bro, all these new breakthroughs AI has been achieving is crazy to keep up with.

I have to wonder....what happens if we find ourselves in a situation where AI primarily keeps our economy from crashing in the future?

and even deeper than that...AI would - in theory - be able to solve for future jobs lost due to technology, meaning that even with less direct human input/productivity, it didn't necessarily impact us financially, but at a social level where we have to redefine what human productivity means.

The people who embrace the tech and learn to use the new AI tools will lead the workforce, those who fight it will be left behind.

In the next few to several months, fully autonomous servant and worker robots will hit the free market. They will be affordable and make braindead human labor a thing of the past. Robots are going to be the essential workforce of tomorrow. Humans will have to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and learn to think creatively and critically. They will have to adopt the new tech tools and innovate new income streams. It will not help the willfully uneducated, their time is almost over.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/inflation-still-hotter-than-hoped-5800329/

Inflation still hotter than hoped
Share
By Cate Chapman, Editor at LinkedIn News
Updated 42 minutes ago


A key gauge of inflation rose more than expected for a second month in February, as gasoline prices and shelter costs increased. The overall Consumer Price Index ticked up 0.4%, from 0.3% in January. From a year earlier, the measure rose 3.2%, faster than 3.1% in January. While Tuesday's report shows a quickening in the pace of consumer-price growth, the index is still down from its post-pandemic peak of 9.1% in 2022. But with the Federal Reserve targeting an annual inflation rate of 2%, the report further undermines hopes it will cut rates anytime soon.

The Fed next sets rates on March 20, when it will also share fresh projections on the trajectory of borrowing costs this year.
Most interest-rate futures traders now expect the central bank to begin lowering rates from their 23-year high in June.
Small-business optimism fell to a nine-month low in February, according to a National Federation of Independent Business index, with fewer entrepreneurs saying they plan to expand, raise wages or hire.

"In short:
-Both the headline and core CPI were up 0.4% last month.
-The headline is up 3.2% from a year ago, marking an uptick from January's 3.1%. At the peak in 2022, that rate was UP 9.1%.
-The core rate is up 3.8% from a year ago, down from January's 3.9%. The peak was UP 6.6% in 2022.

Key contributors to the monthly increase were gasoline and shelter. Food prices were unchanged for the month.

Compared to February 2020, the CPI is up a huge 20% (see chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). Translated, that suggests consumers lost about one-fifth of their buying power.

Wages are now growing faster than inflation. That's a function of a job market that is moderating but has kept the unemployment rate below 4% for 25 straight months. That's the longest stretch since the late 1960s.

The Federal Reserve has said that it won't move rates at the March meeting. In congressional testimony last week, Chairman Jerome Powell suggested rate cuts aren't far away. "We’re waiting to become more confident that inflation is moving sustainably at 2%. When we do get that confidence, and we’re not far from it, it’ll be appropriate to begin to dial back the level of restriction," he told lawmakers.

Even so, a hotter-than-expected February inflation reading did less than set the table for the rate cuts still expected later this year.
Ac"

I'm stupid when it comes to economics, but I'd be very curious to see what the household debt ratio is and how it compares from pre-COVID to today. Could be one of those time bombs lurking.

it is.

also, they don't want to stop inflation. they just want to kinda slow it down.
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/03...heres-why-deflation-is-not-a-good-thing/

We will all be killed by Skynet when it becomes self aware.

So still after all this time, no recession. Thanks.

And when it doesn’t eventually happen, they’ll go “see!! See!! I tried to tell y’all”

Yea, then the economy rebounds and we all go back to business as usual.

They'll only do that if a Democrat is president. If it happens when a Republican is president they'll blame it on the Democrat who was the previous president.

It has been frustrating to see certain issues out there like the economy or the border, where the R's are actively wanting something to fail. It's a sign of a party bereft of actual platforms, where the focus is on how bad a current situation is, or how bad they at least want it to be, because they have nothing to actually campaign on. The House R's have gotten so dysfunctional that people like Buck are like "You know what, forget it, I'm out." The whole Speaker situation is a debacle. It's just bad across the board.

Going back to the political ads, you watch an ad for a guy like Sherrod Brown, and sure it's fluff, but it at least has stuff in there like burn pit legislation and accomplishments he's done or platforms he's advocated for. Meanwhile, his prospective competitors are arguing over who is more affiliated with Trump and which among them is too liberal, like Biden. I'm not using hyperbole, either.

It's bad, man...

We do have moderate liberals parroting GOPers feelings on how bad a job Biden is doing, but can’t point to anything specific but age isn’t helping the cause.

Neither candidate is the best either party could offer up. That's not good for anyone.

What's really funny is this, Trump keeps saying that the reason the economy is so good is because it's still running on his admins efforts.

So make up your damn mind, it's bad or it's good because Trump did it.

The stock market is good because Trump gave companies a tax break.
The economy is bad because cummulative inflation during Biden era is very high.

I'm trying to make sense out of this. I won't argue about the tax breaks during the Trump administration because the stocks did, in fact, go higher after that. There's a whole lot to be said about the debt/deficit on that front, but neither party has a great track record there since Reagan, honestly. All that being said, stocks did go up, for sure.

However, when I look at the Dow Jones falling down to $28,725 in September 2022, and then setting a new record high now at $39K+, are you saying that, too, is from the Trump tax cuts?

On the second point, you do mention "during" the Biden administration, which is correct. It did happen during his administration, but are you laying the blame at his feet on the inflation? From what I have seen, the artificially low rates during the previous two administrations probably built up a powder keg that was waiting to explode. Sure, the COVID handouts didn't help, but I think that was also an overlapping gaffe for both admins, both of whom are running against each other now.

Also add in the supply/demand pricing related to the supply chain issues and that surely didn't help. It seems like corporations nowadays don't seem too keen on lowering pricing now that supply chain issues have largely been resolved. Their profits are record-setting. Seems the gouge has set in and nobody has intervened yet.

This. All the other hemming and hawwing you did is irrelevant.

If trump won in 2020, we’d be so deep in a recession right now..probably full fledged economic depression. Biden made sure that didn’t happen.

So? Putting down the sitting president for no other reason than being old and a speech impediment is immature and stupid.

Oh, I’m sure there is another problem coming down the pike… there always is. And there is a Trumpian cult factor killing our country from within our own government. 4 years ago today was when covid-19 became a national emergency under Trump. Oh how GOPers long for lockdowns and stemies to MAGA.

You know, back when some starved while others got checks in the mail signed by Trump. Such a booming economy. Even before covid, Trump’s economy was all bloviation, not fact. But like a placebo cure, GOPers are making a mad dash to put Trump back in charge after he blew threw and added 8 trillion to the national debt in 4 years… because he’s good for the economy? It must be GOPer math.

lol, as always, I truly appreciate your well thought out position and display of intelligence.

If the fed dropped rates to the pre covid levels that Trump enjoyed, GOPers would see the Biden Boom. It’s coming either way. Even Bernie warning about the age of AI and automation that is here. All jobs will change drastically over the next 5 to 10 years.

AI has definitely taken a huge leap forward as of late. A lot of brilliant minds have been warning about AI, including creators of AI. Time to brace ourselves.

That’s why I’m watching every innovation and advance I can see. AI is going to be heavily used to automate our current ‘manual labor’ jobs away. Robots will work 24/7 for zero pay and minimum downtime, costs, or other employee related health concerns. And right now, I think those robots will be mass produced by the end of 2025 or early 2026. This year expect to see AI woven into almost all modern research, tech, healthcare, and all other major business industries in the US. When AGI and ASI are achieved, the AI/automation explosion will be on its heels.

I’ve been learning as much as I can while learning to develop apps with AI models. But I have hit a roadblock… it’s advancing so fast, the training is outdated by the time I get it. I mean I can do all sorts of things with AI now, but these bigger companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and Meta are using the open-source community to power their innovations then they take the tech or use case and build it into their offerings, because the work was open source… meanwhile they also have armies of developers and AI machine learning specialists on payroll innovating the next big thing. And it has become sort of a race for AGI/ASI and control of the worlds economies if not governments… It’s so much power that a single corp with the only ASI would control the world’s economies, no questions asked.

This is why it’s vital that AGI be open-sourced. We can’t have that concentration of power being controled by a few elites. I mean what could go wrong with a guy like Elon having the ONLY AGI or ASI on the planet? I used Elon because he is full on for open sourcing AGI, but most of the others want to control AGI/ASI and profit off of it without releasing the source code/weights/training data/matrix info or anything that would keep them from profiting off the best models. All of these companies are open-sourcing their lessor modals to get the community working on fixes, fine tunings, and applications… then as soon as a startup gets something hot, they steal it.

All of that, and people are still going hard to compete with them in their own sandbox. I decided to look at the things they wouldn’t be tempted to steal for my apps, because I’ve seen hundreds if not thousands by now build apps and new methods for AI case uses, just to be killed off or bought out by the bigger companies. And sure, I’d love a Microsoft buyout of my apps! But that is only happening a small percentage of the time. Most of the time, the work is unprotected and the big boys replicate or steal it.

But those companies aren’t all bad, not at all. OpenAI, imho, has already made AGI and is sitting on it, because the world (specifically governments and economies) are not ready for the changes or pace of changes. Likely, if poorly planned and released, there would be billions “with a B” of jobs (household incomes) wiped out within months worldwide. Claude 3, Anthropic’s Mistral Large, Chat GPT4, and a few other closed source modals are the industry leaders today, but we’ve seen their earlier versions all out performed by othersd in little to no time. OpenAI is actively trying to raise 7 trillion dollars for INFRASTRUCTURE. Some believe that is to get to AGI, while others believe it is to serve AGI/ASI because they have figured out the formula at large scale.

Then you have teams improving the infrastructure components and that has gone nuts. Invidia is hands down the leader in that area. Yet small startups are killing it. One company has figured out better ways to store data on DVD tech disc that will allow them to hold petabytes of info. New processor chips built to make AI inference 100 to 1000 times faster. Inference being the costly part of AI ‘thinking and performing’, making that faster will bring down the cost of providing to the world. And the big players are throwing billions and billions at this kind of tech. There is also a huge need to energy to be used by AI, so that infrastructure is being worked on too. The big players and governments are going to have to figure that out, unless the AI community gets those costs down with new innovations.

But like you said, this is all moving at breakneck s[peed now and WILL BE REALITY very shortly. And the average Joe has no idea or plan at all for this if someone doesn’t step up and figure it out for them, 75% of people holding jobs in modern countries will likely be unemployed and unemployable before 2030. Think about that and let it sink in.

To me it’s almost like the perfect storm. AI can change humankind for the better or for the worse, either way it coming is now inevitable, even if we ban AI, our adversaries will embrace it. And whoever controls the access to the AGI/ASI models will pretty much control the world/country/area it serves. But if we can get to that point without wiping ourselves out and somehow keep access to the tech affordable or free, we can drastically change the world for the benefit of all mankind. We are talking about new science, new materials, new fuels, new tech innovations galore at that point. And everybody running their own enterprises using AI, creating their own jobs and opportunities, in a very competitive world. This is why we are wholly unprepared. Less than 25% of the population of the world has the skillsets needed for the future. That in demand skillset will include the ability to learn, the ability to teach, AI powered business management and operations, AI powered services, automation services, and the ability to innovate at breakneck speed.

This is where my focus has been lately. Huge problem looking for one or many fixes. AI, not unlike the internet in the early 2000s, is the new wild west. It’s wide open and plum full of opportunities for those who know how top recognize them. And the exciting part from that point of view is, that everything I’ve said here and much more is already inevitable and will happen shortly unless some kind of tragic event that impacts all of humanity prevents it, like an extinction level event. So. IMO, this is the future, and it will look drastically different than anything we’ve seen before.

AI advancements started 20 years ago. people are now just hearing about it. most of the things that people are calling "Ai" is conditional logic, some ML, algos,or automation which have been in use for 20 years in commerce.

Many people are starting to believe that the use of computers and everyone creating Ai is going to environmentally change our planet faster than the Industrial Revolution.

Deflation is devastating.

We see it from time to time in real estate. You buy in the bubble, it bursts and prices fall a great deal. Deflation isn't like the price of hamburger meat dropping 7cents a pound.

Think back to the last century. In the 20's everybody was high on the hog, sipping champagne and eating rainbow stew. Then boom, in 29 through the 30's people were lined up at the soup kitchen.

Funny how we are in the mid 20's again.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. "So" does not address the fact that we have two very flawed candidates. I'm certainly on the side that thinks Biden is the lesser of the two evils and to me it's not even close. But that too has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Another doom and gloomer?

We need to re-think our agro-economy. Our food systems are a mess. I think many of our societal problems stem from there.

Agglomeration of food production increased "efficiency," but at what cost. It appears to have been at the expense of quality and introduced many detrimental environmental effects in the locations of agricultural intensification. Add in the pollution from transporting perishable goods and it's not ideal. Transportation also often entails the introduction of additives and preservatives. Unfortunately, food is supposed to break down. I believe food not breaking down as intended is a source of many modern health problems.

Went to the local produce market and they were selling blueberries from Chile. Does that really make sense? 99 cents a pint for something that was transported from South America. How does that work? A gallon of gas costs over 3 bucks. Air travel would likely be more expensive. By ship would make me question the idea of their being "fresh."

I also think the fact that many individuals have no idea how to grow their own food now has consequences. Being reliant on others for basic sustenance makes one inherently vulnerable/exploitable. It greatly limits self-determination. To me, it would make sense that an inability to provide one's own food would lead to greater group identification and a diminishing of the self. This dependence on others for something so vital leads to a desire for control that gets expressed in all sorts of negative ways.

It also made for huge food conglomerates to where very few corporations control the food supply. Which IMO goes totally against competition in the market and makes the vulnerability of our food supply left in the hands of very few.

Sadly, that's become the story in a lot of sectors with the insane amount of mergers and acquisitions we've had since the 80's. Defense, airlines, telecommunications, beer even...you name it.

It's almost always pitched that it'll make things better, and I feel like it's largely the opposite.

...kind of like government.... Lots of grasp exceeding reach. Most things are actually best managed when you can actually see them.

NOT TRUE. I’ve known about ML and AI for at least a decade, but probably since it became a thing. Not that I participated or had in depth knowledge, but I read about the various advancements for years. But if we’re talking normal Joe’s (non-tech-geeks), I agree 100%, people have no real idea what AI/ML is or what it can do, what is hard coded, what is algos, what is logic ops, etc, They can use computers/mobile devices for social media, weather, driving apps, messaging, etc. but have no idea how to use AI, or what is coming down the pike.

And I saw the energy issues with current AI, it’s massive. But I think they will get that down with AI centric hardware advancements. We’ll see.

As with many new technologies, there are often times many great uses for them. They can be a wonderful tool to use. Sadly along with that comes those who will use that technology for nefarious reasons. AI is the type of technology that throws the door wide open for both. That's where we need to be careful. And for anyone to claim that there haven't been major advances in AI over the past 20 years which makes this much more of a possibility are not being honest with themselves.

Please note this post isn't targeted specifically at you but more of a general comment overall.

You’re right about bad actors, but the bad actors, specifically China, Russia, NK, etc. And they will go non stop to be the first to achieve ASI, because they know we will too. If we don’t make it a reality here, somebody else will. That race is on and due to recent advances, it is super heated.

And they are already training AIs to detect and prevent bad actors from hacking us. I’m sure that will be an issue in national security, and they will have to be prepared. Hopefully, somebody that actually knows what’s going on is involved in the governments AI attack prevention preparedness, and it’s not a decision left to the likes of MGT or Boebert… because their know nothing conspiracy theory asses are as dunb as the day is long. Imagine congress banning or limiting what we can do with AI, while our adversaries are working all-in on AGI/ASI.

I don't specify the geographic locations of bad actors in this sector. We have plenty of our own.

I get you.

And now some comical proof of what I was saying.



The pace is crazy, this tech is on our doorsteps.

No, I think pragmatic.

Elevated inflation. Overvalued stock market and real estate prices. Deepening consumer debt. Deepening unrest around the globe leading to political unrest.

All added up doesn't paint a pretty picture. I am not predicting a Black Swan event, but the primers for such an event are all there.

I agree. I also don't lump them in to any specific political party.

There are what many would describe as bad actors on both sides. What people often do is try to dignify their actions as being the same or similar. Evidence suggests that's simply not true.

please re-read the first 3 sentences of what I wrote.

"Taking money" for votes happens on both sides of the aisle.

The bad actors I worry about are the ones "buying" the votes more than the ones making them.

People often try to quibble and say one side is worse, but they're both corrupted and awful. Both sides have shown they're willing to change their minds if you give them enough... "reasons."

Yes, there are awful examples of people on the right at the moment. Unfortunately, when it comes to the actual job performance (bills/voting,) evidence (correlation b/w voting and "political contributions") suggests the actions are similar.

My comment concerns the things they perpetuate and some of the obvious things it seems as though you too recognize.


