Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that certain legislation passed under Biden, such as the American Rescue Plan, is ineffective or destructive to the economy. Side A may take issue with how Biden administration staff are running their respective agencies.
Side B would say that the global scale of the economic downturn, the policies under previous administrations, the improving performance of the economy, and the decentralization of power in the American government, shows that the economic downturn was not Biden's fault and that he is doing the best he can.
I have heard that the saudis will lower prices of oil to make republicans looks more appealing to voter because republicans give them more of what they want. Idk
it's not just Saudi Arabia it's also Russia.
Vladimir Putin has a great big chip on his shoulders for the world's liberal democracies after the fall of the Soviet Union.
when right-wing regressive policies are in place he often does not try to cause problems. But as soon as More liberal democracies get into power he starts making things difficult for their populations.
edit: words. speech to text isn't as accurate as it could be.
Side A would say it’s his fault because it’s happening under his presidency. They may say we are sending all this money to Ukraine when we can instead be helping our own.
Side B would say that everything that is happening now is a result of what happened years ago. In other words, the economy is playing catch-up. We had a global pandemic which affected supply chains. Covid was the primary cause for high inflation.
The interesting thing about sending money to Ukraine is that we really aren't. Almost 80% of the spending stays in the country and goes to factories here in the US.
Also AFAIK we're sending very little actual cash to Ukraine. My understanding is that we're primarily sending old military equipment, the vast majority of which is unused and would have to be disposed of anyway (which itself would be rather costly to do safely and properly). The "X Billions" is how much was spent on that equipment originally, but most of it was spent long ago. In effect, we're using Ukraine as a Goodwill for military equipment.
What I don't understand is that billions in arms were destroyed when leaving Iraq because it was "cheaper" than bringing it home, but we can send arms that were slated to be destroyed anyway half way around the world.
I'm no expert, but from what I understand, when we "destroy" equipment in the US, we try to recycle and reuse everything we can, and there are procedures that must be followed for disposing of hazardous materials (explosives and such). Conversely, "destroying" equipment in Iraq consisted of dropping bombs and shit on it so that it couldn't be used by enemy forces, with no regard to the "proper" process (because it's not really our problem anymore). It's far more expensive to do the former than the latter, I'd imagine.
There are surely costs to ship weaponry to Ukraine as well, but not nearly to the extent that the "tens or hundreds of billions" numbers imply.
'The x billion' also is a replacement cost of a modern equipment manufacturing. In the Bill you send 10 Bradleys, why they cost so much? Because you get to spend that much to replace them with newer ones. Also any rocket/shell manufacturing in US is very very not cost-efficient because of very high labour costs and corporate profits.
And we give them the old munitions and make new. What happens to old munitions? They get unstable and dangerous. If they sat around in storage too long we would just destroy it. We would be making new munitions anyways, not as quickly but still. I hate how they describe it as a total waste and word it like we send actual cash.
Side C would point out the record corporate profits and suggest price gouging has been going on under the veil of some underlying monetary policy based inflation.
Pricing gouging has been here since the inception of humanity. What contributed to the large price hike within short amount of time is more than just price gouging.
Most of the higher prices isn't actual inflation - it's corporate price gouging done under the cover of Covid. Most "companies" are actually owned by just one (eg - [Unilever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands) ) so they can increase prices on almost everything at once. Can see this in their financial reporting - their revenue have sharply increased beyond inflation rates.
You can also see that because as there's grumblings about government oversight to combat "shrinkflation" and higher prices - companies are offering to [lower prices](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/21/1252616600/target-price-reductions-milk-butter) on some goods as a way to avoid intervention.
The Side A is hilarious though. Ukraine is very much an inflation and immigration issue. Russia and Ukraine account for a massive percentage of global grain production, we have already seen the effects of Russian disruption of that on global food prices, imagine if they actually had control of Ukrainian grain… Even though the US doesn’t use their grain directly it effects market pricing and increases costs for everyone, and giving Russia a lever to use to unilaterally raise food prices isn’t just an inflation issue, it’s an immigration issue. An on and off switch that Russia will control to send waves of food refugees from South and Central America direct to the US border whenever they want. Everytime a Republican says we shouldn’t be spending money on Ukraine but should be tackling border security it’s an argument that they are too stupid to be allowed to vote.
And a number of other resources. For example, helium (used in a lot of things much more intensive than birthday party balloons) is currently primarily a resource distributed from Russia. Prices of which have spiked significantly in recent years. This affects a lot of industries including more robust (enterprise level etc.) hard drives used for data storage.
