S&P500 Index <3200 is my guess...
I mean the GOPers are not going to do anything to prevent a recession while Biden is in office.
Where as they were eager to spend a record $4+ TRILLION to help Trump stay popular.
I am just sore about that because I had bet on a recession, because I naively thought the GOP was antigovernmental bailout... :-O
What is your guess?
74 comments:
Well since I am a bear investor right now... I am happy to see the S&P500 Index at 3822 and dropping...
Where is your investment now, and when do you buy back in? IMWTK.
8% VDE
8% VNQ
8% VHT
10% VTTVX
66% Cash
I sold 8% of VDE at $114 and am waiting for a bigger dip to buy back in.
I think S&P500 will hit 3200 and may go below 3000.
I mean the GOP has no desire to reduce the pain for citizens since a DEM is in the White House. So I assume they will let the economy crash for political reasons.
I pretty much just stick with Vanguard ETFs lately...
Here is my Yahoo Finance watch list...
Symbol Current Price
NFLX 186.35
VNQ 94.83
VHT 237.47
VDE 113.04
VPGDX 16.79
VIMSX 56.69
VPU 156.1
VDC 181.63
VIG 145.8
VOX 99.96
VFH 80.74
VAW 179.67
VGT 337.77
VIS 168.59
SQQQ 58.73
SDS 48.79
ITW 201.77
I am always looking for new ideas. :-)
FYI. I added 2 new graphs that I have been watching.
Here's a new idea for you. Since the GOP does NOT control the levers of power in DC, if the economy crashes it is all Democrats' fault. I take the more objective view, of simply dealing with the economy and market as is, regardless of "blame." I'm essentially 100% invested, having shifted some to utilities, real estate, commodities, and health care-- things that do better in inflationary times. Inflation-protected bonds, contrary to theory, are doing poorly. I am under-invested in technology and retail, the wisdom of which was obvious in the last few weeks. Everything else is in mutual funds that I have tracked for years, and that dip lower and come back faster during previous downturns--trading some lower risk for missing some higher returns. Total portfolio performance against the various indices is mixed.
Ah... But the GOPers in Congress do hold the power, just as they did in 2020 when they signed off on $4 TRILLION in bailouts and DEBT... Then they behaved as total hypocrites to make Trump look good. Now they will just let the economy crash and try to blame the DEMs...
I am fine either way... The GOPers excessive spending actions cost me potential gains in 2020. This time I do not expect a quick fix...
I looked at Utilities (VPU), REITs (VNQ), Healthcare (VHT) and Basics (VDC) and they all seemed to dive pretty good during past recessions. I am pretty sure there is no where to hide from what is coming. Either just ride it down and back up, or try to time it...
For decades when my Net Worth was less and my monthly contributions were more I used to just stay 100% vested in stocks... Now I am trying to use a more balanced approach.
Conventional wisdom is that as you age, you should be more "conservative," balancing a higher investment in bonds and less in stocks--lower risk traded for lower returns. But government deficits and Fed policy have made that ineffective. Even inflation-protected government bonds are losing value.
You missed that those things fall in recession, but fare better in times of inflation-- usually two different things. But Carter and Biden stagflation is a different dilemma.
I've always thought it was more important to fix the problem than to fix the blame.
Actually TIPS ETFs are dropping because investors think inflation will be tamed soon. And bond returns are low because interest rates and inflation were low.
What would you do to fix the problem?
I keep proposing balancing the budget through spending cuts and tax increases. To which you disagree.
"They" could be right. The Fed will rapidly raise interest rates to tame inflation, and in so doing will send us into recession. Inflation was low because Trump grew the economy (but let's leave politics out of it). Interest rates were low because the Fed was trying to stimulate the economy.