As far as there being a party that is clean verses a party that is dirty I agree with you. The entire way that super pacs work and how money influences both parties stinks to high heaven. Neither party has clean hands and neither party governs effectively.

That taking money for votes thing is so true. No question. But you've never seen any president, EVER, try to overthrow a legit vote like Trump did. NEVER!

You've NEVER seen a President and Many in congress try to use blackmail tactics like the republicans have. Hell you don't see decent republicans doing that.

You don't see any Dems trying to support Russia in any way, But look at the Reps., Gees, it's like they want us to become Commies.

So while you see some similar things, the Dems just haven't reached the lowest of lows like the Reps have,

I do get what you are saying. At the same time, I think there is something to the idea that Republicans are just saying out loud what the Dems have kept on the down low. Kind of like tampering in the NFL. Everyone's been doing it, the Republicans are just dumb enough to get caught. Or they think those voting for them don't care any more (or worse prefer it.)

I also wonder if the current political climate had been present during the Bush-Gore election if the Democrats wouldn't have been more confrontational. Or if Biden had been said to have lost, I'm not sure the left wouldn't have had its own explosive demonstration(s.) I think the "overthrowing a legit vote" was, at least in part, a product of the overall climate. Our culture (particularly politically) is in a rather combative place.

Trump definitely was a factor in our increasingly combative political arena. I also think his emergence as a political candidate in the first place was a product of that polarization/combativeness already somewhat existing.

Which is worse, the wolf that gets caught leaving a bloody mess behind with its first sheep taken, or the wolf in sheep's clothing that hides their predation for decades? Meh, they're all more leeches than wolves. Unfortunately, they're the suck you dry instead of the suck out the poison variety. Let's just call them pseudo-political financial vampires. Trump just wasn't properly trained not to break the masquerade.

I kinda see what your saying there. No question that Trump made it "OKAY" to be a bigot, racist, Nazi, Commie etc. Some of those that think that way have done so for years. But Trump made it OK.


What I'm saying however is that since Trump made it ok, why haven't a bunch of Dems taken up the MAGA torch? Trump converted those that already thought that way into loudmouths.

And as always, some are doing it to get and maintain power.

Daman....seriously, China is the enemy. Don't close your eyes to that.

The Republicans are the Sabbat, and the Democrats are the Camarilla. lol. You probably have no idea what I'm going on about. (VtM Link) Basically, the Camarilla are the vampires that hide what they are from humanity and follow strict rules to survive. The Sabbat are the vampires that don't particularly care if humanity knows about them because they figure they can scare/buy/eliminate them. Both see humanity as prey to feed on. Both have their thralls. Both sides are power hungry.

I'm actually kind of surprised it took me this long to think of this comparison and realize how well it works. Smh.

China is indeed the enemy.. No doubt, So is Russia, And S. Korea. And any country that is anti democratic.,

Those are the outside enemies.

But we are talking about the enemy within. That's Trump and his MAGA ass hats

LOL Kinda went about the bend on that one Bull

Some people need to understand that you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Of course China is our enemy. But China isn't knocking on the door of our NATO allies. This is another Hitler invades Poland moment. And t appears we have those in our government that thinks we should just sit back and watch.... again. People with that mind set have learned nothing.

If we get tunnel vision on China while ignoring Russia, we will have made a critical mistake. "will have made a critical mistake" may be using the wrong phrase. It should have been "we are currently making a critical mistake."

LOL, yeah. Still it's kind of "scary" how well it fits. Yes, the Republicans have the psychotic, deranged "vampires" that are clearly dangerous. Unfortunately, the Democrats are still "vampires," too, even if discreet.

...come to think of it, I never have seen a politician's reflection in a mirror.... LOL.

I don't disagree that we are making a mistake. I'm guessing we're not looking at the same one, though.

We're not ignoring Russia. We are however inefficiently using resources, and some people want to waste even more. We clearly need to do something. However, what we have done is primarily flush lives, equipment, and money down the toilet with little to no progress to show for it.

Even if Ukraine does push back Russia now, their population and infrastructure are in shambles. Continuing as things have been are only going to worsen those issues.

We need a better solution than sending war material.

South Korea is our enemy? This is news to me.

Thats funny coming from the person that only wants to talk about Trump.

You can't stop a Russian invasion Of Ukraine without "war materials". Worsening things would be making no attempt to stop the Russian war machine from sitting on the doorstep of our NATO allies. If you can't see how similar this is to the Nazi invasion of Poland I think there's a disconnect somewhere. Helping Ukraine to weaken the Russian war machine is not a waste of lives, equipment, and money. Ukranians have decided they are going to fight Russia to the death either way. Helping them defend their country with a defense system and weapons only lessens those deaths, not increase them. If you want to see a waste of money you may get to see that. If we sit back and allow Russia on the doorstep of our allies the spending will really ramp up. Unless of course we don't see that as serious enough to spend money on either.

Some people learned nothing from WW2. Backing away from Ukraine only helps embolden Putin. All we are teaching the word at this point in time is that we are not a dependable ally and we have no credibility. That makes us weaker and our enemies stronger. Don't think China and N. Korea aren't sitting back taking notes. And the message we are sending them is that the U.S. will be weak to stand against them if the situation calls for it.

It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention.

If you want to argue that we should send our troops, I could see positives (though definite risks.) Sending equipment to worn down, out numbered Ukrainians is like sending loose sand in front of a tsunami without the bags to put it in.

The damage it is doing to the Russian military is a positive. Despite your indications to the contrary, Ukraine was putting up an admirable defense when it had the weapons it needed. Now that it is running short on weaponry and ammunition the contrast us stark. Abandoning an ally you said you would support sends a strong message to all of your enemies. And not a good one.

We aren’t sending troops until Putin hits a NATO country. And why is it with you that everything is a lost cause and supporting it is throwing money away? From public schools, to supporting Ukraine. Pffft Debbie downers. It’s going to cost a lot more than American lives if we don’t support Ukraine. Congress already has blood on their hands by not sending support.

WHoops, My Bad.. NORTH Korea... But you knew that. You just wanted to bush by nuts,. Right?

There seems to be the vocal majority of one party ready and willing to ignore Russia.

Is Ukraine in shambles, yes they are! Who caused that? Russia! What we need to do is help them now with whatever they need to defeat Russia, then help them rebuild. Then we need to sponsor them in an effort to join NATO. That would offer up an giant Middle Finger to Putin... That's how you put an end to this kinda crap once and for all.

I agree with you. I just think the "whatever they need" part is different than what we've been giving them.

Then what is it you think they need to defend themselves against an invading force that we aren't giving them? Because the myth that we are giving them money rather than arms has been debunked.

People trained to use them. The possibility of resting the troops that they do have.

Or figure out another method of ending the war other than "in the field."

They already have people that train them to use them. The only way to rest the troops they have is to provide them with troops to take their place. Something Ukraine has not requested from us or from anyone else for that matter. Providing them with the necessary arms to defend themselves and humanitarian aid is all they have requested. And as of now Republicans in the House are blocking a vote on that. They don't want and haven't asked for anyone to fight their war for them. I don't think we have the right to interfere in their own plans for fighting a war other than to help give them the ability to fight it.

Unfortunately, giving someone the ability to fight a war doesn't automatically give them the ability to win a war.


link

So you should only defend nations you know will win? It seems even your own link describes others from outside the country helping defend Ukraine. We used to be a nation that did the right thing in terms of defending democracy and not use gambling odds as to who will win and who will lose in our decision making. Now it seems as though you condone only backing democracies if we're sure they will win.

No, but if you want them to win you should give them everything they need instead of just enough to get them killed more slowly. Unfortunately, they need people as much or more than material.

They haven't asked for "people" to fight their war form them.

We all have opinions on that.

I think China is trying to undermine us. They aren't doing this out in the open. They lurk in the underbrush.

https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/03/1...sands-evictions-continue/?outputType=amp

30,000 households evicted in Vegas because they cant afford their rent. More evictions coming.

https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/americans-debt-gets-even-heavier-5822705/

Americans' debt gets even heavier
Share
By Rob Sacks, Editor at LinkedIn News
Updated 5 hours ago


The rising cost of carrying debt is becoming a heavier burden for many Americans. Delinquency rates on credit cards and auto loans top pre-pandemic levels, per the New York Federal Reserve. And, for the first time, interest on non-mortgage debt — including those car loans and credit card balances — are as big a burden as mortgage interest payments, Bloomberg reports. Those high borrowing costs could explain a slump in consumer sentiment, even as research suggests inflation is coming down and hiring remains strong.


*According to Debt.org, Americans owe $986 billion on credit cards, surpassing the prepandemic high of $927 billion.

Based on what?

They have, and we (NATO) said, "No." Zelensky requested the UN (that NATO?) to declare Ukraine a no fly zone and NATO didn't want to risk broadening the war because such a declaration would require committing troops to enforce it.

The Ukrainian military is allegedly looking for another 500,000 soldiers. BBC Link

Drafting half a million civilians isn't going to magically turn them into soldiers. At best, a bunch of clueless kids/"young adults" are gonna end up dead.

You aren't instantly an effective fighting force because you handed out a bunch of uniforms and send people through some hasty theoretical training.

Corporate espionage, spy ballons, covid leaks, Tick Tok, just little things like that.

How does that change the fact that Russia too is our enemy and if they defeat Ukraine will be sitting on the border of our NATO allies? Nobody has tried to argue the point that China too is our enemy.

Asking that NATO declare it a no fly zone isn't asking "us or NATO for more people".


Once again you are trying to conflate Zelensky getting troops from his own people to asking us or NATO for troops.

And need I remind you, our own country takes 18 year olds and after boot camp considers them to be soldiers too. Would you describe that as "a bunch of clueless kids/'young adults'"? And if not, why not?

Zelensky is not asking for foreign troops from NATO countries to fight this war for them.

I don't think you understand how No Fly Zones work. Link

A lot of NATO aircraft and support personnel patrol them.

I think you are the one conflating things. I didn't say the second part was Zelensky asking us for troops. It was illustrating the need for troops.

I'm not sure you understand what a big number of troops that is. The US military gets about 100,000 "troops" through boot camps in a year. We spend a ridiculous amount on the infrastructure that allows us to do so. If Ukraine could ready troops at the rate that we do, it would take them 5 years to produce the number they want.

I'm also not sure you understand how long it takes to get green troops up to speed. Most don't just go through "boot camp." There are all kinds of additional training. Even after all the training, actual combat is a different animal.

Yes, 18 year olds straight from boot camp I'd still consider kids. I assume most people that served for any amount of time would. Don't get me wrong, they grow up quick in combat. That or they don't grow up at all. Dumping 500,000 fresh boots into combat is a recipe for disaster.

Frankly, I don't think Zelensky knows what the heck he is doing. It's almost like the country is being run by a comedian and a guy that once played a fictional president on TV.

Same for Putin.

China is our enemy

Russia is our enemy

Yet as long as he has had military equipment to fight with, this comedian has put the right people in charge to defend Ukraine quite well for two years now against a super power.

And BTW- you are using peace time numbers in regards to the U.S. training and sending troops into war zones. 2,709,918 troops served in Vietnam. From 1964 to 1965 troop levels increased from 23,300 to 184,300. And that wasn't even a war where our nation was being attacked on its own soil. Are you actually trying to say we wouldn't churn out troops much faster if we were being attacked on our own soil? And maybe you should look at how quickly we built up troop strength during WW2.

I suggest you look at FDR's state of emergency declaration and just how quickly we raised our troop stength.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/us-involvement-in-wwii-how-the-military-grew/

And so far, casualties have been much higher on the Russian side than the Ukranian side so that comedian must be doing something right. If you can still find them, ask some Vietnam or WW2 veterans about how quickly they went from boot camp to the war zone.

If it was the right person, why did Zelensky fire them?

No, I'm not trying to make the BS straw man arguments that you are trying to to deflect with. Yes, we could produce troops faster, but we have not quite 300 million more people and are one of the most militarized nations on Earth. 39% of global military spending is by the US. The next closest country is China at 13%.



Ukraine is spending about 1/20 of what we are and they are at full war time spending. They also lack our more efficient military apparatus.

Invoking Viet Nam vets and how quickly they were shipped off would seem to support me more than you. The US didn't win that war. Perhaps if they'd been properly trained things would have turned out differently. (Though perhaps not.) And that's no knock on their service and sacrifice. It's much more a comment on civilians and most politicians having little idea of the realities of war. The defender generally has the advantage in combat, especially logistically.

Unfortunately, Putin doesn't really worry about popular support and advantages can't always overcome overwhelming numbers.

I have no idea why you think that matters. The training of troops doesn't have anything to do with how big your arsenal is. It isn't dependent on how much you're spending on jet fighters, tanks and other arms. It has to do if you can train troops quickly or not. And no, your point was that we didn't train troops that fast. My point is when you're at war, especially when under attack on your own soil, you can prepare them faster and must do so. And BTW- We trained and deployed troops much faster for WW2. Which we did win.

When given the proper equipment to fight against Russia, they already have a proven track record they can do so. I also have no idea what that has to do with helping arm them in order to help keep Russia off the doorstep of our NATO allies.

We didn't fight WW2 alone.

Ukraine shouldn't have to fight alone either.

Ukraine has not asked for foreign troops to be involved. Making excuses why not doing everything you want is a reason not to do anything is helping Putin. And it's rather empty sounding rhetoric.

I'm guessing it's more likely that Zelensky was told not to request troops publicly if he wanted any aid at all than that he doesn't want them. Our politicians are afraid of escalation and don't want the public backlash of being seen to say no. Alas, you know best with your great military and political experience. We'll see how it works out. Likely not well, I'd guess.

I think adversary is a better term if you are not actively at war. But both forms of government they have ARE our enemy.

I'm not so sure that the forms are the issue. Heck our government is our enemy any more. I think it's more a question of the people within the apparatus.

I'm glad you have guesses about what you want to think is going on.

I'm glad that you're glad.

You do realize that things you have decided to make up in your head is the same thing people do to base what they "think and feel" as being factual with nothing to actually base it on don't you? That's how so many people have sold themselves on conspiracy theories because they align with what they want to believe. I don't see why you would consider something like that as anything relevant in a discussion based on factual information. And it sounds a little far fetched.

I think you're conflating your thought process with mine. You want to believe that Ukraine can win with just material support.

I very much would rather not believe that they can't win without more than material support.

It definitely doesn't seem like you've been in the military if you think what I've written is far fetched. I've been at the "pointy end" of "big stick diplomacy." I've first hand experience with things that have been misrepresented in the media.

Maybe, you are right and Zelensky doesn't want US troops. If so, it's likely because he thinks he'd have a hard time getting them to leave afterwards rather than he thinks he can win on his own. He might have something there, if so. Or it could just be pride.

Unfortunately, the longer this conflict goes on, the more it favors Russia without outside involvement. Russia is bringing in conscripts from wherever it can find them. Ukraine needs all the help it can get.

I'm basing my opinion of what I have seen. First I've never said I think Ukraine can beat Russia. What I have maintained is that as long as they've been supplied with the weapons to effectively defend themselves they've done a great job to this point. Since I'm not one to predict the future based on things that have this far indicated otherwise, I'm not going to predict they'll fail at defending themselves against Russia if given the weapons to do so since they have thus far done quite well at that.

And I have no idea what "the media" has to do with this. Zelenskyy hasn't asked for troops. Unless you feel the media should just make up facts claiming he has there's nothing more to report about that.

I can see that once again it's more your conjecture than facts that you keep basing things on. You seem to differ with the leader of Ukraine on what Ukraine does and doesn't need. But that's often been our government's way of handling things around the globe. They seem to know what everybody else needs and should do. And of course if they don't do what they tell them, we won't help then at all. It seems you may be thinking more like our government does than you would like to admit without realizing it.

Well you know, just throwing money at problems never fixes a lost cause. Pretty much his words from other issues. Gotta give him credit, he’s consistent.

Let me put things a different way. Have you ever worked 12 hours days, 7 days a week for months at a time? Have you done it for two years? Have you done it in the rain and snow while enemy artillery was dropping around you?

I don't think you understand the human/emotional/physical toll. Russia keeps sending in fresh bodies. Putin doesn't care how many of them die. The defenders are getting worn down. It doesn't matter how much equipment you send if the people that have to use it break down.

reuters link

Which is why Zelenskyy plans to add 500k troops. Russia has lost an estimated 315k soldiers so I think they are replacing the bodies lost.

U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties -source

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-in...sia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

I have an idea. Our discussion isn't really about the economy. It's about the war in Ukraine. If you don't mind I think it would be better served if we continued this line of discussion in the Ukraine war thread.

There is another thing to consider... the propaganda that only 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed is not helpful.

People were able to get data points from funeral announcements and WIA to get a better estimate of how many Ukrainian soldiers have died through October, last year. It's not good....
https://asiatimes.com/2023/12/exclusive-150000-ukraine-soldiers-killed-in-action-through-october/

You're citing a source from Hong Kong while warning people about propaganda?

