Inflation is Through the Roof - Whats Biden Admin's First Priority? Stockholders, of course!

[cytg111]

This aged well.

Stocks rise as inflation levels slow to the lowest since early 2021

Stocks rise after inflation report, S&P 500 and Nasdaq hit fresh 13-month highs: Live updates

The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 145 points as the latest inflation report showed further signs of easing price pressures.

www.cnbc.com

The Inflation Reduction Act worked—and as usual Democrats are missing opportunities to gloat about it and remind everyone who tried to kill it.

Of course Republican reps and Senators will tout this as “their achievement”, never mind efforts to stall it, kill it, defund it, or strip things like insulin price caps and negotiated drug prices out of it.

Dems PR department needs a total rebuild with non of the old parts.

 

[cytg111]

Not sure if you are sarcastic or not. But anyway, a monthly rate of 4% being the low for 2 years, is actually not a "soft landing" but a scathing indictment of the horrible rate of inflation we have been subjected to for those 2 years. Biden can tout the low unemployment rate all he wants, but bottom line, people are still not able to cover the costs of everyday living in a lot of cases, even with a professional type job. Here is the Twin Cities, a decent 2 bedroom apt is close 2000 per month. My grandson has a college degree, a job with Hennepin county, but is living with us because he makes only about 50k per year. Even if he only got a one bedroom, that is about 1600/month, or 40% of his PRE-TAX, yes, PRE TAX, income. Buy a house and have kids, seems totally out of the question. That is why it simply doesnt resonate when Biden says how great the economy is. It is not all, or maybe even mostly Biden's fault, but it just makes him seem totally out of touch when he says how great the economy is. Of course this is the problem with the Dems these day, and partly why Trumps rhetoric inspires such devotion in his base. If you are not one of the select politically popular groups, the dems have pretty much forgotten about you, except to take you tax money and redistribute it to someone else.

There is only one solution here, more tax cuts for the rich and trickle down baby, everybody wins.

 

[HomerJS]

It was likely a combination. I heard too many people spread the BS Biden caused the inflation. Biden did help right the economy. Aka supply chains

 

[UNCjigga]

High tax rates on the uber wealthy. In 1944 the top tax rate was 94% on incomes over $400k, which is now something like $10M today

Well, yeah, that’s what we had BEFORE we got into this mess, but believe it or not, neither political party has the willpower nor the $$$ to required to lobby and win support/votes to go back there. The genie ain’t going back in.

 

[akugami]

There is only one solution here, more tax cuts for the rich and trickle down baby, everybody wins.

Yes.

And just to remind everyone, what is trickling down is a golden shower from the high rise. Not a single penny has every trickled down.

 

[Zorba]

Yes.

And just to remind everyone, what is trickling down is a golden shower from the high rise. Not a single penny has every trickled down.

I think trickle down is a huge scam, but to say no rich person has ever given a penny to lower classes after a tax break is taking it too far.

I'd agree the net pennies trickled down verses what the lower classes would've gotten under proper government is negative, though.

 

[manly]

I think trickle down is a huge scam, but to say no rich person has ever given a penny to lower classes after a tax break is taking it too far.

I'd agree the net pennies trickled down verses what the lower classes would've gotten under proper government is negative, though.

@akugami never said or implied that! "Trickle down" in the current context refers to debunked conservative economic policies that claim tax cuts commonly grow tax revenue, and create moar jobs for the masses. Obviously there are benevolent or philanthropic wealthy people, some of which believe they are being taxed too little by the U.S. government. Bill Gates, even if he stopped giving away his vast fortune as already pledged, has already done more for global health than anyone in history.

 

[akugami]

I think trickle down is a huge scam, but to say no rich person has ever given a penny to lower classes after a tax break is taking it too far.

I'd agree the net pennies trickled down verses what the lower classes would've gotten under proper government is negative, though.

I would never imply that a rich person doesn't believe in doing good for his fellows. There are plenty of altruistic wealthy men and women. But as @manly noted, trickle down economy does not work, which is what I'm critical of.