What would I do? Simple and non-political, I would prohibit the Federal Reserve from purchasing unsold US Treasury bonds. They are in effect "printing money" and allowing deficit spending. Treasury would have to rapidly raise interest on new bonds to sell even a few, and those unsold would force cuts in federal deficits--they can't spend what they don't get. Harsh medicine, but the way it should be done. Of course, prices for existing bonds would drop drastically except for their face value at maturity, and in a TIF you don't even get that. Not a good investment. I prefer corporate bonds anyway.
Actually COVID wiped out the economy on Trump's watch And the surge on Biden's watch has been driving up costs as supply chains still struggle.
I seem to remember your guy begging the FED to save his economy.
Fix the problem, not the blame.
Unfortunately, as long we the people keep thinking and voting selfishly and for our short term benefit... We are not going to fix anything...
And denying that Team Conservative is half of the problem we will get us no closer to a fix.
So, basically you are a socialist? People acting in their own best interest is the essence of the free market, and government can do nothing more than interfere with that.
And "team conservative" has just offered you a solution. Yet you cannot even properly state the problem. If you are going to insist that "voting" is the problem, I have a simple, bumper- sticker solution for you: "Don't blame me, I voted for Trump."
Any comment on the real solution offered?
You are forgetting the Tragedy of Commons again.
You voted the for Trump...
The man who during a growing economy added $7.5 TRILLION to the National Debt and let a deadly virus kill hundreds of thousands of citizens.
I am not a big Biden fan, but he is better than the lying blow hard.
Facts and Data
Sorry, but the best you will get from that line of argument is an argument, not a discussion. If your only solution is to continue to look backwards and blather about an ex-President, that's TDS, not a rational discussion about real solutions. One more chance.
Am I the only one amused at jerry's request for rational discourse?
I gave you my solution.
Cut spending and raise taxes until the budget is balanced and we start paying down the balance.
Unfortunately people who vote their wallet do not support this simple responsible answer. Like yourself, they are fine having the government borrow and burden our children while they benefit personally.
I only bring up Trump because you support him and he cut taxes, raised spending and increased deficits. And yet you still deny these simple historical facts.
Especially since that is your stated purpose here? Do you deny your own charter?
"Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue."
Do you oppose rational discourse, or are you simply incapable of it? IMWTK.
Jerry,
I think I am being professional, polite and rational. You said.
"So, basically you are a socialist? People acting in their own best interest is the essence of the free market, and government can do nothing more than interfere with that."
First you named called me when you know I am a balanced budget supporter and not a socialist.
Second, you do say that people should vote in their best interest. (ie vote their wallet)
Drewbie,
It is odd since I do not think I have called him any names...
Hmmm. I will admit to some confusion and perhaps poor phraseology. I should have said that people voting NOT to raise taxes (that enable more spending), are NOT responsible for the deficit, when it is in their self-interest NOT to raise taxes that create more spending. Raising taxes is a socialist idea, and you seem to be promoting it without acknowledging its obvious downside. That's irrational and impolite.
You don't have to name-call to be in opposition to your stated purpose. You can imply I want to burden the next generation with debt, that I am selfish and even responsible for the massive national debt rather than the politicians that created it and continue to add to it. THEN you have the unmitigated gall to simply ignore my solution-- introduced for the purpose of "open polite dialogue"-- and that I am "irrational" for not simply agreeing with your simple-minded and proven unworkable idea?
Of course people who demand their entitlements and their tax cuts are responsible for the deficit. Unfortunately that is the majority of Americans, including yourself.
And I do not think expecting citizens to pay for what they receive is a socialist idea? (balanced budget) Especially compared to receiving more and passing the debt on to the kids...
Taxes and spending are independent topics. They can move in the same direction or opposite directions.
In 2012 taxes were raised on the wealthy and spending was reduced in inflation adjusted dollars, therefore the deficit decreased.
In 2017 taxes were reduced and spending was increased, therefore the deficit grew.
Is this the solution you are recommending?