Do you really think that one of the best KDR's in war comes from Ukraine with basically no military, tactical history, training, or equipment with a KDR of 1:10?!? LOL...

Vietnam War US 1:3

WW2 was basically1:1

WW1 was basically 1:2


I would bet money that the real Ukraine numbers are 1:2 or 1:1

What a disgusting Trump opinion. Is that blank after Bull for the rhetoric you espouse Dawg?

If something doesn't fit your beliefs and their narrative or you just don't understand something, scream Trump. You've been indoctrinated well.

The underscore must have come from an unconscious need to separate myself from other "Dawgs" that have thoughts that are too jumbled for them to actually make sense and don't have room for any ideas that aren't their own.

Which part of what I wrote do you find so objectionable? Has Trump been advocating for sending troops against Russia? I admittedly have no idea what Trump is saying these days.

Honestly, I don't really want to send troops. But, if we're just going to send equipment and have Ukraine stick to conventional war on their own, the long term outcome looks bleak. Arms manufacturers will be fat and happy for awhile if this travesty keeps dragging on, I guess.

So you are reinforcing that you trust a media source from China? Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, that must be it. Nobody but you in your wisdom can understand what you post. Is this how you feel about everyone who disagrees with you?

No, just the ones that throw out Trump (or libtard) or straw man arguments instead of trying to have an actual discussion.

Sadly, that's quite a few people in this forum.

If you don't understand me, ask a question. You just did. Was it that hard?

Do you trust US media?

Can you discount the actual information in the report? Or do you just not like it and feel the need to try to attack the source as usual?

What information? That they claimed to have attended funerals to keep some kind of count? So it's your contention that you believe a Chinese journalist is in Ukraine following and attending all the funerals of Ukraine soldiers? Come on man, you're smarter than that. There are some U.S. media sources I trust but very few. The AP and Reuters are at the top of my list.

They didn't claim to attend the funerals. I look at it as more one of those data aggregators in Twitter. They're using ("stealing") other people's information, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Read this article from Reuters then. link

Open your eyes. Ukraine is a mess. Ukraine isn't sharing their casualty numbers. (Why? Do they have something to hide?)

Read this article about Ukraine's military makeup. link

Ukraine is trotting out soldiers in their 60s. A country doesn't do that if you have able bodied recruits stepping up in numbers like they are looking for.

You're right. We should either allow Russia to take over while slaughtering all of their troops and many of their citizens or help start WW3. Nothing else makes any sense.

What I am saying is that Zelenskyy is full of crap and making things worse by saying they have only lost about 10% of their troops when the reality is they have lost closer to 25-40% of their active military.

Also, it's not that difficult to reference historical data

7 months ago US officials estimated that Ukraine had lost about 70,000 soldiers with 120,000 injured. (about 50% of their military)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html
Aug. 18, 2023
*Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths
*the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.
*Ukraine has around 500,000 troops, including active-duty, reserve, and paramilitary troops, according to analysts.

So now you've gone from 150k Ukranian soldiers killed to 70k killed and still you claim it's others spreading propaganda? It appears you have no real clue how many Ukranian soldiers have been killed yet keep blaming others for posting false statistics. You do realize there's an 80k man difference between the two claims, right? So which one is correct?

SMH there is a reason no one posts on this board anymore...

The reason being you also can not come up with any accurate number. To set the record straight I don't doubt that the number of 31k is incorrect. But the propaganda you indicate is directed towards Russia. There's no way that Zelenskyy would want Putin to know that more Ukranians have been killed. It's not to deceive us. Why would Zelenskyy want to telegraph to Putin how many Ukranian soldiers have been killed?

The problem is you seem to be indicating some other nefarious reason as to why Zelenskyy isn't being accurate in the deaths of his troops. And you also have no accurate way to know how many of them have been killed by posting numbers that can't be verified. I think it's time to remind you that it has been you predicting a recession for well over a year now that has never come to be.

I don't care if you or others post here. If you can't bring more to the table than you have thus far does it really matter?

Oh look, using sarcasm (as a straw man) to avoid actually addressing anything that I wrote.

Did you even read the article from the source that you said you trusted?

Or do you suddenly not trust it now that it doesn't support your position?

Did you actually finish reading the thread before you responded? Zelenskyy isn't going to tell Putin anything with any accuracy. Since you seem to think you understand all of this so well surely you can understand the rationale behind that I would think. And while what I posted in purple may have been intended as sarcasm, it seems to pretty accurately describe your position.

No one is saying that the reason for Zelensky "lying" is nefarious. People are simply saying that the numbers you were pointing to as evidence for your argument weren't accurate which you appear to be admitting here.

You're right that we don't have accurate numbers, so unfortunately we make inferences based on anecdotal evidence.

We can also make estimates based on historical precedent. The numbers being presented are so far outside of the standard deviation of casualty ratios of similar conflicts that they are hard to view as credible.

Where is the propaganda in what was written by the Asia Times? You've just admitted that Zelensky is likely using anti-Russian (/pro-Ukrainian) propaganda.

Hazarding guesses as to actual numbers, and clearly stating as much, isn't propaganda.

Yes, I did. I also noticed that you're avoiding answering my questions.

No, your purple is made up BS that you keep presenting as an opposing position to make yourself look right in comparison.

I've written that, if Ukraine is going to win this conflict as a conventional war, it's going to need outside personnel as well as material. I have clearly stated that widening of the conflict is a risk of that. It's not what I would do. It's a conditional statement.

Unfortunately, your position is we can't let Ukraine lose, but we can only help them in a way that will result in them losing.

The 150k number is no less propaganda than the Ukranian number.

super posted this....


Can you explain how it is not helpful to hide the true numbers from Putin?

Any time you perpetuate numbers without having any actual way to verify those numbers is a form of propaganda. Maybe you would prefer the term false information?

And if you want to site historical precedent you may wish to look at how many deaths took place in Iraq after our invasion compared to American troops. We can all be selective in which historical facts we include and which ones we leave out.

Where did I say that 150k Ukranian soldiers were killed?

Exclusive: 150,000 Ukraine soldiers killed in action through October

Funeral announcement and prosthetic maker data indicate Ukraine’s war deaths are much higher than Russia’s

That is the very headline and opening statement from the source you used as your reference point. Take a look for yourself.

What I said:

"Do you really think that one of the best KDR's in war comes from Ukraine with basically no military, tactical history, training, or equipment with a KDR of 1:10?!? LOL...

Vietnam War US 1:3

WW2 was basically1:1

WW1 was basically 1:2


I would bet money that the real Ukraine numbers are 1:2 or 1:1"



I also said...
"What I am saying is that Zelenskyy is full of crap and making things worse by saying they have only lost about 10% of their troops when the reality is they have lost closer to 25-40% of their active military.

Also, it's not that difficult to reference historical data

7 months ago US officials estimated that Ukraine had lost about 70,000 soldiers with 120,000 injured. (about 50% of their military)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html
Aug. 18, 2023
*Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths
*the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.
*Ukraine has around 500,000 troops, including active-duty, reserve, and paramilitary troops, according to analysts."



What you made up...

150k Ukrainian soldiers killed

...Russia has first hand observers and satellites. I don't think anything is really being hidden from Putin in the "big picture." Both governments should have a pretty good idea of the other's losses. They can see how many troops are lined up across the field. On the other hand, lying to civilians to keep up morale makes sense. Yet, the actual numbers do play a significant role in the likelihood of victory. The soldiers in the field can see when they are outnumbered. If Ukraine "breaks" due to low morale, they will definitely lose. Morale is starting to seem pretty low. The noticeable number of "draft dodgers" in a defensive war seems somewhat damning. None of the quotes I see coming out of the Ukrainian military sound good. Bringing in 500,000 green troops, a large number of which don't want to be there it seems, is likely to worsen morale ...if they can even round up that many. Russia will likely still outnumber them by a significant factor. Throw in a collapsing economy as the able bodied men are fighting rather than working, and it's a recipe for further disaster.

What about the numbers in Iraq? Yes, "we" killed a ridiculous number of Iraqi civilians.

I quoted the very source you used at the very beginning to make your point. The Very headline claims that 150k Ukranian soldiers had been killed. The very first statement after the headline stated that more Ukranian soldiers had been killed than Russian troops. After being called out on you saying that it was Ukraine using propaganda when I pointed out that you were disseminating communist propaganda you sang a different tune.

I can't say I blame you. Backing a communist sources statistic and rhetoric was not a good look. But trying to backtrack now and claim you weren't using that information as your talking point from the very beginning isn't a good look either.

Can you explain why you used a source saying those things if you didn't want people to use the source as a basis of fact for what you were saying? Do you often use sources to prove a point that you didn't intend in the first place?

Now that they no longer have the needed weaponry to fight a war against Russia it's no wonder morale is starting to get worse. You are dong nothing more than reporting a self fulfilling prophecy the Republican House as inflicted on Ukraine. They and the people that seem to support our abandoning Ukraine's war efforts are Putin's greatest allies and are supporting the defeat of Ukraine.

You have given the perfect description of what it looks like when soldiers feel abandoned. We are doing nothing but showing the world that the U.S. is not a dependable ally and that we are weak.

It is too bad you don't feel that way about a real US ally Israel. Instead, you support a terrorist organization over a sovereign nation and ally.

US single-family housing starts, permits near two-year highs

Single-family housing starts surge 11.6% in February

Single-family building permits increase 1.0%

Completions soar 20.2%; houses under construction up 0.3%

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - U.S. single-family homebuilding rebounded sharply in February, hitting the highest level in nearly two years, boosted by mild temperatures and a persistent shortage of previously owned houses on the market.

Despite the hurdle created for many first-time buyers by higher mortgage rates, builders are cutting prices and offering other incentives to increase sales. They are also reducing the size of the homes being built to manage higher material costs.

The report from the Commerce Department on Tuesday also showed permits for the future construction of single-family housing units rose to more than a 1-1/2-year high last month. With mortgage rates gradually trending lower on expectations the Federal Reserve will start cutting interest rates by June, homebuilding could contribute to economic growth this year.

"Single-family starts could remain strong in the next couple of months as builders continue to see demand for new builds despite the headwinds facing buyers," said Daniel Vielhaber, an economist at Nationwide. "Rate incentives from builders continue to help buyers afford homes on the new side of the market."

Single-family housing starts, which account for the bulk of homebuilding, surged 11.6% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.129 million units last month, the Commerce Department's Census Bureau said. That was the highest level since April 2022.

Data for January was revised up to show single-family starts falling to a rate of 1.012 million units instead of the previously reported 1.004 million units.

Though the housing market has been pummeled by aggressive rate hikes from the U.S. central bank as it battles inflation, homebuilding has been supported by an acute housing shortage, with most homeowners locked into lower mortgage rates.

Recent government data showed there were 757,000 housing units for sale in the fourth quarter, well below the 1.145 million units before the COVID-19 pandemic.

A survey from the National Association of Home Builders on Monday showed confidence among single-family home builders rose to an eight-month high in March amid optimism about sales now and over the coming six months.

Fed officials were expected to leave the central bank's policy rate unchanged in the current 5.25%-5.50% range at the end of a two-day meeting on Wednesday, having raised it by 525 basis points since March 2022.
The average rate on the popular 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has retreated in recent weeks after flirting with the 7% level in late February, according to data from mortgage finance agency Freddie Mac.

Single-family homebuilding jumped 40.2% in the Midwest and increased 16.6% in the densely populated South. It accelerated 16.4% in the Northeast, but declined 15.4% in the West.

Starts for housing projects with five units or more advanced 8.6% to a rate of 377,000 units.

Overall housing starts increased 10.7% to a rate of 1.521 million units in February. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast starts would rebound to a rate 1.425 million units.

Single-family building permits rose 1.0% to a rate of 1.031 million units in February, the highest level since May 2022. Multi-family building permits rose 2.4% to a rate of 429,000 units. Building permits as a whole climbed 1.9% to a rate of 1.518 million units.

Homebuilding activity this year is expected to be concentrated in the single-family housing segment amid a huge backlog of multi-family units under construction.

Residential investment rebounded in the second half of 2023 after contracting for nine straight quarters, the longest such stretch since the housing market collapse in 2006. It has been a drag on gross domestic product for two straight years.

"Housing construction is likely to add modestly to economic growth in the months ahead as builders look forward to the Fed rate cuts that policymakers are forecasting for later this year," said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBONDS. "Housing construction has likely turned the corner in this economic cycle and will cease to be a drag on the overall economy."

A minority of economists believe the Fed will not cut rates this year, especially if inflation remains elevated.

Stocks on Wall Street mostly were trading lower. The dollar gained versus a basket of currencies. Prices of U.S. Treasuries rose.

MORE COMPLETIONS

The number of houses approved for construction that were yet to be started increased 0.4% to 270,000 units in February. The single-family homebuilding backlog fell 1.4% to 141,000 units. The completions rate for that housing segment surged 20.2% to 1.072 million units, the highest level since November 2022.

Overall housing completions soared 19.7% to a rate of 1.729 million units, the highest level since January 2007. That is goods news for supply, which is keeping house prices high and contributing to rental inflation.

Realtors estimate that housing starts and completion rates need to be in a range of 1.5 million to 1.6 million units per month over time to bridge the inventory gap.

The number of housing units under construction slipped 0.5% to a rate of 1.666 million units. The inventory of single-family housing under construction rose 0.3% to a rate of 683,000 units.

The stock of multi-family housing under construction dropped 1.0% to 966,000 units. Multi-family housing inventory under construction hit a record 1.001 million units in July 2023. An increased supply of apartments will slow growth in rental prices, the major driver of inflation.

"More multi-family units should continue to weigh on rental inflation, which is decelerating but still elevated," said Nancy Vanden Houten, U.S. lead economist at Oxford Economics.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-single-family-housing-starts-soar-february-2024-03-19/

Yet another lie. You can support Israel without making excuses why Netanyahu uses 2000lb dumb bombs to needlessly kill civilians and to cut off food and medical supplies to civilians. I support Israel but not Netanyahu. You know, the same way you support America but not Biden. You're up to your usual nonsense I see.

Not tryin to be a thread Nazi but there are threads for BD and you to discuss Israel and the Ukraine. Kinda got off our fantastic economy here.

I don't disagree.

At the same time, we were being weak when we were giving them "material aid," too. Your alleged allies shouldn't have to ask for troops when being invaded.

Both sides of our political system are more worried about winning elections than doing what's right.

High minded ideals aren't worth a lick when you don't back them up with actions. Duplicitous arms deals to prop up the economy for political purposes aren't really putting one's money where their mouth is. It's much more putting one's mouth where the money is. That's our country in a nutshell.

Abandoning them totally is not abetter solution no matter how much you type. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Providing them with weapons was action. Just not to the lengths you think we should have gone to. If you think the weaponry we were supplying Ukraine alone was enough to "prop up the economy for political purposes" I think you are sadly misinformed. Our defense budget for 2024 is currently is 842 billion dollars. Those high minded ideas you speak of were enough for Ukraine to stand its ground.

I don't disagree with you that both sides of politics care more about elections than anything but that has nothing to do with either abandoning Ukraine or starting WW3. Neither of those seems like a logical nor reasonable option.

I've never said to abandon them. Who has? Literally no one here but you has typed that.

Ukraine isn't a member of NATO because Russia told NATO there would be consequences if they did let Ukraine in. They're (we're/NATO is) still kowtowing to Russia. Putin doesn't care if we supply arms because he knows that ultimately they won't matter, and he doesn't care about losses to Russian forces (in a human sense, the loss of face probably annoys him.) This way he can even crow about standing up to the west. Attrition was always going to work in Russia's favor. Standing one's ground is much easier at the beginning of a war than as it drags along.

Unfortunately, WW3 is looking more and more likely. Putin doesn't look likely to stop until someone stops him. We haven't shown a willingness to actually do so. Zelensky has put on a brave face, but it seems like he and the rest of his military command are starting to realize how screwed they are.

Libtards like to make up fake news and then become hysterical about it

And repugnantcans like to sling $#!+ hoping some of it sticks to the wall. Where's the fake news here?

You have made it clear you don't support giving Ukraine military aid without troops to go along with it. If I have that wrong please correct me.

That's correct. Lacking context as you prefer to put other people's words, but correct.

I'm not a fan of setting money on fire. Even less so when politicians on both sides are treating lives like poker chips. Hate it even more when one side gets to use the pointless waste to support the idea that the economy is strong. War profiteering is some shady [censored].

It is what it is. You're opinion seems to go lall in with sending our troops into war or do nothing. what more context is needed? The only one treating lives like poker chips here are the ones promoting Putin just kill people that no longer have the weaponry to defend themselves. So you think the less than 1 percent of our already approved military budget going to weapons for Ukraine is what's propping up the economy? Are you serious?

