Post New

What does it mean when someone says “My life was better under Trump”?

For many, even though their 401ks rose substantially under Biden, and though they did not personally endure hardship, the statement:

“Life wS better under Trump”…..

Is true because every right wing media and Republican politician has painted a ridiculous Biden-Harris hellscape that has supposedly consumed the nation for the last 4 years

Inflation is down.
Crime is down.
Jobs are up and unemployment is down….

But migrants are eating our dogs and cats
Black men are raping white women and the economy is teetering on the edge of an historic collapse. Transexuals are invading our bathrooms and bad hombres are swarming over our borders.
And as long as they don’t actually look out the window, but instead, stare at their computer/television screens, this is the world they see.

What does it mean when someone says “My life was better under Trump”?

Usually it means prices and interest rates were much lower. The inflation rate is still slightly higher than before the pandemic - and of course prices rose a lot before the rate cooled; and interest rates are still well above pre-pandemic levels. So things like housing, cars, education, and any other purchase that requires financing are far more out of reach than before the pandemic.

There's also the very real fact that a lot of "disorder" that voters dislike is much more visible now. More visibile concentrations of unsheltered homeless people, and protection against retail theft (more products behind plastic boxes), generate a very real sense of concern that resonates with voters even though it doesn't show up in the national statistics for reported crimes:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23663437/crime-...

This is a dead end for Democrats. They're not going to rebuild their coalition by trying to convince voters that the insecurity and precariousness they've felt for the past couple of years wasn't real. They're not going to convince voters that have consistently and strongly given Biden poor approval ratings in general (and on the economy in particular) that he actually did a good job.

I am generally going to disagree with Albaby here.
(1) I think perception trumps reality and the media has done a good job setting the perception that both inflation and the border are Bidens fault and are a significant negative for YOU personally.
(2) The whole MAGA thing plays right into the natural tendency known as nostalgia.
(3) people respond to anecdotes much more than to statistics.
(4) A general belief that republican policies are better for the economy. When questioned most republicans will deny that the deficit goes up more during an (R) presidency, and that the stock market does better during a (D) presidency.

Back to anecdotes, I have a family member who switched from Biden to trump for just two reasons:
(1) All the crime being committed by immigrants, and Bidens inability to control/fix this
(2) Inflation. A belief that Trump will actually bring prices back down.

As somebody around here keeps saying... you can't fix stupid.
Alan

(3) people respond to anecdotes much more than to statistics.

Indeed. "Laken Riley!" - the main reason people think all the immigrants coming in to the U.S. are criminals.

A tragedy, yes. Does it prove any general situation? Absolutely not.

Simple. Pre-Covid is the timeframe.

That you're wondering about this tells us a lot about the left.

The world wasn't on fire. There weren't terrorist armies dropping in on music festivals in Israel. There wasn't Putin making threats about nuking places or attacking US bases.

Illegals weren't pouring in over the southern border by the millions.

I could go on, but this thread is a monument towards the left's Inability To Get It.

I am generally going to disagree with Albaby here.
(1) I think perception trumps reality and the media has done a good job setting the perception that both inflation and the border are Bidens fault and are a significant negative for YOU personally.

The question isn't why people believe inflation or the border are Biden's fault. It was why people think life was better under Trump.

Prices were lower and interest rates were lower pre-pandemic. People generally don't like high prices and high interest rates. So they believe that things were better under Trump.

Some of this is Biden's fault, BTW. His economic team very deliberately chose a path that would have much greater economic stimulation than the Obama-era recovery plan. They knew that there was a greater chance of higher inflation than with a smaller program, but they were determined not to repeat the "mistake" of the Obama recovery. So they went bigger, and followed it up with even more fiscal stimulus with the BIL and BBB issues. And even then, only got a portion of what they were trying to get.

Regardless of fault, voters preferred the pre-pandemic economy to the Biden economy. There are valid reasons for them to do so. Much of the difference between the two economies was due to factors outside of the Democrats' control - but that doesn't invalidate voters' preference for the pre-pandemic economy.

