#deficit reduction

[govtshutdown]

Some insight from outside

[mostlysignssomeportents]

I guess drowning Florida is a small price to pay to make a number on a spreadsheet go down.

Ryan Cooper

[townpostin]

Jharkhand Braces for Heavy Rainfall as Low-Pressure Systems Converge

IMD Warns of Widespread Precipitation and Potential Flooding in Northeastern and Central Regions Jharkhand’s weather patterns are shifting dramatically as multiple low-pressure systems converge, prompting heightened vigilance across the state. RANCHI – The India Meteorological Department has issued alerts for widespread rainfall and potential flooding in Jharkhand due to converging low-pressure…

[elssbethtascioni]

You know what? This is time for POTUS to start honoring his ticket promises to me. I want my regular one-on-one meetings. I want more responsibilities in infrastructure and education reform. I want an expanded role in deficit reduction talks. I want a Cartier fucking dildo.

Veep (2012-2019) | 2x01 - Midterms

[simply-ivanka]

How the Biden-Harris Economy Left Most Americans Behind

A government spending boom fueled inflation that has crushed real average incomes.

By The Editorial Board -- Wall Street Journal

Kamala Harris plans to roll out her economic priorities in a speech on Friday, though leaks to the press say not to expect much different than the last four years. That’s bad news because the Biden-Harris economic record has left most Americans worse off than they were four years ago. The evidence is indisputable.

President Biden claims that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, but this isn’t close to true. The economy in January 2021 was fast recovering from the pandemic as vaccines rolled out and state lockdowns eased. GDP grew 34.8% in the third quarter of 2020, 4.2% in the fourth, and 5.2% in the first quarter of 2021. By the end of that first quarter, real GDP had returned to its pre-pandemic high. All Mr. Biden had to do was let the recovery unfold.

Instead, Democrats in March 2021 used Covid relief as a pretext to pass $1.9 trillion in new spending. This was more than double Barack Obama’s 2009 spending bonanza. State and local governments were the biggest beneficiaries, receiving $350 billion in direct aid, $122 billion for K-12 schools and $30 billion for mass transit. Insolvent union pension funds received a $86 billion rescue.

The rest was mostly transfer payments to individuals, including a five-month extension of enhanced unemployment benefits, a $3,600 fully refundable child tax credit, $1,400 stimulus payments per person, sweetened Affordable Care Act subsidies, an increased earned income tax credit including for folks who didn’t work, housing subsidies and so much more.

The handouts discouraged the unemployed from returning to work and fueled consumer spending, which was already primed to surge owing to pent-up savings from the Covid lockdowns and spending under Donald Trump. By mid-2021, Americans had $2.3 trillion in “excess savings” relative to pre-pandemic levels—equivalent to roughly 12.5% of disposable income.

So much money chasing too few goods fueled inflation, which was supercharged by the Federal Reserve’s accommodative policy. Historically low mortgage rates drove up housing prices. The White House blamed “corporate greed” for inflation that peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, even as the spending party in Washington continued.

In November 2021, Congress passed a $1 trillion bill full of green pork and more money for states. Then came the $280 billion Chips Act and Mr. Biden’s Green New Deal—aka the Inflation Reduction Act—which Goldman Sachs estimates will cost $1.2 trillion over a decade. Such heaps of government spending have distorted private investment.

While investment in new factories has grown, spending on research and development and new equipment has slowed. Overall private fixed investment has grown at roughly half the rate under Mr. Biden as it did under Mr. Trump. Manufacturing output remains lower than before the pandemic.

Magnifying market misallocations, the Administration conditioned subsidies on businesses advancing its priorities such as paying union-level wages and providing child care to workers. It also boosted food stamps, expanded eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies and waved away hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt. The result: $5.8 trillion in deficits during Mr. Biden’s first three years—about twice as much as during Donald Trump’s—and the highest inflation in four decades.

Prices have increased by nearly 20% since January 2021, compared to 7.8% during the Trump Presidency. Inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings are down 3.9% since Mr. Biden entered office, compared to an increase of 2.6% during Mr. Trump’s first three years. (Real wages increased much more in 2020, but partly owing to statistical artifacts.)