I've been team take out Putin for awhile.


This is a thread about the economy, though, so I've focused on the spending aspect of the conflict here.

In 2022, Northrup Grumman stock increased in value by 43%. Other arms suppliers saw similar increases. Aid packages to Ukraine were a big reason for those increases.

Now that aid is being held up, those stock prices are falling.

Proving war is an absolute necessity for these companies to succeed.

I'm not sure how you think far less than 1% of our defense spending makes the point you think it does.

Yeah. Pretty much. To me, that's a problem. Thus, helping these companies to succeed is a problem. So, if we're going to help these companies succeed, we should at least make sure that Ukraine actually wins.

Personally, I'd rather find another way.

How much is 1% of our defense budget? We account for 39% of the globe's military spending. 1 percent of that is more than some countries' GDP.

Oh, it's only 1%. 1% is actually a dollar amount with a bunch of zeros after it. But, hey, do you, minimize that away.

Edit: Here are the countries with the lowest GDP's in case you thought I was being hyperbolic: link

In your previous posts you indicated that supporting Ukraine would help prop up these military contractors. Yet with being such a small fraction of our defense spending it has basically no impact in the grand scheme of things. The things you have been proposing would increase that spending to the point it would accomplish exactly what you claimed you wish to avoid. Plus what makes you think that supporting Ukraine with troops would actually insure they win? You seem to claim that if they don't follow your plan they lose but if they follow your plan they win. You have no idea whether China and or N. Korea would get involved. How much that would escalate things and what cost would have to be paid. And just for a point of reference, I remember how quickly people predicted we would win the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not as simple as you make it sound on paper. It usually never is.

I've never guaranteed winning. Is it worth fighting for or not?

Doing only what we've been doing would seem to guarantee losing.

Yet as long as they were getting the weaponry the needed to fight they weren't losing. That's what it looks like when projection meets reality.

Have you ever been outside of the US? How much of the rest of the world have you seen in person? Have you ever lived in a foreign country?

Just because we can do something here does not mean that the rest of the world can.

They were losing. It has just taken them a while to realize it. Some people won't realize it until it is too late.

No, they weren't losing. Since you're the great world traveler did you go to Ukraine just before they ran out of funding and had the ability to defend themselves? They're realizing they're running out of arms, ammunition and equipment to fight with. Something the far right House Republicans have insured would happen.

Help me out here. My understanding was that we were giving Ukraine our older weapons and Ammo and such and that the actual money being spent was on new and upgraded weapons for ourselves. Do I have that right?

To my knowledge, we (for the most part) haven't given them any money... just equipment.

To be fair, that equipment has a value attached to it (especially, imo, the ammunition used by said equipment).


Regarding tanks, we definitely gave them older Abrams that didn't have newer technology (or it was removed prior to shipment). The other stuff we've given (anti-missile and/or anti-air defense, HIMAARS, artillery) may be a different story.

Yep. I hate every part of your opinion. Zelensky has been an admirable leader and they have Russia in a stalemate IMHO. Should we fail in our obligation to democracy and do like donny and his cult want, we’ll be fighting Russians in the EU before you know it. F* anything Putin or Trump. GOPers should just get out of the way and let the adults handle things.

Here's what was sent through last December from the congressional report service. Don't think it will let me link the.pdf.

• 39 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
• 12 National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems
(NASAMS); 1 Patriot air defense battery; other air
defense systems; and 21 air surveillance radars;
• 31 Abrams tanks, 45 T-72B tanks and 186 Bradley
infantry fighting vehicles;
• 300 M113 and 189 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers;
• 2,000+ Stinger anti-aircraft missiles;
• 10,000+ Javelin and 90,000+ other anti-armor systems;
• Phoenix Ghost, Switchblade, and other UAS;
• 198 155 mm and 72 105 mm Howitzers and artillery;
• 227 mortar systems;
• Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems;
• 9,000+ Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-
Guided (TOW) missiles;
• High-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) and laser-
guided rocket systems;
• 35,000+ grenade launchers and small arms;
• communications, radar, and intelligence equipment; and
• training, maintenance, and sustainment.

Link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

...that might work, trying to copy from Google gave me a whole lot extra

Maybe it was mostly old equipment, but would we really need to replace it on top of what had already been appropriated in the defense budget?

Lol. You hate my opinion and then present my opinion as part of your own only in more colorful language.

The "adults," unfortunately, don't seem to be able to handle Jack squat other than spending and receiving money without any understanding of its effective use. Now excessive and ineffective use they are great at.

If it's all old equipment we are providing them and it appears to be what we've done. Why are weapons makers stock rising? Only one reason, we are buying more for ourselves. Right?

It goes up because more people are buying the stock. They see an endless quagmire of spending and shipping equipment as well as innovations in weapon systems.

Plus, older equipment doesn't mean bad equipment.

Money spent allegedly in search of innovation. Actual innovation, eventually, maybe.... But that's more the appropriations that were already in the budget. Ukraine is more just extra gravy in the trough. Probably end up making it's way to executive bonuses and back into "political contributions."

According to the AP 26 Billion in financial aid has been sent to Ukraine in 2022 to Jan 2023. Not sure how much since. I read somewhere that we were sending cash to pay for pensions. I’m not sure if that was part of the aid package the Republicans in the house are blocking.

Apparently we have been paying for pensions since 2022. There was more money allocated in the bill the Republicans are holding up. The reason for the payments is because Ukraine is spending all their money on defense.

https://www.voanews.com/amp/report-...nsions-without-foreign-aid-/7415086.html

They see margins and defense spending. A lot of the contractors (minus Boeing) have been gouging the Government via margins produced through sole source contracts and they keep changing the laws via lobbyists in ways that favor themselves. Their conduct has been ever increasingly aggressive in "negotiations" because they want to rake the tax payer over the coals to meet or exceed targets which all roll up into performance metrics that are released quarterly to the SEC, which drives stock buying opportunities. I put negotiations in quotes because it's like dealing with a car dealer who knows you have to buy the car from him and also knows your budget.

Edit ~ Boeing is also gouging us. Actually, they have probably been the most aggressive of all the contractors on the defense side, because they are desperate to offset losses on the commercial side. When I excluded them in the paragraph above, I meant to infer that they aren't really making any gains on their stock price as a whole because of their colossal failures on the commercial side. That same type of pig-headedness, corruption, and emphasis on prioritizing margins over safety and all else spreads over to the defense side as well. Anyone can look at the KC-46 and its history and realize that Boeing sucks, and has sucked for quite some time, ever since they stopped listening to their engineers and QA. But hey, after they merged with McDonnell-Douglas, they became too big to fail. And they know it.

"endless quagmire of spending"? So you say., Are you suggesting we let Ukraine twist in the wind while a dictator like Putin runs over them?

I stopped at you thinking Ukraine can’t get the job done with our hardware aid only. I think that’s dead wrong. We should send them everything we can to defeat him. And that money is barely a blip on the radar for us. Compared to the 8 trillion Trump added to the deficit. And it wasn’t an insult to you as a popster, but I was hating on but what sounded like the Trumpian rhetoric that makes you think that, that disgusted me. Trump is actively campaigning on the same crap.

Best get going then. Ukraine's accepting men over 60 with no combat experience in their military. The Ukrainian First Lady posted a picture of an 80 year old in the enlistment line on X/Twitter.

You using the rhetoric line on me seems kind of funny. You're saying send them everything. Oh, but not troops. Talk about empty rhetoric.

If they're desperate enough to use old men, it would appear that what they desperately need more of are troops.

Trump's still a vile idiot, unfortunately not without a certain low cunning.

If I were to get hung up on any of that, it would be the ammo. IIRC, there were some articles I read that said fully supplying Ukraine with certain types of ammo they needed could strain our supply chain and potentially put us in a tough spot if we had to respond (militarily) to an issue of our own.

For the most part, and especially for the higher-ticket items, we sent them stuff that are replaceable or would be in the near future.

Unfortunately the other way is for Ukraine to negotiate peace with Russia which won’t stop Putin to take more territory possibly into NATO countries. Which will mean more war for these companies to succeed financially. Playing to their hands as well as Putins.

It's only just occurred to me that this is the wrong thread.

Bull, I've moved my post to the Ukraine thread.

Unfortunately, war and economies (and politics) are quite intertwined, and the economic (and thus politics) side is all too often in the driver's seat.

That's not the only other way. It might be the only other way that you acknowledge from your "ivory tower."

We didn't take out Bin Laden by sending someone else weapons and munitions. We sent in a SEAL team. If you want to call Putin a duly elected leader, go for it. I think it's pretty clear that there was nothing legitimate about that election. Declare him a terrorist and war criminal, and do what needs to be done. A mad man threatening nuclear retaliation if there's interference with his crimes needs to be put down.

Bro we don’t need to get into that s show. The only people that can put down Putin is the Russian people. But they are too weak to revolt.

A very small fraction of the defense budget isn't driving anything. Micro isn't macro.

Ahhh, more empty rhetoric.

We've helped regime change quite a few times. Neither of us has to like it.

When it comes to elections, small things can be big things.

In other words a small fraction of the defense budget doesn't really matter other than using it for political fodder? If so I agree.

That's certainly one way to twist it to fit your agenda.

Unfortunately, one can also twist it the other way and say the Democrats are only pushing this "insignificant" bill to score political points with full knowledge that it won't be enough.

This is a big deal and alot of the money will be spent in Ohio. We need to continue on more manufacturing in this country-

https://www.dispatch.com/story/busi...o-help-new-albany-expansion/73028672007/


Intel, White House announce new subsidies for now $28 billion New Albany chip plants
Mark Williams
Columbus Dispatch

U.S. President Joe Biden announces a multi-billion dollar grant for CHIPS manufacturing while visiting Intel's manufacturing campus in Chandler, Arizona on Wednesday.
Intel has landed $8.5 billion in federal subsidies and is eligible for up to $11 billion in low-cost loans to help the semiconductor giant finance its $100 billion building spree across the country, including its project in New Albany that will become a regional cluster for U.S. chipmaking, the Biden administration and Intel announced Wednesday morning.

The preliminary award is the largest from the federal CHIPS and Science Act that was passed in 2022. The legislation provides $52.7 billion in federal aid to restore manufacturing of the tiny devices to the U.S. considered vital to the economy that has been largely shipped overseas in past decades.

"This will mark one of the largest investments ever in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters.


"We think this is a defining moment for the United States, the semiconductor industry and Intel," Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said.

The grants and loans along with a 25% investment tax credit included in the legislation will help Intel with what its now says is a $28 billion project, up from $20 billion initially, in Licking County, where it is building two factories along with expansions in Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon.

The Commerce Department would not say how much Intel is getting for the Licking County project, indicating that its approach was a more holistic look at all of Intel's U.S. operations.


Gelsinger said Intel expects the company to receive benefits totaling more than $25 billion from the tax credit, reflective of what he says is more than $100 billion in qualified investments that the company is making over the next five years.

He said the low-cost loans come with favorable terms that will help drive Intel's investment.


The award is part of the Biden administration's push to manufacture leading-edge chips in the U.S. needed to power advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Right now, the U.S. designs these chips but doesn't make any here, said Raimondo, who has set a goal of manufacturing 20% of these chips in the U.S. by 2030.

"We rely on a very small number on a factories in Asia for all of our most sophisticated chips," Raimondo said. "That’s untenable and unacceptable. It’s an economic security problem. It’s a national security problem, and we’re going to change that."


Intel to create 30,000 jobs nationwide
The president formally announced the award to Intel on Wednesday in Arizona, where the company is building two factories and modernizing a third one at its campus in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler.

The Biden administration's targeted investments in U.S. industries, which the White House has dubbed the Investing in America program, have "ignited a manufacturing boom in America, a clean energy boom, a jobs boom, all here in America, finally," the president said in Arizona.

Intel's expansion at its four campuses in the U.S. is expected to create 30,000 jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs, according to the Biden administration.


In Ohio, Intel is expected to create 3,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio, 7,000 construction jobs and an estimated 10,000 indirect jobs. The $28 billion investment is the largest in state history.

Intel has spent $1.5 billion and hired 69 workers through 2023 and has committed to an additional $3 billion in spending on the project, according to a report filed by the company with the state.


Intel also is receiving more than $2 billion in incentives from Ohio and New Albany.

When the Intel project was announced for Licking County, the company anticipated starting production in 2025. Now it expects construction of both plants to be finished in 2026-27 and to become operational in 2027-2028.

Gelsinger told reporters Tuesday night that the Ohio project remains a track that the company indicated was possible when work began.

"The factory is being built today," he said. "If you show up at the site, we're taking a field and turning into the most modern manufacturing location in the Intel network."

Money to be awarded later this year
The Commerce Department said it expects money to begin flowing before the end of the year after final details with Intel are worked out.

The awards are conditioned upon Intel hitting milestones along the way, including its commitment to work with state and local agencies, labor unions, and colleges and universities to develop and train workers for jobs created by the investment.


The Biden administration has declared Columbus a workforce hub meant to train workers for the jobs in the region by such companies as Intel and Honda's electric battery plant with LG Energy in Jeffersonville, and Intel previously announced a $100 million commitment to local and national higher education programs over the next decade.

The Commerce Department said Intel's building spree wouldn't be possible without the aid, and Gelsinger said there likely will need to be a second CHIPS act to continue the work of bringing back production to the U.S. where costs are higher than in Asia.

"We need to build the best stuff," he said. "We have to get back to leadership."

Ohio leaders applaud CHIPS award
A bipartisan group of political, business and labor leaders praised the announcement on Wednesday.

"Clearly, we're going to get a good share of this money," said Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican. "This should be looked at as a very happy day in Ohio. We continue to have the money to keep this great project going."


"It's going to allow this project to reach its full potential," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.

“I’ve never see this in my 37 years in the building trades,’’ said Mike Knisley, secretary-treasurer of the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council.

"We are going to be building for a long time," said Steve Stivers, president of the Ohio Chamber and former Republican congressman.

It has nothing to do with twisting anything. It was both parties that supported efforts in Ukraine. Until one faction of one party decided not to. If you wish to point fingers maybe you should point them at the side who changed their mind for political gain. Not those that have stayed the course. And those that have stayed the course are members of both parties. So I guess according to your supposition the Republicans still working to give military aid to Ukraine must be conspiring with the Democrats.

You can not support that a small fraction of our defense spending is accomplishing many of the claims you have made and it's also quite unrealistic to claim many Republicans still supporting aid to Ukraine are working along side Democrats to further the Democrats political agenda. There was a time in our country where supporting democracies was a fundamental foundation of the Republican party. Now the crazy faction among them have reared their ugly heads and claim one of the very principals they stood for is no longer valid.

Doing the same thing over and over that isn't working is the definition of insanity. Unfortunately, too many people have trouble realizing when something isn't working.

Unfortunately, a certain segment of our country seems to believe that the answer to every problem is throw more money at it.

But it was working until they were no longer given the military equipment to defend themselves. Unfortunately the current circumstances we see now were manufactured by the far right tying up that aid and as a a result people say, "See, they are failing!"

I already addressed this in the war thread. Let's try to get this thread back more on other economic issues.

I made the same suggestion earlier in this thread. I'm all for it.

US fourth-quarter growth revised higher; labor market still strong

Fourth-quarter GDP growth revised up to 3.4% rate
Consumer spending, business investment revised higher
Corporate profits increase, boost GDI growth
Weekly jobless claims fall 2,000 to 210,000

WASHINGTON, March 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew faster than previously estimated in the fourth quarter, boosted by strong consumer spending and business investment in nonresidential structures like factories and healthcare facilities.

The report from the Commerce Department on Thursday also showed profits rising at a solid clip last quarter, driven by nonfinancial corporations. Increasing profits, together with rising worker productivity, could encourage companies to retain their employees.

Labor market resilience is underpinning consumer spending, keeping the economy afloat despite dire predictions of a recession in the aftermath of 525 basis points worth of interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve since March 2022 to quell inflation.

"The consumer will be front and center when it comes to gauging the strength left in this recovery, and their spending that has shifted to services will be critical this year," said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBONDS in New York.

Gross domestic product increased at a 3.4% annualized rate last quarter, revised up from the previously reported 3.2% pace, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said in its third estimate of fourth-quarter GDP.

The revision reflected upgrades in consumer spending, business investment as well as state and local government spending, which offset downgrades to inventory accumulation and exports. Economists polled by Reuters had expected GDP growth would be unrevised.

The economy is growing above what U.S. central bank officials regard as the non-inflationary growth rate of 1.8% and continues to outperform its global peers. The economy grew at a 4.9% pace in the July-September quarter. It expanded 2.5% in 2023, an acceleration from 1.9% in 2022. Growth estimates for the first quarter are converging around a 2.0% pace.

CONSUMER SPENDING UPGRADED

Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased at a 3.3% rate, adding 2.20 percentage points to GDP growth. It was previously estimated to have grown at a 3.0% pace. The upward revision was in services.