Dems need to take off the kid gloves and fight like the GOP does. MAGA doe not let facts get
in the way of whatever narrative they want to sell.

Trump had a major hand in the inflation that occurred under Biden. Trump's pathetic response
to Covid pandemic led to factories being shut down longer than was necessary. Trump would
have flooded the system with money just like Biden did, for the same reasons. It reminds me
of the GFC, when GWB handed Obama an absolute shit sandwich, and the GOP screamed about
how Obama ran up the deficit. Dems need to be plastering the MAGA/GOP culpability in all
of the crap Biden had to deal with. Instead they focused on issues that working class voters don't seem to care about, such as Trans people's rights. A noble cause, but can't win an election on it.

Dems need to take off the kid gloves


https://www.meidasplus.com/p/tennessee-brando-on-t...

Love this guy

Reduce. Reuse. RECYCLE

""""What does it mean when someone says “My life was better under Trump”?

For many, even though their 401ks rose substantially under Biden, and though they did not personally endure hardship, the statement:

“Life wS better under Trump”…..

Is true because every right wing media and Republican politician has painted a ridiculous Biden-Harris hellscape that has supposedly consumed the nation for the last 4 years

Inflation is down.
Crime is down.
Jobs are up and unemployment is down….

But migrants are eating our dogs and cats
Black men are raping white women and the economy is teetering on the edge of an historic collapse. Transexuals are invading our bathrooms and bad hombres are swarming over our borders.
And as long as they don’t actually look out the window, but instead, stare at their computer/television screens, this is the world they see."""

"I'M GEORGE W BUSH AND I APPROVED THIS BAAAAAAA MESSAGE" - Roberts Alito

"I'M DONALD TRUMP AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE" - Amy Barrett, Gorsuch, "Kavanaugh!"

"I'M DNALD TRUMP AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE AGAIN....this time, no Kleenex for you"


"I'M JD VANCE AND FRIGGING 'A I'M PRE-APPROVING THIS MESSAGE"

Just tell me. Does Trump include dental in your compensation package?

The Dems need to stop wringing their hands and get a backbone.

There are plenty of good things going on under Biden/Harris. The best economy in the world coming out of the pandemic, an overdue infrastructure bill, computer chips built in America which is good for the economy AND our security, low unemployment (job requirements these days are “do you have a pulse?”), expanded overtime for millions of Americans, prevented discriminatory mortgage lending, a crackdown on junk fees and overdraft charges, gave smaller food growers a boost, protected unions, and much, much more.

Yes, there was inflation. That was the price of avoiding a deep recession or a depression. And compared to other industrial nations around the globe, our inflation was average. Not fun, but I’ve lived through worse.

But all we ever heard about was inflation, inflation, inflation from the right-wing media.

Democrats don’t know how to communicate.

We need a good old fashioned ass-kicker like Harry Truman.

His opponents thought that he gave them hell. Harry’s response:

“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”

You can’t fix stupid but you can tell them the truth.

Dems need to be plastering the MAGA/GOP culpability in all of the crap Biden had to deal with. Instead they focused on issues that working class voters don't seem to care about, such as Trans people's rights. A noble cause, but can't win an election on it.

They did all that because they didn't really have a choice.

The Democrats took a huge gamble in 2021-2022....and they lost. Biden wanted a much larger recovery package than that which followed the Great Recession, because he felt that it was better to go too big than too small - so they ended up with a lot more fiscal stimulus than the economy could handle without inflationary pressures. They risked that voters would prefer a more fulsome recovery than they would more modest inflation. They lost that bet.

Then, when voters started voicing how upset they were with inflation, the Democrats political response was.....bad. Understandable, but bad. Basically, the Democrats (both leadership in Congress and the Administration) argued that inflation was transitory and/or modest. They did not treat it as an important problem. That's understandable, because the progressive wing of the party really really really wanted a huge BBB package. It was their one "train" to get their priorities into law, given the filibuster. So they kept pushing for the $2.5 trillion package....and you couldn't do that while simultaneously acknowledging that inflation was a terrible problem.

