Bidenomics still working.

[1blackman1]

Don’t bother giving Butters and Tiny any facts that are adverse to their small opinions. Both are clearly smart guys but their inability to get beyond Reagan and Tax cuts makes their opinions laughable.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t bother giving Butters and Tiny any facts that are adverse to their small opinions. Both are clearly smart guys but their inability to get beyond Reagan and Tax cuts makes their opinions laughable.

if you say so

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

"Bidenomics" is nothing more than being in office as the country naturally rebounds from the pandemic shut down, engineered by whom?

I beg to disagree Ducbutter. Despite annualized GDP growth rates of 35.3%, 3.9% and 6.3% in the quarters ended September 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, and March 31, 2023, Biden et al were not content with a natural rebound. Instead they dumped 1.9 trillion in stimulus, around 8% of GDP, into the economy through the American Rescue Plan (ARP), igniting inflation. That with other unfunded legislation passed in 2021 and 2022 would increase the national debt by over 5 trillion! Over 20% of GDP!

However, as Adav8s28 noted previously, some board members were able to buy big screen televisions with their $1400 per family member ARP stimulus checks.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Investorpedia disagrees with you. In the link The Biden and Trump economic plans are compared.

https://www.investopedia.com/compari...-biden-4843240

If they do, it must have been in some other article cause this one

1.) Is from 2022 so it couldn't be referencing the recent recovery numbers

2.) Is comparing projected effects of Biden admin proposals that at print hadn't been implemented

3.) Is comparing those proposals to actions Trump took long before the pandemic had crested

Isn't this the administration who had to change the defenition of a recession so they wouldn't be in one? Is that part of "Bidenomics"?

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t bother giving Butters and Tiny any facts that are adverse to their small opinions.

He didn't.
If you think he did then you didn't read the linked article.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Isn't this the administration who had to change the defenition of a recession so they wouldn't be in one? Is that part of "Bidenomics"?

ROTFLMAO! I think Lusty Lad posted in detail on this but I'm too lazy to dig it up.

Investopedia ain't exactly Goldman Sachs.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t bother giving Butters and Tiny any facts that are adverse to their small opinions. Both are clearly smart guys but their inability to get beyond Reagan and Tax cuts makes their opinions laughable.

I'm going to do you a favor and offer some free advice. You should quit making assumptions about me. It's not a smart look. For instance, there's plenty of reasons to criticize Reagan (crack and the inner city, Iran Contra, AIDS response) it's just that those reasons aren't his economic policies. I'm smart enough to not be so partisan.
Can you look at your beloved Democrats with that kind of unjaundiced eye? Like Clinton supporting eliminating overtime pay for hourly employees and instead getting "flex" time, meaning you could take time off later and not get paid for that either? Or are you even aware? You know that by repealing Dodd Frank and other banking regulations, Clinton laid the groundwork for the sub prime mortgage crash of 2007-08, right? What an economic genius he was.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

He didn't.
If you think he did then you didn't read the linked article.

You implied that Biden did not have a plan. The investorpedia link compared Biden's economic plan to Trump's economic plan.

If you want to focus on the recovery, Post #48 by Tiny talks about that. BTW. Trump wanted that additional $1400 to go out during his time in office. That was blocked by Senator Mitch "The Turtle" McConnell. Only $600 went out instead of the $2000 that Trump wanted to go out.

Clearly the recovery did not happen by itself.

DB, if you want to debate on here, at least be honest.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

You know that by repealing Dodd Frank and other banking regulations, Clinton laid the groundwork for the sub prime mortgage crash of 2007-08, right? What an economic genius he was.

DB, you have your financial reforms bill mixed up. Clinton repealed some banking law from the 1930's. Clinton did NOT repeal the Dodd Frank financial reform bill, it did not exist at the time. Dodd / Frank was signed into law by President Obama in 2009. This was after Wall Street investment banks lost of all of their money on credit default swap bets that went sideways when Bush43 and Dick Cheney were in charge.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

DB, you have your financial reforms bill mixed up. Clinton repealed some banking law from the 1930's. Clinton did NOT repeal the Dodd Frank financial reform bill, it did not exist at the time. Dodd / Frank was signed into law by President Obama in 2009. This was after Wall Street investment banks lost of all of their money on credit default swap bets that went sideways when Bush43 and Dick Cheney were in charge.