In theory, it does, but in reality, corporations and those who are wealthy are too greedy to even consider giving their workers a living wage, much less a thriving wage.

Whereas a living wage is one where the worker is paid just enough to cover the worker's basic needs, a thriving wage is one where the worker is paid enough to support a family, some hobbies, maybe a vacation now and then. And sadly, most Americans aren't even paid a living wage. Not on one person's salary at least.

 

[ondma]

You should have stopped when you were ahead, that the Inflation Reduction Act has nothing to do with inflation.

High inflation has been a drag on consumers, and even the Fed has recently said the job isn't done. There is a lot of optimism over a soft landing, which refers to taming inflation without sparking a recession. So no, the poster you replied to wasn't being sarcastic.

You've fallen for the age-old trap of blaming the President for a bunch of things he has little control over. Biden inherited a Covid-induced broken supply chain, loose central bank monetary policy that has endured over several business cycles; and then the administration did layer some loose monetary policy on top of that to support households impacted by the pandemic. Yes GDP growth isn't special and you can scoff all you want that the economy isn't "great." But the actual conditions are a lot better than during the depths of the Great Recession. Joe Biden isn't a homebuilder; he has basically zero control over the cost of housing. Nor is Joe Biden a member of the FOMC.

LMAO at thinking that the Dems have forgotten about the middle class, when it's some other political party (gee, I wonder who) that would sacrifice your left nut on the altar of trickle-down Reaganomics. Two generations of tax cuts for corporations and millionaires surely proves the devotion of Trump's base is well-founded.

I dont think you read my post carefully, or at least you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said Biden caused the inflation. I specifically stated that it was not all, or possibly not mostly, his fault.

As far as neglecting the middle class, Republicans are certainly just as bad as the Dems. Basically, it comes down to this for the middle class: The Republicans want to take your money and give it to the rich; the Dems want to take your money too, they just want to give it to those who cannot support themselves and to pay to other people to raise their children.

Qualifier: I am especially testy about this topic right now because I live in MN, and am especially angry at the irresponsible spending spree the Dems went on in this state after they got both houses of the legislature and the governorship. They blew a 17 billion surplus without giving the rebates they promised, expanded the state budget by 40% in one year, and added new taxes and fees on top if it.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm hearing from Elon the shithead turdfuckle that a recession is imminent, just like I've been hearing for over a year now to no effect.

I'm starting to have a faint smiden of a thought that some of these influential moneyed douchebags of the highest order have alterior motives.

 

[akugami]

@ondma

Walz, legislative leaders announce budget targets for 2023 session - Session Daily - Minnesota House of Representatives

www.house.mn.gov

Minnesota’s next two-year budget targets, explained - Minnesota Reformer

Using almost all of Minnesota’s surplus over the next biennium propels spending for fiscal years 2024-25 to $72 billion, with about $2.8 billion set aside for reserves.

minnesotareformer.com

Maybe you can shed more light on it, but since I do not live in Minnesota, I would not well versed in the local policies of Minnesota.

I only did a quick Google search, and it seems like the democratic party (now in charge), seems to want to spend msot of the $17 billion surplus in the next two years. Leaving about $2.8 billion in reserve. One should always save for a rainy day.

However, Minnesota Reformer website states that they are spending it for programs to aid those less able such as paid family leave, infrastructure upgrades (road, bridge, other transit), increased funding for education, increasing housing, and tax rebates for Minnesotat families.

Now, again, I'm on the outside looking in, but to me, it seems like most of the money is going to be responsibly spent, and there are tax cuts and rebates for those most in need. So maybe you can shed more light on where you think the money is irresponsbily spent.

And yes, a lot of the money will be given to those who cannot support themselves. If corporations were better partners in society, and pay people better wages, many of those people wouldn't be in this situation where they work for minimum wage and can barely afford housing. That CEO making a $10 million annual salary doesn't need a $1 million bonus while the everyday workers work 40 hours a week at minimum wage.

A lot of the money will also be earmarked for education. And investing in our future is never a bad investment. Study after study has shown that the ROI on education is a net positive.

