The Stock Market under Joe Biden things are looking down! (1 Viewer)

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

 

[Stealthycat]

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

Its a virus, it was going to spread nationwide screaming the sky if falling or downplaying it either way I think. Democrats/Biden has far more deaths/infections under them than Trump had .... so we know the mask/vaccines/social distancing/shutting down failed

 

[Stealthycat]

Biden Legacy - fun fact, on inauguration day ...

Dow closed at 30,930.52
Nasdaq at 13,197.18
S&P 500 3,798.91

TODAY

DOW JONES AVERAGE
29,174.37 -509.37 (-1.72%)


NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX(I:COMP)
10,699.82 -351.81 (-3.18%)


S&P 500(SP500)
3,632.20 -86.84 (-2.34%)

 

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

 

[Shula-holic]

Biden Legacy - fun fact, on inauguration day ...

Dow closed at 30,930.52
Nasdaq at 13,197.18
S&P 500 3,798.91

TODAY

DOW JONES AVERAGE
29,174.37 -509.37 (-1.72%)


NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX(I:COMP)
10,699.82 -351.81 (-3.18%)


S&P 500(SP500)
3,632.20 -86.84 (-2.34%)

After today's bloodbath you're going to need to update these

 

[Snotbubbles]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

 

[quick-hands]

If the Democrats win the Senate too I expect a bounce from the expectation of a large stimulus bill being passed.

Breitbart Business Digest: How Biden's 'Rescue Plan' Wrecked the Economy

It's now becoming much clearer just how unnecessary the Biden administration's 2021 spending spree was and why it sparked the worst inflation in decades.

www.breitbart.com

 

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

 

[Rich Conway]

Anyone arguing that the economy would be better right now if Trump had won in 2020 should, almost by definition, agree that the economy would be better right now had Trump taken COVID more seriously. All Trump had to do was wear a damn mask and advocated for others to do the same and he would have won.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

You seem to be of the opinion that a political figure has the ability to prevent a virus from spreading.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

You seem to be of the opinion that a political figure has the ability to prevent a virus from spreading.

See bold above, where I specifically stated the opposite of what you’re projecting on me.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

You seem to be of the opinion that a political figure has the ability to prevent a virus from spreading.

See bold above, where I specifically stated the opposite of what you’re projecting on me.

If no one could have prevented coronavirus, then death and economic pain WAS inevitable. The lockdown was inevitable. Death was inevitable. It's then just becomes a matter of how long and how much.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

You seem to be of the opinion that a political figure has the ability to prevent a virus from spreading.

See bold above, where I specifically stated the opposite of what you’re projecting on me.

If no one could have prevented coronavirus, then death and economic pain WAS inevitable. The lockdown was inevitable. Death was inevitable. It's then just becomes a matter of how long and how much.

Correct! Death and economic pain was inevitable. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a clown. Just as anyone suggesting that a more serious and competent response wouldn’t have saved lives and economic pain is a clown.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Markets been a roller coaster ride the last week. Big ups and downs. Had a big dead cat bounce inauguration day but that has settled down

Joe campaigned on that he will create 5 million new jobs and we need that. I for one hope he creates that many and more. If the vaccines are working and the market stays a little over 30,000 in Joe`s first few months we should be in good shape heading into the summer.

killed tens of thousands of jobs with EO's

In reality, more jobs created under Biden than in the first two years of any President since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking jobs.

Ha. In 2019 we had 157.5M jobs. In 2022 we have what, 158.2M so that's an increase in 70K new jobs from our previous high. Oh wait, people are actually going to try and do the COVID shut down and people returning to their jobs and count that as a job created. Boy politics are really something.

Next you're going to tell me how great a job Biden is doing with gas prices. They're down $1.20 from their high in July 2022, great job Joe.

Math fail. 158.2M - 157.5M = 700K, not 70K

Point still stands, it's not really an impressive feat over a two year period.

Well, it's not like you can just award zero credit for the jobs that are "returned" status. I agree you can't give full credit either, but zero isn't merited either. From where he started to where we are, he's done a pretty good job on jobs. If you want to argue otherwise, I'd suggest that you're being tribal/partisan instead of fair in your assessment.

You want to pillory him for Afghanistan, cool, do it. For jobs? Nah, not if you're being realistic.

Restaurant owner employs a cook. The government says that he must close his shop due to COVID restrictions. The owner doesn't qualify for PPP and has to lay off his cook. Eventually the government says that COVID restrictions are over and he can open his restaurant again. He hires the cook back.

What credit am I supposed to give Biden here for this job? Joe allowed this business to reopen? Job created? How do you give partial credit for this?

Same scenario, no Covid. Restaurant owner hires 1 additional cook. How much credit should Biden get? The President has very little to do with each individual job created, but of course has the ability to effect a lot of the macro-environment in which jobs are created.