Higher interest rates are finally bringing inflation under control, which is allowing real wages to rise again. But the Federal Reserve had to raise rates higher than it otherwise would have to offset the monetary and fiscal gusher. The higher rates have pushed up mortgage costs for new home buyers.

Three years of inflation and higher interest rates are stretching American pocketbooks, especially for lower income workers. Seriously delinquent auto loans and credit cards are higher than any time since the immediate aftermath of the 2008-09 recession.

Ms. Harris boasts that the economy has added nearly 16 million jobs during the Biden Presidency—compared to about 6.4 million during Mr. Trump’s first three years. But most of these “new” jobs are backfilling losses from the pandemic lockdowns. The U.S. has fewer jobs than it was on track to add before the pandemic.

What’s more, all the Biden-Harris spending has yielded little economic bang for the taxpayer buck. Washington has borrowed more than $400,000 for every additional job added under Mr. Biden compared to Mr. Trump’s first three years. Most new jobs are concentrated in government, healthcare and social assistance—60% of new jobs in the last year.

Administrative agencies are also creating uncertainty by blitzing businesses with costly regulations—for instance, expanding overtime pay, restricting independent contractors, setting stricter emissions limits on power plants and factories, micro-managing broadband buildout and requiring CO2 emissions calculations in environmental reviews.

The economy is still expanding, but business investment has slowed. And although the affluent are doing relatively well because of buoyant asset prices, surveys show that most Americans feel financially insecure. Thus another political paradox of the Biden-Harris years: Socioeconomic disparities have increased.

Ms. Harris is promising the same economic policies with a shinier countenance. Don’t expect better results.

[txttletale]

Hi! Do you think you could link me to some resources about the problems/ evils of the EU? Would love to find some but it's hard to know what's reliable when I have no base knowledge in this area + you seem very well informed :)

sure. let's start with what the EU does to its own member states--in 2009, the EU bailed the greek government out of severe debt on the condition that they establish brutal austerity measures, cutting public spending and welfare. these measures served to immiserate and destroy the lives of thousands of greek people:

Greek mortality has worsened significantly since the beginning of the century. In 2000, the death rate per 100,000 people was 944.5. By 2016, it had risen to 1174.9, with most of the increase taking place from 2010 onwards.

[forbes]

Since the implementation of the austerity programme, Greece has reduced its ratio of health-care expenditure to GDP to one of the lowest within the EU, with 50% less public hospital funding in 2015 than in 2009. This reduction has left hospitals with a deficit in basic supplies, while consumers are challenged by transient drug shortages.

[the lancet]

The homeless population is thought to have grown by 25 per cent since 2009, now numbering 20,000 people.

[oxfam]

the most brutal treatment, however, the EU of course reserves for migrants from the global south. the EU sets strict migration quotas and uses its member states as weapons against desperate people fleeing across the mediterranean. boats are prevented from landing, migrants that do make it to land are repelled with brutal violence, and refugees are deported back to countries where their lives are in lethal danger. these policies have led to many, many deaths--and the refugees and migrants who do survive are treating fucking inhumanely.

After a perilous journey across the desert, Abdulaziz was locked up in Triq al-Sikka, a grim prison in Tripoli, Libya. Why? Because the EU pays Libyan militias millions of euros to detain anyone deemed a possible migrant to Europe [...] A leaked EU internal memorandum in 2020 acknowledged that capturing migrants was now “a profitable business model” [...] in Triq al-Sikka and other detention centres, “acts of murder, enslavement, torture, rape and other inhumane acts are committed against migrants”, observed a damning UN report.

[the guardian]

Volunteers have logged more than 27,000 deaths by drowning since 1993, often hundreds at a time when large ships capsize. These account for nearly 80% of all the entries.