The upgrade to business spending reflected higher outlays on manufacturing as well as commercial and healthcare structures than previously estimated. Spending on intellectual property products was also revised up, while the decline in outlays on equipment was not as steep as previously estimated.

Corporate profits including inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments increased $133.5 billion in the fourth quarter after rising $108.7 billion in the July-September quarter. Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased$136.5 billion, while those of financial corporations rose $5.9 billion. That more than offset an $8.9 billion decline in profits from the rest of the world.

When measured from the income side, the economy expanded at a robust 4.8% rate. Gross domestic income (GDI) increased at a 1.9% pace in the July-September quarter. In principle, GDP and GDI should be equal, but in practice differ as they are estimated using different and largely independent source data.

A widening gap between GDI and GDP in prior quarters had raised concerns among some economists that the economy was not as strong as suggested by the GDP figures. The surge in GDI reflected higher wages and profits.

The average of GDP and GDI, also referred to as gross domestic output and considered a better measure of economic activity, increased at a 4.1% rate last quarter after advancing at a 3.4% pace in the third quarter.

A separate report from the Labor Department on Thursday showed initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 210,000 for the week ended March 23. Economists had forecast 212,000 claims in the latest week.

Claims have been hovering in a 200,000-213,000 range since February. Most employers are retaining their workers despite a rash of high-profile layoffs at the start of the year.

The number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid, a proxy for hiring, increased 24,000 to 1.819 million during the week ending March 16, the claims report showed. The so-called continuing claims covered the period during which the government surveyed households for March's unemployment rate.

Continuing claims were little changed between the February and March survey periods. The unemployment rate was at 3.9% in February.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/...p-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-2024-03-28/

OH NO,, ,we're DOOMED! The Economy is growing to fast... Whatever will be do?

Apparently anything to try to make Biden’s excellent recovery economy look bad. He’s handled the economy better than ANY president in my lifetime, that I can remember, better than O, Willie, every bush, and trickle down Ronnie… I was too young to give a crap before Reagan. The last president like biden would be FDR.

At this point, anyone hating on Bidenomics is just a hater, and not qualified to even have an opinion.

You obviously don't buy groceries, gas, etc.... This economy sucks and it has since your President was sworn in. They just don't build em like Ronny anymore!!! Last great President our country ever had. Rescued us from the mess Carter created and now we have Jimmy's 2nd term happening.

Well we all know the entire economy rests on the price of your groceries.

No, I don’t buy groceries, I live off mana from a fake god. Smh. Biden didn’t cause inflation, DJT did. And I know everything is higher, and if you get your boy back in it will be much higher in four years, if we even have an economy left after bannkrolling another traitor-n-chief term in office.

I used to like Reagan, too, until I looked at the data and realized he was essentially the one that started this whole mess. Check it out for yourself:

https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291

https://www.ft.com/content/bdd03df6-e31e-4e6d-84c2-d634c2e14f53

Top Federal Reserve official says ‘no rush’ to cut interest rates after ‘disappointing’ inflation data
Progress on taming price rises ‘has slowed and may have stalled’, according to Christopher Waller


A top Federal Reserve official has said “disappointing” inflation data means the US central bank should “push back” the timing of cutting interest rates from their current 23-year high.

Christopher Waller, a Fed governor and one of the most influential US rate-setters, said in a speech on Wednesday that the recent rise in month-on-month measures of prices reinforced his view that there was “no rush” to lower the central bank’s 5.25 per cent to 5.5 per cent target range.


While Waller acknowledged that the central bank had “made a lot of headway in reducing inflation in the past year or so”, readings over the past two months had been “disappointing”.

“Shorter-term inflation measures are now telling me that progress has slowed and may have stalled,” he said.

It was “appropriate to reduce the overall number of rate cuts or push them further into the future” in response to the latest inflation figures, he said. In February the headline consumer price index and core CPI, which strips out more volatile food and energy costs, rose 0.4 per cent from the prior month.

Those reading were “obviously not progress toward our inflation goal”, which is 2 per cent inflation a year, he added.

Waller did not detail whether he was referring to the overall number of cuts for 2024, or for the Fed’s entire forecast horizon, which covers from now until 2026.

On the timing of loosening, he said “in the absence of an unexpected and material deterioration in the economy”, he would need to see “at least a couple months of better inflation data” before he had enough confidence that inflation could sustainably hit the 2 per cent goal.

Misplaced anger. Are prices for food too high? yes. But haven't you been paying attention? Every country on this planet is going through the same thing. The difference is that our inflation is lower than anyone else. Is it Bidens fault that the other countries have it worse than us?

Back when we were in the middle of Covid, things weren't getting through. we weren't getting goods into ports. Costs go up when there are shortages. But now that products are getting through, prices haven't dropped.

Why don't you talk to corporations that keep the prices up.

No, that doesn't work for you because you can't blame Biden if you do that.

And all YOU do is blame Trump. Constantly.

However, I'd like to highlight this quote of yours: " Are prices for food too high? yes. But haven't you been paying attention? Every country on this planet is going through the same thing. "

Now, take that thinking a step further, but in a different scenario: Was COVID bad? Yes, but weren't you paying attention? Every country on this planet was dealing with it."

And? You blamed Trump.

Yes, blane Trump who took credit for warp speed covid vaccine, then didn't follow established procedures- got Covid, showed the country how to do smart thing- inject cleaner into your body, capture light- magically project it into body, nuke hurricanes--yah--I blame Trump AND the country did too- the idiot got beat, but still hasn't admitted it---he's best at lying, selling sneaker, colonge, abusing women, and cheating on his taxes........VERY PRESIDENTIAL. NOT, anyone but TRUMP.

The economy is doing great... for the top 0.1%. It's "improved" for those at the bottom, but not really gotten them over the poverty line. The rest are getting squeezed. Are there exceptions? Sure.

If you like greedy "elites" extracting wealth, then the economy is amazing. If you believe in equity and fair value, the economy is a travesty. If you like gambling on the stock market, you can get lucky and/or can benefit from it being manipulated (GameStop style.) Unfortunately, stock market growth doesn't actually correlate to production, it's more artificial wealth extraction.

In a way, the stock market helps large conglomerates own more by using your money. Yes, one can get a pittance kicked back. Yet, by helping to concentrate ownership of the factors of production one is facilitating wealth disparity.

Wealth disparity continues to get worse.

Biden is in charge of the body that sets the rules that let corporations do what they do. So, it would seem that Biden (and previous/other politicians) is complicit.

"Is it Biden's fault that other countries have it worse than us?" This is a weird question or at least way to phrase it. I'm not really sure what you're looking for with it. Are you angling for a yes, then trying to use that to say it shows Biden is doing well? We're doing "better" because everyone else relies on our currency for international trade. That doesn't really have much to do with Biden. Globally, we've effectively got the "too big to fail" currency. Plus, we have the ridiculous military expenditures and a demonstrated willingness to go nuclear.

You are as bad as Trumps lawyers. They just make stuff up all the time.

I NEVER blamed Trump for Covid. I blamed him for his wickedly stupid response to it.

And I believed then and I believe now, a better response may have saved lives.

Before you say it, a better response would have been to acknowledge it and to respect those that are in charge of our various agencies that are responsible for dealing with it. Instead he made them out to be scapegoats for it. That was frickin stupid.

Now we have a bunch of damn fools trying to blame Fauci for all.

But hey, maybe it was all the fault of the Jewish Space Lasers that attacked our election systems. Or maybe it was the electronic thermostats that rigged voting machines.

Once again, the point flew over your head.

Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response
January 30, 2020 / 9:12 AM EST / CBS News

President Trump has created a new task force to lead the government's response to the fast-spreading coronavirus, the White House announced Wednesday.

Led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and coordinated through the National Security Council, the task force is made up of subject matter experts from across the federal government and has been meeting daily since Monday. Members of the 12-member group include National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield, and the National Institutes of Health's Dr. Anthony Fauci.

"The task force will lead the administration's efforts to monitor, contain and mitigate the spread of the virus, while ensuring that the American people have the most accurate and up-to-date health and travel information," the White House said.

The coronavirus has killed more than 170 people in China, though thousands more have been infected. While the outbreak started in Wuhan, China, 68 cases have been confirmed in other 15 countries, including the United States, according to the World Health Organization. The Centers for Disease Control said as of Wednesday, five patients in four states had tested positive, though specimens from 36 states were being tested.

Mr. Trump, who considers himself a germaphobe, addressed the coronavirus outbreak Wednesday during a signing ceremony for the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

"We're very much involved with them right now on the virus that's going around," the president said of China, adding that he had spoken with Chinese President Xi Jinping about it.

Later in the day, Mr. Trump said in a tweet that he attended a briefing on the coronavirus and lauded the U.S. experts monitoring the outbreak.

"Just received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China from all of our GREAT agencies, who are also working closely with China," he said. "We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments. We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corona...d-us-government-response-to-wuhan-virus/








From the National Archives:


https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/coronavirus/#:~:text=President%20Trump's%20swift%2C%20decisive%20response

And still trump belittled what he called “the best experts in the world” on taking the vaccine and masking up. Probably because they actually saved lives.

Trump Tells Followers to Get Vaccinated Against Coronavirus

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening told his supporters to get the COVID-19 vaccine, saying it is a safe shot that works.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly," Trump told "Fox News Primetime."

Trump, who was quietly vaccinated in January, added that "we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

Still, he continued: "But it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

Polling has suggested that vaccine hesitancy among Republicans is significantly higher than among Democrats.

Trump's former coronavirus testing czar, Brett Giroir, earlier this week called on Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence to urge their followers to get the vaccine.

"I think it's very important for former President Trump – as well as the vice president – to actively encourage all their followers to get the vaccine," Giroir told CNN.

Leading infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci previously welcomed a recommendation from Trump.

"He's such a strongly popular person. I cannot imagine that if he comes out that they would not get vaccinated," Fauci said on "Fox News Sunday." "It would be very helpful to the effort for that to happen."

But President Joe Biden on Monday said advice from other figures could hold more weight than Trump's recommendation.

"I discussed it with my team and they say the thing that has more impact than anything Trump would say to the MAGA folks is what the local doctors, what the local preachers, what the local people in the community say," Biden said at the White House, referencing Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 11.8% of the total U.S. population has been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus. Over 21% has received at least one dose.


https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...rs-to-get-vaccinated-against-coronavirus


Funny how Biden tried to make that a bad thing, huh?

I’ll always say getting the vaccine out there fast was the best thing trump did. It’s about time GOPers got on board and tout that accomplishment. Kinda falls flat now though.

It’s language like that …lol…trump is such a tool.

This is from Bidens White House on where he thinks taxes for wealthy and working class should be. Of course, he can not just come out and click his heels 3 times and it is law. The legislative branch has to enact policy and there is no way in hell that the repubs are going to raise taxes on the rich-so more deficit spending




FACT SHEET: The President’s Budget Cuts Taxes for Working Families and Makes Big Corporations and the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
HOME
BRIEFING ROOM
STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
Since taking office, President Biden has fought to build a fairer tax system that rewards work, not wealth; asks the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations to pay their fair share; and requires all Americans to play by the same rules and pay the taxes they owe. He has already secured historic legislation to make our tax code fairer, from enacting a corporate minimum tax so that billion-dollar companies can’t get away with paying $0 in Federal income taxes to giving the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the tools it needs to make wealthy tax cheats pay the taxes they owe. President Biden will fight to stop Republican plans to add trillions to the deficit with tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and largest corporations. Republicans would rather add trillions to the national debt than take back even one dollar of the $150 billion annual rate cut corporations received under President Trump. Now, President Biden’s Budget will cut taxes for working families and lower deficits by trillions of dollars over a decade by making the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share—and no one earning less than $400,000 per year will pay a penny in new taxes.

Makes Big Corporations and Special Interests Pay Their Fair Share

President Biden has secured major reforms to crack down on corporate tax avoidance and ensure that large corporations start paying more of their fair share, including a 15 percent corporate minimum tax and a surcharge on large, publicly-traded corporations that buy back their own stock. The President’s Budget builds on this progress by making big corporations pay their fair share in taxes and ending special interest giveaways. The President’s Budget:

Raises Tax Rates for Large Corporations. Corporations received an enormous tax break in 2017. While their profits soared, their investment in their workers and the economy did not. Their shareholders and top executives reaped the benefits, without the promised trickle down to workers, consumers, or communities. The President’s Budget would set the corporate tax rate at 28 percent, still well below the 35 percent rate that prevailed prior to the 2017 tax law. In addition, the Budget would raise the Inflation Reduction Act’s corporate minimum tax rate on billion-dollar corporations that the President signed into law from 15 percent to 21 percent, ensuring the biggest corporations pay more of their fair share. These policies are complemented by other proposals to incentivize job creation and investment in the United States to help ensure broadly shared prosperity.

Cracks Down on Tax Avoidance by Large Multinationals and Big Pharma. For decades, countries have competed for multinational business by slashing tax rates, at the expense of having adequate revenues to finance core services. Thanks in part to the Administration’s leadership, more than 130 nations signed on to a global tax framework to finally address this race to the bottom in 2021. Many of our international partners, including many of the world’s largest economies, have implemented or will soon implement this transformational agreement. The President’s Budget proposes to do the same by reforming the international tax system to reduce the incentives to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions, stopping corporate inversions to tax havens, and raising the tax rate on U.S. multinationals’ foreign earnings from 10.5 percent to 21 percent. These reforms would ensure that profitable multinational corporations, including Big Pharma, pay their fair share.

Denies Corporate Tax Breaks for Million Dollar Executive Compensation. Executive pay has skyrocketed in recent decades, with CEO pay averaging more than 300 times that of a typical worker in 2022. The 2017 tax law’s corporate tax cuts only made this problem worse, producing massive boosts to executive compensation while doing nothing for low- and middle-income workers. While corporations can choose to give huge pay packages to their executives, President Biden believes that they don’t deserve a tax break when they do. His Budget proposes new policy to deny deductions for all compensation over $1 million paid to any employee of a C corporation, which would discourage companies from giving their executives massive pay packages and help level the playing field across C corporations.

Quadruples the Stock Buybacks Tax. The Inflation Reduction Act’s surcharge on corporate stock buybacks reduces the tax advantage for buybacks over dividends and encourages businesses to invest in their growth and productivity as opposed to funneling tax-preferred profits to foreign shareholders. The President’s Budget proposes quadrupling the stock buybacks tax from one percent to four percent to address the continued tax advantage for buybacks and encourage corporations to invest in productivity and the broader economy.

Eliminates Tax Subsidies for Oil and Gas. The President is committed to ending tens of billions of dollars of Federal tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. Even as they benefit from billions of dollars in special tax breaks, oil companies have failed to invest in production. For the last two years, they have realized record profits, but instead of lowering prices for consumers or investing these funds, they have undertaken record stock buybacks, mergers, and acquisitions that benefited executives and wealthy shareholders. The Budget eliminates special tax treatment for oil and gas company investments, as well as other fossil fuel tax preferences.

Eliminates Tax Subsidies for Real Estate. The Budget closes the “like-kind exchange” loophole, a special tax subsidy for real estate. This loophole lets real estate investors—but not investors in any other asset – put off paying tax on profits from deals indefinitely as long as they keep investing in real estate. This amounts to an indefinite interest free loan from the Government. Real estate is the only asset that gets this sweetheart deal.

Eliminate Tax Subsidies for Cryptocurrency Transactions. The Budget eliminates a special tax subsidy for crypto currency and certain other transactions. Right now, crypto investors aren’t subject to the same rules of the road that investors in stocks or other securities have to follow, allowing them to report excessive losses. For example, a crypto investor – unlike an investor in stocks or bonds – can sell a cryptocurrency at a loss, take a substantial tax loss to reduce their tax burden, and then buy back that same cryptocurrency the very next day. The Budget eliminates this tax subsidy for crypto currencies by modernizing the tax code’s anti-abuse rules to apply to crypto assets just like they apply to stocks and other securities.

Makes Wealthy People Pay Their Fair Share

President Biden has already secured additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that is enabling it to crack down on the high-income individuals and corporations who too often avoided paying their lawfully owed taxes and to improve service for the millions of Americans that do pay their taxes. Already, the IRS has collected more than $500 million in unpaid taxes from fewer than 2,000 delinquent millionaires, launched enforcement action against 25,000 millionaires who have not filed a tax return since 2017, and started cracking down on high-end tax evasion like deducting personal use of corporate jets as a business expense. President Biden’s tax plan would build on this progress with reforms that will finally make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. The President’s Budget:

Requires Billionaires to Pay at Least 25 Percent of Income in Taxes. Billionaires make their money in ways that are often taxed at lower rates than ordinary wage income, or sometimes not taxed at all, thanks to giant loopholes and tax preferences that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. As a result, many of these wealthy Americans are able pay an average income tax rate of just 8 percent on their full incomes—a lower rate than many firefighters or teachers. To finally address this glaring inequity, the President’s Budget includes a 25 percent minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01 percent, those with wealth of more than $100 million.