Back to your covid example….how many of those cooks could have remained employed had Trump taken Covid seriously from the jump and worked to mitigate its effects, instead of the “wish it away” approach he took for political expediency?

1. Your scenario would count as a "new job created". I would give Biden credit for that one.

2. None of the cooks would have remained employed unless the restaurant owner qualified for PPP and had to keep them on the books. The shut down of the economy would have happened no matter what the President did.

1) Why? What did Biden do to create that job?

2) Surely a more effective response to the threat of Covid could have saved some jobs and some lives, right? When a disaster happens you don’t just ignore the response.

1. Because it was a job that didn't exist. That is what a new job is. You want to play a semantical game with the word "created" or "new" go ahead, I prefer not to play.

2. There was no "more effective response" to be had in 2020 that would have prevented the shut down of the US economy. Here is the advice Trump was receiving from Fauci:

Dr Fauci, February 16, 2020: "Well, a pandemic is when you have multiple countries throughout the world that have what's called sustained transmission from person to person to person, multiple generations. Right now, there are 24 countries in which there were over five hundred cases. Several of them are starting to get to the second and third transmission. So technically speaking, the WHO wouldn't be calling this a global pandemic, but it certainly is on the verge of that happening reasonably soon unless containment is more successful than it is right now."

Dr Fauci, February 17, 2020: "If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

Dr. Fauci, February 29, 2020: "Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now the risk is still low. But this could change."

March 11, 2020 - WHO classifies COVID as a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, March 15, 2020: "You know, every single day we meet with the task force, and we take a look at what's going on. And you don't want to make a pronouncement that no one should ever go into a restaurant. I mean, I think that might be overkill right now, but everything is on the table. It may come to the situation where we strongly recommend."

March 15, 2020: US Economy began shutting down.

You have 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done to keep the economy open? Ignore Fauci?

I wouldn’t have disbanded the White House Pandemic Response team in 2019.

I’d have listened to Faucu and too advisers when warned of the dangers of the Coronavirus. I would not have downplayed the disease for political reasons.

I would have urged Americans to take the threat seriously, to get tested, and to follow the advice of our leading experts. I would not have pushed ineffective treatments that the FDA and CDC warned citizens not to take like hydrocloriquine and ivermectin.

I would have gotten the vaccine on camera and strongly urged all Americans to get vaccinated.

I don’t think Trump could have prevented the Coronavirus from entering America or becoming a pandemic. I think his poor response led to hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and far more economic pain than necessary if he had handled the response better.

And that would have prevented our economy from shutting down how?

You seem to be of the opinion that all of the death and economic pain was inevitable. I disagree. Much of the pain was inevitable, but I think a more serious and competent reaps ones would have saved lives and economic pain.

You seem to be of the opinion that a political figure has the ability to prevent a virus from spreading.

See bold above, where I specifically stated the opposite of what you’re projecting on me.

If no one could have prevented coronavirus, then death and economic pain WAS inevitable. The lockdown was inevitable. Death was inevitable. It's then just becomes a matter of how long and how much.

Correct! Death and economic pain was inevitable. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a clown. Just as anyone suggesting that a more serious and competent response wouldn’t have saved lives and economic pain is a clown.

More people have died from COVID under Biden, and are still dying, that is with a vaccine. No response as we have seen worldwide can stop a virus.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dow below 29K.

 

[Shula-holic]

Dow below 29K.

Gonna be some opportunities down the road for those with dry powder. This doesn't seem to be close to being over with though.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dow below 29K.

Gonna be some opportunities down the road for those with dry powder. This doesn't seem to be close to being over with though.

I have an automatic investing plan where I make weekly buys so I'll just be averaging down. Just sucks to see so much red.

 

[Sand]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

 

[GoBirds]

Another banner day under Joe’s watch. Hopefully all the sellers got back in in December. Missing out on the rocket ship.

Rocket ship? More like Titanic.

 

[stlrams]

Another banner day under Joe’s watch. Hopefully all the sellers got back in in December. Missing out on the rocket ship.

Rocket ship? More like Titanic.

Clearly don’t use the general for investment advice...

 

[GoBirds]

Another banner day under Joe’s watch. Hopefully all the sellers got back in in December. Missing out on the rocket ship.

Rocket ship? More like Titanic.

Clearly don’t use the general for investment advice...

Agreed, I turn to him for MSNBC talking points solely.

 

[The General]

Another banner day under Joe’s watch. Hopefully all the sellers got back in in December. Missing out on the rocket ship.

Rocket ship? More like Titanic.

Clearly don’t use the general for investment advice...

Having your money in the market from Nov 3 2020 for the next year was very nice (as you are quoting stuff from a year and a half ago).

