Jump to content

President Biden


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right.  You should really read these articles before you post them.  The headline says Biden's a hero but the body of the article says it really has nothing to do with him.

From the article:

In Biden’s case, it’s especially difficult to gauge whether the market was reacting to him specifically or simply continuing to ride the steam locomotive that began in late March 2020 and has shown only sporadic signs of slowing down since.

“Anyone that became president this year was going to have a pretty significant tailwind,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities. 

No president, in fact, had a tailwind comparable to what Biden was handed in January.

Congress already had appropriated more than $3 trillion in stimulus and the Federal Reserve had relaxed policy to the loosest point in the central bank’s history. All told, more than $5.3 trillion has been spent on Covid-related relief efforts, and the Fed’s bond purchases have nearly doubled its balance sheet to just shy of $8 trillion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, deicer said:

Biden’s 100-day stock market performance is the hottest going back to the 1950s

 

Quote

On 5/18/2020 at 9:07PM, deicer said:

That part of the economy is only good for 1% of the population.

Yeah, shameful - 100 straight days of lining the pockets of the rich.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Airband said:

 

Yeah, shameful - 100 straight days of lining the pockets of the rich.

Most of who employ lots of people in industries that they created........... You have to wonder what if they just walked away to their desert islands and let what they created wither away.......... "Atlas Shrugged".....  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Airband said:

 

Yeah, shameful - 100 straight days of lining the pockets of the rich.

It's been an all-out effort to maintain the house-of-cards that the US financial system has become.  I have been watching lots of commentary suggesting we are in for a bigger crash than 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, seeker said:

Right.  You should really read these articles before you post them.  The headline says Biden's a hero but the body of the article says it really has nothing to do with him.

From the article:

In Biden’s case, it’s especially difficult to gauge whether the market was reacting to him specifically or simply continuing to ride the steam locomotive that began in late March 2020 and has shown only sporadic signs of slowing down since.

“Anyone that became president this year was going to have a pretty significant tailwind,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities. 

No president, in fact, had a tailwind comparable to what Biden was handed in January.

Congress already had appropriated more than $3 trillion in stimulus and the Federal Reserve had relaxed policy to the loosest point in the central bank’s history. All told, more than $5.3 trillion has been spent on Covid-related relief efforts, and the Fed’s bond purchases have nearly doubled its balance sheet to just shy of $8 trillion.

Hey, it was the same thing trump was saying.  And he inherited a tailwind as well.

Just comparing apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, deicer said:

Hey, it was the same thing trump was saying.  And he inherited a tailwind as well.

Just comparing apples to apples.

Apples to apples?  I think not.

“Anyone that became president this year was going to have a pretty significant tailwind,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities. 

No president, in fact, had a tailwind comparable to what Biden was handed in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, deicer said:

Yet trump did inherit a tailwind from Obama.

Apples to apples.

 

That's like comparing a push from a weak grandmother with a push from a four-man Olympic bobsled team - I'd say those apples are not comparable.  That's like comparing the wind from blowing out a birthday candle with hurricane Juan.  That's like comparing an electric scooter with a top-fuel dragster.  That's like......well, you get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deicer said:

Isn't that the point though?

To take something and make it better?  Unlike when republicans are in power?

What has he made better?  The border situation?  Haha, anyway, this story isn't over yet.  He's thrown a jerrycan of gasoline on the fire and you're saying, "wow, look at those flames!"  The market is juiced on stimulus cheques and truckloads of fake money sloshing around.  Let's wait to see where those chickens end up roosting before we celebrate the sage management of the great Democratic Party and their puppet.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, deicer said:

I agree that we have to see what will come.  I base my judgement on historical fact.

https://www.thebalance.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839

This kind of thing is a waste of time.  There simply isn't enough data points to reach a reliable conclusion.  From the article:

Since the Depression was an outlier to this dataset, it makes sense to remove both FDR's and Hoover's results. Not counting the Depression, Democrats gained 3.6% on average while Republicans gained 2.8%.

So, a "fair" comparison (one that excludes the Depression) gives the Dems a 0.8% advantage but this still leaves in the numbers for Johnson, Carter and Clinton (all Dem) who were Presidents during times with no recessions.  The article doesn't give any comparison that allows for this lucky circumstance but I would bet that, if it did, the numbers would favour the Republicans.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is completely partisan.  The report you linked to is not a government report - it was produced by a Senate sub-committee of Democrats!  Big surprise - everything Democrat is better.  If a person went looking they could invariably find a Republican report that says the exact opposite. 

Let's find a MacDonald's restaurant owner and ask his opinion about which is better; a Big Mac or a Whopper.  Any guesses which he'll pick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, seeker said:

That is completely partisan.

Our biggest and most difficult challenge IMO. Give me political agnostics that vote based on policy. 

People need to see (and experience) how little they actually want what they seem to be asking for.

Other parts of the world illustrate that this stuff can go real bad real quick... most astonishing to me is the appetite for it. I find myself screaming WHY DO YOU WANT THIS at the computer screen. Gobsmacked no longer seems to cover it and mandatory military service with mandatory foreign deployments now seems like an existential requirement.

Global warming is far from achieving the same threat threshold as partisan madness manipulated by agenda driven fools. 

.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deicer said:

Once again, and to follow up, did you find that republican report?

Sure, here you go:  https://capitalistcreations.com/why-america-desperately-needs-a-republican-president/

It's just as biased as the ones you posted and just as useless.  The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you make a slight adjustment to the comparison (this is from the article you posted) the Dems are ahead by a mere 0.8% and if you make it as fair as possible by filtering out both abnormally good and bad times on a worldwide economic standard it favours the Reps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seeker said:

Sure, here you go:  https://capitalistcreations.com/why-america-desperately-needs-a-republican-president/

It's just as biased as the ones you posted and just as useless.  The point, which you seem to have missed, is that if you make a slight adjustment to the comparison (this is from the article you posted) the Dems are ahead by a mere 0.8% and if you make it as fair as possible by filtering out both abnormally good and bad times on a worldwide economic standard it favours the Reps.

 

 

Interesting article.

However, it rails on about inflation and taxes yet doesn't touch on GDP or any real indicators of economic growth.  Only about growing wealth for the richest.

Apples and oranges.

Edited to add:

It's about growing the economy.  Your article talks about the taxes under Roosevelt, however, it was the largest growth the U.S. had economically.

https://www.thebalance.com/gdp-growth-by-president-highs-lows-averages-4801102

Edited by deicer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...