[the guardian]

Refugees and asylum seekers were punched, slapped, beaten with truncheons, weapons, sticks or branches, by police or border guards who often removed their ID tags or badges, the committee said in its annual report. People on the move were subject to pushbacks, expulsion from European states, either by land or sea, without having asylum claims heard. Victims were also subject to “inhuman and degrading treatment”, such as having bullets fired close to their bodies while they lay on the ground, being pushed into rivers, sometimes with hands tied, or being forced to walk barefoot or even naked across a border.

[the guardian]

In September, Greece opened a refugee camp on the island of Samos that has been described as prison-like. The €38m (£32m) facility for 3,000 asylum seekers has military-grade fencing and CCTV to track people’s movements. Access is controlled by fingerprint, turnstiles and X-rays. A private security company and 50 uniformed officers monitor the camp. It is the first of five that Greece has planned; two more opened in November.

[the guardian]

i could go on. i could cite dozens more similarly brutal news stories about horrific mistreatment, or any of the dozens of people who have killed themselves in the custody of border police under horrific conditions. the EU is a murderous institution that does not care about the lives of refugees and migrants or about the lives of the citizens of any member state that is not pursuing a vicious enough neoliberal political program

[meandmybigmouth]

The Truth About the GOP and the Deficit: All They Do Is Raise It

They talk deficit reduction. But what they actually do—time after time after time—is raise it via corporate giveaways

[ngdrb]

What has happened to the Republican Party? Why have they abandoned all their principles and beliefs and become so extreme? 

In recent years, the Republican Party has undergone a significant transformation, veering away from its traditional principles and embracing a more extreme ideology. This shift has left many questioning the party's direction and has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle.

The Abandonment of Traditional Republican Values

Historically, the Republican Party has been known for its commitment to fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong emphasis on individual liberties. However, in recent times, the party has seemingly abandoned these core tenets in favor of a more divisive and polarizing agenda.

Fiscal Responsibility

Once a hallmark of the Republican Party, fiscal responsibility has taken a backseat to other priorities. The party's stance on deficit reduction and responsible spending has become increasingly inconsistent, with many Republicans supporting policies that contribute to growing national debt.

Limited Government

The principle of limited government, which advocates for restraining the size and scope of the federal government, has been overshadowed by an expansionist approach to executive power and centralized authority.

Individual Liberties

The party's traditional commitment to individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, has been called into question by some of the party's more extreme positions on issues like immigration and civil liberties.

The Rise of Extremism

The Republican Party's shift towards extremism can be attributed to several factors, including the growing influence of fringe groups, the polarization of political discourse, and the party's embrace of populist rhetoric.

Influence of Fringe Groups

Fringe groups with extreme ideologies have gained a stronger foothold within the Republican Party, shaping its policies and rhetoric. This influence has contributed to the party's move away from its traditional values and towards more extreme positions.

Polarization of Political Discourse

The increasingly polarized nature of political discourse in the United States has played a role in the Republican Party's shift toward extremism. As the divide between the two major parties has widened, the Republican Party has become more ideologically entrenched and less willing to compromise.

Embrace of Populist Rhetoric

The party's adoption of populist rhetoric, which often focuses on creating divisions and appealing to emotions rather than facts, has further fueled the trend toward extremism.

Conclusion

The Republican Party's transformation has left many questioning its future direction and its ability to appeal to a broad range of voters. As the party continues to grapple with internal divisions and external pressures, it remains to be seen whether it will return to its traditional values or continue down the path of extremism.

[darkeagleruins]

FAILURE: Kamala Harris makes it clear she wouldn't change a single policy that the Biden-Harris regime implemented - even the ones that threaten to bankrupt our social safety nets like Medicare.

When Biden & Harris announced a cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare recipients as part of the Inflation Reduction Act they sold the plan by claiming it would reduce the deficit by $58 billion over the next ten years. What they failed to realize was that the ONLY thing holding drug prices in check were consumers who refused to accept price increases.

Once consumers had their costs capped the drug companies were free to increase prices as much as they liked - who was going to complain, Joe or Kamala? They didn't say a word. Now the taxpayers are going to spend $20 billion more next year and more than $500 billion over the next ten years - a $58 billion savings turned into a $500 billion loss before the program even goes into effect in 2025.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

By Pandora Dewan

COVID-19 may leave some people with lasting memory problems long after their infection has cleared, new research has found, with the findings particularly pronounced among those who suffered from the earliest variants of the virus.