That past year not so fun.

It’s pretty much where we were two years ago.

If you haven’t been adjusting your investments in past year and a half you probably just are a set it and forget it type - which historically works just fine.

 

[djmich]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

Clearly soon as wapo is laying the groundwork that a recession is good.

 

[The Big Donkey]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

Clearly soon as wapo is laying the groundwork that a recession is good.

I'm going with after the mid-terms, duck bob and weave.

 

[Sand]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

Clearly soon as wapo is laying the groundwork that a recession is good.

I'm going with after the mid-terms, duck bob and weave.

Truth.

 

[shadrap]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

recession? they will never admit it. if they do they will blame Trump. Open borders? Border crisis? Biden, et al=nope no border crisis & nope, no recession.
this administration is an unmitigated disaster. just wish people would admit it, but can't be a disaster because it's MY SIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
forget sides for a moment & look at the numbers. disaster! of if you don't want to go that far just acknowledge this administration as a failure.
remember a year ago with all the lefties in here commenting on the market? so smug & so sure with "thanks Biden" every other page.

 

[jamny]

3 straight quarters down. September down 9%. I've Lost count of how many straight days and weeks we're down. Quite a legacy this administration is leaving.

Soon we'll get the report that third quarter GDP is down, which has been predicted by the Fed. One wonders just when this administration will be the blindingly obvious and start taking about this recession.

recession? they will never admit it. if they do they will blame Trump. Open borders? Border crisis? Biden, et al=nope no border crisis & nope, no recession.
this administration is an unmitigated disaster. just wish people would admit it, but can't be a disaster because it's MY SIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
forget sides for a moment & look at the numbers. disaster! of if you don't want to go that far just acknowledge this administration as a failure.
remember a year ago with all the lefties in here commenting on the market? so smug & so sure with "thanks Biden" every other page.

Quite a few people predicted, only a couple of months ago, that there will be a rosy economy in early 2023. Not seeing much of that anymore.

 

[The Z Machine]

Quite a few people predicted, only a couple of months ago, that there will be a rosy economy in early 2023. Not seeing much of that anymore.

Yeah, soft landing looks not likely. Deeper recession with layoffs coming. However, those laid off will find an easier time getting another job than in previous recessions since there are still a lot of openings and unemployment is low right now.

In 2020 when the pandemic hit, I don't think many would have predicted a deep "V" hit from the pandemic followed by a quarter of good growth followed by a worldwide recession of to be determined depth and length.

 

[Shula-holic]

Quite a few people predicted, only a couple of months ago, that there will be a rosy economy in early 2023. Not seeing much of that anymore.

Yeah, soft landing looks not likely. Deeper recession with layoffs coming. However, those laid off will find an easier time getting another job than in previous recessions since there are still a lot of openings and unemployment is low right now.

In 2020 when the pandemic hit, I don't think many would have predicted a deep "V" hit from the pandemic followed by a quarter of good growth followed by a worldwide recession of to be determined depth and length.

To some extent I agree. I see where many people traded up jobs during the Covid return due to a labor shortage, layoffs will force some trading back down.

 

[Sand]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

 

[djmich]

Quite a few people predicted, only a couple of months ago, that there will be a rosy economy in early 2023. Not seeing much of that anymore.

Yeah, soft landing looks not likely. Deeper recession with layoffs coming. However, those laid off will find an easier time getting another job than in previous recessions since there are still a lot of openings and unemployment is low right now.

In 2020 when the pandemic hit, I don't think many would have predicted a deep "V" hit from the pandemic followed by a quarter of good growth followed by a worldwide recession of to be determined depth and length.

To some extent I agree. I see where many people traded up jobs during the Covid return due to a labor shortage, layoffs will force some trading back down.

Yah the real concern here is that we’re not really in a recession yet, largely due to employment. I don’t think it’s a good presumption that as we enter a recession, if we do, that employment doesn’t get significantly worse.

 

[Stealthycat]

Another historic achievement for this administration.

breaking records, writing history !!

 

[GoBirds]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

Give them a second to think about how to spin it as an achievement, they will.

 

[timschochet]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

 

[Snotbubbles]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

 

[Sand]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

Indeed. 2T of fuel on the fire when inflation had already spiked. They knew it, didn't care, and proceeded to spend. Here we are.

 

[timschochet]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

 

[Shula-holic]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

 

[timschochet]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

 

[Shula-holic]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

Of course he can make it worse. You once called my economic views “naive”. I really feel like you’re gaslighting here. Nobody who has an elementary view of economics would argue that fiscal policy and what an administration does has zero effect. It’s fine to say there are macro factors out of their control and I’d never deny that. But this is lunacy to claim that all that stimulus spending has zero inflationary impact. It’s not rooted in any kind of legitimate reality. Whether other administrations were bad (and yes they were) has zero to do with whether Biden’s actions have worsened our situation. I don’t feel you’re a bad guy but when you make these statements it’s impossible to take you seriously in these matters.