 

[manly]

It's pretty funny to complain about Biden's view of the economy (every President arguably over-hypes his own economy), complain that housing is unaffordable for millennials such as a grandson, and complain that Dems redistribute revenue to people who don't deserve it. And then try to walk it back by saying it's not mostly Biden's fault. Again, Joe Biden is not on the FOMC and he does not raise the Fed Funds rate.

As for Minnesota, I don't know your state as well as you do but I sense a lot of falsehoods in your #BothSides rant.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/minnesota

Two sources are listed for state annual spending, let's go with NASBO which has the much larger figure for year over year growth.
FY 2022 $60B
FY 2021 $48B

That's a whopping 25% (NOT 40%), but dig into the numbers for more clarity. 2/3 of that growth ($8.3B) was from federal funds. I guess you'd prefer your state legislature had refused to accept that money, some of which was Covid spending (American Rescue Plan). And like @akugami already said, the $17B surplus didn't disappear. That surplus is forward-looking to the next two fiscal years, and it appears about $3B will be returned to taxpayers directly. So claiming irresponsible Dems won't rebate money is yet another bold lie. Without being a budget wonk, I can't say for certain what the spending trend in Minnesota's budget is but propping one's personal anger on a house built up from numerous lies is wholly unconvincing.

Gee, I wonder which party you vote for in your state-wide elections.

 

[Zorba]

I would never imply that a rich person doesn't believe in doing good for his fellows. There are plenty of altruistic wealthy men and women. But as @manly noted, trickle down economy does not work, which is what I'm critical of.

In theory, it does, but in reality, corporations and those who are wealthy are too greedy to even consider giving their workers a living wage, much less a thriving wage.

Whereas a living wage is one where the worker is paid just enough to cover the worker's basic needs, a thriving wage is one where the worker is paid enough to support a family, some hobbies, maybe a vacation now and then. And sadly, most Americans aren't even paid a living wage. Not on one person's salary at least.

Yeah, I agree with you. I just disagreed with the "not one penny" part. If you just meant not a single net penny (vs non-trickle down) I'd agree with that too.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I think @ondma is somewhat indicative of Biden"a biggest issue going into 2024: yeah technically things have started leveling out and the immediate crisis appears to be resolving, but the fundamental sense of "shit's fucked yo" is still there.

That general sense of national malaise still lingers, COVID is over but the good times don't feel like they're rolling.

A lot of this is driven by, IMO, the complete and total cultural collapse of conservatism post Trump, and the culture war rut we seem to be stuck in, but then you also have stuff like Mass Shootings etc.

Thanks to the general "mouth feel of American culture" Biden is gonna have a rough go in 2024.

 

[ivwshane]

I think @ondma is somewhat indicative of Biden"a biggest issue going into 2024: yeah technically things have started leveling out and the immediate crisis appears to be resolving, but the fundamental sense of "shit's fucked yo" is still there.

That general sense of national malaise still lingers, COVID is over but the good times don't feel like they're rolling.

A lot of this is driven by, IMO, the complete and total cultural collapse of conservatism post Trump, and the culture war rut we seem to be stuck in, but then you also have stuff like Mass Shootings etc.

Thanks to the general "mouth feel of American culture" Biden is gonna have a rough go in 2024.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The 2020 election showed us that a good deal more Americans are aware of what’s going on and will vote appropriately. Republicans haven’t done themselves any favors since then and continue to push unpopular policies. Meanwhile democrats have been plugging along making the country run again, unnoticed due to a lack of messaging.

Between the two, democrats lack of messaging and republicans unpopular policies, I’ll put my money on the democrats to come out ahead.

 

[UNCjigga]

It's pretty funny to complain about Biden's view of the economy (every President arguably over-hypes his own economy), complain that housing is unaffordable for millennials such as a grandson, and complain that Dems redistribute revenue to people who don't deserve it. And then try to walk it back by saying it's not mostly Biden's fault. Again, Joe Biden is not on the FOMC and he does not raise the Fed Funds rate.