Increases the Top Tax Rate on the Wealthiest Americans to 39.6 Percent. One of the 2017 tax cut’s clearest giveaways to the wealthy was cutting the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, exclusively benefitting those in the top one percent. This rate cut alone is giving a couple with $2 million in annual taxable income a tax cut of more than $30,000 each year. The President’s Budget restores the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent for single filers making over $400,000 a year and married couples making more than $450,000 per year.

Ends Capital Income Tax Breaks and Other Loopholes for the Very Wealthy. The President’s Budget will end one of the most unfair aspects of our tax system—the fact that the tax rate the wealthy pay on capital gains and dividends is less than the tax rate that many middle-class families pay on their wages. Households making over $1 million—the top 0.4 percent of all households—will pay the same 39.6 percent marginal rate on their income just like a high-paid worker pays on their wages. Moreover, the Budget eliminates the loophole that allows the wealthiest Americans to entirely escape paying taxes on their wealth by passing it down to heirs. Today, our tax laws allow these accumulated gains to be passed down across generations untaxed, exacerbating inequality. The Budget will close this loophole, ending the practice of “stepping-up” the basis for gains in excess of $5 million per person and $10 million per married couple ($5.25 and $10.5 million, respectively, when combined with existing real estate exemptions), and making sure the gains are taxed if the property is not donated to charity. The reform is designed with protections so that family-owned businesses and farms will not have to pay taxes when given to heirs who continue to run the business. Without these changes, billions in capital income would continue to escape capital gains taxation entirely.

Requires Wealthy People to Pay their Fair Share Toward Medicare to Extend Medicare Solvency Indefinitely. The President’s Budget extends the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund indefinitely by modestly increasing the Medicare tax rate on incomes above $400,000, closing loopholes in existing Medicare taxes, and directing revenue from the Net Investment Income Tax into the HI trust fund as was originally intended, along with dedicating an amount equivalent to the savings from Medicare prescription drug reforms. Current law lets certain wealthy business owners avoid Medicare taxes on some of the profits they get from pass-through businesses. The President’s Budget closes this loophole and raises Medicare tax rates on earned and unearned income from 3.8 percent to 5 percent for those with incomes over $400,000.

Closes Loopholes for the Wealthy. The Budget closes loopholes that overwhelmingly benefit the rich and big corporations, including ending the carried interest loophole that allows some wealthy investment fund managers to pay tax at lower rates than their secretaries, reforming tax preferred retirement incentives to ensure that the ultrawealthy cannot use these incentives to amass tax free fortunes, preventing the super-wealthy from abusing life insurance tax shelters, closing a loophole that benefits wealthy crypto investors, and ending a tax break for corporate jets.

Ensures That the IRS Can Continue to Collect Taxes Owed by Wealthy Tax Cheats. The Inflation Reduction Act addressed long-standing IRS funding deficiencies by providing stable, multi-year funding to improve tax compliance by finally cracking down on high-income individuals and corporations who too often avoided paying their lawfully owed taxes, and to improve service for the millions of Americans that do pay their taxes. Already, the IRS is using these resources to crack down on tax evasion by the wealthy and big businesses. It has collected more than $500 million in unpaid taxes from fewer than 2,000 delinquent millionaires, is recouping taxes from thousands of millionaires who did not fulfill their basic civic duty by filing a tax return, and is cracking down on high-end tax evasion like deducting personal use of corporate jets as a business expense. At the same time, the IRS is improving customer service and modernizing IT infrastructure. The President’s Budget would restore the full Inflation Reduction Act investment and provide new funding over the long-term to continue cutting the deficit by making sure that wealthy Americans and big corporations pay the taxes they owe through tax compliance initiatives and to continue improving service for taxpayers who are just trying to pay what they owe.

Cracks Down on Corporate Jet Loopholes. The Budget eliminates a tax break that gives preferential treatment for writing off corporate jet purchases, compared to commercial aircraft. It would also increase the fuel tax on corporate and private jet travel, so that corporate executives and other wealthy Americans pay their fair share for the use of airspace and other public services related to air travel.

Cuts Taxes for Working Families and the Middle-Class

President Biden’s tax cuts cut child poverty in half in 2021 and are saving millions of people an average of about $800 per year in health insurance premiums today. Going forward, in addition to honoring his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 annually, President Biden’s tax plan would cut taxes for middle- and low-income Americans by $765 billion over 10 years. The President’s Budget:

Increases the Child Tax Credit for 66 Million Children. The American Rescue Plan’s expansion of the Child Tax Credit helped cut child poverty nearly in half to a historic low and narrowed racial disparities in access to the credit in 2021. The President’s Budget would restore the expanded Child Tax Credit, lifting 3 million children out of poverty and cutting taxes by an average of $2,600 for 39 million low- and middle-income families that include 66 million children. This includes 18 million children in low-income families who would be newly eligible for the full credit, and 2 million children living with a caregiver who is at least 60 years old. It would also provide breathing room for day-to-day expenses by allowing families to receive their tax credit through monthly payments.

Cuts Taxes for 19 Million Working-class Americans. By strengthening the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-paid workers who aren’t raising a child in their home, the President’s Budget would cut taxes by an average of $800 for 19 million working individuals or couples. That includes 2 million older workers age 65 and older and 5 million young adults age 18 to 24 who would be newly eligible for the credit.

Makes Lower Health Insurance Premiums Permanent. With enrollment in affordable health coverage at an all-time high, the President’s Budget would build on the remarkable success of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Inflation Reduction Act by making permanent the IRA’s expansion of the premium tax credit, which is saving millions of people an average of about $800 per year in health insurance premiums this year.

In addition, the President’s Budget explains his principles for addressing tax cuts expiring after 2025. The President would extend all middle-class tax cuts; as he has repeatedly promised, he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year. And he will fully pay for these extensions with additional reforms to make the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share, so that they do not add to the debt. At the same time, he opposes tax cuts for the wealthy—either extending tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans earning more than $400,000 per year or bringing back deductions and other tax breaks for these households.

So you're saying he's an ineffective President? Or a lying President? (Making promises he can't keep.) Or is he just a powerless figurehead selling fairy tales?

Biden has used his veto power 10 times. He's used it on things like "Rule Relating to the Endangered and Threatened Status of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken." link Not exactly something that actually matters a whole lot.

Edit: I actually think that veto was a good thing. Just wish he would use it on more things.

You know as well as anyone that you can't force congress to act to push your policies especially when the other party is in control. Only people who know zero about politics say the kind of things you said in your last post.

Some presidents don't think that the veto pen should be used to give a president more power than he is actually supposed to have. Others use it to try to overthrow every decision congress makes to cater to their base. I would suggest using it less would be a better alternative to having over 90% of your deregulation policies overturned in court because you tried to abuse the power of the presidency.

The Trump administration has lost more than 90 percent of its court battles over deregulation

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/tru...rcent-of-deregulation-court-battles.html

Some people want a president. Some people want a dictator.

I just want someone that makes good promises and keeps them.

Also looks like further evidence that the 2 party system doesn't really work very well.

I'm not a fan of only having two political parties. It's gotten us to where we are now. Two men running for president where there is actually no way to win. Neither are good candidates. I guess at the same time having three parties or more in Washington D.C would make it even harder to get legislation passed. Which in some cases would be a good thing.

I don't think saying you will fight for something means you will actually be able to accomplish it. But yes, some of them make promises they can't keep. Actually they all do so I'm not sure how Biden is any different from the rest. I don't think you will find anyone on the ballot that can accomplish everything they promise. Sadly if most Americans knew anything about how the process works they would know that there isn't a president anywhere or at any point in time that can accomplish what they claim without help from congress.

I think what you're wanting is akin to chasing unicorns.

I agree. I'd actually prefer to go the no party route, though. Make each candidate stand on their own merit. Provide each candidate that gets X amount of support (numbers dependent on level of gov't) , X amount of money (less then typical now,) and provide them a platform (.gov website or, more likely, a subsection of a site) to provide his/her stance on issues and perhaps host videos. No political contributions. No media campaigning outside of the defined website.

Pipe dream probably, with so many powerful interests invested in the current system. But, It'd likely work better.

I can't say that I don't share your opinion. Sadly I don't believe we will ever see that.

Edit to add; I think there is a certain amount of tribal instinct that exists within most people which would prevent there from ever being an end to political parties.

Just to be fair, that post is from 1/29/20 and things did not get serious until 3/13/20. The picture has Fauci and a few others that can be recognized in it.

Initial response good, follow up was not good. Categorize under "does not play well with others".

Trump deserves credit for the vaccine. The timeline was fantastic and the vaccine saved a lot of lives. But the fallout (COVID deniers and anti vaccers) still exists today. As does a new distrust of the CDC, which until Trump had a good reputation.

Literally he was all over it, until he recognized that the virus was going to last through the election, and then did a lot to undercut the good things that happened.

I'm not even going to read that now.

Here's the problem with the whole "tax the rich" plans that ANYONE has: The people that write the bills ARE the rich, and they create loopholes for the rich.

Headlines can, and do, say 1 thing. Reality is usually quite different.

Further, taxing corporations? Where do corps. get their money? From people that buy their services and or products. Guess who that is?

While I think you are 100% correct and that in the end it will be consumers who bear the burden I'm still not sure how that excuses them from paying such a low tax rate. I think if one looks back to what the tax rates were under Eisenhower it's easy to see this is a problem that has been created over time that didn't exist before. It was at that point in time not a political football.

And it's quite true that it is rich politicians that write the laws for themselves and other rich people, there are still politicians trying to fix it. If the message was sent that those who keep this status quo couldn't get reelected I'm sure things would change. The one thing it seems they crave even more than money is power.

But here's where I think the biggest divide comes into play. Capitalism. I don't think there's that many people who don't believe in capitalism. I know I do. The problem comes into play when there are a lack of checks and balances involved. Or as it's commonly referred to as unbridled capitalism. That for some reason they shouldn't pay their fair share like the rest of us do. Every system needs checks and balances. And some people think capitalism should have its limits. Generally when it comes to human rights. Many feel the same as I do that healthcare is something every human being should have access to. That having health problems shouldn't lead to financial bankruptcy or losing your home. That all humans deserve healthcare. I'm just using this as an example.

That doesn't by any means mean that I hate capitalism or am a socialist. It simply means that when the life of human beings are on the line I support the human beings over profits for corporations.

"Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response"

What the hell is wrong with that statement I wonder...Could it be that WE ALREADY HAD A TASK FORCE FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE!

Look at who's writing this crap.. Trumps people are writing it. C

Look at the timing of his GREAT NEW RESPONSE TEAM!

It was formed in either Late April or May. That's AFTER the virus had taken hold here in the state. He knew about this Virus in January but took no action until either april or may.

Again, I'm NOT blaming him FOR the virus. I blame him for the stupid way he handled it... Remember, "It will just go away" and my all time favorite, can't we use bleach.

The man is a MORON.

You didn't make a legit point, You said I blamed Trump for the Virus,,, I DIDN'T.

I made a very valid point, you just can't grasp it.

"However, I'd like to highlight this quote of yours: " Are prices for food too high? yes. But haven't you been paying attention? Every country on this planet is going through the same thing. "

Now, take that thinking a step further, but in a different scenario: Was COVID bad? Yes, but weren't you paying attention? Every country on this planet was dealing with it."


You excuse inflation under biden, yet you blame trump for how covid was handled here. TOTALLY ignoring how covid was brand new, and no one in ANY country knew what to do about it at the time.

How convenient, You left out the part where you said I blamed Trump.... And I didn't

How convenient, You left out the part where you said I blamed Trump.... And I didn't

Get a grip dude. I can't help you.


On a SIDE note: (get that? A different topic?) You blame trump for everything else. Understand?

Being a trump apologist is better right?

It's odd how most of what trump actually gets blamed for are the very things he does and says. Yet they won't address any of it. They ignore it like the plague. Then they blame those who point out what he does and says for his actions. They act as though there's something wrong with the people who post it rather than the one doing and saying those things.

According to your logic I shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes on products and services I sell to anyone either. You’re nuts.

Maybe (more) taxing is the wrong angle to take. Maybe we need to look into limiting profit margins and executive salaries. Ensuring livable wages. Might also need to reconsider treating corporations as if they were their own person.

Again pipe dream. But the way it works now works better for a few people than the many.

Jc

I’m still waiting on conservatives to explain to me why corporations keep raising prices despite there being no need to.

The free market doesn’t seem to be all that interested in setting fair market prices for the consumer.

I guess they never have, but that’s a different conversation…

How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into ‘People’

https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-corporate-personhood-made-corporations-into-people

Looks like I'm with Rehnquist, Stevens, and Obama here.

Because they can.

And most people place the blame on everyone but them.

That gets said a lot. I don't know that it's true.

I blame the [censored] out of them. I also blame a societal collection of systems that ties the idea of success to wealth.

I said "most". Just look around you and tell me that's wrong.

If corporations were people, they would pay taxes in the same manner as individuals.

Any suggestion that a corporation is a person is plausibly false, and not supported by fact or history. I just wish that judges and courts would recognize this.

Exactly, you said "most." I see you, Swish, and Spiral in the majority of this thread. I'm not sure what else you think is around me. I think you underestimate "most"/a lot of people.

I know that this has been turned into a political talking point and the sheeple follow along. that's what's around us all. I think you strongly underestimate the amount of sheeple in our society. Actually I don't think that you do that. I think you're just trying to make a counterpoint that doesn't exist.

I finally got a straight answer out of you. 2024 is definitely the year of confusion.

People are still buying overpriced stuff. There is still a line at McDs for a 20 dollar big mac meal. People are stupid and paying for it. Go buy groceries. Its cheaper than fast food and healthier. Idiots.

There are lots of sheeple. Unfortunately, there are a few varieties. I think you use most inaccurately and otherwise generalize and obfuscate with annoying frequency. Presenting things as fact that you make up on the spot is another seeming habit.

"Most" people blaming everything but corporations for corporations being greedy seems a rather ridiculous assertion to me.

Most people I know complain about greedy corporations.

Well, there is a decent reason for it and that's higher wages. They have to pay more. Truth be told, they held the working man down for years, now they gotta pay to the piper so to speak!

You really wanna have frosted cookies,. try to explain why prices of goods haven't gone down since the supply chain has been so much better? And since we are producing more oil at home then ever, why are gas prices so high. Along with Oil company profits?

I’d be curious to see exactly how much of the “inflation” goes right into corporate margins. Defense industry is still screaming inflation at us even though most of the indices we look at show they were largely unaffected by any of it. In many cases they came out ahead.

Ah, the "most people I know" theory. The anecdotal evidence argument. That's really no better than the accusations you made about me.

You complain but then vote for the very party that wants to lower their taxes and deregulate corporations even further.

At least us libs complain and vote accordingly. You conservatives just complain and…complain some more.

But it’s expected. All yall ever do is complain, then vote for the thing you complain about.

It is better because I actually know the people I'm referencing. I'm not blanket referencing all people and saying most of them do anything. Actual people literally said things in my presence. Of the people I know and interact with in person, most complain about corporations. That's certainly due in no small part to the people I choose to interact with, which is why I specified "people I know." I don't fantasize about all people and what they must think and project my ideas upon them as you seem to.

Except I don't vote for them. Swell assumption. Great argument.

You perfectly described anecdotal evidence. Much like, "Well around these parts". Your circle of associates isn't in any way indicative of or evidence of the overall population.

Majority of Democrats Blame Joe Biden for Soaring Inflation: Poll

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-blame-joe-biden-record-inflation-poll-1717669

Explainer: Republicans blame Biden for inflation, but are they right?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-blame-biden-inflation-are-they-right-2021-11-01/

But please, do go on....

I didn't claim anything with regards to overall population. You did.

Wow, past polls that use a sensational headline. You sure showed me.

The results are what they are. You claimed it was me who refused to see anything other than the way that I believe. When in fact, even when shown the evidence it ends up that it's you who can't see anything other than the way you believe. You use "the people I know" as your premise when I made it obvious to you they don't represent "most people". But I didn't expect a different response than what you offered up.

So go on record right now and state that you don’t vote heavily GOP in your voting history.

This is starting to remind me of Arch trying to tell everyone he didn’t vote for Trump back in 2016, only for him to break and finally admit what we all knew.

You ain’t gonna lie to kick it, bro.

You're quoting a poll that says (more or less) "majority of Democrats blame Biden for Inflation."

If you read the article, it shows that the actual number is 53% of Democrats.

If you read further, you see that the number of people polled is 1,310. What is the margin for error when looking at US population and using 1,310 individuals using IDB/TIPP's polling methodology? If it's greater than 3%, that headline is quite misleading.

Yet, you're making claims about "most people" (with no additional specificity.)