I beg your forgiveness. You're correct. I meant Glass-Steagall. Does that change anything about what I said? Those default swap bets that lost were mostly based on the sub-prime mortgages that were being packeged and sold as a direct result of changes to Glass Steagall. Read Matt Taiibi's work on the subject.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You implied that Biden did not have a plan. The investorpedia link compared Biden's economic plan to Trump's economic plan.

If you want to focus on the recovery, Post #48 by Tiny talks about that. BTW. Trump wanted that additional $1400 to go out during his time in office. That was blocked by Senator Mitch "The Turtle" McConnell. Only $600 went out instead of the $2000 that Trump wanted to go out.

Clearly the recovery did not happen by itself.

DB, if you want to debate on here, at least be honest.

Yes, let's do be honest. I never implied Biden had no plan. I challenged those here to show where any one of his policies had done so much to supercharge our economy as was being touted.
Here's exactly what I said:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducbutter View Post
For the Biden supporters, can you you name any particular Biden policy enactments that have contributed so mightily to our blockbuster economic rebound? Other than easing Covid restrictions?
Please show your work."

You are correct in saying that the recovery didn't happen out of thin air. It's the result of lifting Covid restrictions. You haven't proven any different.

Your claim of my dishonesty is as empty as the rest of your arguements and you owe me an apology.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You implied that Biden did not have a plan. The investorpedia link compared Biden's economic plan to Trump's economic plan.

Biden did indeed have a bad plan.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

If you want to focus on the recovery, Post #48 by Tiny talks about that. BTW. Trump wanted that additional $1400 to go out during his time in office. That was blocked by Senator Mitch "The Turtle" McConnell. Only $600 went out instead of the $2000 that Trump wanted to go out.

As I've said before, Donald Trump is the Democrat's Best Friend. Yes, Mitch and his Senate Republicans were the only voice of fiscal sanity back during the last part of 2020. Without them, Trump and Pelosi would have spent more.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Yes, let's do be honest. I never implied Biden had no plan. I challenged those here to show where any one of his policies had done so much to supercharge our economy as was being touted.
Here's exactly what I said:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducbutter View Post
For the Biden supporters, can you you name any particular Biden policy enactments that have contributed so mightily to our blockbuster economic rebound? Other than easing Covid restrictions?
Please show your work."

You are correct in saying that the recovery didn't happen out of thin air. It's the result of lifting Covid restrictions. You haven't proven any different.

Your claim of my dishonesty is as empty as the rest of your arguements and you owe me an apology.

DB, This is what you wrote in post # 44.

"Bidenomics" is nothing more than being in office as the country naturally rebounds from the pandemic shut down, engineered by whom?

I don't think it is a reach to interpret that you implied without saying directly

A. Biden does not have a plan or

B. The plan is not working

The phrase "is nothing more than being in office" what other implication can you make from a phrase like that?
Clearly Tiny's post #48 proves you wrong on that. I don't owe you a thing.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

...You know that by repealing Dodd Frank and other banking regulations, Clinton laid the groundwork for the sub prime mortgage crash of 2007-08, right? What an economic genius he was.

Remember ye olde: Got a pulse, Get a loan? Those were the days... My ATF from that era: To Big To Fail.(TBTF). Good times fo sho. While some might think the US Constitution prescribes that the government decides which banks win or loose, it seems more of a Communist manifesto tenant to me.

In a Yogi Berra moment of Deja Vu, all over again:

Nolte: Janet Yellen Admits Government Choosing Bank Bailout Winners and Losers
by John Nolte, 17 Mar 2023

...Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford asked Yellen a very simple question:

Will the deposits in every community bank in Oklahoma, regardless of their size, be fully insured now? Are they fully covered, every bank, every community bank in Oklahoma, regardless of the size of the deposit? Will they get the same treatment that SVBP [Silicon Valley Bank] just got or Signature Bank just got?