As for Minnesota, I don't know your state as well as you do but I sense a lot of falsehoods in your #BothSides rant.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/minnesota

Two sources are listed for state annual spending, let's go with NASBO which has the much larger figure for year over year growth.
FY 2022 $60B
FY 2021 $48B

That's a whopping 25% (NOT 40%), but dig into the numbers for more clarity. 2/3 of that growth ($8.3B) was from federal funds. I guess you'd prefer your state legislature had refused to accept that money, some of which was Covid spending (American Rescue Plan). And like @akugami already said, the $17B surplus didn't disappear. That surplus is forward-looking to the next two fiscal years, and it appears about $3B will be returned to taxpayers directly. So claiming irresponsible Dems won't rebate money is yet another bold lie. Without being a budget wonk, I can't say for certain what the spending trend in Minnesota's budget is but propping one's personal anger on a house built up from numerous lies is wholly unconvincing.

Gee, I wonder which party you vote for in your state-wide elections.

Literally in the article you linked:

“The spending TARGETS [emphasis mine] would use nearly all of the state’s $17.5 budget surplus, but it would carry the unspent cash into the following biennium, which is what they call the two-year budget cycle around the Capitol.”

“ Confusingly: The $3 billion Walz and legislative leaders have set aside for tax cuts and credits counts as “spending.” Also, aid to local governments will be part of that $3 billion.”

Also,
“The majority of the budget surplus — $12.5 billion — is one-time money. It’s sort of like gambling winnings; you can buy something nice with it, but it’s not like annual income, so lawmakers can’t use it to fund ongoing programs.”

In other words, that’s why they did one-time spending on infrastructure, shoring up public schools and nursing to undo some of the damage from the pandemic.

Not sure why ondma so mad about $8 billion in tax cuts being reduced to $3.3 billion.

 

[ondma]

Literally in the article you linked:

“The spending TARGETS [emphasis mine] would use nearly all of the state’s $17.5 budget surplus, but it would carry the unspent cash into the following biennium, which is what they call the two-year budget cycle around the Capitol.”

“ Confusingly: The $3 billion Walz and legislative leaders have set aside for tax cuts and credits counts as “spending.” Also, aid to local governments will be part of that $3 billion.”

Also,
“The majority of the budget surplus — $12.5 billion — is one-time money. It’s sort of like gambling winnings; you can buy something nice with it, but it’s not like annual income, so lawmakers can’t use it to fund ongoing programs.”

In other words, that’s why they did one-time spending on infrastructure, shoring up public schools and nursing to undo some of the damage from the pandemic.

Not sure why ondma so mad about $8 billion in tax cuts being reduced to $3.3 billion.

Minn politics is probably off topic, so wish I had not gotten it started, but I feel so strongly about this that i have a hard time letting it go. I will just make one more comment, well 2 actually. First, Walz campaigned endlessly on how the Republicans were blocking the 1,000 dollar rebates he claimed Minnesotans deserved. So Walz gets elected along with both houses, and we get a measly 260.00. Well, unless you are one of the evil "rich" who make over 150k (for a couple yet), then you dont even get that. He never straight out said "if elected, I will give you a thousand dollar rebate", but it was strongly implied on multiple occasions. It was not so much the lack of a rebate, as the outright deception, bordering on a straight up lie, that makes me so angry. I guess one should expect unfulfilled campaign promises from a politician, but before this, I was actually a fan of Walz, and somehow expected better of him.


Secondly, that 3.3 billion "tax cut" the dems are touting utilizes some very creative accounting, and a lot of it is nullified by increases in fees (and a new fee for having packages delivered, wtf), an increased sales tax in the Metro Twin Cities area and indexing the gas tax to inflation. I could be wrong on this, but I believe a portion of it includes "tax credits" to low income families with children, which are not "tax cuts" but simply income redistribution.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I think trickle down is a huge scam, but to say no rich person has ever given a penny to lower classes after a tax break is taking it too far.

I'd agree the net pennies trickled down verses what the lower classes would've gotten under proper government is negative, though.

Those pennies save rich people thousands (if not millions). And often the pennies come with strings attached (literally it is the method by which rich people have effectively forced a huge portion of the global populace into what is effectively indentured servitude), or its basically them just passing the money between themselves under the guise of it being "donation" or other.

