A new analysis by Moody’s Analytics definitively demonstrates to those predisposed to conventional economic analysis that Trump is a loser, especially in terms of the economy. Biden’s economic plans aren’t even radical, simply democratic and less inequitable. Trump’s short-attention-span policies have always been wham-bam, wait for two weeks, there’ll be a new one (or the same one, much like his lies). Wait another two weeks and there will be a superspreader hotspot from his rallies.
Lower- and middle-income households benefit more from Biden’s policies than Trump’s. Biden ramps up government spending on education, healthcare and other social programs, the benefits of which largely go to those in the bottom half of the income distribution. Meanwhile, he meaningfully increases taxes on the well-to-do, financial institutions and businesses to help pay for it. Trump largely does the reverse.
He makes permanent the temporary tax cuts he implemented in his first term. The benefits largely go to higher-income households and businesses, while government spending is scaled back on healthcare and a range of social programs, the benefits of which go mainly to those with lesser incomes and wealth. Voters have a very clear choice in deciding their next president. Trump and Biden could not have more different governing approaches and policies, and this is especially true when it comes to economic policy.
Thanks for the fish. There’s some living on stored fat, but it would end with the Trump re-election, as a grand recession and not a few downturns loom.
…I want to focus on another reason voters would give the president a pass on the economy: While there is big trouble at the macroeconomic level, household finances are good on average and better than they were before the pandemic. American personal income rose sharply during the spring and early summer because of stimulus payments, enhanced unemployment insurance, and forgivable PPP loans to small businesses. At the same time, consumer spending fell sharply, as Americans adopted en masse the sort of practices that Suze Orman might suggest to a financially struggling caller: no restaurant meals, no vacations, no specialty coffee beverages.
Of course, a disconnect between household finances and the broader economy cannot persist forever. The last six months have been dire for many small and large businesses, and a significant subset of them will close or have closed permanently. Those businesses have owners and workers whose ability to spend will obviously be hurt by those closures. But the flip side of the disconnect is that strong household finances can be an engine for economic recovery that will save many of those businesses. All that saving means American consumers have the capacity to patronize those businesses when they feel it is safe and enjoyable to do so — although that spending capacity will somewhat diminish over time if high unemployment persists without robust benefits to protect household balance sheets. This is a reason for Congress to move another round of economic support legislation after the election if it is not possible to reach an agreement before.
Finally, I would note that the economy is not everything politically. That same Iowa poll that found Iowans broadly satisfied with their household finances also found Trump and Joe Biden tied in the state — a state that Trump won by nine points in 2016. Voters are looking at their wallets, delivering a surprisingly satisfied verdict on their finances, and giving Trump some credit for his handling of the economy. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote to reelect him.
The October Surprise could be finally indicting HRC.