I think the inflation of 2021-2022 really messed with people. It's easy to say, "Inflation was higher in the late 1970s and early 1980s and people didn't mind as much!" But that leaves out a key detail: people were much more used to inflation in 1980 than in 2021. Inflation went from 1% to 8% in under two years! That's a momentous change. No living American has witnessed inflation going up by 600% in such a short period. I think going from 1% to 8% inflation had a much larger impact on people's psyche than when it went from 6% to 12% in the 1970s. People are still dealing with sticker shock everywhere, even though they've had a year or two to adjust.
Fortunately for Biden, absent some new crisis, I think in the next six months we are going to see consumer sentiment increase, as people finally settle into the new price regime.
The problem is voters say they trust Republicans on the economy issue ... more than ever? NBC Hart Associates has some trend data going back to the 1990s, and never found a margin like this. Pew found economy was the top issue in 2022, with decisive GOP edge. Gallup has more people saying they are GOP identifying/leaning than ever in 30 years. Trump's biggest theme going into this election is his pre-COVID 2017-2019 economy where everyone was confident in their future marginal income steadily rising.
I think this is why it's such a close race. There's a disconnect between the economy rating going up and Biden's rating sitting where it's at. I suspect the answer is, voters genuinely don't trust Biden's party with the economy. Trump tells less engaged voters that he'll do a better job, they'll just have to turn off the TV news for a bit. Given Nate Cohn's recent writing on how this election could be the first one where marginal turnout favors the GOP, it looks like some people who've never called themselves Republicans before and don't vote reliably are agreeing with this. Perhaps Democrats will resolve this by juicing the margin on abortion as much as they can and tying it to January 6th. But the economy issue (which dominates the list of issues in most elections) looks like a serious wound for them that will not stop bleeding soon.
Biden squandered positioning himself as strong on core pocketbook issues for the majority of people. Most people I know who will probably vote Trump but could swing - mostly business types - are anchored on student loan forgivenss and belief that Biden is captured by "woke special interests." It all boils down to, "not fighting for people like me." Sometimes this is rooted in racial tropes and biases, sometimes not. Regardless, the impression Biden made with swing voters is that he is fighting economically for niche "other" people. Trump has burnished his "I'm fighting for you" brand.
Well Biden's decisive issue in that election was COVID, where Trump couldn't stop doing his Donny from Queens comedy show even as half a million deaths occurred. Trump always had the economy issue advantage, just much more narrowly in the fall of 2020 with both high unemployment and record household savings thanks to UI, PPP, checks, loan suspending, eviction suspending, etc. This helped set the political economy situation for some inflation. Then Biden juiced it with ARPA, the student loan moves, IRA with new updated numbers in the news, etc. Each of those probably polls okay and gives money to a Democratic constituency. But the net result is a complete mess. Only since last July have median real wages caught up to right before COVID.
The perspective that Democrats are captured by strange special interests is a very old one, which is non-unique to "wokeness". Republicans have always been lampooned as the party of rich industrialists. Democrats have always been lampooned as the party of Tammany hall patronage, robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's just inflation made the latter way more salient to some, who might have shrugged off Trump's Spanish radio socialism warnings in 2020. So GOP margins on Hispanics keep improving, mostly due to enthusiasm for Biden falling. For non-Hispanic white suburbanites, it was a different thematic process, but the same disappointed outcome. You didn't get the return to normalcy you were promised. Add up Hispanic and non-Hispanic white voter demographics, and that is most of the ballgame right there.
The stimulus of each presdients had very different salience. The two Trump stimuli that most people would have been aware of were the checks and the tax cuts - both things easy to perceive as helping many. By contrast, Biden and the dems have done a terrible job boosting their stimuli that would help most people - pharma price controls, etc.. The Biden economic policy voters are most aware of is student loan forgiveness.
Trump has successfully moved perception of the republican party beyond the rich industrialist sterotype as evidenced by his support from the working class, especially social conservative working class like some hispanics.
What has profoundly changed about perceptions of the democratic party from the Tammany hall days is the perception of who the patronage is for. In the Tammany hall days, it was political bosses, labor unions, etc. Starting in the civil rights era, it's become minorities. And very recently it's become the non-economic elites. Unfortunately for the left, Biden is playing into this new stereotype. That's where wokeness comes in. Voters combine what they hear - letting people off the hook for loans and supporting minorities - and conflate them into "they're giving money to 'those' people, who are going to get ahead of me."
Matt Yglesias writes about this eloquently - conservatives avoid boosting their unpopular policies while liberals can't stop taling about theirs. I'd also highly recommend the book Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild, who shows how conservative perspectives on government are rooted in concerns about others getting ahead of them in the social hierarchy.
Conservatives (quite correctly) view government as interfering with merit.
Conservatives are big on reward - and on failure, and people getting large doses of both. Leftists can't tolerate failure in their utopia, because women and beta males don't have the stomach for it and it violates the core directive of "do what feels good".
Of the roughly one million American Covid deaths approximately two thirds occurred under Biden.
My guess is that swing voters are motivated primarily by wages, not inflation. Aggregate price increases from inflation have outpaced aggregate wage increases, meaning that everyone has taken a de facto pay cut. The last estimate that I saw was that if wage gains continue to outpace inflation then pay checks should reach parity in around 2025, but obviously that is not a sustainable position from the Fed's perspective.
People are motivated by purchasing power, ultimately. It doesn't matter what you are getting paid, if that amount of money buys less stuff than it did 3 years ago.
Guess what? Unless you've increased your income by like 15% over the past 3 years, your purchasing power has gone down.
I would say not wages, but gross disposable income as well as inflation adjusted disposable income.
I am lucky to make over $ 100K a year. I was at McDonald's the other day and ordered large fries and it was $ 4.13. I was absolutely floored at that price, and I believe if it struck me as a lot, imagine someone at a lower economic scale. Not too long ago it was on the dollar menu (which is now gone)
American's enjoyed the "Goldilocks" economy of low prices and high wages for many years. We could buy more stuff with our income, even if our income did not rise that much. Look at large screen Tv's - i had to replace mine and a 75" LG was less than $ 500. Unimaginable.
But that is offset by the fact that chicken, meat and other basics are so high - a prime example. A 12 pack of soda now is around $ 9. That is $ .75 a can, which is what it cost a few years ago at a convenience store.
So now, incomes are going up slowly (we only gave everyone a 3% increase at work) and prices are eating most of that up. Biden is right about shrinkflation, but calling it out just makes people realize that under him, a lot are getting more gross pay, but have less disposable income and that income buys less goods. Not a winning formula.
1. Plus consider what those price increases look like to anybody who's lower middle class and below. For that segment of the population a disproportionately high percentage of their income goes to food and rent, meaning inflation is hitting them especially hard.
2. $100k is lower middle class in areas like Manhattan or SF. I worked for years on Wall Street and I had exactly two co-workers that lived in the city. One was a managing director and their salaries start at $400k a year before bonuses. Imagine spending $4k a month on a tiny apartment and having to.pay for everything else with what you have left over. Six figures was never a lot of money to start with in the super expensive urban cores and now inflation has made that even more untenable.
I have yet to meet a voter who goes around saying, 'I trust Republicans on the economy'. It's an artifact of polling. Basic hard sell- narrow the choices, make the fish think it's their idea.
I know lots of voters who strongly distrust Democratic party patronage. The Democratic party patronage explosion in the 1960's preceded the end of American growth by 1970. Democratic patronage continues to expand. Fifty years of no US economic growth. Everyone knows the Democrats lost the discipline to steal in moderation in the 1960's.
And there's some awareness of the mainstream economic textbooks saying the Democratic patronage explosion under FDR extended the Great Depression by around six years. Kenneth Boulding, everyone mainstream.
There's an odd notion that R Hoover triggered the Great Depression by cutting federal spending. That's backwards. R Hoover ran and won promising a huge patronage expansion, and when he won we got the Crash of '29, and he expanded R patronage wildly, and we got the start of the Great Depression.
Well, if it's the top issue on Kevin McCarthy's website in 2022, if Gallup says it's the top issue, if Pew says it's the top issue, if all my company's polls say it's the top issue, if all Trump can literally talk about sometimes is just 2019 and how nice it was to steadily make more money, then I conclude there have got to be some voters who care about this. Republicans vote on keeping their taxes down way more than abortion. In fact, keeping middle class marginal income going is arguably what the party has always been for, as a coalition of mid-sized business and the largest middle class culture bloc. Inflation has now made everyone think a little more like that stereotypical Republican.
As for Hoover, Hoover and the GOP's deepest problem was their belief in the gold standard, which FDR wisely weakened. The other bad side of GOP political economy was the escalation of tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) from a little political trick the GOP used to gain loyalty with some industries and their middle-class employees to a destructive spiral for international commerce. Thankfully Republicans now are a bit more helpful about this and defense policy in Europe than they were in the 1930s.
I think maybe the sort of people who comment here have a habit of thinking about inflation in the abstract. So, let's imagine a fictitious scenario, in which there is 100% annual inflation, let us say starting in January and ending in October, occurring at an even pace throughout this period of time.
At what point in this year do you expect people to be most upset?
I think a lot of people here are thinking that, in November and December, people should be fine: The inflation is over. And that people should be equally upset from January all the way through October; the inflation is happening equally through this time period, so why should people be more upset in October than they are in January?
But by the end of January, they're only paying 10% more for goods and services; that's bad, but it has nothing on the end of February, when they're paying 20% more. People are not going to remain equally upset through the entire period of time - they're going to get increasingly upset over the same rate of inflation, such that they are far more upset in October than they are in January. And this upset does not end when inflation does, because they are not, in fact, upset that an abstract economic measure is increasing, they are upset because they are paying more. Inflation is just an abstraction we use to talk about this fact, and is not inherently meaningful.
(If it were inherently meaningful, we've been systemically undercounting inflation since forever, because technological increases to economic efficiency decrease the cost of goods and services - and if what we are measuring is inherently meaningful beyond the price of things people pay, then we should be counting efficiency improvements as reductions in the base prices we compare the actual prices against.)
This isn't just sticker shock - if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, an increase in the price of goods and services means, necessarily, one of two things: Less goods and services consumed - or debt. Hopefully your paycheck eventually catches up with inflation - but at the end of it all, you are still worse off, having either consumed less in the meantime, or built up debt that you now have to deal with. "Sticker shock" is the experience the relatively affluent have; being affronted by the prices they now have to pay for things. It's decidedly nastier when you aren't in a position where the primary impact is that you can't contribute as much to your savings account.