COVID-19 is known for its respiratory symptoms. But we are increasingly learning that SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes the infection—can affect our brains too. Brain fog, cognitive deficits, and loss of smell and taste are commonly reported symptoms of the virus and some report these neurological symptoms long after the initial infection has subsided.

Scientists aren't entirely sure why the virus causes these symptoms, although lab-based studies have shown that the virus can disrupt the protective barrier that surrounds our brains and prevents foreign substances, like viruses, from entering. Research has also shown that the virus appears to affect the ability of our brain cells to communicate with each other, producing either too much or too little of key signaling molecules in the brain.

In a new study, published in the journal eClinicalMedicine, researchers from Imperial College London, King's College London and University College London Hospital in the United Kingdom set out to investigate the persistence of these cognitive symptoms even after milder COVID-19 infections.

In the study, 18 consenting unvaccinated volunteers with no prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were intentionally infected with the virus and monitored regularly over a 360-day period. Their cognitive function was measured at different points throughout the study and compared to what it had been before they were infected. They were also compared against 16 volunteers who were not infected with the virus.

This type of study is called a human challenge study and offer valuable insights into the onset of diseases and how they develop in a controlled medical environment.

"This is the first and probably will be the only Human Challenge Study to be conducted with Wildtype SarS-CoV-2 in people who were unvaccinated and who had not previously had the virus," the study's lead author Adam Hampshire, a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at King's College London and visiting professor at Imperial College London's Department of Brain Sciences, told Newsweek.

He added: "It also is the first study to apply detailed and sensitive assessments of cognitive performance from pre to post infection under controlled conditions. In this respect, the study provides unique insights into the changes that occurred in cognitive and memory function amongst those who had mild COVID-19 illness early in the pandemic."

During the study, the volunteers who were infected showed statistically significant reductions in cognitive and memory functions compared to those who did not receive the virus. These symptoms did not emerge right away but lasted for at least a year after the initial infection. This aligns with previous research from Hampshire's lab that sampled data from over 100,000 adults.

"Our previous research has shown that cognitive effects were the most pronounced for people who were ill with early virus variants, those who had persistent symptoms and those who were hospitalized," Hampshire said.

However, in the recent study, these long-lasting cognitive impacts were even seen in those who experienced milder symptoms (although it is worth noting that this may not be the case with newer variants of the virus).

So, how does the virus cause these cognitive impairments? Well, we still don't know for sure, but Hampshire said that those who had been infected with the virus showed an increase in a protein in the brain that is often associated with a brain injury.

"Future research should examine the biological mechanisms that mediate this relationship, determine how they differ to those observed for other respiratory infections, and explore whether targeted interventions can normalize these memory and executive processes," the researchers write in their study.

References Proust, A., Queval, C. J., Harvey, R., Adams, L., Bennett, M., & Wilkinson, R. J. (2023). Differential effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants on central nervous system cells and blood-brain barrier functions. Journal of neuroinflammation, doi.org/10.1186/s12974-023-02861-3

Trender, W. et al. (2024) Changes in memory and cognition during the SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study. eClinicalMedicine, doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102842

Hampshire, A., Azor, A., Atchison, C., Trender, W., Hellyer, P. J., Giunchiglia, V., Husain, M., Cooke, G. S., Cooper, E., Lound, A., Donnelly, C. A., Chadeau-Hyam, M., Ward, H., & Elliott, P. (2024). Cognition and Memory after Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample. The New England journal of medicine. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330

[townpostin]

Budget Boosts Economic Optimism in Jharkhand: Arun Prakash

CII official lauds growth-centric fiscal plan Government’s financial roadmap garners praise for its focus on infrastructure, MSMEs, and tax reforms. JAMSHEDPUR – Local industry leader commends the latest budget for its potential to drive economic progress. The recent budget announcement has received a positive reception from Jharkhand’s business community. Arun Prakash, a key figure in the…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Lurie at Public Notice:

For months, Trump campaign operatives have said they want their candidate to “stick to his economic policies.” Trump supporters have repeated that shibboleth even more lately as their candidate continues to shed the GOP’s typically large and reliable large polling advantage on economic issues.  Trump held a 12 point polling advantage over Biden on “the economy” in 2020 and had a lead of as high as 22 percent only months ago, but his lead over Harris on the economy may now only be five or six points and is likely still shrinking.    Contrary to the received wisdom, Trump’s problem is not that he speaks too little about his economic policies — it’s that his policies would be undeniably bad for the economy and for working Americans. And the more voters learn about what Trump is planning to do, the worse it is for him. 

This intractable problem stands to become even more serious for Trump as voters learn more about Vice President Harris’s policies, which actually speak to the concerns and needs of working people and families. Trump has been a clear and constant exponent of his economic program, which can be boiled down to three proposals. First, impose massive, and hugely inflationary, tariffs on imported goods, which will hit consumers directly in the pocketbook. Second, massively cut taxes, again, for the wealthy. And, finally, the mass round up of and deportation of immigrants, including those playing crucial roles in the growing economy. Trump never hesitates to advocate this three pronged “economic policy” during his rallies, and as he did (over and over) yesterday during a two hour “speech” before the Detroit Economic Club. The problem is that — outside of the xenophobes who constitute his hardcore base and the mega-wealthy bankrolling his super PACs — Trump’s proposals hardly resonate as a prescription for making the American economy better for most Americans.

These are not new ideas, and they have already been political failures. Trump’s sole major economic legislative “success” during his presidency was passing a historically regressive tax cut bill that increased income inequality while ballooning the deficit. To the chagrin of the GOP, which was used to reaping political benefits from tax cuts, the public smelled a rat and punished Republicans at the polls in the 2018 midterms for Trump��s giveaway to the rich. For many months of the current campaign, the politically problematic nature of Trump’s economic “program” was obscured by the focus on inflation. But as inflation has receded, Republicans increasingly have had to face the question of whether an economic policy that is substantially comprised of strategies that have failed politically before can be made into a winner by the “populist” Trump ticket. While it may have escaped the notice of the mainstream press, the weakness of Trump’s economic policy proposals was on full display during the recent vice presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance. Instead of defending the actual MAGA agenda during the debate, Vance sounded more like the champion of government intervention on behalf of the disenfranchised he claimed to be before his cynical conversion to the Trump cult.

[...]

Trump wants to peddle hate, not discuss economic policy

The economic policy problem for the Trump campaign made evident by Vance’s debate performance is only becoming more obvious as we approach the final weeks of the campaign and the candidates spend more and more time in the industrial Midwest, which has been a singular focus of the Biden administration’s infrastructure and industrial development initiatives.

As Greg Sargent has detailed, Vance and Trump have been doubling down on their opposition to the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits, loans, and grants resulting from Biden/Harris initiatives, including the Inflation Reduction Act. Large portions of those funds are headed to the industrial Midwest, where thousands of new jobs are being created in clean energy manufacturing. Economic development of this sort is particularly crucial to the future of the Michigan-centered US automotive industry, which — as Trump himself acknowledges — is at risk of ceding electric automobile manufacturing (the undisputed future of the industry) to China. The Detroit News revealed that some people seen wearing “Auto Workers for Trump” shirts behind Vance at a recent Michigan rally were not autoworkers. That episode served as a reminder of when Trump — a staunch opponent of organized labor who has boasted during recent speeches about stiffing employees who worked for him — held an event at a non-union plant during the UAW strike before non-union workers holding signs reading “union members for Trump.”

The economy, which the Republicans have historically led on, has been chipped away at by the Harris/Walz ticket.

[izooks]

Great news, fellow patriots. I’ve found another thing Democratic presidential nominee "Comrade Kamala Harris" is bad at: Communism.