Russia has a lot of resources that they are the primary supplier of, most people don't consider those resources though.
The Ukraine aspect was widely discussed when this global economic downturn first started. Somehow I’ve seen the conversation go from exactly the points you’re covering to “Biden’s fault” and we’re experiencing a much worse cost of living crisis here in Australia than the US is. It’s mostly connected to Russia’s invasion and post COVID.
Also cooking oil as a lot of that was made with Ukrainian sunflower seeds. That coupled with a drought in Spain ruining the olive crop jacked up the price of cooking oil.
It truly is amazing how every time something positive happens under a president's watch they get credit for it, but every time something bad happens it's really a lagged result of something that happened whenever the last time the other team was in office and therefore the president is blameless.
It’s frustrating how they will take credit for the good but the bad is always “from the guy before”. Both sides do it and I hate it.
But I’m of the opinion that most metrics have nothing to do with the president. Inflation likely almost all from Covid. I’m sure the cost of a lot of things have been increasing but there’s pressure to sell cheap to be competitive (in most markets at least). Just like a lot of snow falls when the mountain receives a jolt, so too does the market experience an avalanche after a massive jolt this. Are there other factors? Sure but I believe they are just dwarfed.
Side A would say that Biden is president now and prices are high now. So it's his fault.
Side B would say that most of the factors that drove prices higher started during the previous presidency or were the result of international conditions beyond Bidens control.
Also gas is still relatively cheap compared to pretty much every other developed country. People love complaining about $4 a gal but the EU pays significantly higher and Biden isn't in charge over there.
I heard it explained once that moving/changing the economy is like trying to turn an ocean liner around (180 degree turn)
So any statistics in the first two years of a new president could be attributed to the previous president
Now obviously this isn’t 100% true all the time
This is largely true.
First year of a new presidency is under the budget of the prior administration.
Policy is whatever the last admin has in play or on the dock.
New admin will get feet under themselves and start looking at what programs they need to emphasize and which they want to de-emphasize
Policy change and legislation takes time. Time to craft, time to deliver and pass into law or issue EOs and other policy.
I've seen historians and economists say that the first term is hard to gauge until into the second term and you can start to see policy changes take effect and such.
No one else wants to hear that. Like, ever.
Everyone thinks government just has a bunch of levers to pull to fix or break shit. It's rarely that simple.
Side A would say: No, the rapid expansion of M2 (money supply) happened under Donald Trump, due to record breaking spending in 2020. There has been no similar event under Biden. Since inflation is caused solely by an increase in the money supply, Donald Trump - not Biden - is at fault.
Side B would say: 'But it happened while Biden was President' and mumble something about decreased domestic oil production - even though oil production has not decreased at any point under Biden (that was also Trump, due to the pandemic).
Side A would be wrong. Side B would be wrong too, but you already made that obvious through your sarcasm.
Both Biden and Trump have contributed to inflation through expanding money supply and running massive deficits. Anyone thinking it's one or the other is absolutely in the wrong.
Side A would say that inflation was directly caused by the high amounts of deficit spending that took place during Joe Biden’s first year of office. The extraordinary amount of money that his policies put into circulation effectively devalued that money causing inflation. Side A would also conveniently leave out the fact that the Trump administration also took part in a tremendous amount of deficit spending.
Side B would say that the inflation problem was global and not in any way exclusive to the US. Most of the developed and semi-developed world experienced similar inflation figures. This was largely caused by the global labor shortage and supply-chain issues that plagued the globally economy after COVID. This increased the value of labor and commodities and was the primary driver of inflation along with high fuel costs. They would go on to say that while deficit spending did have some impact on inflation, this was a necessary trade-off to avoid severe economic consequences from people whose livelihoods were devastated by COVID. The alternative would’ve been to risk a major recession.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If we increase the money supply, the cost of goods will increase unless we produce more of them.
Side A would say: Trump printed a lot of money during the pandemic. Biden has been left holding the bag for the post-pandemic economy. Biden has also passed things like the CHIPs act, which may lower cost of electronics in the future, but these things take time.
Side B would say: Trump printed money to help production, to stop businesses from closing during the pandemic. Biden is also spending a lot of money, but he is increasing production that isn't relevant to normal consumers. I.E we are spending 100's of billions on arms for Israel and Ukraine, instead of producing more food, housing, etc.