Indeed, if you're in the position where your observation is that you can't contribute as much to your savings account, I'd say odds are good that you think the economy is doing fantastically well, so long as you don't think about it too much - if the price of everything is increasing, your savings, insofar as they are tied up in things that cost money such as stocks, are growing along with everything else. So you can end up feeling -better off- in an inflationary period, even though your savings account isn't gaining in value in any meaningful way.
And I'd suggest this may be partially responsible for the discrepancy between people's perspective on the economy in general, and their perspective on their spending, and this is where the "people's psyche" thing, I think, is actually quite important: A lot of today's savers are not deeply familiar with the idea that inflationary gains to their savings accounts are false gains, which won't leave them any better off in their retirement. A 10% inflation rate means you need to subtract 10% from any gains in your retirement funds.
In our fictitious 100% inflationary scenario, let us suppose that people's wages start catching up in November, catching up by the start of December. So from the 10 month period from January through October, they paid an average of 50% more for goods and services; for a person living paycheck-to-paycheck over this period of time, making, let us say for easy math $3,000 a month, they enter November $10,000 in debt, and accrue an additional $750 in debt (I think my math is off here but it doesn't matter that much), for a total debt load, entering into December, of $10,750. Which would have been equivalent to a $5,375 debt prior to inflation.
They're significantly worse off, now dealing with the kind of one-off debt load that is routinely ruinous for people living on the edge. Meanwhile, other people are telling them not to be so upset, that everything is fine now, because the inflation has ended. (Kind of infuriating.)
And the people telling them not to be so upset?
Well, for some of them, they couldn't contribute as much to their savings over that time period. But the value of their savings doubled, and, even though that isn't "real", as it won't buy any more goods and services in their retirement than it would before, it -feels- real, and more than offsets, emotionally, the contributions they failed to make to their savings. Mind, they're worse-off, too - they didn't, after all, make those contributions to their savings. But in terms of feelings, everything can actually end up looking -better- than it would have without the inflation.
Or maybe they cut back consumption, and did without a few luxury items for the year; but at the end of the year, they are fully back to normal, consuming exactly the same way they did before the inflation happened. They're also worse off, but in a way that feels appropriate to put behind them; a bad thing happened, but it's over.
For the paycheck-to-paycheck person, it's still not over.
This is spot on and I don't hear anybody talking about it. We've never had 30 years of <5% inflation, so it's unclear whether models of how people react to x% increases inflation apply here.
The closest comparison is late 60s through 70s period. Inflation was <5% from 1952 - 1968. Nixon primarily won in '68 on law and order, although inflation was a factor as it rose from the 1.3% average from 1951 - 1965 to an average of 3.7% in the last three years of LBJ's second term. By the time Nixon runs again, people are accustomed to high and rising inflation.
Biden’s approval inflection point happened during Delta wave and Afghanistan withdrawal and inflation. So on some level it was an issue with managing expectations because Afghanistan withdrawal was necessary and inflation and Delta were out of his control.
People were not generically upset that the US pulled out of Afghanistan, but that we did such a poor job of it. After slowly managing expectations for several years that we were leaving but on our terms, Biden gives a specific deadline. In order to meet that deadline we rushed a big portion of the withdrawal and end up with millions of dollars in working equipment being left behind and the humanitarian disaster of people clinging to the outsides of planes to escape. That wasn't necessary.
Are you indicating that when a Trump Administration leader says something, that you believe it is accurate and helpful? Or only when it supports a position you hold otherwise?
I find it unlikely you would normally signal-boost Trump admins.
I’m a Trump Republican. Khalizad is a Bush Republican like many of the people Trump inexplicably appointed. And as Hur shows Bush Republicans have no problem behaving unethically in order to trash Democrats…and so Khalizad saying everything transpired satisfactorily under Biden is in essence a “statement against interests” because he isn’t bashing a Democrat. Anyway, you appear to have a bad case of Biden Derangement Syndrome which seems to be going around in the Substack comments section and that syndrome renders an individual’s logic section of the brain unusable.
I wrote about exactly this several months ago. You're right, the acceleration of inflation this time around was huge, but it wasn't that much faster than the 1970s that you would expect. Although I make the case that we felt it harder this time because we started from a much lower inflation environment, and therefore were somewhat "spoiled":
Biden's age is likely more of a problem because he has made 'competency' a core theme - as in, vote for me because the other guy is crazy. People already know Trump is crazy, or forgetful, or generally makes things up, so when he confuses Hungary and Turkey it doesn't move the dial in the same way. Biden, by contrast, preached normalcy, competence, and the general ability to do the job as the basic reason to vote for him. Memory lapses or questions of competency hit harder if competence is your main argument. It'd be like if Bill Clinton attacked Trump for cheating on his wife - yes, Trump is a philanderer, but come on man. And Biden campaign/affiliate/supporter responses like 'but Trump is even more unfit' aren't exactly a persuasive response.
I'd suggest that, consequently, Republican voters are less likely to swing away from Trump since this isn't new for him. In contrast, Biden's coalition perhaps sees his lapses and is similarly frustrated that this is the best option Democrats can put forward (not to mention the patronizing responses from some Biden officials to either dismiss the concern outright or simply expect that Democrats just get in line with the guy). I'd speculate that those voters will return to the fold once it's very clear that it's Biden v Trump again.
Also, uncharitably, Biden just looks old - even in photos put out by his campaign he does not look 'hale' and ready to run the country for another four years. To be clear, Trump doesn't look like a college footballer and there are photos where he looks awful, but his mugshot, for example, does not project the same age as Biden's birthday photo.
I offer this opinion as pure speculation - no numbers, no research, so take that for what it's worth.
It's been somewhat evident for years that Biden wasn't at his top level, and recently we're seeing significant declines. Talking about "recent" conversations with people dead for close to 30 years and not understanding those facts - that's bad in a way that Trump isn't. It's almost endearing to the average voter that Trump doesn't really know the names of all the countries (realistically most candidates for office don't either, but learn what they need from educated aides).
I think Trump would be faring more poorly on the age question if he, for instance, started talking about a recent conversation with a business partner who he worked with, but that person had been dead for years. That's the kind of mental break that tells people there's something seriously wrong and likely can't be explained by anything positive.
Yeah. Keep in mind that Biden's approval ratings took a nose dive (and never recovered) during the Afghanistan withdrawal. As issues go that is pretty far removed from the economy.
And the official that Trump appointed Special Envoy to Afghanistan was satisfied with the withdrawal. And the withdrawal made America stronger. I have to agree with Biden that America’s interest in the Afghanistan withdrawal was strange because people had stopped caring about it years before and we never should have had a large presence there to begin with.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was bungled. American forces abandoned bases in the middle of the night. Despite advance notice the US did not expedite the evacuation of Afghans who had worked with American troops, leading to murders and imprisonment. The Taliban was tasked with maintaining the outer perimeter for Kabul's airport, allowing a suicide bomber in who killed 12 US troops. Kabul's airport was tasked with evacuations despite being smaller than the base used the US military because State Department civilians liked it because it was closer. The Afghani civilians that did escape were packed onto cargo planes like sardines in a can in scenes reminiscent of the fall of Saigon. The unlucky ones clung to landing gear, falling to their deaths as jets took off or with their lifeless corpses pinned to the sides of planes. The Afghan government collapsed overnight despite Biden's assurances that they could survive on their own, or at least until the US completed its evacuation.
Trump’s Special Envoy was satisfied with the withdrawal and he was the individual that gave assurances to Biden. When Trump ordered the withdrawal of Syria 4 Americans died in a suicide bombing and that was happening for the last 20 years. Basically you are holding Biden to an exponentially higher standard than Bush and Obama and Trump. Bottom line—we are stronger having gotten out of Afghanistan.
You are deliberately confusing the issue of withdrawing from Afghanistan with the manner in which that withdrawal was conducted. There are plenty of people who agree with withdrawal but almost nobody who believes it was a good idea to leave behind huge amounts of military equipment for the Taliban to confiscate
Secondly, what withdrawal from Syria? The US still has forces there.
However, we should consider if Biden's age can be an asset in a world where Republicans are demonizing Democrats with ties to economic and social radicalism more than ever? This isn't helped by a real political age gap coupled with universal political cowardice around Medicare. But it's a pretty hard sell to believe an old white guy who brags about haggling budget items with Strom Thurmond is going to put you under the boot of woke socialism. Biden has that going for him.
When I saw Biden raging at the presser that he hadn’t really lost his mind and then a minute later confuse Egypt with Mexico, I smiled. That he did it the same week he twice mixed up long dead German and French leaders, made me grin. That he just declined to take a cognitive test is the only sensible thing he’s done this year.
Trump looked much as he usually does, /if/ you are used to seeing regular pictures of him, not the unflattering pictures they pick for the mainstream media.
That event should probably make you step back and reflect on whether you've been receiving biased, cherry-picked images from the media to distort your view of Trump.
And then, if they've been deliberately deceiving you in that way (which they have), whether you can trust their other reporting on Trump (which you can't).
The people aren't changing their minds because they don't trust Biden. Any honest person will tell the truth about the fact that it's hard to trust this administration when you aren't sure who has been pulling the strings. We didn't elect them, so we don't know what their priorities might be. As someone who saw Biden as a centrist and has been shell-shocked by his hard left turn on DEI, immigration, and rhetoric, it has always made more sense that this is not the Biden we thought was going to be President. It's hard to trust someone you can't see and didn't elect. Especially when they keep asking for money when the deficit is the 2nd highest expenditure.
This echoes what I said in a conversation with my friend recently about not being satisfied with Biden. I'll never like/support Trump as a candidate, but I thought Biden might be more than simply 'not Trump'. I thought we had someone who could reliably reach across the aisle and govern as a strong centrist. But I feel like Biden never showed up; instead it is the 'Biden administration' making the calls and setting the tone. And this group has pushed an agenda much farther left (at least until the Hamas attack - although this is now shifting as well) than I would have ever expected from the Joe Biden I thought was going to lead the country.
If the democrats lose this next election, it will be their own fault for not finding a better candidate. I'd happily vote for a number of democrats, centrist or at least not far-left. But if we get Biden vs. Trump, I'll effectively be sitting this one out.