Please look very closely at Yellen’s terrifying answer:

A bank only gets that treatment if a majority of the FDIC board, a super majority of the Fed board and I, in consultation with the president, determine that the failure to protect uninsured depositors, would create systemic risk and significant economic and financial consequences.

In other words, if the FDIC likes your bank, the depositors are insured. If not, the depositors are not insured over $250,000, which means what?

It means that people will withdraw their money from community banks and hand those deposits over to a handful of fascist giant banks that not only own almost all the banking but will refuse to do business with you if you hold certain political opinions they find offensive… Oh, and you can bet those political opinions they find offensive will always-always-always be conservative opinions.

Lankford understands what these corrupt crony capitalists are up to and follows up with this:

“So what is your plan to keep large depositors from moving their funds out of community banks into the big banks?” Lankford asked. “We have seen the mergers of banks over the past decade, and I’m concerned you’re about to accelerate that by encouraging anyone who has a large deposit in a community bank to say, ‘We’re not gonna make you whole, but if you go to one of our preferred banks, we will make you whole at that point.’

Now that Yellen had been exposed and busted, she chose to answer this important question by playing stupid…

“Look, I mean, that’s certainly not something that we’re encouraging,” she said.

Lankford responded with the obvious:

“That is happening right now!”

Yellen’s idiot act continued:

That is happening because depositors are concerned about the bank failures that have happened and whether or not other banks could also fail…

Lankford again tried to get her to answer the only question that mattered…

No, it’s happening because you’re fully insured no matter what the amount is if you’re in a big bank. You’re not fully insured if you’re in a community bank...

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana

BTW: In a did you know moment; Did you know that the "wokest" and most "compliant" banks happen to be the "favored" banks by the Bidenomics crowd?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Biden did indeed have a bad plan.

That's for damn sure! Just look what happens when a couple of the forum's leading Biden idolaters try to put a happy spin on Joey's wonderful "plan."

As an appetizer:

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Investorpedia disagrees with you. In the link The Biden and Trump economic plans are compared.

https://www.investopedia.com/compari...-biden-4843240

Oopsie! Quite a misfire there, at least in the event that you're trying to put a happy spin on Biden's grotesque fiscal excesses. (Sorry adav8s28. I'm afraid that Investopedia entry is quite a bit too suffused with misinformation and sheer nonsense for most people's tastes!)

For starters, it notes that Biden wanted to increase the capital gains tax rate to 43.4%, an absolutely terrible idea. Do any of you fine scholars of US tax history who also happen be lovers of bloated government and ginormous tax increases remember what happened the last time that was tried? (Hint: It was in the post-Watergate years, when Democrats thought they were powerfully ascendant and could forge long-enduring governing majorities by steamrolling Republicans.)

Then for additional comedic value, there's this:

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I’ll take a more sensible position, Clinton, Obama and Biden - all with similar economic policy - were are better stewards than republicans. Trickle down works fine for me but it’s shit economic policy.

Huh?? You think Clinton and Biden pushed similar economic policies?

Perhaps you have forgotten that federal government spending fell by about three percentage points of GDP during a several year period in the second half of the 1990s. The debt-accumulation trajectory was heading in the right direction at the time. Have you failed to notice that the opposite is the case now? And you find it appropriate to gloat about this?

And, humorously enough, yet another mention of "trickle-down" economics!

It must surely be great fun to ask a partisan Democrat or self-described "progressive" what "trickle-down economics" is, and when anything reasonably describable in such fashion was implemented to any significant degree.

You might hear some babble about Reagan's "tax cuts for the wealthy." (Even though the sum total of tax law changes during Reagan's two terms actually raised taxes on the wealthy.)

Are you aware that the most robust attempt to boost the economy via "trickle-down" policy actually took off and shifted into high gear during the Obama administration?

(But why let logic, reason, and a few facts get in the way when a progressive has a political axe to grind?)