Interest rates are still rather low compared to the last 50 year average.
The Fed was raising interest rates for the sole, singular reason of fucking over workers in the labor market.
Interest rates are still rather low compared to the last 50 year average.
Great news but also very predictable.
We all knew it would take time, as Trump buried America in such a big hole it was OBVIOUS even pre covid.
The Biden investments in America are working but will need time to over come the deep hole Trump put us in.
That's an early 2021 article. Would be interesting to see what they say about our debt spending now as deficits/spending/debt are even higher. Is Pro Publica principled on the issue, or like many/most partisans, only dislike spending when its someone they don't support doing it?
In 1983 when we bought our first home the interest rate was 9.3% and we do got a good deal because we were first time home buyers and hubby a veteran. We refinanced as soon as rates dropped.Interest rates are still rather low compared to the last 50 year average.
Spending is not the issue they focus on. It is debt. The main Trump issue is that he gutted future gov't revenue while piling on debt.
Think of it this way if you have credit cards and a line of credit and you run them all up to the max, while at the same time taking a job that pays way less. That is what Trump did to America that was so harmful.
How was future revenue gutted? The article references an explosive rise in national debt, and it's only gotten worse since it was written.
.POLITICO analysis: At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump tax cuts leave big gap
Between new cost estimates and the White House’s own budget numbers, the wheels are coming off Republican claims that President Donald Trump’s tax cuts will pay for themselves by generating increased growth and government revenues over the next decade.
“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin famously boasted in September. But his own department’s analysts now peg the 10-year cost at $2.3 trillion given the administration’s assumption that tax breaks for individuals and large estates will be extended past 2025.
POLITICO’s own calculations, working entirely from data in the 2018 and 2019 budgets, indicate that the added revenues generated by the tax cuts themselves would fall substantially short of matching $2.3 trillion.
For the years 2018 to 2027, the shortfall ranges from $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion. In measuring for 2019 to 2028, the picture improves, but the 10-year shortfall still is between $700 billion to $1.1 trillion....
The consumer price index in the same period rose 4%. Inflation rose to 3.7%. That in effect means that the economy is stagnant
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter of 2023, according to the “advance” estimate. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.1 percent.
^^^ not inflation adjusted number.^^^Current-dollar GDP increased 8.5 percent at an annual rate.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realeconomicrate.aspWhat Is the Real Economic Growth Rate?
The real economic growth rate, or real GDP growth rate, measures economic growth, as expressed by gross domestic product (GDP), from one period to another, adjusted for inflation or deflation.
That's a 2018 article on projections into the future not even two months after the legislation was passed so I'm not following how that means future revenue was gutted. Maybe we're talking past each other and that could be my fault but I'm still not following the idea that the further explosion in debt that we are now experiencing is somehow different than debt we've added in the past.
...“Not only will this tax plan pay for itself but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin famously boasted in September. But his own department’s analysts now peg the 10-year cost at $2.3 trillion given the administration’s assumption that tax breaks for individuals and large estates will be extended past 2025...
In 1983 when we bought our first home the interest rate was 9.3% and we do got a good deal because we were first time home buyers and hubby a veteran. We refinanced as soon as rates dropped.
Democrats always have to come to the rescue.The Reagan recession of 1982-83 was the worst post-WW2 recession on record until George Dumbya's great recession of 2008 and Trump's great recession of 2020.
In 1983 when we bought our first home the interest rate was 9.3% and we do got a good deal because we were first time home buyers and hubby a veteran. We refinanced as soon as rates dropped.
Same here. I bought my first home in 1984 and the mortgage interest rate was around 9%. My father bought the home I grew up in in 1963 when the interest rate is 5% and I remember my dad saying "You'll never see the interest rates this low in your lifetime. I couldn't believe he got his mortgage for only 5%. I was so envious.
And a good thing about interest rates going up is now we can get decent returns on our fixed investments. The interest rates have been artificially low for over 10 years since the Bush Jr. Mortgage Crisis and Recession of 2008.