Minn politics is probably off topic, so wish I had not gotten it started, but I feel so strongly about this that i have a hard time letting it go. I will just make one more comment, well 2 actually. First, Walz campaigned endlessly on how the Republicans were blocking the 1,000 dollar rebates he claimed Minnesotans deserved. So Walz gets elected along with both houses, and we get a measly 260.00. Well, unless you are one of the evil "rich" who make over 150k (for a couple yet), then you dont even get that. He never straight out said "if elected, I will give you a thousand dollar rebate", but it was strongly implied on multiple occasions. It was not so much the lack of a rebate, as the outright deception, bordering on a straight up lie, that makes me so angry. I guess one should expect unfulfilled campaign promises from a politician, but before this, I was actually a fan of Walz, and somehow expected better of him.


Secondly, that 3.3 billion "tax cut" the dems are touting utilizes some very creative accounting, and a lot of it is nullified by increases in fees (and a new fee for having packages delivered, wtf), an increased sales tax in the Metro Twin Cities area and indexing the gas tax to inflation. I could be wrong on this, but I believe a portion of it includes "tax credits" to low income families with children, which are not "tax cuts" but simply income redistribution.

Um, just wow on that last part. Apparently refunding taxes (aka what a "tax credit" does ) isn't a tax cut despite it cutting tax burden. The fact that you see it as a redistribution of wealth tells me you're starting from a completely fucked mindset. This is a great post to highlight akugami's trickle down being piss. You're rightfully angry that you're getting pissed on, the problem is you're being gaslit about who is pissing on you. Its not the poor people.

 

[HomerJS]

Qualifier: I am especially testy about this topic right now because I live in MN, and am especially angry at the irresponsible spending spree the Dems went on in this state after they got both houses of the legislature and the governorship. They blew a 17 billion surplus without giving the rebates they promised, expanded the state budget by 40% in one year, and added new taxes and fees on top if it.

Bro, are you one of those Foxbots that is so brainwashed you can only support a position by lying? I did a quick google search on the 2023 budget vs the 2022 budget and found.

His budget would see expenditures totaling $65.2 billion

2022 budget

The Minnesota Legislature on Monday buttoned up the final pieces of a new $72 billion two-year state budget.

2023 budget

If you do the math, it's around 10% not 40%

 

[ondma]

Bro, are you one of those Foxbots that is so brainwashed you can only support a position by lying? I did a quick google search on the 2023 budget vs the 2022 budget and found.


2022 budget


2023 budget

If you do the math, it's around 10% not 40%

That 65 billion was the *proposed* budget for 2022. The *actual* 2022 budget was 52 billion. https://www.startribune.com/ramstad...ercent-reflecting-last-years-taxes/600263746/ The 2023 budget was 72 billion or a 38.5 percent increase. There was also an infrastructure bill passed separately of over 2 billion, so easily a 40% increase.

 

[Pens1566]

That 65 billion was the *proposed* budget for 2022. The *actual* 2022 budget was 52 billion. https://www.startribune.com/ramstad...ercent-reflecting-last-years-taxes/600263746/ The 2023 budget was 72 billion or a 38.5 percent increase. There was also an infrastructure bill passed separately of over 2 billion, so easily a 40% increase.

Then what are the #s for '23, proposed or actual?

 

[fskimospy]

Minn politics is probably off topic, so wish I had not gotten it started, but I feel so strongly about this that i have a hard time letting it go. I will just make one more comment, well 2 actually. First, Walz campaigned endlessly on how the Republicans were blocking the 1,000 dollar rebates he claimed Minnesotans deserved. So Walz gets elected along with both houses, and we get a measly 260.00. Well, unless you are one of the evil "rich" who make over 150k (for a couple yet), then you dont even get that. He never straight out said "if elected, I will give you a thousand dollar rebate", but it was strongly implied on multiple occasions. It was not so much the lack of a rebate, as the outright deception, bordering on a straight up lie, that makes me so angry. I guess one should expect unfulfilled campaign promises from a politician, but before this, I was actually a fan of Walz, and somehow expected better of him.