"What would I do? Simple and non-political, I would prohibit the Federal Reserve from purchasing unsold US Treasury bonds. They are in effect "printing money" and allowing deficit spending. Treasury would have to rapidly raise interest on new bonds to sell even a few, and those unsold would force cuts in federal deficits--they can't spend what they don't get. Harsh medicine, but the way it should be done."
Who exactly do you think is going to vote for this? (well other than me?)
I mean it is just a way to force a balanced budget... Which means tax increases and spending cuts...
Because it is an /indirect/ way to a balanced budget, you might get the votes for it. OR, somebody might sue and say that the Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate the authority to "coin money" to a private entity. Either way, it is the proper way to manage federal deficit spending, since nobody in Congress wants to raise taxes and/or lower spending, and there is simply no incentive (other than fiscal responsibility) to such things. Higher taxes generally lead to more spending and less economic activity. It's just wrong to raise taxes simply for the point of raising taxes.
If you are actually interested in thinking about this as other than a political problem, consider this alternative: Have Congress simply abrogate all the debt held by the Federal Reserve. The imaginary money has all been spent by the Congress; it's gone. All that's left is a promise to repay something that never existed in the first place. That's real debt reduction.
Congress is not the problem, it is the voters and citizens who are responsible.
As you said, they vote for what benefits themselves...
Any change to the status quo will have significant impacts on current voters.
I do not think they have the stomach to do what is responsible.
So, you honestly believe that Congress constantly exercises the "will of the [well-informed] people"? BS. They act to get elected, to propose simplistic "sound-bite" solutions to problems real and imagined, and to toe the Party line, whatever that may be. Lately, their individual aim is to destroy the opposition Party or candidate, fair means or foul and with total disregard for what's best for "the people." And we send them there for two long years, with a huge backlog of problems PLUS whatever might come up, and expect them to use their best judgement so we don't have to be bothered. That is why we HAVE a "representative republic" and not a democracy. In a democracy, where everybody votes on everything (theoretically), you can blame the voters. Heck, even most legislation is a mix of "good" and "bad" rather than real solutions.
And "stomach"? Not the problem. The problem is there are no incentives to cure profligate spending, quite the opposite. BUT, if the Federal Reserve cuts up your credit card, incentives come quite quickly. Sounds like they might be going to do just that, on their own.
And guess who people on the Far Left and Far Right listen to and vote for?
It is unfortunate, but our kids will be getting what we current voters deserve. :-(
Don't blame me, I voted Republican up and down the line. Unfortunately, if your candidate doesn't win, you lose. My kids do NOT deserve UNNECESSARY inflation, lockdowns, energy shortages, stupid foreign policy mistakes, open borders, and Transgender CRT in the schools.
You are still trying to blame voters? OK, how many of the 81 million who voted for Bubble-brain were real, and how many now admit to it? Did he do what they wanted?
Instead they deserve a MASSIVE National Debt?
Please note that deficits increase when the GOP has the Presidency. :-(
Please note that I don't give a rodent's derriere about who caused the debt, I just don't want it to get bigger, and hopefully to get smaller. Abrogate federal debt held by the Fed and prohibit them from buying unsold Treasury bonds-- that reduces the debt immediately and rapidly curbs the deficit. Then institute Social Security reform to cut down federal spending and reduce/eliminate the debt over the longer term. Reforms of Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid would also greatly reduce spending. Go ahead; your turn to insist on spending more than is necessary.
I have been very consistent that we should cut spending and increase taxes until the budget is balanced.
Discontinuing SS and Medicare services and checks to wealthy households would be a logical cut. It is definitely unnecessary spending.
I'll need to do some more research on what happens if the government does not honor it bonds that the FED and Trust Funds Hold.