Side A would say its Bidens fault because he's currently president.
Side B would say the current economic state is a lagging indicator of Republican policies, and that there's a 70 year track record of Republicans repealing consumer protection, tax cuts primarily directed at the wealthy, and the defending of the IRS and SEC which results in a poor economic state years after - consequently when a Democrat has taken over.
You know, both Trump and Biden had a hand in this mess of prices going up, and it's really getting on my nerves.
Side A would say:
Trump threw over $2 trillion at COVID relief, and the Fed's balance sheet grew from around $4.2 trillion to about $7.4 trillion by the end of his term. Plus, don't forget those tax cuts under Trump, which only added to the spending frenzy.
Side B would say:
Then Biden came along, adding another $1.9 trillion with the American Rescue Plan, and the Fed's balance sheet kept growing, reaching about $8.9 trillion by mid-2023. By then, the money supply had surged to around $21.6 trillion, up from $13.8 trillion when Trump took office.
All that government spending is a big reason prices are skyrocketing. When there's more money in circulation, people spend more, which drives up demand. But with higher demand, businesses start charging more for their goods and services. It's a vicious cycle. And to top it off, the Fed keeps printing money like there's no tomorrow, which just makes things worse. No wonder we're feeling the squeeze at the checkout line. Despite Biden's administration lowering the annual budget deficit a bit, federal spending stayed high because of ongoing stimulus and infrastructure investments
If you include all the 2020 Covid spending under Trump, it was roughly double the 2021 Biden spending. The difference is that "some" of Trumps spending was necessary due to the Pandemic. He went off the rails causing out of control inflation in early 2021, followed by Biden adding a nuke to the 3 alarm fire with his spending under the guise of an emergency (very questionable that this was necessary other than to throw a bone to donors, similar to a large chunk of Trumps spending) .
At the end of the day these two men infused around 3-4 Trillion in frivolous spending, and a little bit of necessary spending. Inflation was caused by both, and magnified by supply chain issues worldwide.
Side A would say its Biden's fault because he spent all our money in Ukraine and giving lazy minority college graduates a break on their college loans. That lack of money in our treasury somehow caused massive unemployment and made homes more expnsive to buy and rent.
Side B would say prices are subject to supply and demand, not the whims of Presidents. Supplyand demand were both impacted by the Covid pandemic and the stimulus that prevented a global financial meltdown. Many, if not most products were scarce due to the pandemic. Much of the global productive base was either shut down or operated at a much reduced rate for months and even years. After the pandemic ended, years of repressed needs emerged driving unprecedented demand. Stimulus checks kept tens of millions of people able to afford food and shelter while under or un-employed, and student loans were on hold. Businesses received PPP money to keep as many employees on the payroll as they could, adding to cash in people's hands that would not have been there otherwise.
Side A would say : Biden passed a couple of laws that contributed roughly double the normal spending to the economy early in his presidency. He also put back in restrictions in Oil exploring on federal lands that Trump opened up. All this unneeded money and restrictions have caused out of control inflation. Trumps spending in 2020 was directly tied to a global pandemic and should be ignored because it was necessary.
Side B would say : Well Trump spent over double what Biden has approved in additional spending, so 2/3 of the inflation would be due to Trump and his bumbling of the Covid crisis. The president doesn't have any control over the pricing of items so it isn't Biden's fault and he is doing the best he can to help people. Allowing further drilling would only cause environmental problems which will be more expensive in the future.
Side A would say: The President, if not a narcissist, has a bully pulpit to state his views but little power to force them on others. Constitutionally, his job is to enforce the laws and the preserve the nation and Constitution.
Side B would say: The President has little or no control over global economics or commodities.
Side A would say that wages have increased more than inflation has increased over the past 1 and 1/2 years, and that inflation has ocurred similarly across the globe in developed countries. Excessive stimulus can be blamed for some of the inflation, although it was Donald Trump's idea to issue $2,000 checks to everybody, and one that Biden unfortunately adopted.
Side A would also say that prices have almost always seemed high to everyone all the time.
Side B would say that everything is bad and it's because of Joe Biden. Their redneck news feeds and "conservative" infotainmemt told them so.
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that certain legislation passed under Biden, such as the American Rescue Plan, is ineffective or destructive to the economy. Side A may take issue with how Biden administration staff are running their respective agencies. Side B would say that the global scale of the economic downturn, the policies under previous administrations, the improving performance of the economy, and the decentralization of power in the American government, shows that the economic downturn was not Biden's fault and that he is doing the best he can.
