Biden's former chief of staff admits how bad the Biden economy is

[reason10]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/biden-ex-chief-of-staff-admits-us-prices-too-high-experts-break-down-struggling-most

Biden’s ex-chief of staff admits US prices are too high: Experts break down who’s ‘struggling’ most

Two market and economic experts are siding with recent commentary from a former White House chief of staff that inflationary pressures are becoming too much for Americans to bear.

"Another group that's really been hurting under this administration is what has typically been a core Democratic constituency, which is young people, but they, of course, are the ones that have a disproportionate portion of their income go to things like food and energy," former assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy Michael Faulkender said on "The Evening Edit" Thursday.

"They're the ones that are really struggling to buy houses and buy cars due to the high interest rate environment that we're seeing under this administration," he added.

In a surprise turn on his former boss, Biden’s ex-chief of staff Ron Klain told MSNBC host Chris Hayes Wednesday that inflation has become too high and American families are getting hit hardest.

A really funny black comic said the only reason blacks still support Biden is because thanks to him, THE FIRST  PERSON EVER TO SMOKE CRACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS WHITE.

 

 

 

[reason10]

Biden did this. And that's why he is tanking in most polls.

[reason10]

And this is who Unelected Joe is running against.

You would have to be a totally uneducated MOE RON to vote for Biden in November, after all the damage he has caused.

[Nationalist]

But they will vote for Brandon. And now that RFK Jr is an issue, the Democrats are gonna try to destroy him and will try to cheat.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

And this is who Unelected Joe is running against.

You would have to be a totally uneducated MOE RON to vote for Biden in November, after all the damage he has caused.

Yeah, Joe is running against Trump's LIES and COVID disaster. Duh

But MOST EFFECTIVELY against Trump overturning Roe.

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

Biden did this. And that's why he is tanking in most polls.

I remember when gas dealers were struggling to survive because no one was driving to work anymore. LMAO

[reason10]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:18 PM, robosmith said:

Yeah, Joe is running against Trump's LIES and COVID disaster. Duh

But MOST EFFECTIVELY against Trump overturning Roe.

I remember when gas dealers were struggling to survive because no one was driving to work anymore. LMAO

Joe is running against the United STates of America. He is the worst liar in history. He is the worst president in history.

Worse even than Barak Saddam Hussein Obama.

[Deluge]

It's obvious that the democrats want to twist this country into some kind of Marxist nightmare, but the Right will be to blame if we don't step up and stop it. I'm already looking into ways where I can get more directly involved. 

[impartialobserver]

Well.. hate to burst the bubble but at the present moment.. the President does not control inflation. Yes, the recent spike in inflation was tied to Biden's covid-era stimulus payouts. But that time has passed and now it is simple supply and demand. 

[gatomontes99]

Long time reader, first time poster...lol

Jokes aside, the housing market is a perfect example of how the economy has become unaffordable.

"Home Buyers Need to Earn $47,000 More Than in 2020  The income needed to comfortably afford a home is up 80% since 2020, while median income has risen 23% in that time.

Home shoppers today need to make more than $106,000 to comfortably afford a home. That is 80% more than in January 2020, showing how the math has changed for hopeful buyers, who are more often partnering with friends and family or “house hacking” their way to homeownership."

https://www.zillow.com/research/buyers-income-needed-33755/

But the market has to be a two fold problem, right? I can't imagine that an additional two million people that crossed our border illegally didn't play a part in driving up the cost of housing.

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Well.. hate to burst the bubble but at the present moment.. the President does not control inflation. Yes, the recent spike in inflation was tied to Biden's covid-era stimulus payouts. But that time has passed and now it is simple supply and demand. 

Oh, I'll burst your bubble. The President is quite responsible for inflation. In fact, the president (along with congress) controls the biggest budget in the world. Since inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, if the president were to cut spending he could reduce demand for goods and services and that would decrease inflation.

[reason10]

6 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Well.. hate to burst the bubble but at the present moment.. the President does not control inflation. Yes, the recent spike in inflation was tied to Biden's covid-era stimulus payouts. But that time has passed and now it is simple supply and demand. 

That time hasn't passed. The Unelected Pedophile is STILL flooding the dollar market with dollars.

[Caswell Thomas]

On 4/5/2024 at 7:54 AM, reason10 said:

And this is who Unelected Joe is running against.

You would have to be a totally uneducated MOE RON to vote for Biden in November, after all the damage he has caused.

Bulls%$t sure was high though and its even higher now everywhere he speaks. 

