support or Mitch McConnell (Bill could have started in the Senate under McConnell and got a vote) The NYT coverage in the end had almost nothing to do with Trumps success in infrastructure. We’ll see if media narratives serve any purpose in Biden’s case and if the media adopts right wing talking points like they always do if that changes public opinion. My guess is the bill will poll very well. If you want to claim libertarianism and deficit fears, I think people like yourself need to come up with a better case rather than just saying I’m not a Biden fan because of the deficit. Tell us more and make a better case because all economic data shows that governments not deficit spending to invest in growing the economy actually hurts your economy more. Tightening the spending in a way that makes the poor consumer class more poor never has a history of economic glory... ever. There are ample cases of countries like Japan who are running much much much higher deficit ratios than the US and have been able to maintain a high quality of life while managing a high deficit. Also the US’ debt to GDP has historically been managed extremely well. An governments economy isn’t meant to be treated like a household income where you need to save to then pay off or buy a bigger house. The US economy despite the doom and gloom is managed pretty damn well. So if it’s not about right wing culture wars and it really is about principled conservative economic issues for you, you probably need to show some data that none of us have ever seen in 40 years if you want to be taken seriously ... with all due respect.
As a Reminder of how this went as people on the right start trying to re-write history: GOP senators are warning that Trump’s expected proposal is too “rich” and would be a “heavy lift” in Congress, especially considering significant policy differences between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). House Democratic leaders have vowed to approve a surface transportation bill with a price tag around $500 billion over five years by the end of this month, which could put pressure on the GOP-led Senate. The House Transportation Committee is scheduled to start marking up that bill Wednesday. McConnell has repeatedly warned about the impact of the surging federal deficit on future generations and has put the brakes on passing another expensive coronavirus relief bill. McConnell’s more pressing priority, say GOP senators, is to move a five-year reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund estimated to cost $287 billion, well below the $1 trillion plan Trump is currently considering. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ajor-infrastructure-bill-faces-gop-opposition
Near zero interest rates are going to go hand in hand with high debt, because it costs less to borrow money and earns less to save money. The fed should raise interest rates to more normal historic levels. We did see very low unemployment at the end of Obama's second term that continued decreasing through Trump's term (until the pandemic of course). I have seen estimates that the reversal of economic growth caused by the pandemic and response will result in about 7 trillion dollars less in the economy over the next 10 years. Whatever you thought of the pre-covid economy, it is much worse now. That is for the country as a whole. The economic impact on me was negligible, though the personal toll was enormous. My point though, was given the economic impact of the pandemic, there was no possible future in which we would not see massive deficit increases. You cannot say, NYT coverage consistency aside... when the entire point of my post was pointing out the hilarious inconsistency in NYT coverage. Those are two totally separate things you have smashed together. I expect that the Republicans will oppose a massive spending bill. They are Republicans and that is what Republicans do, especially when the bill is being offered by Democrats. Totally separate from the spending bill and Republicans response to it is my not being a Biden fan. I am not a Biden fan because I don't support his agenda of increased spending and increased taxes, I don't support his policies on racial "justice". I don't support his policies on immigration. Basically the entire platform he ran on is stuff I oppose. Deficits are a tiny piece of that pie. What my tax dollars are spent on is much more important. On the plus side, he was among the least bad of the Dem primary candidates. I am not really that concerned about the health of the economy overall. I expect that the US being by far the most powerful country in the world, we will keep chugging along and neither party is going to tax or spend so much that it will stop. I would like to see an economy in which my salary went up, my taxes went down, and there was deflation generally across the market, because that is what would benefit me, even if the economy overall suffered. My principled view of the economy is that the government should have little if anything to do with it, because as a constitutional libertarian, I don't think the federal government has a place in the economy outside of regulation of interstate commerce (meaning trade that actually crosses state boundaries, not non-economic activity that occurs within a single state to stop states from setting up tariffs and what not on interstate trade). Essentially, we are having two very different conversations.