Consistent, but surprisingly non-specific. Which taxes can you raise without slowing the economy? And if you want to repay the debt with taxes, you need an immediate 200% tax rate. If you do raise taxes "some" it won't make much of a dent in the deficit. Also, what guarantees that the much bigger budget cuts needed will happen and where can they be made, since Democrats will never willingly cut spending, nor permit Republicans to do so? We know that entitlement spending will consume 100% of tax revenues in just a few short years, so entitlement reform (Pareto's law) needs to be among the first cuts. And those can be substantial if they are done by reform rather than "cuts." Particularly SS, if transitioned to private accounts over the next 30 years, will actually eliminate the national debt while giving everybody as much or more total benefit at retirement. You don't believe my math on that, but it is really, really solid.
Please, research what happens if Congress simply abrogates the T-bonds held by the Fed. It is money created out of thin air and already spent; I'm not seeing the problem. Don't confuse it with the SS Trust Fund, which is money "set aside" for future payments. (It's a lie, of course, because that money was ALSO spent, but SSA will need that to get us through the next ten years while privatization comes in.) Of course they will have to redeem those bonds out of the general Federal budget, but that was always the case. At least with reform, the Trust Fund never goes broke, and then grows greatly beyond that.
I think I will pass going down that rabbit hole again.
When you start making that many claims without sources, I know it is pointless to continue.
What source? Simple mathematics? Geez, and /I/ get accused of being a dilettante on issues.
And did you finish your research on abrogating Fed-held Treasuries? IMWTK.
From real credible source with real documented numbers, assumptions, rationale, etc...
Not just Jerry's opinions.
That research may take awhile. I am not in any hurry.
There you go again. I am the most credible source I know, and when I spend days doing the math, it is NOT an "opinion." It is QED. I can't post the whole set of numbers here, and previously posted the assumptions, I believe. They are all on the conservative side of official SSA statistics.
You are like far too many of our politicians, unwilling to even admit to the magnitude of the problem, let alone propose realistic solutions. "Raising taxes" is not a realistic solution, requiring impossibly unrealistic tax rates on everybody. And "cutting spending" isn't realistic when discretionary parts of the budget are less than 20%, with entitlements (non-discretionary) the other 80%. Thinking that two totally unrealistic and unworkable "solutions" together make the combination the right answer is delusional. Or magical thinking. Try again.
Saying things like this is why you have little credibility...
""Raising taxes" is not a realistic solution, requiring impossibly unrealistic tax rates on everybody."
I mean the deficit is ~$1 Trillion and there are 330 million citizens.
Meaning a tax increase of $3030 per man, woman and child. Most of it paid for by those with wealth.
I mean we were running a surplus under Clinton, before the silly unnecessary Bush tax cuts.
And if we made up the difference with cuts and taxes.
The tax increases would be less.
Let's see some real numbers. The deficit is $1 trillion. Total income tax revenue is short of $2 trillion, so to close the deficit we need a 33% across-the-board income tax increase. The highest marginal rate would top 50%, NOT counting state and local income, sales and property taxes. Seem reasonable?
In 2020, federal spending was $6.6T, of which almost exactly 75% was mandatory (it's higher now). Where in that 25% ($1.6T) are you going to find $1T annually, over the next 30 years, to pay off the debt? Assuming we end deficits immediately?
Delusion: "Most of it paid for by those with wealth." If you want to destroy wealth, tax it, and watch the stock market drop like 1929. If you simply confiscate the INCOME (not the wealth) of the top 1%, you get about half of what you need to close the deficit, in one year. Then what do you do the following year?
"Tax the rich" or "raise taxes and cut spending" are simplistic and realistically way too small. You need to start thinking out of the box, as I have suggested.
It is only $1 trillion dollars...
Cuts and revenues are the only way to balance a budget...
Most households understand that.
Not sure why do not?
Well, $1 trillion is 1/2 of the current federal income tax revenue. That's not trivial. And the current debt is twice our GDP. That seems high.
Yes, "cuts and revenues" can balance a budget (but not pay down the debt). You obviously have no grasp of the magnitude of the problem. I've offered you 3 solutions; you keep ignoring them, falling back on woefully inadequate platitudes.