I'd never thought of it quite this concisely. Biden vs Biden Administration. That's exactly right. I feel the same way as you. I have been extremely shocked, which is why I've never felt he has complete control of the situation. And, if I don't know who is making these calls, I don't know what call they may make next. I don't know what their priorities are. It looks like he's about to make another mistake in trying to go after Israel. Or, I see that as a mistake. Most of all because ,again, I don't know who is in charge of this decision.
I am worried about Biden's age. I am worried he will make it to the end of his second term if, God willing, he wins.
I also do not think he has dementia, and am tired of the gaffe related press.
I have said it before and will say it again: the media is doing an awful job at covering Biden's age. Not because it's unimportant or "her emails!" or anything but because the press is doing an awful job at illuminating us about Biden's actual fitness for office. Yes, Biden gaffed the President of Egypt for the President of Mexico. These kinds of gaffes happen universally among young people, old people and different political parties. That SAME DAY: Mike Johnson screwed Iran up with Israel and Trump screwed up the Prime Minister of Hungary with the Prime Minister of Turkey. Nobody cared.
Which brings me first to the press conference Biden held. He gaffed, but you know what? His answer was smart, cogent and offered a sober analysis of his actions. Nobody cared about that: they just cared about the gaffe. So instead of illuminating us on Biden's thinking: they just screamed at the shiny object. This makes us less smart, not smarter (and notice: I am not saying the story was wrong or even that they covered it 'wrong' but that they didn't actually make us smarter).
I would love to know more about Biden's fitness for office, and to that end: show me the reports of Biden not waking up to learn about an international crisis. Show me where Biden royally screwed up a decision because he's old and confused (not that he made the wrong political choice: where did he think he was talking about Mexico and was actually talking about Egypt and made the wrong call). Where did his mangling in a conversation with Republicans result in a bill not getting signed?
I want to know: report THAT, find THAT out. Don't just keep scoring gaffes, because all that does is hide the actual information we need. If Biden is being hidden in a closet before he meets with Democrats on the Hill: that's news. If Biden accidentally says Charlie Chaplin instead of Chuck Schumer and errs in a gaffe: that's the shiny object.
But hey, the media doesn't actually exist to illuminate so I assume I'll die waiting.
Anyone who can’t see Biden is in the middle stages of dementia is either lying to themselves or others. Almost 9 in 10 Americans see it. Falling up staircases. Falling off bikes. Falling on stage. Shaking hands in air. Forgetting where stairs are. Forgetting when his son died. Forgetting when he was VP. Bringing up dead politicians as if he just met them. It’s literally Weekend at Bernie’s playing out in front of our very eyes.
Biden is losing because he’s missing in action. The Super Bowl interview with CBS, not Fox, could have helped placate his naysayers if he did well; yet Biden chose not to show up in an election year, when Trump is everywhere, and sucking up all the oxygen in the room; setting the narrative.
Biden has accomplished a lot more than any sitting president since Johnson and FDR; yet, more than 60% of Americans think Trump would be better for the economy and for international affairs. Why?
This is Biden’s predicament: he doesn’t know how to promote himself, and most of the democrats trying to disseminate his messages, are being forced to play defense about his age and cognitive abilities, so nothing gets through.
So the only one who can save Joe, is Joe, and right now he’s doing a piss, poor job! And all we hear are crickets!
He’s also just a terrible communicator. The slurring, the forgetfulness, the gaffes; every time I see him on screen he looks exactly like what he is, old.
Biden has doubled the average annual budget deficit from Trump and Obama ($1 trillion a year to $2 trillion a year), and increased illegal immigration nearly 800% compared to those two presidents over 3,000,000 in 2023 from a 400K average? What are these amazing accomplishments no president in modern history has accomplished?
Actually, the deficit was reduced to $536 billion under Obama (he inherited a deficit of $1.8 trillion. Trump added $8.2 trillion to the debt in just four years; more than any president in US history, and more than both Obama and Bush added in eight years as president. Not to mention, he increased the deficit to $1.88 trillion thanks mostly to his tax cuts and mishandling of COVID.
Most of Biden’s bills were paid for, and the deficit was shrinking until we were hit with inflation. Inflation will increase the deficit because interest rate hikes increase borrowing costs.
Ivan, I’m not debating whether the debt is an issue; it is. You seem to think that it’s democrats that are the ones who are spendthrifts, when all evidence points to the contrary.
Bush took office from Clinton with a $300 billion surplus. Bush left office with $1.8 trillion deficit ($2.1 trillion swing), and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Obama reduced the deficit to $536 Billion. And then Trump spent on tax cuts and other Republican priorities, and he left office with a $1.88 deficit, after adding more debt than any previous president, and he did it in four years, not eight. $8.2 trillion!
So I agree, the debt and deficit are bad, but it’s democrats who continue to act fiscally responsible, while the republicans spent on tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
These facts aren’t in debate. So vote for Trump, because he is known as the king of debt. There is a reason he went belly up in the 90’s, and no legitimate bank will lend him money.
He piles on debt and doesn’t have the money to pay it back. He did it with his real estate and casino’s, and then he did it to America when he was president. And if he’s elected again, then he will spend us into oblivion on more tax cuts for the wealthy.
So I know how bad the debt crisis is, it’s just you don’t seem to know which party is the biggest abuser and is always worse for the economy.
It is indeed a problem from both parties. Federal deficits doubled under Bush Jr (5 trillion to 10 trillion) and Obama (10 trillion to 20 trillion). Trump did nothing to reduce the deficit. It was increasing at about Obama levels until Covid. The Covid spending could be considered an anomaly for Trump's final year and biden's first....but why is the federal government spending $2 trillion more than it collected in 2023?
As for your talking points, they WERE true about 20 years ago, but the elite and corporations now overwhelmingly identify as Democrat. And though Republicans won't do anything to reduce the budget, Democrats have shown they will borrow and spend even more.
Depends on the industry. Resources and agriculture certainly swing very Republican, whereas industries like healthcare and technology swing another. As for the elites, I have never heard a cogent explanation of who they are.
You’re mostly right Ivan, except for your conclusion. Yes, democrats spend, but they are cognizant of the deficit and try to offset any new legislation.
Remember that Bush inherited a surplus of $300 billion from Clinton, who inherited a deficit. And Bush turned it into a $1.8 trillion deficit; a swing of $2.1 trillion.
Obama took office with a 1.8 trillion deficit, while inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; with the US losing 1 million jobs a month.
Of course Obama needed to spend money to get us out of it. And the initial $1 trillion he spent was actually part of Bush’s budget which was approved before the election, since the US is on September 30 fiscal year end.
However, when Obama left office he had reduced the deficit from $1.8 trillion to $536 billion; or almost $1.3 trillion in annual savings.
And it was Trump’s 2018 tax cut that initially added $1 trillion to the deficit before COVID, so don’t say the reason was COVID.
Since Biden took office, all his legislative initiatives were paid for, but inflation increased our borrowing costs, which is the prime reason the deficit is increasing.
That said, there is a pattern here. Republicans spend when they are in power and then try to limit any spending when they aren’t. And every Republican president since Reagan has added to the deficit. Both Clinton and Obama, reduced the deficits or left us with a surplus by the time they left office.
Nonsense. The deficit under Trump increased from $536 billion to $2 trillion a year. Obama spent $8 trillion over eight years but reduced the deficit from $1.88 trillion under Bush to $536 billion. Trump added $8.2 trillion in four years in office and again, increased to deficit from $536 billion to almost $2 trillion a year.
Biden has added $2.5 trillion to the debt in three years but he also passed an infrastructure bill and CHIP’s Act which have added jobs. These bills mostly paid for themselves with offsets to other programs that were cancelled or scaled back. The problem with Biden is interest rates. The cost of servicing the debt has increased.
Unemployment when Trump left office was 6.7%. Unemployment today is 3.8%. Biden added 10 million jobs in three years, while Trump lost 7 million by the time he left office.
I shall not dissuade you rooting for your team; after all, you may directly benefit from them! I do suggest you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" to understand how systematic cognitive errors wreck havoc on logical thought for all humanity.
I suggest you take your own advice. Biden has increased the debt by $4 trillion (not $2.5 trillion) in four years. Trump has increased the debt by $8.2 trillion in four years. Facts don’t lie!
I agree with this, although as a disclaimer, I have no data to back it up and I like Joe Biden.
One of the adages of leadership is "By the time you are tired of telling them, they are just beginning to listen." Even though (I think) Biden's presidency has been strong, he never SAYS that. In fact, he never SAYS much of anything. Instead, he lets everyone else define him.
Then, when he does speak out (as he did last week), it's not particularly confidence inspiring. Whether it's his age, his longtime public speaking challenges, or something else, he just sounds awful.
So Biden is in a Catch-22. If he doesn't speak, he lets everyone else define him in a negative way. But, he's so bad at public speaking, that when he does define himself, he comes off poorly.
I don't see how this ends well. One option is to actually start letting Harris do a lot more of the work and see where the polls go. If they go up, keep running with that strategy. If they go down, exit at the convention and let the party decide.
He accomplished huge inflation, huge increase in deficit, and a weaponized FBI and DOJ. Not to mention he got millions in bribes from China and Ukraine.
Clearly, you have a very limited knowledge of economics and how economies operate.
Inflation was initiated due to supply chain issues caused by COVID, Trump’s mishandling of the epidemic, and price gouging which started during COVID, when Trump refused to release the US Strategic National stockpile; forcing states to compete for limited medical supplies and sending equipment and PPE prices up five to six hundred percent.
Biden didn’t increase the deficits. We already had a $1.88 trillion deficit when he took office. His legislation was paid for. The additional increases were due to inflation and the Feds reaction; raising interests rates which causes our debt service to increase.
And Trump increased the deficit from $536 billion to $1.88 trillion, and adding $8.2 trillion to the debt; more than any president before him, and he did it in four years, not eight.
Yeah, Biden weaponized the DOJ and FBI; projection much? You must be talking about Trump who had his AG twisted in knots trying to appease the mango moron.
How many criminal complaints did Barr drop because Trump told him to do it? How many appeals did the DOJ refuse to defend because the guilty were Trump’s acolytes like Bannon, Manafort, Flynn and others?
As for taking brides, it is documented that China spent over $20 million dollars at Trump resorts. We’re talking the government, not Chinese companies. And this doesn’t include all the Sunni Arab nation that have been bailing out Kushner and Trump in the tune of billions.
From Lois Lerner siccing the IRS on conservative groups, to jailing J6 protestors for years with no due process, the left has perfected weaponing the justice system. Now they are trying to jail Trump for 700 years. Meanwhile not a single Epstein client has been arrested.