I give it to her, this generation is weak and soft like a Victor Oladipo song she KNOWS that you just post stuff on Instagram and TikTok and Twitter and the masses will believe anything you say Think about it, She CONVINCED New Yorkers NOT to have an Amazon headquarters which would employ lots of smart people with can code, and would spend money on bars, restaurants, Urgent Care when they take too much cocaine , strip clubs, 7-elevens, parking, Nets tickets, and overpriced T-shirts like Supreme. She wanted that undeveloped area to be.. undeveloped! all with a wink and tweet!
So you agree with me that this country hasn't seen genuine economic growth from an expansion of a middle class due to expansion in disposable income? Instead we've seen economic growth through excessive borrowing and speculation which just contributes to the boom and bust cycle that just disproportionately benefits the wealthy? Wage growth hasn't kept up with things like rent and healthcare costs. Who gives a **** about unemployment rates and gdp growth when the quality of jobs hasn't improved and the middle class's wallets are tightening?
Not really. Quick what was the unemployment rate and gdp growth rate 1 and half years before the 2008 crash.
She’s the queen of Twitter — but less successful at lawmaking. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among the least effective members of the last Congress according to a new survey from the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking — a joint project of Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia. AOC introduced a total of 21 bills which the center defined as “substantive” — but that is where the story ends. Her legislation received no action in committees, no floor votes, and none ever became law, according to the center, which takes its data from Congress.gov. “She introduced a lot of bills, but she was not successful at having them receive any sort of action in committee or beyond committee and if they can’t get through committee they cannot pass the House,” Alan Wiseman, a Vanderbilt political scientist and co-director of the center, told The Post. “It’s clear that she was trying to get her legislative agenda moving and engage with the lawmaking process,” Wiseman added “But she wasn’t as successful as some other members were — even among [other] freshmen — at getting people to pay attention to her legislation.” When looking at the legislative effectiveness of all congressional Democrats, AOC was ranked 230th out of 240 Democrats. Among the 19 Dem lawmakers from New York state, she ranked dead last. Democratic House insiders said many of Ocasio-Cortez’s colleagues found her approach alienating. “Tweeting is easy, governing is hard. You need to have friends. You need to understand the committee process, you need to be willing to make sacrifices,” said one. “Her first day in Congress … she decided to protest outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office.” A second Democratic insider who worked with her in the New York delegation added that “legislation was never her focus. It was media and narrative.” Fellow Democratic Socialist “Squad” members fared better than AOC. Rep. Ilhan Omar sponsored 33 bills that also went nowhere, earning her 214th place, while Rep. Rashida Tlaib saw three of her substantive bills advance into committee — with one ultimately becoming law. She ranked 92nd.
So you are bragging about a system influenced by corporate lobbyists where junior legislators who aren't influenced by them have no pull? Congrats dude. You are praising **** you have no understanding of. Stick to GARM news.
Yes. That is an unavoidable side effect of Keynesian economics. It is exacerbated by government spending and bailouts which are part and parcel of it. The only real solution is to let things naturally settle to an equilibrium state. People don't want to do that, because they prefer the boom cycle to that. The bust is the cost of the boom. It is better to have a crap job that barely covers your bills than no job, both now and for the future where you will have a resume of constant employment. GDP growth is what buoys the dollar against the ceaseless printing of new money. Without the increased productivity, the increased monetary supply would have more and more dollars representing the same amount of wealth -> runaway inflation. Generally speaking, people are better off now than they were 20 or 40 years ago. We all benefit from the technological advancements, even if our wealth does not increase, people are barely making ends meet with a cell phone, a PS4, and a 40 inch flat screen instead of barely making ends meet with a corded wall phone, a 24 inch CRT television, and an Atari 2600. So while the real income graphs show stagnation, life is constantly on an upward trajectory for the average person.
Yes because a smartphones and a PS5 are more important than home ownership and building equity. Also Keynesian economics concentrates on demand side. What we have seen since Reagan is supply side which is low fed interest rates for corporations to take out cheap investment loans and massive subsidies and tax cuts. Keynesian economics focuses on demand which means investing in the consumer class(regular Americans).
what have she accomplished so far? You considered "convincing" NY not to have Amazon HQ there an "accomplishment"?!