I haven't voted for a Republican in the past 20 years. I'm not sure I ever did before then. Definitely never voted for Trump.

Edit: Didn't vote for Biden, either. Literally setting a ballot on fire would probably be cathartic.

You're up to your usual deflection. That was only a poll of the democrats. Try adding in all of the republicans blame Biden for it and see what excuses you can come up with next. Just like your CO2 argument. You come up with one aspect of it to attack the entire premise of cutting CO2 emissions.

Even if a poll of democrats was at 40%, when you combine Republicans into the mix the results aren't even close. Sadly, I think you actually know this but just keep carrying on anyway.

It actually wasn't only a poll of Democrats. Good to know that you didn't actually read the article you linked. That was just what they cherry picked for the headline.

I'm not attacking the entire premise of cutting CO2 emissions. I just think that particular one is a scam.

But, again, you generalize, obfuscate, and attempt to put words into other people's mouths.

Anyone reading it can see your agenda. You don't hide it well. Just like with Ukraine. Eventually you admitted that sending them arms was better than doing nothing. After days of arguing against sending them arms. So your argument is "Yeah, but if the poll is off it doesn't count. With nothing that suggests it isn't accurate because "The people I know"........ Well alrighty then.

The problem is you can't see my agenda. What do you think my agenda is?

Better than nothing, doesn't mean it is great. My argument was never to do nothing. It was to do more. It was to do better.

I'm not knocking the poll. I never said it didn't count. I'm questioning your interpretation of the poll. When you say it was just a poll of Democrats, and the article shows where the same poll also included Republicans, it makes me doubt your conclusions even more.

Your problem seems to be that anyone that wants to do something different than you is the enemy and therefore thinks we should do nothing. The nothing part is all in your head. In reality, We just think we should do something different, and, hopefully, better.

Edit: To make things simpler, here's my agenda: 1. Let's not do things that don't really work. 2. Let's try to do better.

No more hiding.

Although, I don't think I was really trying to hide it.

Hold on….do you even vote?

Not for the people printed on the ballot.

Edit: You should know this about me by now. Always have to make my own options.

Anyone who wants to do something differently than me is not the enemy. Often times I actually agree that more will be required. But when your argument seems to always be that doing something rather than everything is a bad idea, it certainly portrays that you support doing nothing because it won't totally solve the problem. In the end you come around and say something is better than nothing. But that's long after you've argued that doing something won't solve anything.

And no matter how hard yo twist it, if your questioning my conclusion of the poll, that means you are in fact questioning the poll. Those two things are one in the same.

I'm always hoping for better. I'm just not spending my time posting against trying to start the process of doing better.

Polls don't make conclusions. People do. Many of them fallacious. I will try to remember that you are the poll, though. (I.e, Pit doesn't need to sit on a pole, he is the poll. Lol)

But by promoting bad solutions you really are working against the process of doing better. Not only are you assisting preventing resources from being used optimally, in some cases you seem to support adding to the problem.

With regards to Ukraine, I didn't so much changed my opinion of the efficacy of supplying arms to win the war. Rather, I considered the idea that winning the war didn't have to be the goal. I understand the differentiation there may be difficult to comprehend.

What bad solutions have I promoted? Did I actually claim that some of the ideas I promoted were "solutions"? Or instead did I say they would help the problem? Working towards finding a solution is often accomplished in steps and not all at once. You must first start by improving a problem before you can find any solution to it. I also said that Ukraine wanted to defend itself and we should give them an opportunity to do that. I never said Ukraine would win the war. But then again I didn't say it was an accomplishment that was impossible for them to accomplish either.

I'd say that there is a pretty good percentage of the profit increase corporations are seeing is due to the higher prices they charged during the Pandemic and all the problems we had with getting the goods to the shelves (so to speak). The supply chains are way way better than they were 2 years ago.

Just keep in mind, workers pay has gone up also. With all that said, I have little doubt that it still comes down to they all figured out we'd be willing to pay higher prices so they keep charging them.

Pretty certain that's an incorrect statement. In fact, I KNOW it's incorrect. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

I never said I didn't vote for Trump. I probably said something along the lines of "I voted for trump over hillary....."

Right. Simply I’d just like to know how much inflation allocates to response in rising costs and how much inflation and how much inflation allocates to shear increase in margin. That could be telling information on greed levels, or lack thereof to be fair.

No, but kitchen economics is at or near the top.

No question, the price of Groceries is tough of many. The point of blaming that on Biden is just stupid

For me, it's not just a question of cost. There's also the question of quality. Unfortunately, the government tends to subsidize mass production over quality production. That's not a Biden specific issue. Unfortunately, corporations like Monsanto have held a lot of lobbying power and policy influence for over a century.

It seems the government falls into the trap of more food cheaper is always good. A better paradigm would probably be to focus on getting more good food, cheaper and locally. To me, it's another example of something that sounds good on the surface, but ultimately works out to subsidizing someone's profits while that someone finds more and more ways to create profits instead of improving the thing they are actually paid to provide. Consider, providing more food faster quantity wise sounds good. But, if each individual piece of food has lower nutritional value the consumer is paying the "same" price for less.

Nah I remember it clearly. You tried to be all non-committal, and even after the election tried to dodge the question, until of course a Hillary post by someone triggered you into finally admitting you voted for him.

You don’t remember? I said at the time Hillary must have dumped you back in high school and all that.

Pepperidge farm remembers.

Does it really matter who you vote for?

The Democracy Problem- Link

I'm not sure I agree with everything there, but it is a lot to think about.

Not as much as one would hope for, but yes it does. If you can't see the obvious difference it isn't worthy of discussion.

I take it you didn't read the link?

You made a very open ended statement which I responded to. Accurately I might add.

It wasn't a statement, it was a question. (blatant lie) It also wasn't asked in a vacuum. You ignored the substance of my post. Now Swish and Spiral seem to be acting as your proxies.

How can one respond accurately if they avoid reading the majority of what that one is responding to?

Yes, it matters who you vote for. Call me a fool.

Maybe you should have made your question relevant to the link you posted. You did not. I responded accurately to the question you posed. Don't blame me for your own shortcomings.

Bro, we’re proxies for Pit!! *high five*

More than one person disagrees with him so it must be some kind of organized plot.

Did you ever read the link? If not, how do you know the relevance?

Are you that insecure that you're afraid to click a link?

If you have clicked the link, can you comment on what was inside?

I have plenty of shortcomings. I'm not blaming you for them. I'm pointing out your behaviors. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should stop performing the behaviors.

I answered your question. I'm sorry you didn't word your question in a way that was more relevant to what you wanted to see in the responses.

Your commenting based on your perception and nothing more. And no, your perception doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Those two ideas would appear to be contradictory.

My question was "Does it matter who you vote for?" Pit just said "My vote never does anything." Answering yes to the question while making the latter statement doesn't seem to be clear and obvious to me. Just saying.

He expects his audience to appreciate his performance. Clap clap.

How about answering these questions then?

Did you ever read the link? If not, how do you know the relevance?

Are you that insecure that you're afraid to click a link?

If you have clicked the link, can you comment on what was inside?

The only things that seem clear and obvious to you are things that aren't clear and obvious. Who I vote for is important. Voting your conscience is always important. As a matter of fact having been raised by a former Master Sergeant it was drilled into my head the importance of voting. How many people had died to preserve and protect that right for me and all of us. That is was my patriotic duty to vote. So it not only matters that I vote but who I vote for.

The fact that it has no bearing on who wins the election is a totally different matter. Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion you may have had.

I'm not going to chase after your follies all day. You asked a basic question and I answered it. This isn't a game of 20 questions. At some point one would think people had outgrow that game. If there are specific questions from your link you would like answered, post them.

You have been responding all day. Your characterization of my posts as follies is another example of gaslighting.


As usual, you took one thing from a post out of context and pretended it was everything to address. The question was intended to be rhetorical with the link that followed providing a different framework for looking at the question. As you never looked at the link, you missed my intent. In your rush to contradict me, you didn't receive the message I was sending. Unfortunately, communication isn't a one way process. I can't make you participate.


I don't know. Games can be fun. Would you answer all the questions if we were playing 20 questions?

The "games" you like to play on the forums are the opposite of fun. I wish you would outgrow those.


The whole article goes together. Individual questions would lack the associated context. I would like your (and others') feedback on the entirety. I know you tend to cherry pick individual things and ignore the rest, but could you try reading everything before jumping to a conclusion?

edit: Re-link for ease of access: https://www.lowimpact.org/categories/the-democracy-problem

No. You are mistaken.

In the primary, I did not vote for trump.

In the general, I DID vote for Trump because he wasn't Hillary.

But, what's it matter anyway?

nothing, it was just a memory that got brought up since Bull is....well, now he's saying he doesnt vote ballot candidates, so now he just writes everyone's name in?

https://civileats.com/2024/03/26/in...st-powerful-families-in-the-food-system/


Interesting read. Formatting doesn't translate well, so went with just the excerpt.

It does matter who we vote for. I don't care that you somehow think anything you posted would change that. Your question was answered. Just because it didn't focus on your reasoning doesn't matter.

Yep…proving the point that your vote matters more than ever before.

Except, in a lot of ways, it doesn't because the people you vote for aren't actually the ones making the decisions. Or perhaps they are only allowed to make certain decisions within a limited span. Non-elected officials set things like interest rates. Elected officials are funded by corporate interests and are constrained by those interested parties desires if they want to be re-elected.

The article explains/explores these ideas a lot better than I'm going to be able to while pecking at my phone.

There are certainly things you can point to that may not change or make a huge difference according to who you vote for. There are also many things people can point to that shows there's a vast difference in who you vote for. Putting some things in a vacuum while failing to address the other things only paints a portion of the picture.

Thanks for coming around to what I've been saying for awhile.

It wasn't me suggesting people ignore everything about your question except the the topics covered in your link.

No, but it was you ignoring everything in the link and addressing the question in a vacuum.

Actually quite the opposite. Looking at something in a vacuum is what happens when you only look at specific things while ignoring everything else. Looking at something in its totality is the opposite of looking at things in a vacuum.

How does one look at the totality while ignoring things?

Definitely feels like some tail wagging the 'dawg logic.

You pointed out specific things with which your question was based on. Your assertion was that we look at the topics you wished to use while ignoring others. Which is why I and Spiral both answered, yes it matters who you vote for and your claim was that we didn't look at the specific topics in the link you posted. That's because we were addressing the question in its totality. At this point the only logical explanation I can come up with for all of your double talk is that you are purposefully being obtuse.

Oh no! Not again!

Actually I did but I expect this type of behavior from the trump squad. The whole birds of a feather thing.

What's a "Trump Squad"?

Anyone that doesn't agree with you??

What "others" did I want you to ignore?

I wanted you not to ignore things. How can you address a totality while ignoring aspects of the question and its context?

You not being able to come up with a logical explanation has no bearing on anything outside of you. I'll refrain from jumping to conclusions about your mental capabilities.

Do you care to expand on this that you said earlier?:

Who doesn't actually agree with me here? You nor Memphis actually stated anything about that. What part about the actual topic is it that you disagree with?

If I asked you does it matter who you vote for would you isolate that into certain topics or look at everything in considering your answer to that question?

The only thing a couple of you have done is come in and take a cheap shot without addressing the topic at all. So I have no idea whether you do or don't agree with me nor the reasoning of why. I mean if you're going to come here and step in it, step all the way into it.

From you reaction and your words everything that wasn't covered in your link.


I'll certainly comment on a couple of them. Campaign financing. They all want the big money corporate donors. The influence corporations have over domestic policies. That money gets rewarded.

We'll try color by numbers:





What. makes. them. the. "Trump Squad"???

None of you are voting for Biden are you?

Is that any of your business?

And how does that pertain to the discussion?

What discussion? Since when does someone staring off with a personal bard constitute a discussion? I gave what I got and of course you chose to confront the respondent. Typical.

You've asked 18 questions and given no answers.

AKA... "Tuesday".

I answered your question. Neither you nor Memphis addressed any part of the topic or discussion. Instead you are now attempting to make that a discussion. I actually invited you to join in the actual topic of the discussion which you refused to do. So no, averting the topic by trying to turn the persona barbs into a discussion isn't going to work. So let's try this again if you actually wish to join the discussion....

Let me make it as clear as possible for those who have a comprehension problem. It was nothing more than a barb in retaliation to a previous barb. It seems you are having a problem understanding that.

And still nothing that addresses the actual discussion at the time.

Well there is a way to fix this. I mean, if you REALLY want your vote to count.. If you really mean it. There is a way.

Dump the elector college. Don't need it.

Our voting systems are so damn good Everybody can make a difference now. (regardless of what the liars and other MAGA sacks of crap keep yelling about like little whiny babies) Putting electors in the mix just gives those with "Misdeeds in mind", another opportunity to screw with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

...our systems are so damn good... that Trump got elected....


You didn't read the article, either, did you? I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but I'm not sure how you got there. I don't think getting rid of it would solve the problems mentioned in the article.

The "WILL OF THE PEOPLE," to me, would require better options on the ballot. The people that have been on there have definitely been against my will.

Unfortunately, Trump was such a goblin (...gremlin? ...ogre?) that the "will of the people" will support apparently literally anyone else.

The trump apologists here. “The trump squad”

“The "WILL OF THE PEOPLE," to me, would require better options on the ballot. The people that have been on there have definitely been against my will. “



All the more reason that makes your vote count. “We the people” select who’s on the ballot by voting in the primaries.

Yes, one tenth of one percent higher than expected.

On tenth? Time to start sacrificing children in the volcanos.

No. You're missing the "fun with math" ideology of Pit's post. Up one tenth means up 4 tenths, but we already expected it to be up 3 tenths. It would be like if Buckeyes were favored by 21, beat the Hoosiers 24-0, and their fans saying "we only really lost by three"

And 4 tenths is on top of the outrageous increase in prices (in case you live in a cave), still going up, and still higher than anytime since 1984.

NOT that any of that matters.

So despite all of your rhetoric, it increased a total of one tenth of one percent above expectations. Because no matter how much to twist it that's what I said.

FACTS are only rhetoric when you want to ignore the truth.

AKA "Wednesday".

I stated a fact. Just not the fact you wanted to hear. Yes, that's a typical Wednesday.

the only 2 fact that matters...


The annual inflation rate for the United States was 3.5% for the 12 months ending March.

FOMC's target is 2%.


________________

Logical Assumption-
It is now more likely we will see an interest rate increase of .25% before we see a reduction.

For years you have claimed there will be a major recession. I think that's another fact that matters when people read your opinions on the future of our economy.

Hell yea! I like hoarding cash in high yield savings accounts right now. Easy gains to help fund future home projects.

You brought up a "fact" without the context. When someone brings up the context, you pretend it doesn't exist. Yes, that's a typical post.

I'm not sure you have a grasp on what was said. The predicted rate increase was 0.3%. That was stated in the original source. That was the context from the very beginning. I simply stated that it increased by 0.1% more than that. The context was already set and I expounded on what that meant in real time. Sorry you missed that.

Your revisionist history skills are mind numbing.

Plus, I didn't think one had to look at the "source" to comment on it when using your method. I thought it was your practice to not read sources and just comment on specific things out of context that you wanted to. I also don't think expound or "real time" mean what you think they mean. You posted one sentence on a message board. (How can one simple sentence be systemic and/or detailed?) Nor do I think context is something that can be set. Context can and does change. You aren't the arbiter of "context."

It does appear that can contxt be changed because you're doing that right now. What you thought was "my practice" is not my practice. That's what is known as projection. As per usual your double talk doesn't change anything. The inflation increase rose by 0.1% over what was predicted. None of that is revisionist history.

I've never seen people try so hard to dispute factual information. Well I take that back. It's becoming more and more common these days.

So you're claiming you didn't ignore the link earlier?

Previously you claimed you didn't need to read it in order to answer a question related to it. You pull that cherry picking and ignoring context act all the time. ("your practice")

How can my alleged "double talk" not change anything when your first sentence said I changed something? You make no sense. Where is the "double talk?"

No one is disputing the information. It just seems that your use of information is exceedingly poor. You seem to tend to bring water is wet quality "analysis" and "discussion."

Telling us "water is wet" (Inflation rose by 0.1% o/e) over and over again is asinine.

36 months at over 3% = worst since we began tracking in 1913... and still rising.

j/c

I feel there will be a recession.

No way. Impossible.

The Biden Admin will just change the definition of recession... again.

And I can guarantee regardless of when it happens, the same suspects on here will blame Trump while biden will get a free ride.

Usually the sitting president takes the blame on these things. But I don’t expect your chicken little brain can comprehend that.

The source was in reference to how inflation increased more than expected last month. I stated how much more than expected last month. From that point on you and FATE went on tangents that had nothing to do with last months inflation increase. Don't blame me you can't stay on point.

Super has been feeling that way for years now.

Wait, I thought all you conservatives were educated and had great jobs and careers? Inflation doesn’t even affect you guys like that. Always whining bout stuff you don’t even experience.