They couldn't pivot away from the big BBB package - the progressive base would have killed them. They couldn't properly address voter inflationary concerns - because that was inconsistent with the big BBB package.

Of course, they committed one last bit of political malpractice when Manchin and Sinema forced them to curtail the big BBB package. They deprioritized most of the stuff that the working class would have directly benefitted from (labor law reforms and PRO Act programs, universal prekindergarten and subsidized child care, paid family and medical leave, affordable housing programs, free community college and expanded child tax credits), and ended up with a bill that centered almost entirely on fighting climate change. The initial approach was not to prioritize anything, so that the coalition wouldn't have to make any hard choices - but when they were forced to make hard choices, they chose climate. Which might be the "right" choice in some abstract way, but it probably isn't the choice that working class voters would have picked.

This is a dead end for Democrats. They're not going to rebuild their coalition by trying to convince voters that the insecurity and precariousness they've felt for the past couple of years wasn't real. They're not going to convince voters that have consistently and strongly given Biden poor approval ratings in general (and on the economy in particular) that he actually did a good job.

I'm thinking Trump will tank the economy and the Dems will get another turn at bat, but we are going to have to find legit ways of steming the inflow. And somehow, we have to keep prices level or lower - ideas?

And somehow, we have to keep prices level or lower - ideas? - Lapsody

---------------

I think the foundation on which all the high prices rest should be attacked first and vigorously. Of course, I am referring to price gouging by grocery stores. predators all.

I think the foundation on which all the high prices rest should be attacked first and vigorously. Of course, I am referring to price gouging by grocery stores. predators all.

Well, your buddy Dope belittled that by showing the margin is 2-3% for grocery stores. And we did have a wave of bird flu go through. We'd have to define price gouging, etc., but I think Nixon did his price freezes by EO. I'm wondering if you can do a price roll back by EO? There isn't anything that prohibits that I think, and people would like it. And the EO could freeze prices if the roll back doesn't pass muster.

We'd have to define price gouging, etc., but I think Nixon did his price freezes by EO. I'm wondering if you can do a price roll back by EO?

No. And you can't do a price freeze by EO any more, either. There used to be a statute that gave that authority to the President (the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970). It's long gone.

There are two main tools governments use to get to a desirable level of inflation: monetary and fiscal. Monetary policy involves shrinking (or expanding) the monetary supply using interest rates, and is largely the purview of the Fed. Fiscal policy involves cooling (or heating) the economy using levels of taxation and spending. Cutting taxes and raising spending are expansionary, and can increase inflation; the reverse are contractionary, and can mitigate inflation.

Since neither party wants austerity (no, Trump doesn't actually want to materially reduce government spending, the DOGE dreams of his wealthy patrons notwithstanding), fighting inflation mostly falls to the Fed. Since Democrats have a lot of different factions in their coalition with different priorities, it's hard for them these days to manage the potential inflationary impact of their proposals (or it will be, now that Manchin is gone). There's no easy way to do it without ticking off important members of the coalition.

"Since neither party wants austerity (no, Trump doesn't actually want to materially reduce government spending, the DOGE dreams of his wealthy patrons notwithstanding)"

What Trump wants is another tax cut for corporations. He wants tax cuts for the 1% also, and will have to throw a bone to the working class that elected him and cut their taxes also. But he seems to think ( or at least says publicly ) that putting tariffs on imports is going to pay for the tax cuts. From what I've read, NOBODY else believes that. So his wished for tax cuts will send the deficit soaring, as usual. This is inflationary. His 2017 Tax cuts sent the deficit soaring. Rates will rise, as bondholders will expect to be compensated for the "monopoly money" policies of the US Government. Tariffs are inflationary, so end user consumers will be paying more for literally everything.

It's almost like Trump's goal is to bankrupt the Federal Government. Declaring BK was Trump's
magic move as a businessman, it's what he knows how to do.

I'm finding it hard to take solace in the logic of Trump supporters: Don't listen to what Trump says, he's just playing 3D chess. Trump never played 3D chess as a businessman. Hell, if it wasn't for Daddy Fred's money, we probably never would have heard of Don Trump. He was/is the farthest thing from a "genius businessman" in America. I don't remember the exact details, but his tax records revealed that Trump lost more money than anybody in America over a period of time from the mid 80's to the early 90's.