Its amazing how many people dont understand inflation. I get its because we simply havent had high inflation since the 1970's, but anyone 50 or older, who went through it, should. Inflation is devastating, and when it skyrockets in such a short period of time, it doesnt give the populace a chance to adjust. The inflation index measures the RATE of price increase/decrease, not actual prices. So when some folks say, inflation is down and we should all be happy about it, thats just the rate. Prices are sky high, havent come down. They are STILL increasing, albeit at a lower rate, but STILL twice the rate they were pre Biden taking office. The cause of the 2020 spike was threefold. First, shutting down the economy for Covid. That put thousands of businesses, manufacturers, and suppliers out of business. But domnt ever forget, it didnt have to be that way. It was Trump who wanted to re-open by Eater 2020, but was lambasted by Democrats who declared he was a tyrant and didnt have the power to do that. He said "America wasnt built to be shutdown", but Democrat mayors and governors kept their cites and states shut down for over a year. Then Democrats passed trillions in new borrowing and spending to save the economy they destroyed. Then to add gasoline to the fire, Joe Biden declared he would reverse much of Trumps pro energy policies, many by Executive Action Day One. He screamed from the rooftops multiple times - "no new drilling!" Since oil trades like any other financial instrument, it exploded the day after Biden won, doubling in price in 4 short months. The price of oil is built into everything we buy. And thats why, so far, Joe Biden's low price of oil is Trumps high, after the US became the worlds largest producer in Aug 2018. In order for prices to come down, we need a recession, and were not getting it because government spending is artificially keeping the economy strong. Bidens eceonomists know that if spending comes down, we get a recession - right into the election. thats what happens when you have people in charge that dont know what theyre doing. They opened the Pandora's Box of inflation, and there's no good way out. Trump lived and breathed business. He understands this. He was right all along - about EVERYTHING
Bang on. Inflation isn’t down. The rate of increase has slowed. But the earlier increases are now baked into the cake for good. And this is devastating for anyone on fixed income.
If Joe Biden or Democrats are so uniquely disastrous for the economy, then why does the US currently have lower rates of inflation, stronger labor participation, and just generally a lower chance of recession than most European countries, about half of whom are controlled by right-wing leaders? (The UK is probably doing the worst out of first world countries, and they've had right-wing people in charge for over 10 years)
He’s lost the left in his coalition because his policies in the legislation he’s gotten passed haven’t done enough for them, and bc of the war in Israel. He’s also losing moderates on immigration/the border
I’m not sure what that means though. The border is hot because unemployment is incredibly low. Tightening border restrictions really does require Congress. Covid is over and to the extent it could be used to clamp down on movement, any such act now would be legally difficult without congressional progress.
This is precisely why Trump wants to torpedo the compromise bill.
I agree, I think getting the compromise bill passed would’ve helped him a lot with moderates, if you want to say Biden is being unfairly judged harshly with the moderates he’s lost due to this issue I think that’s fair. I think it would help him if he did something different with regards to executive action on it, so it looks like he’s trying to help.
The Economist a while back, maybe quite a while back now, was quietly advocating he do more to build the border barriers “wall”. It’s kind of pointless but it’s visible and useful for messaging.
Maybe I'm not ignorant on this issue, but I have trouble believing the Biden Administration couldn't be doing more.
Texas appears to be trying to reduce border crossings. From what I can tell, the Administration is actively working to hamper this, arguing that Texas' actions are:
1. Creating dangers for those trying to cross illegally.
2. An illegal usurpation of Federal authority.
Which might both be true, but I haven't heard the Biden Administration try to argue that Texas' actions are *ineffective*. I haven't heard it propose a way to work together with Texas to reduce border crossings while also promoting safety. It's hard for me to escape the conclusion that the Administration is intentionally doing much less than it could to reduce illegal immigration, probably because too many key players in its coalition don't have the heart for it.
Trump also created a deal with Mexico to reduce crossings. I haven't heard that the Biden Administration has tried to do that and been rebuffed. Even if it was, the US can bring a lot of pressure to bear on Mexico. If the POTUS really wants something from Mexico, and it's not an outrageous ask, I have trouble believing he can't get it, if he puts his mind to it.
Maybe I'm wrong and the Biden Administration is doing much more than it appears, but if so, it sure hasn't successfully publicized that fact.
The issue got worse in 2019 though. And the issue always responds to economic slowdown. It seems to me Trump’s machinations made the problem worse because the migrants had to figure out how to apply for asylum in accordance with the laws on the books.
He argues that Trump executive branch policies did reduce illegal immigration and Biden executive branch policies increased it. The 2019 spike was caused by knowledge of asylum law, which I guess you can blame Trump for if you really want to, but Trump's Admin then developed a solution for it that didn't require legislation that it knew it couldn't pass. As far as I can tell, the Biden Admin hasn't attempted to develop a solution.
I realize I might sound like a Trump defender here, but I'm really not. It's only to say Trump's Admin was grossly incompetent but still managed to problem solve about how to use executive power to reduce illegal immigration. Biden's Admin must then be some combination of less incompetent and/or much less interested in solving the problem. It should be obvious the answer is primarily the latter.
Except an economic downturn always reduces illegal immigration…and 2020 had a severe economic contraction. Now Republicans seem to believe Biden’s economic policies are the reason the economy recovered so quickly because the economic recovery is why illegal immigration has spiked. That said, Biden has been in the federal government for decades and so he does bear some responsibility for the border.
I don't disagree w you, Eric. That said, many undecided voters may not be plugged into the fact that Congress must support fixing the border. I don't have any favorable views about who the undecided voters are -- they are seemingly not up to speed on politics or current events.
I think he has none of the skills needed to compete in the modern attention economy. He only ever seems to go viral accidentally, and for negative reasons.
I say that sadly, as I think *being president* is a serious job for serious people and I appreciate how Biden has handled it. But *getting elected* requires something different these days, unfortunately for us all.
Use of credit cards has increased and the interest has soared. I think this is hurting many people when they pay monthly bills.
People know JB's connection to Delaware as well as his denial of bankruptcy for student loans when he was Delaware Senator in spite of his support of loan forgiveness all. Look at JB's Delaware record as Senator.
The loans are not forgiven; they are paid by those of us who pay net positive income taxes like me. Most people don’t pay net positive income taxes (eg they get more in taxpayer funded income (eg teachers, gov employees) or benefits). I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and people like me are the ones who eat the “forgiven” loans.
It's an unprecedented situation where two people with economic records as president can be compared by voters. A "Trump economy" cannot be portrayed as a scary hypothetical in the way that incumbent presidents have always done to dismiss challengers. The conventional and very effective "fear of the unknown" weapon isn't available to Team Biden.
The Trump economic record was a real and recent thing. People remember it and can make their own comparisons.
Maybe a lot of them liked it better?
Maybe it looks co-equal or better than the Biden economy to a lot if voters?
The reality is that Biden has never been popular on a national scale. He ran unsuccessfully for President many times. He finally broke through in 2020 but really it was a protest against Trump. He just has never been viewed as a strong and inspiring leader, even within much of the Democratic Party. That sentiment isn’t changing, especially as he is obviously in decline.
I am an 84-year-old retired physician. I have displayed some cognitive decline. I have undergone cognitive testing. This was there impression: cognitive decline.
I strongly believe that Biden should withdraw from the 2024 presidential election. he could withdraw before the Democratic convention and the convention determine who the nomination should be. This is the way nominees were picked when I was young.
I would be very angry at both Biden and his team if he does not withdraw. I think that the special council was a patriot in his report about Biden.
The problem is that too many democrats are so committed to power they are blinded by the obvious.
I'm sure you saw the movie "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- Alec Guiness' character flaws fully and totally represents current democrat party member's thinking.
But you do understand that the job of being president is the easiest job on the planet?? It’s why people that have seen the job up very close like W Bush and Hillary and Trump want to do the job and will do something difficult (running for president) to get the job. Except in Trump’s case running for president is very easy because he loves making rambling speeches and he can’t make gaffes because his voters don’t care what he says. So running for president is easy for Trump and he knows being president is even easier than running for president.
It's age, age, age age! And Biden looks and acts old. Biden was a mediocre candidate when he previously ran for president before being annointed by Obama and is reprising those runs. There's no excuse for the Democrats simply allowing this narcissistic old man to dictate the risks of this election. Democrats criticize Trump for being anti-democratic and then force a candidate that has no real constituency on the electorate.
I'm not making it the issue. The 55.8% of the population who disapprove of Biden are making it the issue. I doubt that any of those disapprovers have any real information on Biden's cognitive ability, but they all know how old he is.
No. The pollsters are using "age" as a synonym for "cognitive ability" and the people (closer to 81% in the polls I have seen), are saying Biden's cognitive inabilities are highly troublesome.
These elections are close other than Obama. The reality is the right wing echo chamber excels at jacking up the negatives of the Democratic candidate and so any Democratic nominee will eventually have high negatives and the election will end up close because of tribalism and the Electoral College.
I think the inflation of 2021-2022 really messed with people. It's easy to say, "Inflation was higher in the late 1970s and early 1980s and people didn't mind as much!" But that leaves out a key detail: people were much more used to inflation in 1980 than in 2021. Inflation went from 1% to 8% in under two years! That's a momentous change. No living American has witnessed inflation going up by 600% in such a short period. I think going from 1% to 8% inflation had a much larger impact on people's psyche than when it went from 6% to 12% in the 1970s. People are still dealing with sticker shock everywhere, even though they've had a year or two to adjust.
Fortunately for Biden, absent some new crisis, I think in the next six months we are going to see consumer sentiment increase, as people finally settle into the new price regime.
The problem is voters say they trust Republicans on the economy issue ... more than ever? NBC Hart Associates has some trend data going back to the 1990s, and never found a margin like this. Pew found economy was the top issue in 2022, with decisive GOP edge. Gallup has more people saying they are GOP identifying/leaning than ever in 30 years. Trump's biggest theme going into this election is his pre-COVID 2017-2019 economy where everyone was confident in their future marginal income steadily rising.
I think this is why it's such a close race. There's a disconnect between the economy rating going up and Biden's rating sitting where it's at. I suspect the answer is, voters genuinely don't trust Biden's party with the economy. Trump tells less engaged voters that he'll do a better job, they'll just have to turn off the TV news for a bit. Given Nate Cohn's recent writing on how this election could be the first one where marginal turnout favors the GOP, it looks like some people who've never called themselves Republicans before and don't vote reliably are agreeing with this. Perhaps Democrats will resolve this by juicing the margin on abortion as much as they can and tying it to January 6th. But the economy issue (which dominates the list of issues in most elections) looks like a serious wound for them that will not stop bleeding soon.