As you’ve probably heard from GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and other wise leaders on the right, Harris is a communist, a socialist, a Marxist and probably a bunch of other -ists meant to scare you.

So why are economists saying Comrade Kamala's economic plan is good?

Look, if Trump, Musk AND Moms for Liberty are communicating to me that the sitting vice president of the United States is a communist, I’m going to believe them, because I’ve never known those folks to lie or be hypocritical.

And so I am appalled ‒ APPALLED, I tell you ‒ that an actual, dyed-in-the-wool communist is running for president.  

But what’s even more appalling is recent revelations from economists at investment giant Goldman Sachs that a Harris victory in November would boost the U.S. economy while a Trump victory would be a “hit to growth.”

That’s right, the economists wrote: "If Democrats sweep, new spending and expanded middle-income tax credits would slightly more than offset lower investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP growth on average over 2025-2026.”

Goldman Sachs says Harris' economic plan leads to growth, Trump's plan doesn't

And if Trump beats Comrade Kamala the communist? The Goldman Sachs report said: “We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse” from continuing most corporate tax reductions.

Why are some of the biggest capitalists on the planet at Goldman Sachs telling us that a communist-dictator-in-waiting will be better for our economy?

This comes hot on the heels of a nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model report showing that Capitalist King Trump's economic plan would balloon the deficit nearly five times more than Communist Comrade Kamala's.

Why is a communist like Harris promising to help small businesses?

Just listen to what Comrade Kamala was spouting on the campaign trail Wednesday as she touted her communist economic policy aimed at helping small businesses: “We will expand the tax deduction for startups to $50,000. It's essentially a tax cut for starting a small business.

[misfitwashere]

We thank you, Joe

Tonight is for you

Robert Reich

Aug 19, 2024

Friends,

Tonight’s opening of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party and the nation to take stock of Joe Biden’s term of office and thank him for his service.

He still has five months to go as president, of course, but the baton has been passed.

Biden’s singular achievement has been to change the economic paradigm that reigned since Reagan and return to one that dominated public life between 1933 and 1980 — and is far superior to the one that has prevailed since.

Biden’s democratic capitalism is neither socialism nor “big government.” It is, rather, a return to an era when government organized the market for the greater good.

The Great Crash of 1929 followed by the Great Depression taught the nation a crucial lesson that we forgot after Reagan’s presidency: markets are human creations. The economy that collapsed in 1929 was the consequence of allowing nearly unlimited borrowing, encouraging people to gamble on Wall Street, and permitting the Street to take huge risks with other people’s money.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration reversed this. They stopped the looting of America. They also gave Americans a modicum of economic security. During World War II, they put almost every American to work.

Subsequent Democratic and Republican administrations enlarged and extended democratic capitalism. Wall Street was regulated, as were television networks, airlines, railroads, and other common carriers. CEO pay was modest. Taxes on the highest earners financed public investments in infrastructure (such as the national highway system) and higher education.

America’s postwar industrial policy spurred innovation. The Department of Defense and its Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration developed satellite communications, container ships, and the internet. The National Institutes of Health did trailblazing basic research in biochemistry, DNA, and infectious diseases.

Public spending rose during economic downturns to encourage hiring. Antitrust enforcers broke up AT&T and other monopolies. Small businesses were protected from giant chain stores. Labor unions thrived. By the 1960s, a third of all private-sector workers were unionized. Large corporations sought to be responsive to all their stakeholders.

But then America took a giant U-turn. The OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s brought double-digit inflation followed by Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s effort to “break the back” of it by raising interest rates so high that the economy fell into deep recession.

All of which prepared the ground for Reagan’s war on democratic capitalism. From 1981 onward, a new bipartisan orthodoxy emerged that markets functioned well only if the government got out of the way.

The goal of economic policy thereby shifted from the common good to economic growth, even though Americans already well-off gained most from that growth. And the means shifted from public oversight of the market to deregulation, free trade, privatization, “trickle-down” tax cuts, and deficit reduction — all of which helped the monied interests make even more money.