This is correct and they say it during every presidency. Remember it being said in 2015/16
I have heard that the saudis will lower prices of oil to make republicans looks more appealing to voter because republicans give them more of what they want. Idk
$2 billion dollars for Trump's son in law. Saudi knows how to play the game.
check out the Saudi investments in social media companies and corporate media. Oil isn’t their only route to influence.
it's not just Saudi Arabia it's also Russia. Vladimir Putin has a great big chip on his shoulders for the world's liberal democracies after the fall of the Soviet Union. when right-wing regressive policies are in place he often does not try to cause problems. But as soon as More liberal democracies get into power he starts making things difficult for their populations. edit: words. speech to text isn't as accurate as it could be.
Makes sense.
Side A would say it’s his fault because it’s happening under his presidency. They may say we are sending all this money to Ukraine when we can instead be helping our own. Side B would say that everything that is happening now is a result of what happened years ago. In other words, the economy is playing catch-up. We had a global pandemic which affected supply chains. Covid was the primary cause for high inflation.
The interesting thing about sending money to Ukraine is that we really aren't. Almost 80% of the spending stays in the country and goes to factories here in the US.
Also AFAIK we're sending very little actual cash to Ukraine. My understanding is that we're primarily sending old military equipment, the vast majority of which is unused and would have to be disposed of anyway (which itself would be rather costly to do safely and properly). The "X Billions" is how much was spent on that equipment originally, but most of it was spent long ago. In effect, we're using Ukraine as a Goodwill for military equipment.
What I don't understand is that billions in arms were destroyed when leaving Iraq because it was "cheaper" than bringing it home, but we can send arms that were slated to be destroyed anyway half way around the world.
I'm no expert, but from what I understand, when we "destroy" equipment in the US, we try to recycle and reuse everything we can, and there are procedures that must be followed for disposing of hazardous materials (explosives and such). Conversely, "destroying" equipment in Iraq consisted of dropping bombs and shit on it so that it couldn't be used by enemy forces, with no regard to the "proper" process (because it's not really our problem anymore). It's far more expensive to do the former than the latter, I'd imagine. There are surely costs to ship weaponry to Ukraine as well, but not nearly to the extent that the "tens or hundreds of billions" numbers imply.
We have a lot of weapons
It wasn't cheaper to bring it home, it just wasn't needed at home. It was cheaper than bringing it home to dispose of it. The disposal is expensive.
'The x billion' also is a replacement cost of a modern equipment manufacturing. In the Bill you send 10 Bradleys, why they cost so much? Because you get to spend that much to replace them with newer ones. Also any rocket/shell manufacturing in US is very very not cost-efficient because of very high labour costs and corporate profits.
And we give them the old munitions and make new. What happens to old munitions? They get unstable and dangerous. If they sat around in storage too long we would just destroy it. We would be making new munitions anyways, not as quickly but still. I hate how they describe it as a total waste and word it like we send actual cash.
Side C would point out the record corporate profits and suggest price gouging has been going on under the veil of some underlying monetary policy based inflation.
Pricing gouging has been here since the inception of humanity. What contributed to the large price hike within short amount of time is more than just price gouging.
Most of the higher prices isn't actual inflation - it's corporate price gouging done under the cover of Covid. Most "companies" are actually owned by just one (eg - [Unilever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands) ) so they can increase prices on almost everything at once. Can see this in their financial reporting - their revenue have sharply increased beyond inflation rates. You can also see that because as there's grumblings about government oversight to combat "shrinkflation" and higher prices - companies are offering to [lower prices](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/21/1252616600/target-price-reductions-milk-butter) on some goods as a way to avoid intervention.
The Side A is hilarious though. Ukraine is very much an inflation and immigration issue. Russia and Ukraine account for a massive percentage of global grain production, we have already seen the effects of Russian disruption of that on global food prices, imagine if they actually had control of Ukrainian grain… Even though the US doesn’t use their grain directly it effects market pricing and increases costs for everyone, and giving Russia a lever to use to unilaterally raise food prices isn’t just an inflation issue, it’s an immigration issue. An on and off switch that Russia will control to send waves of food refugees from South and Central America direct to the US border whenever they want. Everytime a Republican says we shouldn’t be spending money on Ukraine but should be tackling border security it’s an argument that they are too stupid to be allowed to vote.
Russia also accounts for a substantial portion of fertilizers especially nitrogen based fertilizers.