Biden squandered positioning himself as strong on core pocketbook issues for the majority of people. Most people I know who will probably vote Trump but could swing - mostly business types - are anchored on student loan forgivenss and belief that Biden is captured by "woke special interests." It all boils down to, "not fighting for people like me." Sometimes this is rooted in racial tropes and biases, sometimes not. Regardless, the impression Biden made with swing voters is that he is fighting economically for niche "other" people. Trump has burnished his "I'm fighting for you" brand.
Well Biden's decisive issue in that election was COVID, where Trump couldn't stop doing his Donny from Queens comedy show even as half a million deaths occurred. Trump always had the economy issue advantage, just much more narrowly in the fall of 2020 with both high unemployment and record household savings thanks to UI, PPP, checks, loan suspending, eviction suspending, etc. This helped set the political economy situation for some inflation. Then Biden juiced it with ARPA, the student loan moves, IRA with new updated numbers in the news, etc. Each of those probably polls okay and gives money to a Democratic constituency. But the net result is a complete mess. Only since last July have median real wages caught up to right before COVID.
The perspective that Democrats are captured by strange special interests is a very old one, which is non-unique to "wokeness". Republicans have always been lampooned as the party of rich industrialists. Democrats have always been lampooned as the party of Tammany hall patronage, robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's just inflation made the latter way more salient to some, who might have shrugged off Trump's Spanish radio socialism warnings in 2020. So GOP margins on Hispanics keep improving, mostly due to enthusiasm for Biden falling. For non-Hispanic white suburbanites, it was a different thematic process, but the same disappointed outcome. You didn't get the return to normalcy you were promised. Add up Hispanic and non-Hispanic white voter demographics, and that is most of the ballgame right there.
The stimulus of each presdients had very different salience. The two Trump stimuli that most people would have been aware of were the checks and the tax cuts - both things easy to perceive as helping many. By contrast, Biden and the dems have done a terrible job boosting their stimuli that would help most people - pharma price controls, etc.. The Biden economic policy voters are most aware of is student loan forgiveness.
Trump has successfully moved perception of the republican party beyond the rich industrialist sterotype as evidenced by his support from the working class, especially social conservative working class like some hispanics.
What has profoundly changed about perceptions of the democratic party from the Tammany hall days is the perception of who the patronage is for. In the Tammany hall days, it was political bosses, labor unions, etc. Starting in the civil rights era, it's become minorities. And very recently it's become the non-economic elites. Unfortunately for the left, Biden is playing into this new stereotype. That's where wokeness comes in. Voters combine what they hear - letting people off the hook for loans and supporting minorities - and conflate them into "they're giving money to 'those' people, who are going to get ahead of me."
Matt Yglesias writes about this eloquently - conservatives avoid boosting their unpopular policies while liberals can't stop taling about theirs. I'd also highly recommend the book Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild, who shows how conservative perspectives on government are rooted in concerns about others getting ahead of them in the social hierarchy.
*Unfairly* getting ahead of them.
Conservatives (quite correctly) view government as interfering with merit.
Conservatives are big on reward - and on failure, and people getting large doses of both. Leftists can't tolerate failure in their utopia, because women and beta males don't have the stomach for it and it violates the core directive of "do what feels good".
Of the roughly one million American Covid deaths approximately two thirds occurred under Biden.
My guess is that swing voters are motivated primarily by wages, not inflation. Aggregate price increases from inflation have outpaced aggregate wage increases, meaning that everyone has taken a de facto pay cut. The last estimate that I saw was that if wage gains continue to outpace inflation then pay checks should reach parity in around 2025, but obviously that is not a sustainable position from the Fed's perspective.
People are motivated by purchasing power, ultimately. It doesn't matter what you are getting paid, if that amount of money buys less stuff than it did 3 years ago.
Guess what? Unless you've increased your income by like 15% over the past 3 years, your purchasing power has gone down.
I keep making this point and all I hear back is "But inflation's gone down!"
I would say not wages, but gross disposable income as well as inflation adjusted disposable income.
I am lucky to make over $ 100K a year. I was at McDonald's the other day and ordered large fries and it was $ 4.13. I was absolutely floored at that price, and I believe if it struck me as a lot, imagine someone at a lower economic scale. Not too long ago it was on the dollar menu (which is now gone)
American's enjoyed the "Goldilocks" economy of low prices and high wages for many years. We could buy more stuff with our income, even if our income did not rise that much. Look at large screen Tv's - i had to replace mine and a 75" LG was less than $ 500. Unimaginable.
But that is offset by the fact that chicken, meat and other basics are so high - a prime example. A 12 pack of soda now is around $ 9. That is $ .75 a can, which is what it cost a few years ago at a convenience store.
So now, incomes are going up slowly (we only gave everyone a 3% increase at work) and prices are eating most of that up. Biden is right about shrinkflation, but calling it out just makes people realize that under him, a lot are getting more gross pay, but have less disposable income and that income buys less goods. Not a winning formula.
1. Plus consider what those price increases look like to anybody who's lower middle class and below. For that segment of the population a disproportionately high percentage of their income goes to food and rent, meaning inflation is hitting them especially hard.
2. $100k is lower middle class in areas like Manhattan or SF. I worked for years on Wall Street and I had exactly two co-workers that lived in the city. One was a managing director and their salaries start at $400k a year before bonuses. Imagine spending $4k a month on a tiny apartment and having to.pay for everything else with what you have left over. Six figures was never a lot of money to start with in the super expensive urban cores and now inflation has made that even more untenable.
Great and lucid!
I have yet to meet a voter who goes around saying, 'I trust Republicans on the economy'. It's an artifact of polling. Basic hard sell- narrow the choices, make the fish think it's their idea.
I know lots of voters who strongly distrust Democratic party patronage. The Democratic party patronage explosion in the 1960's preceded the end of American growth by 1970. Democratic patronage continues to expand. Fifty years of no US economic growth. Everyone knows the Democrats lost the discipline to steal in moderation in the 1960's.
And there's some awareness of the mainstream economic textbooks saying the Democratic patronage explosion under FDR extended the Great Depression by around six years. Kenneth Boulding, everyone mainstream.
There's an odd notion that R Hoover triggered the Great Depression by cutting federal spending. That's backwards. R Hoover ran and won promising a huge patronage expansion, and when he won we got the Crash of '29, and he expanded R patronage wildly, and we got the start of the Great Depression.
I don’t trust Rs more than Ds in the economy necessarily, but I do trust Trump more.
With me it's more 'distrust less'.
Well, if it's the top issue on Kevin McCarthy's website in 2022, if Gallup says it's the top issue, if Pew says it's the top issue, if all my company's polls say it's the top issue, if all Trump can literally talk about sometimes is just 2019 and how nice it was to steadily make more money, then I conclude there have got to be some voters who care about this. Republicans vote on keeping their taxes down way more than abortion. In fact, keeping middle class marginal income going is arguably what the party has always been for, as a coalition of mid-sized business and the largest middle class culture bloc. Inflation has now made everyone think a little more like that stereotypical Republican.
As for Hoover, Hoover and the GOP's deepest problem was their belief in the gold standard, which FDR wisely weakened. The other bad side of GOP political economy was the escalation of tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) from a little political trick the GOP used to gain loyalty with some industries and their middle-class employees to a destructive spiral for international commerce. Thankfully Republicans now are a bit more helpful about this and defense policy in Europe than they were in the 1930s.
Good points. I'm a nut about patronage, and I don't know much about Smoot Hawley or the gold standard.
I agree voters don't want the economy wrecked.
I think maybe the sort of people who comment here have a habit of thinking about inflation in the abstract. So, let's imagine a fictitious scenario, in which there is 100% annual inflation, let us say starting in January and ending in October, occurring at an even pace throughout this period of time.
At what point in this year do you expect people to be most upset?
I think a lot of people here are thinking that, in November and December, people should be fine: The inflation is over. And that people should be equally upset from January all the way through October; the inflation is happening equally through this time period, so why should people be more upset in October than they are in January?
But by the end of January, they're only paying 10% more for goods and services; that's bad, but it has nothing on the end of February, when they're paying 20% more. People are not going to remain equally upset through the entire period of time - they're going to get increasingly upset over the same rate of inflation, such that they are far more upset in October than they are in January. And this upset does not end when inflation does, because they are not, in fact, upset that an abstract economic measure is increasing, they are upset because they are paying more. Inflation is just an abstraction we use to talk about this fact, and is not inherently meaningful.
(If it were inherently meaningful, we've been systemically undercounting inflation since forever, because technological increases to economic efficiency decrease the cost of goods and services - and if what we are measuring is inherently meaningful beyond the price of things people pay, then we should be counting efficiency improvements as reductions in the base prices we compare the actual prices against.)
This isn't just sticker shock - if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, an increase in the price of goods and services means, necessarily, one of two things: Less goods and services consumed - or debt. Hopefully your paycheck eventually catches up with inflation - but at the end of it all, you are still worse off, having either consumed less in the meantime, or built up debt that you now have to deal with. "Sticker shock" is the experience the relatively affluent have; being affronted by the prices they now have to pay for things. It's decidedly nastier when you aren't in a position where the primary impact is that you can't contribute as much to your savings account.
Indeed, if you're in the position where your observation is that you can't contribute as much to your savings account, I'd say odds are good that you think the economy is doing fantastically well, so long as you don't think about it too much - if the price of everything is increasing, your savings, insofar as they are tied up in things that cost money such as stocks, are growing along with everything else. So you can end up feeling -better off- in an inflationary period, even though your savings account isn't gaining in value in any meaningful way.
And I'd suggest this may be partially responsible for the discrepancy between people's perspective on the economy in general, and their perspective on their spending, and this is where the "people's psyche" thing, I think, is actually quite important: A lot of today's savers are not deeply familiar with the idea that inflationary gains to their savings accounts are false gains, which won't leave them any better off in their retirement. A 10% inflation rate means you need to subtract 10% from any gains in your retirement funds.