I'm trying to stay calm like you, Al, but it's hard.

And somehow, we have to keep prices level or lower - ideas?

In traditional macroeconomic thinking, prices going lower is an economic disaster. Prices here and there going lower is fine. (Think gasoline as an example here.)

But when prices of everything start falling, economic activity slows down dramatically. People stop spending because everything will be cheaper next month. Obviously, not everything will fit this. But certainly big ticket items - cars, vacations, home improvements. Food and similar necessities will still be purchased. That slows the economy and can put it into a death spiral of falling prices. We're talking Great Depression levels of problems.

So no, prices overall are not going lower. Even trying to keep prices level is risky, because if you ever slip and prices start falling, it can be falling off a cliff.

That's why most central bankers target an inflation rate of about 2%. The slowly rising prices give people an incentive to buy sooner rather than later, which keeps the economy moving along. And if inflation slips lower than that, there is a bit of time to push prices higher and stay out of the negative inflation doom loop.

I'm fairly sure Trump will tank the economy with his tariffs. I doubt they'll be as bad as many fear, but as long as he imposes enough, inflation will spike up and people will get really unhappy with him very quickly. In the mean time, the American oligarchy will be drooling over their new profits.

I think the foundation on which all the high prices rest should be attacked first and vigorously. Of course, I am referring to price gouging by grocery stores. predators all.

Or better yet, let's get to the root of the problem and start reducing government spending.

ok, people with no attribution capabilities want $2 gas, milk, and eggs. and $200k homes.
so what happens when we get to 2026 midterms and this hasnt happened? (or there are even worse moving spikes, given how cantillon has endured)

we know what will happen, because we have seen the playbook every time.
unlike albaby's primary theory here, voters will not reflexively throw out the incumbents, by which i assume all levels of educated people can recognize in 2026 across the board as the gop.

no, what we can expect by late 2025, in preparation, is a pro-active media blitz on how the economy stunk when it was handed to trump, so :
- give the gop a few more years to work their magic and make MAGA rich
- its all the democrats fault
this time around, its not only the house, senate, and executive branch crowing this. it will be musk, fox, facebook, and all the wonderful analytical press that served as source for the voters that got us here.

so again no, even with reinvigoration of the voting simpletons, i think a theory of always voting out the incumbents as the path of least effort when unhappy is too simple to rely on.

look no further than the change in gop voters that believe the CURRENT economy is already good since the trump election.

I'm trying to stay calm like you, Al, but it's hard.

You just need to remember that Trump wants to be thought well of. Not universally - he's perfectly happy for his enemies to hate him. But he generally wants to be flattered and admired and esteemed. So he wants the stock market to rise. He wants the economy to grow. He wants to preside over a successful economy. He was annoyed that he got no credit for the solid economy of his first term (pre-pandemic).

Hence, Scott Bessent. Trump's had all kinds of dodgy, kooky picks - but for Treasury, he went with the guy that Wall Street wanted. Because he doesn't want to roll the dice with the economy. Tariffs, sure - but I don't think anyone thinks that an across the board flat tariff is coming. Trump wants to cut deals. His theory of the case is the U.S. has been derelict in not throwing its weight around and using access to our markets as something that other countries have to pay for, rather than just get "for free" under some MFN regime.

So while there's no doubt that Trump will juice the gas on the economy using tax cuts, rather than spending increases, as his preferred fiscal juice, he's not going to try to wreck the economy the way he wants to wreck various parts of the federal bureaucracy. And he's going to go hard with tariffs, but ultimately strike bargains rather than scorched earth wars.

so again no, even with reinvigoration of the voting simpletons, i think a theory of always voting out the incumbents as the path of least effort when unhappy is too simple to rely on.

I agree. That's not my theory.

All across the world, voters threw out the parties that were incumbents when the inflation happened. No one believes that this just reduces to "voters unhappy = incumbents lose" going forward.