 

[fruity pebbles]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

The dollar is the world reserve currency. Most commodities are priced in US dollars. If you spend ie print more dollars, it has a worldwide effect on inflation.

 

[jamny]

Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less.

Wow.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less.

Wow.

He sounds like my ex wife

 

[ActionJackson68]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

Of course he can make it worse. You once called my economic views “naive”. I really feel like you’re gaslighting here. Nobody who has an elementary view of economics would argue that fiscal policy and what an administration does has zero effect. It’s fine to say there are macro factors out of their control and I’d never deny that. But this is lunacy to claim that all that stimulus spending has zero inflationary impact. It’s not rooted in any kind of legitimate reality. Whether other administrations were bad (and yes they were) has zero to do with whether Biden’s actions have worsened our situation. I don’t feel you’re a bad guy but when you make these statements it’s impossible to take you seriously in these matters.

Agree with this. But Trump added $8T to the debt so the die was cast whether or not Biden approved $0 spending, we were seeing 6%+ inflation. To blame Biden is silly imho. He contributed for sure but look to the prior two admins for the real culprits.

 

[Mitchie]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

Of course he can make it worse. You once called my economic views “naive”. I really feel like you’re gaslighting here. Nobody who has an elementary view of economics would argue that fiscal policy and what an administration does has zero effect. It’s fine to say there are macro factors out of their control and I’d never deny that. But this is lunacy to claim that all that stimulus spending has zero inflationary impact. It’s not rooted in any kind of legitimate reality. Whether other administrations were bad (and yes they were) has zero to do with whether Biden’s actions have worsened our situation. I don’t feel you’re a bad guy but when you make these statements it’s impossible to take you seriously in these matters.

The deficit has been increasing for decades. Inflation would be happening anyway, maybe would be a tiny bit lower. Of all the factors impacting the stock market the fiscal impact is relatively insignificant.

 

[ActionJackson68]

That past year not so fun.

Interesting data point. The last three quarters exhibited a losing stock and bond market. That's the first time, ever, that has happened.

Another historic achievement for this administration.

You have yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you believe the administration is responsible for these events. I know you’re too bright a person to offer the lazy and simplistic “it happened under their watch so they are responsible!” I expect more specifics from you and others in this forum. But no one has offered anything that makes sense.

It's been responded to ad nauseum in the inflation thread.

No it hasn’t. Arguments have been offered, none of them reasonable.

I for one have posted it many times. We've been adding stimulus, we paid out way too much in PPP and extended unemployment benefits, we have been announcing new programs like the so called Inflation Reduction Act and student loan forgiveness. Financial markets are forward looking. The amount of buyers and activity in equities and bond markets take that into account. If we didn't have our foot on the gas in flooding the market with new money then the Fed might not have to be so harsh on the interest rate climbs. And it's a fact, they are taking a sledgehammer to it because they view inflation as out of control. When a house is on fire and you dump gas on it, the fact that there was a fire at all doesn't abdicate you from the responsibility in adding to the problem. It's been a debacle.

The problem with your analogy is: the house is not on fire. The whole neighborhood is on fire, and whatever you do to your own house, either adding gasoline or water, isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

That’s one reason I wrote that this argument is unreasonable. Inflation is world wide. Biden can’t make it worse by spending more and he can’t make it better by spending less. The other reason it’s unreasonable is that Biden is no better or worse at spending than the guy he replaced or any other President for that matter. There hasn’t been a single one who hasn’t spent as much as he could, and there won’t be. So it’s completely absurd to criticize Biden in particular for this.

Of course he can make it worse. You once called my economic views “naive”. I really feel like you’re gaslighting here. Nobody who has an elementary view of economics would argue that fiscal policy and what an administration does has zero effect. It’s fine to say there are macro factors out of their control and I’d never deny that. But this is lunacy to claim that all that stimulus spending has zero inflationary impact. It’s not rooted in any kind of legitimate reality. Whether other administrations were bad (and yes they were) has zero to do with whether Biden’s actions have worsened our situation. I don’t feel you’re a bad guy but when you make these statements it’s impossible to take you seriously in these matters.

The deficit has been increasing for decades. Inflation would be happening anyway, maybe would be a tiny bit lower. Of all the factors impacting the stock market the fiscal impact is relatively insignificant.

The Fed has had about 0 interest rates for a decade. Trump unnecessarily cut tax. Massive spending on Covid. Massive supply chain disruption. No avoiding inflation.

 

[HellToupee]

But Trump