In our fictitious 100% inflationary scenario, let us suppose that people's wages start catching up in November, catching up by the start of December. So from the 10 month period from January through October, they paid an average of 50% more for goods and services; for a person living paycheck-to-paycheck over this period of time, making, let us say for easy math $3,000 a month, they enter November $10,000 in debt, and accrue an additional $750 in debt (I think my math is off here but it doesn't matter that much), for a total debt load, entering into December, of $10,750. Which would have been equivalent to a $5,375 debt prior to inflation.
They're significantly worse off, now dealing with the kind of one-off debt load that is routinely ruinous for people living on the edge. Meanwhile, other people are telling them not to be so upset, that everything is fine now, because the inflation has ended. (Kind of infuriating.)
And the people telling them not to be so upset?
Well, for some of them, they couldn't contribute as much to their savings over that time period. But the value of their savings doubled, and, even though that isn't "real", as it won't buy any more goods and services in their retirement than it would before, it -feels- real, and more than offsets, emotionally, the contributions they failed to make to their savings. Mind, they're worse-off, too - they didn't, after all, make those contributions to their savings. But in terms of feelings, everything can actually end up looking -better- than it would have without the inflation.
Or maybe they cut back consumption, and did without a few luxury items for the year; but at the end of the year, they are fully back to normal, consuming exactly the same way they did before the inflation happened. They're also worse off, but in a way that feels appropriate to put behind them; a bad thing happened, but it's over.
For the paycheck-to-paycheck person, it's still not over.
This is spot on and I don't hear anybody talking about it. We've never had 30 years of <5% inflation, so it's unclear whether models of how people react to x% increases inflation apply here.
The closest comparison is late 60s through 70s period. Inflation was <5% from 1952 - 1968. Nixon primarily won in '68 on law and order, although inflation was a factor as it rose from the 1.3% average from 1951 - 1965 to an average of 3.7% in the last three years of LBJ's second term. By the time Nixon runs again, people are accustomed to high and rising inflation.
I travel to Argentina every year for holiday. I always say "its living in america's future"
High inflation because of poor government and consumer spending crashed their economy. It is only a matter of time before it does the same here.
Biden’s approval inflection point happened during Delta wave and Afghanistan withdrawal and inflation. So on some level it was an issue with managing expectations because Afghanistan withdrawal was necessary and inflation and Delta were out of his control.
People were not generically upset that the US pulled out of Afghanistan, but that we did such a poor job of it. After slowly managing expectations for several years that we were leaving but on our terms, Biden gives a specific deadline. In order to meet that deadline we rushed a big portion of the withdrawal and end up with millions of dollars in working equipment being left behind and the humanitarian disaster of people clinging to the outsides of planes to escape. That wasn't necessary.
Trump’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan was satisfied with how everything transpired…at the end of the day the withdrawal made us stronger.
Are you indicating that when a Trump Administration leader says something, that you believe it is accurate and helpful? Or only when it supports a position you hold otherwise?
I find it unlikely you would normally signal-boost Trump admins.
I’m a Trump Republican. Khalizad is a Bush Republican like many of the people Trump inexplicably appointed. And as Hur shows Bush Republicans have no problem behaving unethically in order to trash Democrats…and so Khalizad saying everything transpired satisfactorily under Biden is in essence a “statement against interests” because he isn’t bashing a Democrat. Anyway, you appear to have a bad case of Biden Derangement Syndrome which seems to be going around in the Substack comments section and that syndrome renders an individual’s logic section of the brain unusable.
I wrote about exactly this several months ago. You're right, the acceleration of inflation this time around was huge, but it wasn't that much faster than the 1970s that you would expect. Although I make the case that we felt it harder this time because we started from a much lower inflation environment, and therefore were somewhat "spoiled":
https://open.substack.com/pub/thinkeratthegates/p/what-is-going-on-with-the-economy?r=28s97t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Biden's age is likely more of a problem because he has made 'competency' a core theme - as in, vote for me because the other guy is crazy. People already know Trump is crazy, or forgetful, or generally makes things up, so when he confuses Hungary and Turkey it doesn't move the dial in the same way. Biden, by contrast, preached normalcy, competence, and the general ability to do the job as the basic reason to vote for him. Memory lapses or questions of competency hit harder if competence is your main argument. It'd be like if Bill Clinton attacked Trump for cheating on his wife - yes, Trump is a philanderer, but come on man. And Biden campaign/affiliate/supporter responses like 'but Trump is even more unfit' aren't exactly a persuasive response.
I'd suggest that, consequently, Republican voters are less likely to swing away from Trump since this isn't new for him. In contrast, Biden's coalition perhaps sees his lapses and is similarly frustrated that this is the best option Democrats can put forward (not to mention the patronizing responses from some Biden officials to either dismiss the concern outright or simply expect that Democrats just get in line with the guy). I'd speculate that those voters will return to the fold once it's very clear that it's Biden v Trump again.
Also, uncharitably, Biden just looks old - even in photos put out by his campaign he does not look 'hale' and ready to run the country for another four years. To be clear, Trump doesn't look like a college footballer and there are photos where he looks awful, but his mugshot, for example, does not project the same age as Biden's birthday photo.
I offer this opinion as pure speculation - no numbers, no research, so take that for what it's worth.
It's been somewhat evident for years that Biden wasn't at his top level, and recently we're seeing significant declines. Talking about "recent" conversations with people dead for close to 30 years and not understanding those facts - that's bad in a way that Trump isn't. It's almost endearing to the average voter that Trump doesn't really know the names of all the countries (realistically most candidates for office don't either, but learn what they need from educated aides).
I think Trump would be faring more poorly on the age question if he, for instance, started talking about a recent conversation with a business partner who he worked with, but that person had been dead for years. That's the kind of mental break that tells people there's something seriously wrong and likely can't be explained by anything positive.
“It's almost endearing to the average voter that Trump doesn't really know the names of all the countries”
Just waiting for him to refer to U-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.
Yeah. Keep in mind that Biden's approval ratings took a nose dive (and never recovered) during the Afghanistan withdrawal. As issues go that is pretty far removed from the economy.
And the official that Trump appointed Special Envoy to Afghanistan was satisfied with the withdrawal. And the withdrawal made America stronger. I have to agree with Biden that America’s interest in the Afghanistan withdrawal was strange because people had stopped caring about it years before and we never should have had a large presence there to begin with.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was bungled. American forces abandoned bases in the middle of the night. Despite advance notice the US did not expedite the evacuation of Afghans who had worked with American troops, leading to murders and imprisonment. The Taliban was tasked with maintaining the outer perimeter for Kabul's airport, allowing a suicide bomber in who killed 12 US troops. Kabul's airport was tasked with evacuations despite being smaller than the base used the US military because State Department civilians liked it because it was closer. The Afghani civilians that did escape were packed onto cargo planes like sardines in a can in scenes reminiscent of the fall of Saigon. The unlucky ones clung to landing gear, falling to their deaths as jets took off or with their lifeless corpses pinned to the sides of planes. The Afghan government collapsed overnight despite Biden's assurances that they could survive on their own, or at least until the US completed its evacuation.
This is competence?
Trump’s Special Envoy was satisfied with the withdrawal and he was the individual that gave assurances to Biden. When Trump ordered the withdrawal of Syria 4 Americans died in a suicide bombing and that was happening for the last 20 years. Basically you are holding Biden to an exponentially higher standard than Bush and Obama and Trump. Bottom line—we are stronger having gotten out of Afghanistan.
You are deliberately confusing the issue of withdrawing from Afghanistan with the manner in which that withdrawal was conducted. There are plenty of people who agree with withdrawal but almost nobody who believes it was a good idea to leave behind huge amounts of military equipment for the Taliban to confiscate
Secondly, what withdrawal from Syria? The US still has forces there.
PCM has never found an issue on which Biden and the DNC did anything wrong. Just ignore them and move on.
Nope, Trump’s Special Envoy was satisfied with how the withdrawal transpired.
However, we should consider if Biden's age can be an asset in a world where Republicans are demonizing Democrats with ties to economic and social radicalism more than ever? This isn't helped by a real political age gap coupled with universal political cowardice around Medicare. But it's a pretty hard sell to believe an old white guy who brags about haggling budget items with Strom Thurmond is going to put you under the boot of woke socialism. Biden has that going for him.
good take
When I saw Trump's mugshot I thought it was photoshopped. But maybe his makeup artist was just bringing his A game. Biden should hire the guy.
When I saw Biden raging at the presser that he hadn’t really lost his mind and then a minute later confuse Egypt with Mexico, I smiled. That he did it the same week he twice mixed up long dead German and French leaders, made me grin. That he just declined to take a cognitive test is the only sensible thing he’s done this year.
Trump looked much as he usually does, /if/ you are used to seeing regular pictures of him, not the unflattering pictures they pick for the mainstream media.
That event should probably make you step back and reflect on whether you've been receiving biased, cherry-picked images from the media to distort your view of Trump.
And then, if they've been deliberately deceiving you in that way (which they have), whether you can trust their other reporting on Trump (which you can't).
The people aren't changing their minds because they don't trust Biden. Any honest person will tell the truth about the fact that it's hard to trust this administration when you aren't sure who has been pulling the strings. We didn't elect them, so we don't know what their priorities might be. As someone who saw Biden as a centrist and has been shell-shocked by his hard left turn on DEI, immigration, and rhetoric, it has always made more sense that this is not the Biden we thought was going to be President. It's hard to trust someone you can't see and didn't elect. Especially when they keep asking for money when the deficit is the 2nd highest expenditure.
This echoes what I said in a conversation with my friend recently about not being satisfied with Biden. I'll never like/support Trump as a candidate, but I thought Biden might be more than simply 'not Trump'. I thought we had someone who could reliably reach across the aisle and govern as a strong centrist. But I feel like Biden never showed up; instead it is the 'Biden administration' making the calls and setting the tone. And this group has pushed an agenda much farther left (at least until the Hamas attack - although this is now shifting as well) than I would have ever expected from the Joe Biden I thought was going to lead the country.
If the democrats lose this next election, it will be their own fault for not finding a better candidate. I'd happily vote for a number of democrats, centrist or at least not far-left. But if we get Biden vs. Trump, I'll effectively be sitting this one out.
I'd never thought of it quite this concisely. Biden vs Biden Administration. That's exactly right. I feel the same way as you. I have been extremely shocked, which is why I've never felt he has complete control of the situation. And, if I don't know who is making these calls, I don't know what call they may make next. I don't know what their priorities are. It looks like he's about to make another mistake in trying to go after Israel. Or, I see that as a mistake. Most of all because ,again, I don't know who is in charge of this decision.