[Deluge]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:18 AM, robosmith said:

1. Yeah, Joe is running against Trump's LIES and COVID disaster. Duh

2. But MOST EFFECTIVELY against Trump overturning Roe.

3. I remember when gas dealers were struggling to survive because no one was driving to work anymore. LMAO

1. Wrong. Trump is running against Biden's lies and COVID disaster. Get it right, stupid. 

2. Yes, Biden IS running against life, and I suspect the piece of shit always has been against it. 

3. And they still are, aren't they dumbass. It's 3 years later, and we're still not free from Biden's COVID disaster and Biden's inflation.  

[reason10]

11 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Bulls%$t sure was high though and its even higher now everywhere he speaks. 

Trump would have to invest BILLIONS in a series of fertilizer plants to be able to come up with even HALF the bullsh!t the Unelected Joe campaign and the DemoNAZIS have been spewing for the last ten years.

[impartialobserver]

20 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh, I'll burst your bubble. The President is quite responsible for inflation. In fact, the president (along with congress) controls the biggest budget in the world. Since inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, if the president were to cut spending he could reduce demand for goods and services and that would decrease inflation.

The president alone does not control the budget... 

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

The president alone does not control the budget... 

Hmm...really? So the president can't propose a budget to congress? Did Joe propose a budget that reduced spending?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

Hmm...really? So the president can't propose a budget to congress? Did Joe propose a budget that reduced spending?

"Congress"... that is the key word. Think about it for a few seconds.. I know it hurts but try. 

[gatomontes99]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"Congress"... that is the key word. Think about it for a few seconds.. I know it hurts but try. 

If only I had acknowledged congress in my first post. Guess that was a big Oopsy on my part.

Oh wait, I did.

Oh, and look, here is Biden increasing spending again: https://ofr.harvard.edu/news/federal-update-president-biden-releases-fy24-budget-request

Oh look, here is the House talking about how Joe keeps spending he wasn't authorized to spend: https://budget.house.gov/press-release/house-budget-committee-holds-biden-administration-accountable-at-hearing-on-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2025-budget-request-with-omb-director-shalanda-young

It's almost like you are wrong.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

If only I had acknowledged congress in my first post. Guess that was a big Oopsy on my part.

Oh wait, I did.

Oh, and look, here is Biden increasing spending again: https://ofr.harvard.edu/news/federal-update-president-biden-releases-fy24-budget-request

Oh look, here is the House talking about how Joe keeps spending he wasn't authorized to spend: https://budget.house.gov/press-release/house-budget-committee-holds-biden-administration-accountable-at-hearing-on-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2025-budget-request-with-omb-director-shalanda-young

It's almost like you are wrong.

Also... I know the actual data at the most granular level and fiscal policy is not the primary variable in inflation. But I will not ruin your fantasy. Its ok, carry along. 

[CdnFox]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:52 AM, impartialobserver said:

Well.. hate to burst the bubble but at the present moment.. the President does not control inflation. Yes, the recent spike in inflation was tied to Biden's covid-era stimulus payouts. But that time has passed and now it is simple supply and demand. 

Not accurate.  Gov't spending is still very high and creates 'stimulous' that creates inflation.  If there is more money in the economy, there is going to be more demand and that is going to put strain on the supply.

It will be very hard to lower inflation (and interest rates were are basically two sides of the same coin) without reducing the amount of gov't money going into the economy. If the economy does well  on it's own it's possible to have strong economic growth without significant inflation but that is almost impossible when the economic strength comes from gov't spending as is the case  currently.

Biden is trying to walk that line where he spends enough to strongly stimulate the economy ahead of the election to give the appearance that he's a good economic manager while at the same time trying not to allow inflation and interest to skyrocket - but that's why they're having a tough time getting inflation/interest to go down as much as they'd like.

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Also... I know the actual data at the most granular level and fiscal policy is not the primary variable in inflation. But I will not ruin your fantasy. Its ok, carry along. 

You might think you know something. But if you believe that gov't spending is not a significant source of inflation, you know a hell of a lot less than you think you do.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Not accurate.  Gov't spending is still very high and creates 'stimulous' that creates inflation.  If there is more money in the economy, there is going to be more demand and that is going to put strain on the supply.

It will be very hard to lower inflation (and interest rates were are basically two sides of the same coin) without reducing the amount of gov't money going into the economy. If the economy does well  on it's own it's possible to have strong economic growth without significant inflation but that is almost impossible when the economic strength comes from gov't spending as is the case  currently.

Biden is trying to walk that line where he spends enough to strongly stimulate the economy ahead of the election to give the appearance that he's a good economic manager while at the same time trying not to allow inflation and interest to skyrocket - but that's why they're having a tough time getting inflation/interest to go down as much as they'd like.

You might think you know something. But if you believe that gov't spending is not a significant source of inflation, you know a hell of a lot less than you think you do.