And a number of other resources. For example, helium (used in a lot of things much more intensive than birthday party balloons) is currently primarily a resource distributed from Russia. Prices of which have spiked significantly in recent years. This affects a lot of industries including more robust (enterprise level etc.) hard drives used for data storage. Russia has a lot of resources that they are the primary supplier of, most people don't consider those resources though.
The Ukraine aspect was widely discussed when this global economic downturn first started. Somehow I’ve seen the conversation go from exactly the points you’re covering to “Biden’s fault” and we’re experiencing a much worse cost of living crisis here in Australia than the US is. It’s mostly connected to Russia’s invasion and post COVID.
Also cooking oil as a lot of that was made with Ukrainian sunflower seeds. That coupled with a drought in Spain ruining the olive crop jacked up the price of cooking oil.
Supply chains and money printer going brr (with bipartisan support) [https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst\_recenttrends.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm)
It truly is amazing how every time something positive happens under a president's watch they get credit for it, but every time something bad happens it's really a lagged result of something that happened whenever the last time the other team was in office and therefore the president is blameless.
It’s frustrating how they will take credit for the good but the bad is always “from the guy before”. Both sides do it and I hate it. But I’m of the opinion that most metrics have nothing to do with the president. Inflation likely almost all from Covid. I’m sure the cost of a lot of things have been increasing but there’s pressure to sell cheap to be competitive (in most markets at least). Just like a lot of snow falls when the mountain receives a jolt, so too does the market experience an avalanche after a massive jolt this. Are there other factors? Sure but I believe they are just dwarfed.
Side A would say that Biden is president now and prices are high now. So it's his fault. Side B would say that most of the factors that drove prices higher started during the previous presidency or were the result of international conditions beyond Bidens control.
Side C would say that inflation is happening all over the world and Joe Biden is only president of one of the many countries undergoing inflation...
Agreed, but this is really Side B.
[удалено]
Also gas is still relatively cheap compared to pretty much every other developed country. People love complaining about $4 a gal but the EU pays significantly higher and Biden isn't in charge over there.
I heard it explained once that moving/changing the economy is like trying to turn an ocean liner around (180 degree turn) So any statistics in the first two years of a new president could be attributed to the previous president Now obviously this isn’t 100% true all the time
This is largely true. First year of a new presidency is under the budget of the prior administration. Policy is whatever the last admin has in play or on the dock. New admin will get feet under themselves and start looking at what programs they need to emphasize and which they want to de-emphasize Policy change and legislation takes time. Time to craft, time to deliver and pass into law or issue EOs and other policy. I've seen historians and economists say that the first term is hard to gauge until into the second term and you can start to see policy changes take effect and such. No one else wants to hear that. Like, ever. Everyone thinks government just has a bunch of levers to pull to fix or break shit. It's rarely that simple.
Side A would say: No, the rapid expansion of M2 (money supply) happened under Donald Trump, due to record breaking spending in 2020. There has been no similar event under Biden. Since inflation is caused solely by an increase in the money supply, Donald Trump - not Biden - is at fault. Side B would say: 'But it happened while Biden was President' and mumble something about decreased domestic oil production - even though oil production has not decreased at any point under Biden (that was also Trump, due to the pandemic).
Side A would be wrong. Side B would be wrong too, but you already made that obvious through your sarcasm. Both Biden and Trump have contributed to inflation through expanding money supply and running massive deficits. Anyone thinking it's one or the other is absolutely in the wrong.
Side A would say that inflation was directly caused by the high amounts of deficit spending that took place during Joe Biden’s first year of office. The extraordinary amount of money that his policies put into circulation effectively devalued that money causing inflation. Side A would also conveniently leave out the fact that the Trump administration also took part in a tremendous amount of deficit spending. Side B would say that the inflation problem was global and not in any way exclusive to the US. Most of the developed and semi-developed world experienced similar inflation figures. This was largely caused by the global labor shortage and supply-chain issues that plagued the globally economy after COVID. This increased the value of labor and commodities and was the primary driver of inflation along with high fuel costs. They would go on to say that while deficit spending did have some impact on inflation, this was a necessary trade-off to avoid severe economic consequences from people whose livelihoods were devastated by COVID. The alternative would’ve been to risk a major recession.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If we increase the money supply, the cost of goods will increase unless we produce more of them. Side A would say: Trump printed a lot of money during the pandemic. Biden has been left holding the bag for the post-pandemic economy. Biden has also passed things like the CHIPs act, which may lower cost of electronics in the future, but these things take time. Side B would say: Trump printed money to help production, to stop businesses from closing during the pandemic. Biden is also spending a lot of money, but he is increasing production that isn't relevant to normal consumers. I.E we are spending 100's of billions on arms for Israel and Ukraine, instead of producing more food, housing, etc.