I am worried about Biden's age. I am worried he will make it to the end of his second term if, God willing, he wins.
I also do not think he has dementia, and am tired of the gaffe related press.
I have said it before and will say it again: the media is doing an awful job at covering Biden's age. Not because it's unimportant or "her emails!" or anything but because the press is doing an awful job at illuminating us about Biden's actual fitness for office. Yes, Biden gaffed the President of Egypt for the President of Mexico. These kinds of gaffes happen universally among young people, old people and different political parties. That SAME DAY: Mike Johnson screwed Iran up with Israel and Trump screwed up the Prime Minister of Hungary with the Prime Minister of Turkey. Nobody cared.
Which brings me first to the press conference Biden held. He gaffed, but you know what? His answer was smart, cogent and offered a sober analysis of his actions. Nobody cared about that: they just cared about the gaffe. So instead of illuminating us on Biden's thinking: they just screamed at the shiny object. This makes us less smart, not smarter (and notice: I am not saying the story was wrong or even that they covered it 'wrong' but that they didn't actually make us smarter).
I would love to know more about Biden's fitness for office, and to that end: show me the reports of Biden not waking up to learn about an international crisis. Show me where Biden royally screwed up a decision because he's old and confused (not that he made the wrong political choice: where did he think he was talking about Mexico and was actually talking about Egypt and made the wrong call). Where did his mangling in a conversation with Republicans result in a bill not getting signed?
I want to know: report THAT, find THAT out. Don't just keep scoring gaffes, because all that does is hide the actual information we need. If Biden is being hidden in a closet before he meets with Democrats on the Hill: that's news. If Biden accidentally says Charlie Chaplin instead of Chuck Schumer and errs in a gaffe: that's the shiny object.
But hey, the media doesn't actually exist to illuminate so I assume I'll die waiting.
Anyone who can’t see Biden is in the middle stages of dementia is either lying to themselves or others. Almost 9 in 10 Americans see it. Falling up staircases. Falling off bikes. Falling on stage. Shaking hands in air. Forgetting where stairs are. Forgetting when his son died. Forgetting when he was VP. Bringing up dead politicians as if he just met them. It’s literally Weekend at Bernie’s playing out in front of our very eyes.
Go take a walk. Watch a movie. Please take your angry ramblings elsewhere
Any thoughts on RFK Jr's ability/likelihood to have a significant impact on the final verdict?
I think the emerging consensus is that the third party candidates help Trump.
Sorry, fetch is never gonna happen.
I’d love to hear more on this!
Biden is losing because he’s missing in action. The Super Bowl interview with CBS, not Fox, could have helped placate his naysayers if he did well; yet Biden chose not to show up in an election year, when Trump is everywhere, and sucking up all the oxygen in the room; setting the narrative.
Biden has accomplished a lot more than any sitting president since Johnson and FDR; yet, more than 60% of Americans think Trump would be better for the economy and for international affairs. Why?
This is Biden’s predicament: he doesn’t know how to promote himself, and most of the democrats trying to disseminate his messages, are being forced to play defense about his age and cognitive abilities, so nothing gets through.
So the only one who can save Joe, is Joe, and right now he’s doing a piss, poor job! And all we hear are crickets!
He’s also just a terrible communicator. The slurring, the forgetfulness, the gaffes; every time I see him on screen he looks exactly like what he is, old.
Exactly. I see it the same way you do…:)
Biden has doubled the average annual budget deficit from Trump and Obama ($1 trillion a year to $2 trillion a year), and increased illegal immigration nearly 800% compared to those two presidents over 3,000,000 in 2023 from a 400K average? What are these amazing accomplishments no president in modern history has accomplished?
Actually, the deficit was reduced to $536 billion under Obama (he inherited a deficit of $1.8 trillion. Trump added $8.2 trillion to the debt in just four years; more than any president in US history, and more than both Obama and Bush added in eight years as president. Not to mention, he increased the deficit to $1.88 trillion thanks mostly to his tax cuts and mishandling of COVID.
Most of Biden’s bills were paid for, and the deficit was shrinking until we were hit with inflation. Inflation will increase the deficit because interest rate hikes increase borrowing costs.
So nice try, and thanks for playing….:)
One day the bill will come due. And then you will know.
Ivan, I’m not debating whether the debt is an issue; it is. You seem to think that it’s democrats that are the ones who are spendthrifts, when all evidence points to the contrary.
Bush took office from Clinton with a $300 billion surplus. Bush left office with $1.8 trillion deficit ($2.1 trillion swing), and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Obama reduced the deficit to $536 Billion. And then Trump spent on tax cuts and other Republican priorities, and he left office with a $1.88 deficit, after adding more debt than any previous president, and he did it in four years, not eight. $8.2 trillion!
So I agree, the debt and deficit are bad, but it’s democrats who continue to act fiscally responsible, while the republicans spent on tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
These facts aren’t in debate. So vote for Trump, because he is known as the king of debt. There is a reason he went belly up in the 90’s, and no legitimate bank will lend him money.
He piles on debt and doesn’t have the money to pay it back. He did it with his real estate and casino’s, and then he did it to America when he was president. And if he’s elected again, then he will spend us into oblivion on more tax cuts for the wealthy.
So I know how bad the debt crisis is, it’s just you don’t seem to know which party is the biggest abuser and is always worse for the economy.
Hope this helps…:)
It is indeed a problem from both parties. Federal deficits doubled under Bush Jr (5 trillion to 10 trillion) and Obama (10 trillion to 20 trillion). Trump did nothing to reduce the deficit. It was increasing at about Obama levels until Covid. The Covid spending could be considered an anomaly for Trump's final year and biden's first....but why is the federal government spending $2 trillion more than it collected in 2023?
As for your talking points, they WERE true about 20 years ago, but the elite and corporations now overwhelmingly identify as Democrat. And though Republicans won't do anything to reduce the budget, Democrats have shown they will borrow and spend even more.
Depends on the industry. Resources and agriculture certainly swing very Republican, whereas industries like healthcare and technology swing another. As for the elites, I have never heard a cogent explanation of who they are.
You’re mostly right Ivan, except for your conclusion. Yes, democrats spend, but they are cognizant of the deficit and try to offset any new legislation.
Remember that Bush inherited a surplus of $300 billion from Clinton, who inherited a deficit. And Bush turned it into a $1.8 trillion deficit; a swing of $2.1 trillion.
Obama took office with a 1.8 trillion deficit, while inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; with the US losing 1 million jobs a month.
Of course Obama needed to spend money to get us out of it. And the initial $1 trillion he spent was actually part of Bush’s budget which was approved before the election, since the US is on September 30 fiscal year end.
However, when Obama left office he had reduced the deficit from $1.8 trillion to $536 billion; or almost $1.3 trillion in annual savings.
And it was Trump’s 2018 tax cut that initially added $1 trillion to the deficit before COVID, so don’t say the reason was COVID.
Since Biden took office, all his legislative initiatives were paid for, but inflation increased our borrowing costs, which is the prime reason the deficit is increasing.
That said, there is a pattern here. Republicans spend when they are in power and then try to limit any spending when they aren’t. And every Republican president since Reagan has added to the deficit. Both Clinton and Obama, reduced the deficits or left us with a surplus by the time they left office.
These are facts!….:)
Nonsense. The deficit under Trump increased from $536 billion to $2 trillion a year. Obama spent $8 trillion over eight years but reduced the deficit from $1.88 trillion under Bush to $536 billion. Trump added $8.2 trillion in four years in office and again, increased to deficit from $536 billion to almost $2 trillion a year.
Biden has added $2.5 trillion to the debt in three years but he also passed an infrastructure bill and CHIP’s Act which have added jobs. These bills mostly paid for themselves with offsets to other programs that were cancelled or scaled back. The problem with Biden is interest rates. The cost of servicing the debt has increased.
Unemployment when Trump left office was 6.7%. Unemployment today is 3.8%. Biden added 10 million jobs in three years, while Trump lost 7 million by the time he left office.
These are facts!…..:)
I shall not dissuade you rooting for your team; after all, you may directly benefit from them! I do suggest you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" to understand how systematic cognitive errors wreck havoc on logical thought for all humanity.
I suggest you take your own advice. Biden has increased the debt by $4 trillion (not $2.5 trillion) in four years. Trump has increased the debt by $8.2 trillion in four years. Facts don’t lie!
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/mar/05/the-deficit-has-fallen-under-joe-biden-but-its-sti/
https://www.self.inc/blog/us-national-debt-under-biden
I already read Thinking Fast and Slow. Have a good day.
Clearly, you didn’t take your reading to heart
I agree with this, although as a disclaimer, I have no data to back it up and I like Joe Biden.
One of the adages of leadership is "By the time you are tired of telling them, they are just beginning to listen." Even though (I think) Biden's presidency has been strong, he never SAYS that. In fact, he never SAYS much of anything. Instead, he lets everyone else define him.
Then, when he does speak out (as he did last week), it's not particularly confidence inspiring. Whether it's his age, his longtime public speaking challenges, or something else, he just sounds awful.
So Biden is in a Catch-22. If he doesn't speak, he lets everyone else define him in a negative way. But, he's so bad at public speaking, that when he does define himself, he comes off poorly.
I don't see how this ends well. One option is to actually start letting Harris do a lot more of the work and see where the polls go. If they go up, keep running with that strategy. If they go down, exit at the convention and let the party decide.
Excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly…:)
He accomplished huge inflation, huge increase in deficit, and a weaponized FBI and DOJ. Not to mention he got millions in bribes from China and Ukraine.
Clearly, you have a very limited knowledge of economics and how economies operate.
Inflation was initiated due to supply chain issues caused by COVID, Trump’s mishandling of the epidemic, and price gouging which started during COVID, when Trump refused to release the US Strategic National stockpile; forcing states to compete for limited medical supplies and sending equipment and PPE prices up five to six hundred percent.
Biden didn’t increase the deficits. We already had a $1.88 trillion deficit when he took office. His legislation was paid for. The additional increases were due to inflation and the Feds reaction; raising interests rates which causes our debt service to increase.
And Trump increased the deficit from $536 billion to $1.88 trillion, and adding $8.2 trillion to the debt; more than any president before him, and he did it in four years, not eight.
Yeah, Biden weaponized the DOJ and FBI; projection much? You must be talking about Trump who had his AG twisted in knots trying to appease the mango moron.
How many criminal complaints did Barr drop because Trump told him to do it? How many appeals did the DOJ refuse to defend because the guilty were Trump’s acolytes like Bannon, Manafort, Flynn and others?