The economy grew for the next 40 years, but median wages stagnated, and inequalities of income and wealth surged. In sum, after Reagan’s presidency, democratic capitalism — organized to serve public purposes — all but disappeared. It was replaced by corporate capitalism, organized to serve the monied interests.

**

Joe Biden revived democratic capitalism. He learned from the Obama administration’s mistake of spending too little to pull the economy out of the Great Recession that the pandemic required substantially greater spending, which would also give working families a cushion against adversity. So he pushed for and got the giant $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

This was followed by a $550 billion initiative to rebuild the nation’s bridges, roads, public transit, broadband, water, and energy systems. He championed the biggest investment in clean energy sources in American history — expanding wind and solar power, electric vehicles, carbon capture and sequestration, and hydrogen and small nuclear reactors. He then led the largest public investment ever made in semiconductors, the building blocks of the next economy. Notably, these initiatives were targeted to companies that employ American workers.

Biden also embarked on altering the balance of power between capital and labor, as had FDR. Biden put trustbusters at the head of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. And he remade the National Labor Relations Board into a strong advocate for labor unions.

Unlike his Democratic predecessors Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Biden did not reduce all trade barriers. He targeted them to industries that were crucial to America’s future — semiconductors, electric batteries, electric vehicles. Unlike Trump, Biden did not give a huge tax cut to corporations and the wealthy.

It’s also worth noting that, in contrast with every president since Reagan, Biden did not fill his White House with former Wall Street executives. Not one of his economic advisers — not even his treasury secretary — is from the Street.

The one large blot on Biden’s record is Benjamin Netanyahu. Biden should have been tougher on him — refusing to provide him offensive weapons unless Netanyahu stopped his massacre in Gaza. Yes, I know: Hamas began the bloodbath. But that is no excuse for Netanyahu’s disproportionate response, which has made Israel a pariah and endangered its future. Nor an excuse for our complicity.

***

One more thing needs to be said in praise of Joe Biden. He did something Donald Trump could never do: He put his country over ego, ambition, and pride. He bowed out with grace and dignity. He gave us Kamala Harris.

Presidents don’t want to bow out. Both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had to be shoved out of office. Biden was not forced out. He did nothing wrong. His problem is that he was old and losing some of the capacities that dwindle with old age.

Even among people who are not president, old age inevitably triggers denial. How many elderly people do you know who accept that they can’t do the things they used to do or think they should be able to do? How many willingly give up the keys to their car? It’s not surprising he resisted.

Yet Biden cares about America and was aware of the damage a second Trump administration could do to this nation, and to the world. Biden’s patriotism won out over any denial or wounded pride or false sense of infallibility or paranoia.

For this and much else, we thank you, Joe.

[liberalsarecool]

What do work requirements for SNAP have to do with the deficit? Most recipients already work or soon will, and most of the rest are elderly or disabled. The cost to enforce it will nullify any savings.

This is a mean-spirited policy disguised as debt reduction.

[foreverlogical]

It was a time of fear and chaos four years ago.

The death count was mounting as COVID-19 spread. Financial markets were panicked. Oil prices briefly went negative. The Federal Reserve slashed its benchmark interest rates to combat the sudden recession. And the U.S. government went on a historic borrowing spree—adding trillions to the national debt—to keep families and businesses afloat.

But as Donald Trump recalled that moment at a recent rally, the former president exuded pride.

“We had the greatest economy in history,” the Republican told his Wisconsin audience. “The 30-year mortgage rate was at a record low, the lowest ever recorded ... 2.65%, that’s what your mortgage rates were.”

The question of who can best steer the U.S. economy could be a deciding factor in who wins November’s presidential election. While an April Gallup poll found that Americans were most likely to say that immigration is the country's top problem, the economy in general and inflation were also high on the list.

Trump may have an edge over President Joe Biden on key economic concerns, according to an April poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. The survey found that Americans were more likely to say that as president, Trump helped the country with job creation and cost of living. Nearly six in 10 Americans said that Biden’s presidency hurt the country on the cost of living.