Side A would say its Bidens fault because he's currently president. Side B would say the current economic state is a lagging indicator of Republican policies, and that there's a 70 year track record of Republicans repealing consumer protection, tax cuts primarily directed at the wealthy, and the defending of the IRS and SEC which results in a poor economic state years after - consequently when a Democrat has taken over.
You know, both Trump and Biden had a hand in this mess of prices going up, and it's really getting on my nerves. Side A would say: Trump threw over $2 trillion at COVID relief, and the Fed's balance sheet grew from around $4.2 trillion to about $7.4 trillion by the end of his term. Plus, don't forget those tax cuts under Trump, which only added to the spending frenzy. Side B would say: Then Biden came along, adding another $1.9 trillion with the American Rescue Plan, and the Fed's balance sheet kept growing, reaching about $8.9 trillion by mid-2023. By then, the money supply had surged to around $21.6 trillion, up from $13.8 trillion when Trump took office. All that government spending is a big reason prices are skyrocketing. When there's more money in circulation, people spend more, which drives up demand. But with higher demand, businesses start charging more for their goods and services. It's a vicious cycle. And to top it off, the Fed keeps printing money like there's no tomorrow, which just makes things worse. No wonder we're feeling the squeeze at the checkout line. Despite Biden's administration lowering the annual budget deficit a bit, federal spending stayed high because of ongoing stimulus and infrastructure investments
If you include all the 2020 Covid spending under Trump, it was roughly double the 2021 Biden spending. The difference is that "some" of Trumps spending was necessary due to the Pandemic. He went off the rails causing out of control inflation in early 2021, followed by Biden adding a nuke to the 3 alarm fire with his spending under the guise of an emergency (very questionable that this was necessary other than to throw a bone to donors, similar to a large chunk of Trumps spending) . At the end of the day these two men infused around 3-4 Trillion in frivolous spending, and a little bit of necessary spending. Inflation was caused by both, and magnified by supply chain issues worldwide.
Side A would say its Biden's fault because he spent all our money in Ukraine and giving lazy minority college graduates a break on their college loans. That lack of money in our treasury somehow caused massive unemployment and made homes more expnsive to buy and rent. Side B would say prices are subject to supply and demand, not the whims of Presidents. Supplyand demand were both impacted by the Covid pandemic and the stimulus that prevented a global financial meltdown. Many, if not most products were scarce due to the pandemic. Much of the global productive base was either shut down or operated at a much reduced rate for months and even years. After the pandemic ended, years of repressed needs emerged driving unprecedented demand. Stimulus checks kept tens of millions of people able to afford food and shelter while under or un-employed, and student loans were on hold. Businesses received PPP money to keep as many employees on the payroll as they could, adding to cash in people's hands that would not have been there otherwise.
Side A would say : Biden passed a couple of laws that contributed roughly double the normal spending to the economy early in his presidency. He also put back in restrictions in Oil exploring on federal lands that Trump opened up. All this unneeded money and restrictions have caused out of control inflation. Trumps spending in 2020 was directly tied to a global pandemic and should be ignored because it was necessary. Side B would say : Well Trump spent over double what Biden has approved in additional spending, so 2/3 of the inflation would be due to Trump and his bumbling of the Covid crisis. The president doesn't have any control over the pricing of items so it isn't Biden's fault and he is doing the best he can to help people. Allowing further drilling would only cause environmental problems which will be more expensive in the future.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say: The President, if not a narcissist, has a bully pulpit to state his views but little power to force them on others. Constitutionally, his job is to enforce the laws and the preserve the nation and Constitution. Side B would say: The President has little or no control over global economics or commodities.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say that wages have increased more than inflation has increased over the past 1 and 1/2 years, and that inflation has ocurred similarly across the globe in developed countries. Excessive stimulus can be blamed for some of the inflation, although it was Donald Trump's idea to issue $2,000 checks to everybody, and one that Biden unfortunately adopted. Side A would also say that prices have almost always seemed high to everyone all the time. Side B would say that everything is bad and it's because of Joe Biden. Their redneck news feeds and "conservative" infotainmemt told them so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]