Same here. I bought my first home in 1984 and the mortgage interest rate was around 9%. My father bought the home I grew up in in 1963 when the interest rate is 5% and I remember my dad saying "You'll never see the interest rates this low in your lifetime. I couldn't believe he got his mortgage for only 5%. I was so envious.
And a good thing about interest rates going up is now we can get decent returns on our fixed investments. The interest rates have been artificially low for over 10 years since the Bush Jr. Mortgage Crisis and Recession of 2008.
The Reagan recession of 1982-83 was the worst post-WW2 recession on record until George Dumbya's great recession of 2008 and Trump's great recession of 2020.
Democrats always have to come to the rescue.
Democrats always have to come to the rescue.
I would try to dumb it down so you could understands but I just can't get that dumbI often try to dumb things down to a level the right derps can understand but i have struggled to get to the depths of dumb they will comprehend. But here is another attempt.
Brother 1 and Brother 2 have jumped in to help manage the household finances for their recent deceased other brother. Each brother takes a 6 month term managing the bank accounts, line of credit and Credit cards and making key decisions.
Times are good in the economy.
Brother 1 goes first, and finds the family mostly debt free and with a decent amount of money (revenue) coming in to the home. He starts running up the credit cards and line of credit, giving the family things like new cars and vacations, etc. For the family they suddenly feel richer as they are now living on the benefit of more money than they have coming in, in revenue.
Brother 2 steps in 6 months later, and the family is still doing ok, but he sees the danger of the mounting debt and brother 1 tells him he needs to pay it down. So now he has the family living off $0.85 of every dollar, while he pays down debt, and he has no money to put ini towards the kids education and other things he wanted to invest for them. But he mostly gets the family back in to a good debt range and everything trending the right way.
Brother 1 takes back over and sees things are good, and immediately goes back to being the 'Good times uncle'. He again ramps up spending and debt and compared to the belt tightening prior they feel even more rich. They go from living off $0.85 of every dollar and back to living off $1.15 of every dollar as the debt piles back up.
Anyone with a brain can see that Brother 1 is what Republican POTUS and especially Trump did which is why they put out the frantic call for Biden to now pay it down. And if he does Trump would just then run it back up.
The Republi'cans' always want to paint the Dems into necessary austerity as the country feels less rich and it prevents the Dems being able to spend as much on pesky citizens priorities like infrastructure and education.
that is why the republi'cans' both pile on debt and gut revenues BOTH, so that a future crisis is assured where they can scream 'austerity' and point at the crisis they were the biggest contributor too.
Reagan, I remember it, well, and trickle down, too.And that is very deliberate for a couple of reasons.
Generations ago the philosophy of both parties was (even if they were not always great at it) you utilize debt (run deficits) in troubled times to help float the economy, and you pay down debt (generate surpluses) in good times to pay it down.
The republicans broke this contract as they do not want any Democrat lead gov't to be able to do anything but pay down debt and fix crisis they deliberately create. That is because if the Dems come to power in good times and after surpluses they may spend that money on things like education, infrastructure and other benefits for average citizens.
So the republicans now have one gear only. Pile in debt and gut revenues, giving citizens the sugar high and fake feeling of the country being wealthier, as Trump, et al spends much more than a dollar for every dollar coming in to the Treasury, tipping the country into clear visible future peril as those bills come due. While then demanding that Democrats, get fiscally responsible and 'deal with the mounting debt' that the republicans contributed the most to. Something they KNOW makes citizens feel poorer as being more responsible with debt, and taking away that sugar high has impact.
The republi'cans' will always repeat this cycle as they see it as the best way to try and block Dem priority spending by making sure they always inherit an economy in near crisis as they cry about the cost of future debt and the need to deal with it now.
Reagan, I remember it, well, and trickle down, too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greats...the-truth-about-barney-frank/?sh=14376dd163dbBarney Frank [ Chairman of the Banking Committee] has been a major supporter of every policy that got us into this mess [housing crisis 2008 meltdown] , from the Community Reinvestment Act to President Clinton’s mandate for banks to extend a minimum number of “affordable loans.”