I will offer you yet another. Nothing passes Congress without a 2/3 vote (consensus). That would solve a lot of problems, IMHO. Of course, for an organization that now spends 16 months out of every 12 debating the budget, there would need to be some sort of change in "thinking."
Where do you get your numbers? Or do you just make them up?
Here is another source of real data.
I get my numbers from the CBO. Of course, they aren't necessarily a reliable source. I am sure you know better, so quote me the correct figures for what I have said that CBO says. That way we can avoid discussing real solutions for another few go-rounds.
They do not match the CBO numbers that I just linked to. 24 mil GDP, $2.2 mil Income Tax
And why do you only care about Individual Income tax revenues?
You are quibbling over small potatoes. Regardless of the detailed numbers, the largest source of federal revenue is the individual income tax, followed closely by Social Security taxes. Corporate taxes, which we all pay, are a far distant fourth. Since we cannot raise Social Security taxes easily or by much, and raising corporate taxes is inefficient and likely Counterproductive, the only choice you have for closing the deficit, depending on which figures you choose to use, is increasing the individual income tax by somewhere between 50% and 100%. and that does nothing towards paying down the federal debt.
As for spending, I point out that 75% of spending is mandatory, and only about 25% is discretionary. Therefore, cutting spending to eliminate the deficit (again, depending on the numbers you choose) would require almost a complete elimination of discretionary spending!
Taken in combination, "increase taxes and cut spending" is a sensible-sounding platitude, but these two totally unrealistic ideas (one can expect them to be political impossibilities) would theoretically only reduce the federal debt over the next 20 years, and only by assuming the rising interest rates don't explode the mandatory expenditures for interest on that debt, and that the debt stops growing (zero deficits) and starts down immediately. There are ZERO solutions "inside the box."
Now if you want to quibble with the exact numbers, feel free. Here is the citation I used:
CBO 2020
I guess I can see where one might be a stock market pessimist, since government only seems to act in times of crisis (even though the crisis can be seen years before hand) and THEN only manages to do the wrong thing. It would be great if a more credible "problem solvers caucus" would gain power in the next Congress, and actually solve problems.
Jerry,
There is no such thing as mandatory and discretionary spending.
Just as there is no such thing as mandatory and discretionary taxes.
We the people through our politicians can change most anything by changing laws.
You seem to forget that the wealth of the citizens is a construct of our society and country.
Meaning that without the government and our laws, citizens are only worth what they can hold via force.
I sure do not want to use your source...
That was the year that Liberal Trump drove a $3.1 TRILLION DEFICIT... :-O
So back to 2022+ (Pg 7):
GDP: $24+ Trillion
Spend: $5.256 Trillion
Revenues: $4.200 Trillion
Deficit: $1.056 Trillion
So it is not challenging to see how we can increase Revenues by $0.7 Trillion
And cut spending by $0.7 Trillion and right this foundering ship.
Though of course you may actually have to get less and pay more. :-)
Now that is just silly, to say that there is no such thing as mandatory or discretionary spending, because our current "Representatives" have created these categories and have absolutely zero intentions of ever changing them, thus boxing ourselves into the corner where balancing the budget is a political impossibility. The math works, but our politicians do not.
It was actually the politicians that you elected decades ago that created the problem.
The question is what will future citizens and politicians be willing to sacrifice to keep the country fiscally solvent and stable.
Social security, Medicare and other welfare programs can disappear with the swipe of a pen if people get desperate enough. And the taxes on wealth and income can increase the same way.
We the People via our government make the rules and determine how wealth is collected / spent... You have no God given / God protected right to low taxes and high benefits.
I mean the simplest way to fix SS and Medicare is to just remove the FICA income cap...
Or raise the tax rate...
Or to cut the benefit to match the rate...
So many simple fixes.
