Biden’s Spending Plans Would Boost Economy, Not Spark Inflation: Moody’s

Trump has pushed the debt to record levels.

He's the opposite of a fiscal conservative.

 

Trump was President, he and only he could sign a bill into law

yep, didn't stop the right for blaming Obama and now Biden

 

And I repeat
Oh and I'm sure you would have been on the front lines defending him had he shutdown the government instead of signing those budgets to keep it operating. Give me a break.

Yea at some point a President has to take the best deal they can, that's how government works they come together and pound out agreements.

So do you support government shutdowns?

 

Compared to any of the Democrats who ran? How laughable .

 

I don't think we are experiencing inflation at the moment. I think we are dealing with shortages of almost everything which causes prices to rise. The old law of supply/demand. So I agree with the FED if you remove the term inflation from the statement above. However the crazy spending that has been proposed will lock in serious inflation if it passes. You can't dilute the value of the dollar without causing inflation. I realize that I am not indicative of the economy but I have no problems getting orders currently. I have problems finding product to buy. Yesterday I raised prices on about 500 items whose products have risen in price to me. That sort of thing is happening all over the economy. You can thank the government at all levels for the price hikes we are experiencing.

 

Government investment in infrastructure never causes inflation.

 

Part of the problem is that it's a global economy. Roughly half of the eligible tax payers don't pay any taxes, so tax cuts don't help them. Tax cuts for the wealthy just create more disposable/investment income. Much of that goes to enlarging investment portfolios, based on stocks and bonds, offered by global corporations. That doesn't necessarily help the general population or Main Street, dominated by small businesses.

On the other hand, government spending may be beneficial to Main Street, depending on how it's spent. Physical infrastructure spending will lead to domestic job growth, through the government's contracting of U.S. based industries. Similarly, "Soft" infrastructure expansion (social programs) will grow Main Street via increased consumer spending.

IOW, there is a greater chance of government spending remaining "in-country" than via additional tax cuts for the wealthy to invest in the global economy.

 

The left and the democrats certainly better hope Moody's is right.

Say a prayer.

 

How BOTH parties deal with spending....

 

It does it you don't have the money to pay for it. There is nothing special about infrastructure.

 

Debunk what about the riot? No one doubts it happened. It’s already proven Trump said absolutely NOTHING that could be interpreted as violent.

And Biden has said plenty of whacked out crap already! Some of it not even English. Trump never said anything as bad as accusing black people of being incapable of using the internet. Never said someone isn’t the right color unless they vote a certain way. Never compared poor kids with white kids I know I know. Hard to hear those quotes if all you watch is CNN.

 

Soft jobs that only last as long as the largess lasts. It does not create lasting work.

 

I'm guessing, but I suspect that there is enough physical infrastructure to keep a generation busy. And, the "soft infrastructure" stuff, I believe, is on going and should be the beginning of restoring middle class America. IMO, that's the key to preserving our institutions and our democratic-republic.

 

Funny you throw our Reagan but also talk about fiscal sanity.

 

A loser who never lost an election to a Republican lol

 

Ata boy Joe!

 

Trump is never responsible for anything.

Besides, it's quite likely that this riot would have happened even if Trump hadn't assembled the MAGA on Capitol Hill that day...

Trump has spread nothing but love around him for four years.

His hundreds of hate messages on Twitter have been misinterpreted.

 

I disagree with your contention that the Republicans ever produced a balanced budget. Balancing a budget through borrowing is a fiscal public relations move that guarantees unbalanced future budgets as well as deficit spending. It's a joke.

Fiscal conservatives will never balance a budget because of their inability to raise taxes on those who make the most money. Taxing people making minimum wage is not a solution, economically speaking. Their wages get spent on the necessities of life: food, shelter, and transportation. In other words, their money goes right back into the economy. The wealthy, on the other hand, to NOT re-inject their astronomical earnings back into the economy. They are not the job creators that the "fiscal conservatives" would have you believe. They do not need lower taxes to encourage them to re-invest in the US.

 

One can always toss out an argument from authority. So who do I go with. Moody Analytics as touted in the OP (whoever the F they are) or the International Monetary Fund?

I think I will go with the IMF which sees inflation and an uncertain global economy on the horizon. Perhaps it is a little too early to proclaim the economic greatness of Biden. Just sayin.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/imf-chief-sees-risk-of-sustained-rise-in-u.s.-inflation-2021-07-07

 

Well on this post I have to agree with you. Trump spent money like a drunken sailor and somehow conned people into thinking he was a financial conservative. IMHO Trump was always a NYC liberal and parleyed his entertainment industry experience and what he learned from Vince McMahon into making people think otherwise turning the Whitehouse into a 4 year Wrestlemania. That being said. I don't think for a minute Biden will not be a greater disaster. Why? Because of the basic economic and karmic principle THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

What I glean from many political discussions here and elsewhere is most people have never taken an economics class and are easily conned by arguments from authority. Basic economics should be required in High School. Perhaps it would be a bit much for the average High School student to read and comprehend Wealth of Nations, but the fundamentals of a market economy could be taught.

 

If it does so with printed money it does.

 

"“There is no economist over the last 20 years who has been more consistently wrong than Mark Zandi,” said Stephen Moore, one of Trump’s top outside economic advisers.

“He keeps predicting that more and more government spending causes more growth. It’s this extreme Keynesian model that has been proven incorrect over and over,” said Moore, who is also a contributor to the Washington Examiner.

In 2016, Zandi projected that Trump's proposals would create a "lengthy recession" and millions of jobs lost. Yet, the economy grew at a healthy pace, with unemployment rate at a near a 50-year low, during the first three years of Trump’s administration, before the pandemic.

In response to the criticism, Zandi told the Washington Examiner that his 2016 prediction was based on the assumption that all of Trump's campaign proposals, including those related to trade and immigration, which would hurt growth in his model, became reality.

Nevertheless, in the same 2016 forecast, Zandi also included a “most-likely scenario” for policies that Trump would actually be able to implement, and it too was off the mark.

Zandi predicted in this scenario that the economy would avoid a recession, but growth would slow to “a near standstill early in Mr. Trump’s term,” with only 2.8 million jobs created during Trump’s four years in office and unemployment rising to near 6%.

Pre-pandemic, over 6.7 million jobs were created, and GDP grew about 2%.

“I know firsthand how difficult forecasting can be, particularly for events and statistics far off in the future,” said Steve Cortes, a senior adviser for the Trump 2020 campaign. “Those Moody's projections bear no resemblance to actual economic reality, both the past performance of Trump's economic agenda as well as the present trajectory of the accelerating recovery.”

Zandi has also been criticized for overestimating the economic recovery from the Great Recession, a mistake he has acknowledged in the past.

Zandi said that critics have “cherry-picked” his analyses and that some of his predictions are “just an exercise” in plausible realities based on hypothetical situations....

...
Mulligan, who is an economics professor at the University of Chicago, particularly tore into Zandi’s use of spending "multipliers," meaning the assumption that federal spending results in more total economic output than the amount spent. Zandi has said in the past that $1 in federal spending can contribute more than $1.50 to the economy.

“Zandi just does multiplication with 1.5, or whatever his number is. He shouldn’t be called an economist. He should just be called a multiplier,” said Mulligan. He said that Zandi does not consider the possibility that spending can create incentives for businesses and households that depress economic activity..."

More here..........https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rack-record-on-predictions-gop-economists-say