As for taking brides, it is documented that China spent over $20 million dollars at Trump resorts. We’re talking the government, not Chinese companies. And this doesn’t include all the Sunni Arab nation that have been bailing out Kushner and Trump in the tune of billions.
Seriously, please take your meds!
As
Clearly you are a pretentious ass.
And clearly you’re a clueless clown. It’s all good though…:)
Clearly you’re a soy bitch boy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
From Lois Lerner siccing the IRS on conservative groups, to jailing J6 protestors for years with no due process, the left has perfected weaponing the justice system. Now they are trying to jail Trump for 700 years. Meanwhile not a single Epstein client has been arrested.
Its amazing how many people dont understand inflation. I get its because we simply havent had high inflation since the 1970's, but anyone 50 or older, who went through it, should. Inflation is devastating, and when it skyrockets in such a short period of time, it doesnt give the populace a chance to adjust. The inflation index measures the RATE of price increase/decrease, not actual prices. So when some folks say, inflation is down and we should all be happy about it, thats just the rate. Prices are sky high, havent come down. They are STILL increasing, albeit at a lower rate, but STILL twice the rate they were pre Biden taking office. The cause of the 2020 spike was threefold. First, shutting down the economy for Covid. That put thousands of businesses, manufacturers, and suppliers out of business. But domnt ever forget, it didnt have to be that way. It was Trump who wanted to re-open by Eater 2020, but was lambasted by Democrats who declared he was a tyrant and didnt have the power to do that. He said "America wasnt built to be shutdown", but Democrat mayors and governors kept their cites and states shut down for over a year. Then Democrats passed trillions in new borrowing and spending to save the economy they destroyed. Then to add gasoline to the fire, Joe Biden declared he would reverse much of Trumps pro energy policies, many by Executive Action Day One. He screamed from the rooftops multiple times - "no new drilling!" Since oil trades like any other financial instrument, it exploded the day after Biden won, doubling in price in 4 short months. The price of oil is built into everything we buy. And thats why, so far, Joe Biden's low price of oil is Trumps high, after the US became the worlds largest producer in Aug 2018. In order for prices to come down, we need a recession, and were not getting it because government spending is artificially keeping the economy strong. Bidens eceonomists know that if spending comes down, we get a recession - right into the election. thats what happens when you have people in charge that dont know what theyre doing. They opened the Pandora's Box of inflation, and there's no good way out. Trump lived and breathed business. He understands this. He was right all along - about EVERYTHING
Bang on. Inflation isn’t down. The rate of increase has slowed. But the earlier increases are now baked into the cake for good. And this is devastating for anyone on fixed income.
Inflation *is* the rate of increase.
🤦
If Joe Biden or Democrats are so uniquely disastrous for the economy, then why does the US currently have lower rates of inflation, stronger labor participation, and just generally a lower chance of recession than most European countries, about half of whom are controlled by right-wing leaders? (The UK is probably doing the worst out of first world countries, and they've had right-wing people in charge for over 10 years)
Well said!
He’s lost the left in his coalition because his policies in the legislation he’s gotten passed haven’t done enough for them, and bc of the war in Israel. He’s also losing moderates on immigration/the border
I’m not sure what that means though. The border is hot because unemployment is incredibly low. Tightening border restrictions really does require Congress. Covid is over and to the extent it could be used to clamp down on movement, any such act now would be legally difficult without congressional progress.
This is precisely why Trump wants to torpedo the compromise bill.
I agree, I think getting the compromise bill passed would’ve helped him a lot with moderates, if you want to say Biden is being unfairly judged harshly with the moderates he’s lost due to this issue I think that’s fair. I think it would help him if he did something different with regards to executive action on it, so it looks like he’s trying to help.
Yeah, I think that’s a fair characterization.
The Economist a while back, maybe quite a while back now, was quietly advocating he do more to build the border barriers “wall”. It’s kind of pointless but it’s visible and useful for messaging.
Maybe I'm not ignorant on this issue, but I have trouble believing the Biden Administration couldn't be doing more.
Texas appears to be trying to reduce border crossings. From what I can tell, the Administration is actively working to hamper this, arguing that Texas' actions are:
1. Creating dangers for those trying to cross illegally.
2. An illegal usurpation of Federal authority.
Which might both be true, but I haven't heard the Biden Administration try to argue that Texas' actions are *ineffective*. I haven't heard it propose a way to work together with Texas to reduce border crossings while also promoting safety. It's hard for me to escape the conclusion that the Administration is intentionally doing much less than it could to reduce illegal immigration, probably because too many key players in its coalition don't have the heart for it.
Trump also created a deal with Mexico to reduce crossings. I haven't heard that the Biden Administration has tried to do that and been rebuffed. Even if it was, the US can bring a lot of pressure to bear on Mexico. If the POTUS really wants something from Mexico, and it's not an outrageous ask, I have trouble believing he can't get it, if he puts his mind to it.
Maybe I'm wrong and the Biden Administration is doing much more than it appears, but if so, it sure hasn't successfully publicized that fact.
The issue got worse in 2019 though. And the issue always responds to economic slowdown. It seems to me Trump’s machinations made the problem worse because the migrants had to figure out how to apply for asylum in accordance with the laws on the books.
I was curious about this so went looking around and found this discussion, which seems pretty good:
https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/border-crossing-data-show-incentives?r=1h6crc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
He argues that Trump executive branch policies did reduce illegal immigration and Biden executive branch policies increased it. The 2019 spike was caused by knowledge of asylum law, which I guess you can blame Trump for if you really want to, but Trump's Admin then developed a solution for it that didn't require legislation that it knew it couldn't pass. As far as I can tell, the Biden Admin hasn't attempted to develop a solution.
I realize I might sound like a Trump defender here, but I'm really not. It's only to say Trump's Admin was grossly incompetent but still managed to problem solve about how to use executive power to reduce illegal immigration. Biden's Admin must then be some combination of less incompetent and/or much less interested in solving the problem. It should be obvious the answer is primarily the latter.
Except an economic downturn always reduces illegal immigration…and 2020 had a severe economic contraction. Now Republicans seem to believe Biden’s economic policies are the reason the economy recovered so quickly because the economic recovery is why illegal immigration has spiked. That said, Biden has been in the federal government for decades and so he does bear some responsibility for the border.
I don't disagree w you, Eric. That said, many undecided voters may not be plugged into the fact that Congress must support fixing the border. I don't have any favorable views about who the undecided voters are -- they are seemingly not up to speed on politics or current events.
He hasn't "lost the Left", the Left left on their own accord due to their predilection for Marxism and a hatred for all things traditionally American.
I think he has none of the skills needed to compete in the modern attention economy. He only ever seems to go viral accidentally, and for negative reasons.
I say that sadly, as I think *being president* is a serious job for serious people and I appreciate how Biden has handled it. But *getting elected* requires something different these days, unfortunately for us all.
Use of credit cards has increased and the interest has soared. I think this is hurting many people when they pay monthly bills.
People know JB's connection to Delaware as well as his denial of bankruptcy for student loans when he was Delaware Senator in spite of his support of loan forgiveness all. Look at JB's Delaware record as Senator.
The loans are not forgiven; they are paid by those of us who pay net positive income taxes like me. Most people don’t pay net positive income taxes (eg they get more in taxpayer funded income (eg teachers, gov employees) or benefits). I pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and people like me are the ones who eat the “forgiven” loans.
It's an unprecedented situation where two people with economic records as president can be compared by voters. A "Trump economy" cannot be portrayed as a scary hypothetical in the way that incumbent presidents have always done to dismiss challengers. The conventional and very effective "fear of the unknown" weapon isn't available to Team Biden.
The Trump economic record was a real and recent thing. People remember it and can make their own comparisons.
Maybe a lot of them liked it better?
Maybe it looks co-equal or better than the Biden economy to a lot if voters?
The reality is that Biden has never been popular on a national scale. He ran unsuccessfully for President many times. He finally broke through in 2020 but really it was a protest against Trump. He just has never been viewed as a strong and inspiring leader, even within much of the Democratic Party. That sentiment isn’t changing, especially as he is obviously in decline.
Mike,
I am an 84-year-old retired physician. I have displayed some cognitive decline. I have undergone cognitive testing. This was there impression: cognitive decline.
I strongly believe that Biden should withdraw from the 2024 presidential election. he could withdraw before the Democratic convention and the convention determine who the nomination should be. This is the way nominees were picked when I was young.
I would be very angry at both Biden and his team if he does not withdraw. I think that the special council was a patriot in his report about Biden.
You are correct.
The problem is that too many democrats are so committed to power they are blinded by the obvious.
I'm sure you saw the movie "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- Alec Guiness' character flaws fully and totally represents current democrat party member's thinking.
But you do understand that the job of being president is the easiest job on the planet?? It’s why people that have seen the job up very close like W Bush and Hillary and Trump want to do the job and will do something difficult (running for president) to get the job. Except in Trump’s case running for president is very easy because he loves making rambling speeches and he can’t make gaffes because his voters don’t care what he says. So running for president is easy for Trump and he knows being president is even easier than running for president.
We now have second effect inflation as well as things like insurance have skyrocketed in price due to cost rises with materials in that period.
Is there a third effect we should be bracing for?
Approximately 20% inflation since 2021 is hard to white-wash away.
So is Biden's obvious inability to speak unscripted without revealing a man incapable of sitting in the most powerful position in the world.
It's age, age, age age! And Biden looks and acts old. Biden was a mediocre candidate when he previously ran for president before being annointed by Obama and is reprising those runs. There's no excuse for the Democrats simply allowing this narcissistic old man to dictate the risks of this election. Democrats criticize Trump for being anti-democratic and then force a candidate that has no real constituency on the electorate.
No it is not. Stop making that the issue.
It's cognitive ability, cognitive ability, cognitive ability.
I'm not making it the issue. The 55.8% of the population who disapprove of Biden are making it the issue. I doubt that any of those disapprovers have any real information on Biden's cognitive ability, but they all know how old he is.
No. The pollsters are using "age" as a synonym for "cognitive ability" and the people (closer to 81% in the polls I have seen), are saying Biden's cognitive inabilities are highly troublesome.
These elections are close other than Obama. The reality is the right wing echo chamber excels at jacking up the negatives of the Democratic candidate and so any Democratic nominee will eventually have high negatives and the election will end up close because of tribalism and the Electoral College.