I like simple, I do. But simple-minded "fixes" is what got us into this mess. You keep tying yourself in logical knots trying to insist that simplistic solutions that are impractical and unworkable mathematically are what will work. Like this: "the politicians that you elected decades ago that created the problem" and then in the same post, "We the People via our government make the rules and determine how wealth is collected / spent." Which is it, the voters (especially when half of us voted otherwise), or the elected politicians? And earlier it was our most recent President (not "decades ago") who is entirely responsible for all the ills of the world, while the guy YOU just voted for has made a total muck of the economy.
If your investments are in cash, you are losing money rapidly. Is that the fault of Biden, his "81 million voters," or Trump and his 76 million voters?
Well the National Debt definitely is the fault of the modern GOP Presidents. That is well documented. And I am pretty sure you voted for all of them.
Passing tax cuts while signing off on Spending increases was financially irresponsible.
As for our current situation, Trump borrowed / stole $7.5 Trillion from our kids to super charge the economy and raised trade tariffs. No wonder we have inflation issues.
Now I am not sure what you think Biden is doing or not doing that made it worse?
I suppose he could drop all those tariffs...
Great. Keep harping about who is to blame. Never mind how to fix the problem, and offering only fanciful platitudes on that subject, or, more importantly, what your personal financial plan is to deal with the problem as it exists-- the "play the ball from where it lies" problem. Let me know when you have researched that "abrogating federal Debt held by the Fed" solution or, better yet, explain to me why the Fed should not be prohibited from "buying" unsold Treasury bonds, funding the deficit and driving inflation. At least the Germans learned that lesson long ago.
Seems to me cash is the worst thing to be in right now, losing about 8%. You should at least be in bonds or dividend stocks. Or buying durable goods. The trick in Zimbabwe was to spend your paycheck the second you got it, because if you didn't, it lost almost 2% the next day and every day thereafter.
The reason I bring up the past is because you have not accepted yet that lowering tax rates without cutting spending caused deficits to increase and led to our MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT.
So I believe you will continue to vote for the people who caused the problem in the past, therefore supporting the problem's continuation.
The solution is pretty simple... Spend Less and Tax More... Unfortunately many folks like yourself are against that.
Hopefully the market will continue to crash and I can get back in soon.
And you have not accepted that tax rates have nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the deficit, that it is spending decisions that create that situation. Tax cuts (at least tend to) create economic growth and "pay for themselves." Meanwhile, most federal spending is on entitlement "autopilot" and every time taxes increase, the wastrels in Congress, CONTRARY to the wishes of many voters, find new ways to spend it, and more.
YOUR solution is simple, in theory and ONLY in theory. As a practical matter, it cannot be done so long as the current "thinking" continues in DC. That is, runaway entitlements and spending never paid for, without regard for actual revenues, like the current drive for another $2 Trillion "Build Back Better" bill. And you want taxes? Inflation is the cruelest tax of all.
Except for the notion that the market will crash so that YOU personally benefit. How selfish.
As I said. Tax cuts were followed by revenue reductions.
You keep denying the facts.
Growth is easy when you steal the money from the kids and forgive your debts by printing money...
And the market has been a bubble since the Summer of 2020. All those unpaid for tax cuts, huge deficits and COVID handouts... It had to pop sometime.
At last some recognition of reality-- that overspending creates deficits, financed by the Fed creating "money" out of thin air, thus leading to inflation. And now Joe Biden says he had nothing to do with it. But that's who gets the blame, thankfully. Love to help him out by curbing the Fed, but that won't go over well with the wastrels of the Democrat party.
As for the market, I'm not sure of a "bubble," but am aware of the term "irrational exuberance" which preceded the last one. I can't imagine the Fed engineering a "soft landing," so we are due for at least a small recession (just before the midterms). I don't know I would wait (I haven't) to buy in at the "bottom."
Jerry,
The denial is strong in you...
I still remember Trump begging the FED to come to his rescue... :-)
Well I am betting on the S&P going below 3500...