But the economic numbers expose a far more complicated reality during Trump's time in the White House. His tax cuts never delivered the promised growth. His budget deficits surged and then stayed relatively high under Biden. His tariffs and trade deals never brought back all of the lost factory jobs.

And there was the pandemic, an event that caused historic job losses for which Trump accepts no responsibility as well as low inflation—for which Trump takes full credit.

If anything, the economy during Trump's presidency never lived up to his own hype.

DECENT (NOT EXCEPTIONAL) GROWTH

Trump assured the public in 2017 that the U.S. economy with his tax cuts would grow at “3%,” but he added, “I think it could go to 4, 5, and maybe even 6%, ultimately.”

If the 2020 pandemic is excluded, growth after inflation averaged 2.67% under Trump, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Include the pandemic-induced recession and that average drops to an anemic 1.45%.

By contrast, growth during the second term of then-President Barack Obama averaged 2.33%. So far under Biden, annual growth is averaging 3.4%.

MORE GOVERNMENT DEBT

Trump also assured the public that his tax cuts would pay for themselves because of stronger growth. The cuts were broad but disproportionately favored corporations and those with extreme wealth.

The tax cuts signed into law in 2017 never fulfilled Trump's promises on deficit reduction.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the deficit worsened to $779 billion in 2018. The Congressional Budget Office had forecasted a deficit of $563 billion before the tax cuts, meaning the tax cuts increased borrowing by $216 billion that first year. In 2019, the deficit rose to $984 billion, nearly $300 billion more than what the CBO had forecast.

Then the pandemic happened and with a flurry of government aid, the resulting deficit topped $3.1 trillion. That borrowing enabled the government to make direct payments to individuals and small businesses as the economy was in lockdown, often increasing bank accounts and making many feel better off even though the economy was in a recession.

Deficits have also run high under Biden, as he signed into law a third round of pandemic aid and other initiatives to address climate change, build infrastructure and invest in U.S. manufacturing. His budget deficits: $2.8 trillion (2021), $1.38 trillion (2022), and $1.7 trillion (2023).

The CBO estimated in a report issued Wednesday that the extension of parts of Trump’s tax cuts set to expire after 2025 would add another $4.6 trillion to the national debt through the year 2034.

LOW INFLATION (BUT NOT ALWAYS FOR GOOD REASONS)

Inflation was much lower under Trump, never topping an annual rate of 2.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual rate reached as high as 8% in 2022 under Biden and is currently at 3.4%.

There were three big reasons why inflation was low during Trump's presidency: the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, Federal Reserve actions, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump entered the White House with inflation already low, largely because of the slow recovery from the Great Recession, when financial markets collapsed and millions of people lost their homes to foreclosure.

The inflation rate barely averaged more than 1% during Obama's second term as the Fed struggled to push up growth. Still, the economy was expanding without overheating.

But in the first three years of Trump's presidency, inflation averaged 2.1%, roughly close to the Fed's target. Still, the Fed began to hike its own benchmark rate to keep inflation low at the central bank's own 2% target. Trump repeatedly criticized the Fed because he wanted to juice growth despite the risks of higher prices.

Then the pandemic hit.

Inflation sank and the Fed slashed rates to sustain the economy during lockdowns.

When Trump celebrates historically low mortgage rates, he's doing so because the economy was weakened by the pandemic. Similarly, gasoline prices fell below an average of $2 a gallon because no one was driving in April 2020 as the pandemic spread.

FEWER JOBS

The United States lost 2.7 million jobs during Trump's presidency, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the pandemic months are excluded, he added 6.7 million jobs.

By contrast, 15.4 million jobs were added during Biden's presidency. That's 5.1 million more jobs than what the CBO forecasted he would add before his coronavirus relief and other policies became law—a sign of how much he boosted the labor market.

Both candidates have repeatedly promised to bring back factory jobs. Between 2017 and the middle of 2019, Trump added 461,000 manufacturing jobs. But the gains began to stall and then turned into layoffs during the pandemic, with the Republican posting a loss of 178,000 jobs.

So far, the U.S. economy has added 773,000 manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency.

Campaign Action