Voters in the U.S. gave Biden very low marks for his handling of the economy, because they underwent very high inflation without the Administration making it a high priority. If that happens again under Trump, that will be very bad for Republicans - but if inflation rates stay low during his term, they're not going to throw out the GOP simply for lack of deflation.

ME:I think Nixon did his price freezes by EO. I'm wondering if you can do a price roll back by EO?

ALBABY:
No. And you can't do a price freeze by EO any more, either. There used to be a statute that gave that authority to the President (the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970). It's long gone.

Good to know. I know Nixon tried to impound funds and that didn't work. I think it was defeated in the courts. But he also had some money he never spent when his term was over.

There are two main tools governments use to get to a desirable level of inflation: monetary and fiscal. Monetary policy involves shrinking (or expanding) the monetary supply using interest rates, and is largely the purview of the Fed. Fiscal policy involves cooling (or heating) the economy using levels of taxation and spending. Cutting taxes and raising spending are expansionary, and can increase inflation; the reverse are contractionary, and can mitigate inflation.

Yah, the Fed I'm familiar with, the interest rates part and the expansion and contraction. If we forgot the lessons, the GFC underscored it all. I'm hoping the Fed can remain independent. I think Trump may get a little bit of sway, I'm hoping not much.

Since neither party wants austerity (no, Trump doesn't actually want to materially reduce government spending, the DOGE dreams of his wealthy patrons notwithstanding), fighting inflation mostly falls to the Fed. Since Democrats have a lot of different factions in their coalition with different priorities, it's hard for them these days to manage the potential inflationary impact of their proposals (or it will be, now that Manchin is gone). There's no easy way to do it without ticking off important members of the coalition.

Yes. The more I look at the Dem coalition, the stranger the party gets. I hope you're right about Trump. You really don't want to slow or tank this economy with rapid changes. Ease in. If he does manufacture a crisis, it still depends what he does. If nothing is too outlandish, we may do OK.

No one believes that this just reduces to "voters unhappy = incumbents lose" going forward.

But isn't it usually true?

"I hope you're right about Trump. You really don't want to slow or tank this economy with rapid changes. Ease in. "

Easing In is not the way Trump acts. He is more of "the bull in a china shop".
Trump supporters say that Trump plays 3D Chess, that his statements are just for effect.
But if Trump's business career is studied, he really is a " Ready, Shoot, Aim" type of guy.
He has no impulse control. He will try to run the Country the same way. We all need to
hope there is still a system of checks and balances in place.
And Trump and his supporters need to be held accountable for what comes. If he is somehow
successful, then they can sing his praises to the high heavens. But if he fails, he needs to
be publicly castrated for it ( metaphorically ). Trump has been telling us all how great he
is, for the last 8 years +. So he need to live up to his boastful, arrogant claims of greatness.

Trump supporters say that Trump plays 3D Chess

LOL.

Remember how many of those who worked with him in his first administration called him an idiot, a moron and a f*cking moron. And they knew him very well.

Only a cultist could see Trump as anything but a narcissistic fool

No one believes that this just reduces to "voters unhappy = incumbents lose" going forward.

But isn't it usually true?

Sometimes. Voters are often unhappy about something, but still return incumbents to power.

This election cycle was globally unique. Voters turned out incumbent parties not just in countries where that's common (like the U.S.), whether left-leaning (like the U.S.) or right-leaning (like the U.K.). They also roasted incumbents in places like Japan, where the ruling party has been in place since 1955 - through many prior periods of voter unhappiness:

https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-i...