So avoiding a ~15% hit is worth some risk
(4100-3500)/ 4100
I just checked... Right now I am 38% stocks or stock funds, 4% bond funds and 57% cash...
I am watching for cheap stocks though...
I trade almost no individual stocks. I prefer mutual funds or ETFs. My advisor is suggesting we hang tight and that the economy will still expand into next year but more slowly. I am guessing that if the GOP takes over Congress and starts working around Biden, things, at least in the market, will pick up. That assumes Rs are smarter than Democrats have been-- a low bar.
I'm 55% domestic stock, 15% foreign stock, 27% bonds, 2% cash. My accounts are off 6% last 12 months. Compared to 4% for the DJIA.
That is what I for decades. My taking a more active stance is only since 2020.
I left some gains on the table in 2020 because of the GOP largesse.
On the other hand, I am up 5% for the last 12 months. Mostly because of VDE...
My current stocks are:
Verizon
AT&T
T Mobile
Netflix
BYDDY
I mean who is going to give up their cell phones, T & VZ have ok dividends, all 3 should benefit from 5G in the home...
BYD is China's Tesla and they are starting to get noticed. They are actively building and selling battery powered buses in California.
Netflix: proof that even I can make impulsive decisions sometimes. I am in at $195 so I may end up okay. :-O
Now let's repeat... The GOP's only goal for the next 2.5 years is to make things really bad in the USA... That is what they tried to do with Obama in 2010/11.
If you are counting on them to put the country first over making Biden look BAD. I think you are making a fool's bet.
Remember they are the same hypocrites who fought Obama tooth and nail regarding additional stimulus to help the country recover quicker after the Great Recession...
Remember sequestration and McConnell's One term President goal
Then when COVID threatened Trump's "success" and future... They lined up and passed much BIGGER bailouts.
And the grid lock is already being voiced for Biden
I would settle for gridlock rather than continued "transformation" from Biden. But I am really hoping for a reversal of the disastrous policies of the last 18 months-- open borders, energy and baby formula and overall shortages, rampant inflation, etc. Sorry, but I am simply not going to condemn R's for not doing everything they should, when Democrat majorities constantly try to do what they should not.
The federal government, especially the budget process, is broken and needs to be vastly simplified, because nobody can manage it as is. I will blame the voters for this one part of it, thinking that all problems can and should be solved at the federal level rather than State or local. It's very lazy citizenship.
Jerry,
Blaming the President for a booming economy where we can not find enough workers to do all the work does seem a bit silly.
And I am pretty sure Biden has nothing to say about China locking down their country. And cutting our source of components, materials, etc.
Or Russia invading Ukraine and therefore cutting the world's oil supply.
But please feel free to keep looking for scapegoats.
I do agree that the formula shortage is a strange anomaly that both the private and public sector contributed to.
And as I have noted, the country is awash in borrowed cash because of Trump. So he definitely contributed to this. For better and worse.
We just cannot have a discussion on any subject without your TDS coming in, and blaming me for voting for Trump. I'm trying to figure out how to blame Trump for Biden, on his first day, cancelling the Keystone pipeline, cancelling drilling on public lands, cancelling the border wall, rejoining the Paris accords, and overturning regulatory reform. Now today I hear Biden say there is nothing he can do about gas prices, when just a week ago he seemed happy about it as part of our "transition" from fossil fuels by making it too expensive to drive your car to work.
This morning we find out the jobs numbers are way under expectations. Fox Business says the market has already priced in the expected recession. I cannot change your, or anybody's, perception of whom is to blame for the current economic situation. What I /can/ do is to try to look after my personal economic situation, based not on placing blame, but on seeing what is clearly coming. It doesn't take tea leaves or chicken bones.
Hard to believe advice like this is available for free.
sector analysis
I don't blame you for voting for Trump once...
I mean I did the same that...
It is that you still support him even today :-O
Even though he signed off on record deficits and debt.
For your sake I hope the markets recover before they drop another 15%...
I don't think so...
Post a Comment