If you want... go to the BEA site and get the micro data. I can tell you how to process the data. When you do so.. you find that consumer expenditures (not government) are the lead variable. Lead is not the same as only... you know this but that invalidates your schpiel. Yes, the covid era stimulus did cause high inflation. However, look at the last 40 years.. steadily increasing govt budgets but inflation that does not follow the same pattern? 

[gatomontes99]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

Also... I know the actual data at the most granular level and fiscal policy is not the primary variable in inflation. But I will not ruin your fantasy. Its ok, carry along. 

Oh, so now you are an expert? Please tell us how increasing government spending, which increases demand, makes the too much demand and too few goods ratio better.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

If you want... go to the BEA site and get the micro data. I can tell you how to process the data. When you do so.. you find that consumer expenditures (not government) are the lead variable.

You mean when people spend money.

Gov't spending is putting money in the pockets of the people. Who spend it.  I'm a little shocked i needed to explain this.

When people work in the free market they are directly creating value that fills a natural demand and there's a balance - any money they get is offset by the creation of value in one form or another, so there tends to be less inflation.

When the gov't is the source of the jobs and spending and investment - that is usually not true.  As a result - the money that the people are spending is not the product of wealth creation in a normal market method. Basically - there's suddenly more money than the wealth created. It's an imbalance. That leads to inflation.

So it is absolutely excessive gov't spending that leads to consumer spending, which leads to inflation.

That's a simplified version - i can explain in more detail if necessary. But if you read the stats and thought that because it's consumer spending that it's not a gov't spending issue....  you were grossly mistaken

 

Quote

However, look at the last 40 years.. steadily increasing govt budgets but inflation that does not follow the same pattern? 

It absolutely does.  The highest periods of inflation are also the highest periods of spending by and large.

In fact - that's WHY the gov't spends in a recession - it increases inflation and demand which drives up the economy.

My argument is 100 percent accepted by economist , cast in steel as simple truth. There is no secret or 'opinion' here - this is known fact.

Quote

Lead is not the same as only.

According to you govt spending really doesn't play a role.  So in this case - 'only' would appear to be a correct assessment of your position, or close enough that it makes no difference.

The current gov't spending is in fact the substantial cause for inflation. Increased gov't spending results in increased consumer spending.

If you have another source of inflation you feel is more then put it forward but saying "consumer spending" is the issue wihtout addressing where that spending power is coming from is akin to saying "the reason for increased hospital visits is illness".  Yeah - that's not really useful in any way,

Edited April 10 by CdnFox

[Hodad]

22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Hmm...really? So the president can't propose a budget to congress? Did Joe propose a budget that reduced spending?

Trump's stimulus was $2 trilllion. Biden's was $1.9 trillion. But the Fox news crowd will blame Biden alone for inflation. Hmm...

For the record, both Trump and Biden did the right thing embracing stimulus packages during he pandemic. That was good and necessary policy. (Unlike Trump ramping up deficit spending in his first 3 years during a healthy economy.) Biden has scaled back deficits significantly from what he inherited, but if you cut spending too quickly it crashes the economy. 

It seems very likely that they've threaded the needle on this one. The economy is recovered and stronger than it was before the pandemic and they appear to have navigated the elusive "soft landing."

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You mean when people spend money.

Gov't spending is putting money in the pockets of the people. Who spend it.  I'm a little shocked i needed to explain this.

When people work in the free market they are directly creating value that fills a natural demand and there's a balance - any money they get is offset by the creation of value in one form or another, so there tends to be less inflation.

When the gov't is the source of the jobs and spending and investment - that is usually not true.  As a result - the money that the people are spending is not the product of wealth creation in a normal market method. Basically - there's suddenly more money than the wealth created. It's an imbalance. That leads to inflation.

So it is absolutely excessive gov't spending that leads to consumer spending, which leads to inflation.

That's a simplified version - i can explain in more detail if necessary. But if you read the stats and thought that because it's consumer spending that it's not a gov't spending issue....  you were grossly mistaken

According to you govt spending really doesn't play a role.  So in this case - 'only' would appear to be a correct assessment of your position, or close enough that it makes no difference.

The current gov't spending is in fact the substantial cause for inflation. Increased gov't spending results in increased consumer spending.

If you have another source of inflation you feel is more then put it forward but saying "consumer spending" is the issue wihtout addressing where that spending power is coming from is akin to saying "the reason for increased hospital visits is illness".  Yeah - that's not really useful in any way,

It does play a role just not the lead role. its sad that I have to say this twice. Increased govt spending does lead to increased consumer spending but not on a 1 to 1 ratio as you are claiming... The data simply does not back you up.. its not up to me whether you believe it or not.