Voters probably won't be "unhappy" if gas prices don't fall below $2, or home prices below $200K. Some of the ones who genuinely believed that Trump would usher in a golden era might be disappointed that their fantasy scenario didn't manifest. But on the whole, voters will probably be okay with a "normal" economy if inflation rates stay low and interest rates fall back down to below 5%.

no, what we heard, as amplified by media, was an anchoring to absolute price levels when blaming biden for inflation.
in other words, MAGA wants their $2 gas remembered during covid, but not the inflation spikes on other items from the latter supply chain shocks. nevermind that gas has greatly dropped back down despite the russia scenario escalating, nothing to report there.

and as inflationary RATES run irregularly through the economy as overall purchasing power steadily decreases as usual, who do you think will get media credit when egg prices inevitably drop back down?
trump, the great deflation creator. items more difficult to to control\predict, like the price of single family housing, will simply be ignored by the media.

it is beyond belief that voter economic perception is affected more by media than their actual economic circumstances, but i believe that is where we are.
again, gop voters believe the CURRENT economy is already better not just since, but DUE to the trump win.
when STEM has no chance, the dismal science has even less. attribution is dead.

Easing In is not the way Trump acts. He is more of "the bull in a china shop".

Naah, that's just his way of easing in. If he does any one of the following in his first three days, he's not easing in:

1. Signs an EO levying 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

2. Declares an emergency crisis and invokes any law with the emergency crisis that could lead to the military being called up,

4. Fires the AG and most of the top staff.

5. Stops all aid to Ukraine.

Any one of those is beyond bombastic rhetoric and the belligerent show, and will set the tone for his administration. As Albaby pointed out, Scorr Bessent is a huge indicator that he is not that bull in the china shop - at least on the economy. So he'll bargain with Mexico and Canada and make a deal he'll brag about, and compliment both. So for Trump, there's a lot of rhetoric and show, but what will happen shouldn't upset the apple cart.

no, what we heard, as amplified by media, was an anchoring to absolute price levels when blaming biden for inflation.

There's no inconsistency there. Voters hated Biden's handling of the economy because prices rose so much during the times of peak inflation, and they weren't satisfied just because the rate of inflation got down closer to pre-pandemic levels.

Trump wasn't in office during the inflation surge, so he doesn't get tagged with it. So voters will be relatively satisfied if inflation rates remain modest going forward. They'd like $2 gas, but they're not going to be deeply unhappy if gas prices are closer to $3 in 2028.

they underwent very high inflation without the Administration making it a high priority.

And that's the lesson, we told them it would be transitory. That means we bet the farm and lose if it doesn't feel transitory. Let's not bet the farm, let's take some type of action - even if it's likely to be knocked down by the courts, do it anyway.

And that's the lesson, we told them it would be transitory. That means we bet the farm and lose if it doesn't feel transitory. Let's not bet the farm, let's take some type of action - even if it's likely to be knocked down by the courts, do it anyway.

They couldn't.

They were in the midst of fighting for the big spending bills that were going to be Biden's legacy, his claim to be the next FDR. You know - the "Build Back Better" agenda. The American Rescue Plan had already been adopted, and Democrats were pushing for the American Jobs Plan/American Families Plan components. Another $4 trillion in spending, on top of the ARP plan.

You can't get a $4 trillion package of new spending through the Congress if you're out there saying inflation is burning hot and is a top priority. So they didn't.

You can't get a $4 trillion package of new spending through the Congress if you're out there saying inflation is burning hot and is a top priority.

Speaking of that, how do we know that that extra spending actually caused the inflation? Is there anything more convincing than saying "increased spending always causes inflation"? Has there always be a positive correlation in the past?

They were in the midst of fighting for the big spending bills that were going to be Biden's legacy, his claim to be the next FDR. You know - the "Build Back Better" agenda. The American Rescue Plan had already been adopted, and Democrats were pushing for the American Jobs Plan/American Families Plan components. Another $4 trillion in spending, on top of the ARP plan.

You can't get a $4 trillion package of new spending through the Congress if you're out there saying inflation is burning hot and is a top priority. So they didn't.

I'm open then. Was there another way to handle that, or were we just doomed? It's the inflation PLUS THE BORDER THOUGH isn't it? Is what I've read that Joe went with some Latino activists and was steered wrong true? That dismantling the barriers Trump put up didn't get Latino votes? I just ran that past a Latino and his response was he didn't want more people coming across the borders either. He was a landlord in LA with cheap properties that housed some bloods and crips. Now he's rehabing the house next to me that burned. This is a very good neighborhood though.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.