Next think you know they'll be saying "What abut the poor people?"

After decades of not caring about poor people.

Pit pens 25 posts telling us inflation was not as bad as the experts said it would be.


But talking about how bad it actually is = "going off on a tangent".


We must all learn to talk only about what the great and powerful Pit wants to talk about. Abide!!

Yo Pit -- you should probably make a call to Wall Street and tell them to get their heads out of their butts.

Actually I stated it was 0.1% worse than they said it wouldld be. Another lie by the man who claims he does not lie.

It's not that I can't stay on point. It's that there's no point to your point.

We're talking about a man drowning. You're telling us the water is wet. Yes, the water is wet, but what does that have to do with the fact that the guy in the water is about to die?

We're looking at the bigger picture. You're focused on an insignificant piece of it. You're super focused on it only went up a little tiny bit more than expected. We're looking at the fact that the expected amount was already high without the little bit extra. Plus, it has been high for an extended period. Expecting something to be bad and it ending up only a little bit worse than expected doesn't somehow make that thing good or not matter. Setting an awful expectation is an oft used political tactic. It doesn't change what actually happens, but it can greatly influence the surrounding narrative.

What's the point in focusing on the least significant part of the issue? It does nothing to resolve the issue. It feels like you're trying to minimize a somewhat significant issue because it reflects poorly on the group you seem to find yourself in.

I'm definitely not saying Trump would do better. I'm just saying it's probably a better idea to be honest about the issue than to pretend that it isn't an issue because it was "expected."

I addressed the point of the article. That would be the March inflation rate. I didn't expound beyond that. Yes, I was focused on addressing what the source was referring to. Somehow I thought that was the objective when replying to a source that was posted.

If you wish to go beyond the scope of the article more power to you. But that is a different discussion. There are some negatives to the current state of the economy. There are also some positive indicators in the recovery. But that has nothing to do with the article that was posted. The inflation rate is less than half of what it was last year too. I know that doesn't fit the narrative some wish everyone else to focus on either but that is an indicator of it recovering.

.

AKA Thursday in Pit's world.

I'm pretty sure most people on both sides are "educated." Lots of overpriced pieces of paper saying that the holder is able to regurgitate what they are told exist on both sides of the aisle.

I'm also pretty sure it's the "liberals" that are currently constantly crowing about all the "great jobs" that are being added to the economy. (Conservatives do it, too when it's their turn.)

The thing about inflation is that it does affect most people irrespective of political affiliation. One might say it affects all people, a "fortunate" few are just benefitting from it.

The thing about the human condition is that people can feel empathy even if they haven't experienced precisely the same thing. Some people seem to have learned how to employ empathy more selectively than others (or not at all.)

Some people seem to whine about whining. It feels a bit hypocritical.

But, it happens. The world is a mess, and we're all products of our environments. We all get frustrated at times.

I addressed the point of the article. That would be the March inflation rate. I didn't expound beyond that. Yes, I was focused on addressing what the source was referring to. Somehow I thought that was the objective when replying to a source that was posted.

If you wish to go beyond the scope of the article more power to you. But that is a different discussion. There are some negatives to the current state of the economy. There are also some positive indicators in the recovery. But that has nothing to do with the article that was posted. The inflation rate is less than half of what it was last year too. I know that doesn't fit the narrative some wish everyone else to focus on either but that is an indicator of it recovering.

You didn't address anything. You repeated an insignificant sentence. Previously you said you expounded. Now you're saying you didn't expound.

The objective when replying to a source, to me, is to add something to the conversation. Simply repeating the least interesting fact is being a parrot.

It's only a different discussion in the sense that it is actually a discussion. The article was about a facet of the economy in a thread titled "the economy..." Of course, the discussion is going to look at how what was linked and the overarching topic fit together.

It seems rather typical of you to gloss right over "some negatives." You'd much rather focus on your contrived narrative. Getting worse less terribly isn't an indicator of recovery. It's an indicator that at a certain point it's hard for a thing to get much "sicker" without killing it altogether.

What did I parrot? What I pointed out was not mentioned in the article. Explaining that the increase was 0/1% more than what was projected was adding something to the conversation. Something it appears you didn't like added. My narrative is not contrived. You just don't like to address the fact it's getting better other than to claim that's a false narrative. It seems that you're having trouble grasping that things getting better means they're improving. You do understand what the word improvement means I would hope. Improvement means progress in getting better. The fact it seems you call that a false narrative is a you problem.

You keep repeating the 0.1% over and over again while ignoring that number's insignificance to the problem of the overall inflation numbers. It was a video rather than an article. The first time you mentioned it was fine, whatever. Pretending you expounded on something while simply focusing on an essentially meaningless number over and over again was pretty parrot-like.

My problem isn't with the number. My problem is with your apparent belief that that number has some particular significance when it really says next to nothing when used in a vacuum.

Your narrative is contrived in that you seem to think that 0.1% is somehow evidence of improvement. It was 0.1% worse... than expected. Inflation went from 3.2% in February to 3.5% in March. link

Where's the improvement there?

Did you not see that I posted it was "0.1 percent more than predicted"? How in anyone's twisted mind can they interpret that as "being better"? It's a factual numeric data point that it was higher than expected. Not a huge amount more, but more. That was for the month of March.

The improvement is this year over last year. Inflation is well below half of what it was last year at the current increase rates. Now can you explain how that's not improvement? It's far from being fixed. That doesn't change the fact that it's a vast improvement over last year no matter how you spin it. I'm not quite sure whose tail it is you're chasing here.

Again you pick an arbitrary fact and try to tell people it means something it doesn't. Inflation has gotten worse each month this year so far. Was it even worse last year, if averaged? Sure, but that doesn't mean it is improving now. Inflation improved at the end of last year. This year it is getting worse again.

The "source" was talking about the present, but of course it is okay if you want to change the subject and go back to last year. Heaven forbid if someone else wants to move the discussion forward, but it's perfectly fine for you to "go off on a tangent" and make a comparison to a time in the past when inflation was absolutely abhorrent if it helps your narrative.

Only you are allowed to pick and choose from wherever you like

And then you ignore anything that contradicts with your story or make up something new to argue about that no one said.

I think you're confusing yourself by chasing your own tail. I'm just sitting here in the present, I'm sure it might look like I'm chasing you as dizzy as you must make yourself while spinning around in circles.

I'm conservative.

I have a bachelor's degree in business.

I have a job I love. A JOB, got it? A career.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, not all conservatives are wealthy millionaires.

Inflation hits everyone. And there's no getting around that.

Whining about things I don't experience? I'm living it.

Good for all of you that aren't.

Stop complaining and pick yourself up by the bootstraps for a change.

You're the one picking and choosing. In 2022 the inflation rate was 9%. It has improved greatly since that time. It seems as though you hate admitting improvement.


And even more specifically the March inflation rate. So was I. But that seemed to have bothered you.

Families are crushed as Biden's inflation breaks 17% Link

That link is from October, its even higher now.

It seems an "error occurred" in your link. It didn't say mathematical error but that would seem to be a logical conclusion.

I fixed it

9% to 3.5% is an improvement. 3% to 3.5%, which is what it has done this year, is not an improvement. While not the abomination of last year, the inflation is still not good, and it currently has been getting worse again.

The fact didn't bother me. Your focus on .1% just didn't seem to be of much relevance to any meaningful discussion. I keep hoping for something meaningful from you. I keep being disappointed. C'est la vie.

You've already gotten something meaningful from my posts on this. It's just not meaningful in following your narrative. It was quite meaningful in putting into context how much over the predicted inflation rate it actually was for March. Sorry that still bothers you.

He parrots .1% because thats what losers do when they have no winning point. The only number that matters is the cumulative inflation because because thats what you pay in the store. Biden will lose in 2024 because people vote with their wallets. They arent going to say "Gee my bills only went up .1% more than expected this month." They are going to say "My monthly bills have gone up 1000$ a month since Biden has been President. I cant afford it, he needs to go."

The inflation rate in 2022 was 9%. It has been cut to almost a third of that. Only losers are in denial of that and that it is certainly a vast improvement from that time. Don't worry, even if trump loses he will try to steal it. Maybe this time he'll get away with it.

The only number that matters is the cummulative inflation. Only losers are in denial of that. Go cherry pick some different number because your .1% is weaksauce. lmao@u

But that context wasn't actually meaningful to the topic of the economy overall to anyone else participating in the thread. It was meaningful in the same way that shaving a micrometer off an eyelash is meaningful. If you're discussing the length of an eyelash in micrometers, great, but no one else gives a damn. If you've got a tiny speck of metal in your eye, it's meaningful to you. It's not so important to anybody else.

It's not so much that it bothers me. I'm intrigued by the puzzle of the way your mind works (or doesn't.) It seems I have an inherent need to try to fix broken things.

To you. Some of us actually look for and recognize signs of improvement.


Only losers feel some deep seated need to pretend it's everyone else who are the losers. #feelsorryforyou

Increasing more than expected isnt an improvement.

Only losers cherry pick insignificant stats to try to claim some moral victory while they ignore the true impact on society of the actual numbers.

Anyone else find the irony of Pit essentially calling himself a loser inexplicably hilarious?

Let's go back to what you yourself posted.....


The source wasn't talking about.....


I responded and kept my comment about the 0.1% to what the source was speaking about. " the present".

The people that tried to dismiss my comment by shifting to the economy overall in no way changed the factual comment I made.

Factually the economy is much improved from where it was in 2022. But there's still a lot of work to be done.

US single-family housing starts, permits near two-year highs

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-single-family-housing-starts-soar-february-2024-03-19/

March 2024 jobs report: 303,000 jobs added, marking an acceleration

https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/outlook/economic-outlook/jobs-report-march-2024

Everything isn't doom and gloom.

Only it wasn't me calling others a loser. It's hilarious how some of you feel some need to stick up for the single most nasty poster on the board. But it's not surprising. Then claim you don't have a side.

You definitely were passive aggressively calling other people losers.

Of course I felt the need to stick up for myself, and I'm always on my side.

How could I not be on my own side? #TeamNasty

jc

Inflation was 1.4 in Jan 2021 when all this started. It's still more than double. Pitt won't acknowledge this fact because it doesn't fit his narrative. Instead he compares to an arbitrary point that supports his narrative. Anyone that wants to look at the big picture will look at what inflation was before it went up instead of cherry picking data points. First half of 2023 was moving in the right direction, then fizzled in the 2nd half of the year. Now this recovery from inflation is seems to be stuck in the mud. Maybe 3.5 inflation is the new normal.

Right.

It's gone from insanely terrible, to getting better, to getting worse again. But even getting better still has us in terrible shape because the insanely terrible doesn't just get swept off the table anyway. Now that it's getting worse again, Pit says we should celebrate worse because it's not as bad as worst and certainly not as worse as worse could have been if worse was .1% worser.

Maybe he's just waaay smarter than the rest of us?

People most certainly don't wish to talk about the economy in the big picture. They wish to focus only on inflation while ignoring everything else. Of course you can blame me for that if you like.....

Surprise: Wage growth has actually outpaced the crushing inflation over the past 2.5 years. ‘The economy appears to be doing better than a lot of people might realize'

https://fortune.com/2023/12/12/wage-growth-exceeded-inflation-jec-democrats/

US single-family housing starts, permits near two-year highs

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-single-family-housing-starts-soar-february-2024-03-19/

March 2024 jobs report: 303,000 jobs added, marking an acceleration

https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/outlook/economic-outlook/jobs-report-march-2024

Of course only focusing on inflation while ignoring every other economic indicator seems to be what some of you call discussing the economy.

Only some of you.

j/c

Only half following along like most of the time now -- but the argument is something along the lines that the macro picture things are improving but micro picture 'this month' things are worse (by 0.1% ?).

Is that correct?

Not claiming to be an expert - but is there seasonal variance that might show that the trend in March/April is a slight increase on a micro level? idk. I know with employment numbers seasonal variation is huge. You might have a month of net job gains but it might be less than the average. You can (politicians do) spin it that it's great news - there was net job creation. Real picture would be if the numbers are less than seasonally adjusted/expected then the numbers are poor. Just a thought.

The market has been tanking for the last month.

Stock Market News, March 21, 2024: Dow Climbs to New Record; Reddit Shares Soar in Debut

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-03-21-2024

Stock Market News, March 28, 2024: Dow, S&P 500 End Quarter at Record Highs

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-03-28-2024

The length of a month must have gotten shorter.......

Its down 1K in 30 days. Look at actual stats.

I have just shown you it hit a record high on March 28th. That was 15 days ago. I can't help you any more than that.

Stock Market News: Dow and S&P 500 Hit Closing Highs

https://www.barrons.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-032824


March highlighted by markets rising to record highs
04.01.24 // Markets & Investing // Article

Market rally driven by a broadening of the market and optimism that the Federal Reserve will deliver rate cuts later this year.

March was a month of new records. All three major equity indices — the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq — hit all-time highs and equity markets were positive for the fifth month in a row. The equity market rally was driven by mega-cap tech stocks, the broadening of the market and optimism that the Federal Reserve (Fed) would deliver rate cuts later this year.

“Equity markets rose to record highs as the Fed is still expected to cut interest rates three times and deliver a soft, non-recessionary landing, which is supportive for corporate earnings,” said Raymond James Chief Investment Officer Larry Adam. “That growing optimism appears to have been priced into the equity market with valuations now at stretched levels — the highest over the last 20 years outside of COVID.”

Bond yields were largely unchanged this month, sitting close to the upper end of their year-to-date range as the March rate cut didn’t materialize and the first rate cut now seems likely to happen in June or July. A record amount of issuance in investment grade corporate bonds was met with strong demand by investors as yields remain attractive even as credit spreads narrow.

The U.S. economy remains on solid footing, supported by strong job gains, improving housing activity metrics and growing consumer spending.

We’ll dive into the details below, but first, let’s review the year-to-date results:

https://www.raymondjames.com/racine...ighted-by-markets-rising-to-record-highs

Markets News, March 28, 2024: S&P 500 Notches 22nd Record Close To Cap Off Winning Quarter

https://www.investopedia.com/dow-jones-today-03282024-8621471

You cherry picked numbers as if they prove something. Singular data points mean nothing. The fact is that DOW is down 1K over the last month. its been trending down.

As I know people who pour cement for a living arent the brightest I will help you. Google "Dow jones today".

March 28th wasn't a month ago. You do understand what "record high" means I would hope. I'm sorry facts are not your friend.

Do you understand what a trend is? Are you capable of compehending that singular data points mean nothing? It can go up 400 1 day and down 400 the next. The fact is that the market has been trending down for the last month. The economic data and Bidens actions are ruining the market.

I dont think I can draw it in any brighter crayon for you.

Try reading it slower. Maybe that will help. Here is what you said....


A record high is not a loss. It's a gain. Any previous losses were wiped out. It may have lost 1000 points since March 28th but since a record was set on march 28th any losses before that date were erased.

You didn't say anything about "trending". You said they lost 1000 points over the past 30 days. That is not true.

The facts I stated are 100% true. Go look it up.

On Wednesay March 13 the Dow was 39043
Right now the Dow is 37983

You do the math or go back to school. A middle schooler is more capable than you.

I will say this: it’s hilarious watching the market go down after news was dropped that banks like JP Morgan beat profit estimates.

Wall Street is so mad the fed cut isn’t happening lol

March 28th the Dow was 39,807

Any losses previous to March 28th were wiped out and any losses that appear now happened after March 28th.

You do the math or go back to school. A grade schooler is more capable than you.

I don't think you want to play any math games because the market tanking is even greater if you cherry pick march 28 as a data point.

All of it's gains are wiped out as the DOW is down 1824 points since then. Take your L and go. lmao@u

The S&P 500 set 20 new all time highs in quarter 1 of this year

Its doing better than the DOW, thats for sure. The DOW is tanking hardcore.

Which is why I can't understand you trying to use fabricated math. The reality dictates it lost what you have been claiming in even less time than you're trying to falsely state.

On March 28th the stock market actually closed 764 points higher than it was on March 23th. In case you missed it, that's a gain is not a loss.

I was actually trying to show you it fell that much in an even shorter time period but for some reason you couldn't figure that out.

The DOW has tanked 1800 points since your cherry picked date. You can be in denial if you want but it just makes you look like a fool.

The only one looking like a fool here is you. I've been telling you all along that it's been since March 28th that the losses have happened. Don't turn around and blame me because you just managed to figure that out. I didn't deny it has tanked since March 28th. It's not my fault you kept insisting on the wrong date.

The 100 % truth is that the market has tanked 1800 points since then. Middle school kids are better at math then you. I would guess you have zero stock investments or you would know you can't value your portfolio based on some random point in the past. Grow a brain.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets...cation-many-schools-dont-offer-it-survey

Libtard schools trying to keep students ignorant about finances. Pit must belong to the 66% of adults who are financially ignorant.