Secondly, that 3.3 billion "tax cut" the dems are touting utilizes some very creative accounting, and a lot of it is nullified by increases in fees (and a new fee for having packages delivered, wtf), an increased sales tax in the Metro Twin Cities area and indexing the gas tax to inflation. I could be wrong on this, but I believe a portion of it includes "tax credits" to low income families with children, which are not "tax cuts" but simply income redistribution.

So to be clear if you're counting one time spending as that '40% budget increase' (which is already using dubious accounting) then presumably you will celebrate the same Democrats for a massive budget cut when that one time spending is done, right?

This is why businesses separate their operating budget from their capital expenditure budget. Capital expenditures can vary wildly from year to year as some years you need a new factory and others you don't, and once you're done building a new factory the amount of money you spend on maintaining it is way less than what it cost to build. It just seems extremely misleading to not note that is the primary source of the increase in spending is one time expenses.

 

[manly]

Then what are the #s for '23, proposed or actual?

The legislature passed it in March, so I believe this "framework" will become the actual budget at some point. But ondma plays loose and fast with his figures. The source he provided, the StarTribune article, even says it's a 38% increase over 2 years. It's a big jump, but not 40% YoY.

It's a pretty good article. With the projected $17B surplus, they probably should direct more money into the rainy day fund (I have witnessed many boom/bust cycles in California's budgeting). Reasonable people can disagree on specific spending levels, but to make up false claims and inject personal disdain of poor people on the public dole is pretty pathetic.

Remember folks, "income redistribution" to the poors is bad, but to millionaires and billionaires is wonderful.

 

[ondma]

The legislature passed it in March, so I believe this "framework" will become the actual budget at some point. But ondma plays loose and fast with his figures. The source he provided, the StarTribune article, even says it's a 38% increase over 2 years. It's a big jump, but not 40% YoY.

It's a pretty good article. With the projected $17B surplus, they probably should direct more money into the rainy day fund (I have witnessed many boom/bust cycles in California's budgeting). Reasonable people can disagree on specific spending levels, but to make up false claims and inject personal disdain of poor people on the public dole is pretty pathetic.

Remember folks, "income redistribution" to the poors is bad, but to millionaires and billionaires is wonderful.

Check your math.The 52 billion was for 2 years also. Obviously, it couldnt have been for one year, or the new budget for 72 billion for 2 years would have been a huge decrease. It doesnt matter if it is for 2 years though, It is still a 40% increase in the budget. Just because it is for 2 years, doesnt mean it is only 20% per year. (52 billion for 2 years is 26 per year. 72 billion for 2 years is 36 per year.26/36 = still nearly 40% per year, for 2 years.)

 

[manly]

Sure, let's check my math using the lede from the StarTribune article.

Gov. Tim Walz and the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate plan to raise the state's 2024-25 budget by more than 30% over the $52 billion of 2022-23.

Presumably, Minnesota has a state budget for the (current) FY 2023-2024 but I don't know what the headline number for that is. But there IS a 2 year period to the 38% increase. Note this isn't strictly about the biennial duration of the budget itself, but comparing annual spending levels.

Let's index to 2022 ($52B = 100) to see what I mean.
2022 - 100
2023 - 109
2024 - 138

So the increase from 2023 to 2024 is about 27%. You absolutely cannot represent that as a 40% YoY increase by ignoring the 2 years that it increases over. As a contrived example, let's say spending doubles over a decade. That's approx. a 7% annualized increase; you cannot say that spending doubled without telling the reader that it doubled over 10 years.

And if you back out the $3B in net tax cuts, then the growth is about 32% ($52B -> $69B).

Finally, also note that this is really just common sense. You have approx. a $18B budget surplus that is mostly one-time dollars. You choose to spend that largesse over two years. You cannot spend the full $18B in year one, and then again spend the full $18B in year two.

If you're wondering where I got the FY2023 figure from, it's from MN itself:

https://mn.gov/mmb-stat/documents/budget/operating-budget/forecast/feb-2023/feb23-historical-expenditures.pdf