Franklin D. Roosevelt.
That's the last President to have a 10% stock market gain in his first 100 days in office. The index is on course for its strongest performance since the start of Roosevelt’s first term in 1933, when it surged 80% after a spectacular crash in the Great Depression, according to a Dow Jones Market Data analysis. By comparison, the S&P 500 rose 5.3% in the first 100 days of President Trump’s only term in early 2017 and on average has gained 3.2% over that period in Presidential terms since Herbert Hoover’s in 1929.
It's no big surprise that bountiful government spending, increasing Covid-19 vaccinations, growing faith in the economic reopening and continued support from the Federal Reserve have powered the latest leg up in the stock market. The U.S. has made strides in its vaccination campaign, with the Biden administration reaching its goal of giving 200 million doses within the president’s first 100 days. Vaccines appear to be starting to slow the spread of new Covid-19 infections in the U.S., bolstering expectations that the economy can move beyond the restrictions that have slowed activity during the pandemic.
Consumer confidence in the U.S., meanwhile, has risen for four consecutive months, but still well below the pre-pandemic levels. Recent readings may have been boosted by the distribution of checks to households, following Biden’s signing in March of a $1.9Tn relief bill that provided for direct payments to many Americans. In late March, Biden unveiled a $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan that could benefit businesses ranging from Trucking Companies to Semiconductor Manufacturers to Electric-Vehicle and Battery Makers. Last night, as expected, the President promoted a $1.8 trillion proposal for new spending on Child Care, Education and Paid Leave – a plan he would largely pay for by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (over $400,000 in income).
Notice that Consumer Confidence, as well as the market, is all about expectations – rather than the ACTUAL present situation. People extrapolate things are getting better and therefore earnings will get better and stocks will be worth more money but the reality of an inflationary economy with stagnant wages or, even worse, stagnant growth can quickly turn into a major economic problem.
In the past year, our Dollars have gotten 10% weaker and the things we buy have generally gotten 10% more expensive but the Government gave us lots of money to compensate and, if they keep refunding us for the inflation they are causing by running the printing presses 24/7, then all will seem well. Just don't stop, please!
And, of course, there's the elephant in the room which is the 10M Americans that are 90 days or more behind on their rent. There are 110M housing units in the US so that's 10% of all rentals and if we assume the average rent is $2,000/month, we're talking about over $60Bn and those losses trickle up to the banks when the landlords can't make their mortgage payments.
Currently there's a moratorium on evictions but it will eventually end and who is able to "catch up" on more than 3 months of rent? Then what? You lose your apartment and your deposit and you have a black mark on your credit report for the attention of the next landlord you approach. There's also 2.5M homes in Forbearance – past 90 days late and holding off eviction and remember, these are FAMILIES that get evicted, not single people – do we have a plan for 10M newly homeless and another 20M renters who can't find housing?
This is why the Republicans work so hard to vilify and dehumanize the homeless – it's very expensive to fix this problem so it's much better if we can get people to be less sympathetic and vote against fixing it, right? That's right, brains don't get washed overnight you know – it takes many years of evil plotting by greedy, selfish men who must manipulate the Education System, the Media, the Courts and even the Church in order to turn hard-working, caring, charitable voters into self-interested, intolerant "Conservatives".
“We have to prove democracy still works. That our government still works and we can deliver for our people,” President Biden said last night. He appealed to Republicans to work with him. GOP lawmakers have largely opposed his economic agenda, saying he has proposed too much government spending and that his tax plans could hurt the economy.
Taken together, the Democratic president’s proposals represent an ambitious effort to redefine the government’s role in shaping the economy. Betting that government can be a driving force for growth, the White House is shifting away from long-held assumptions within both parties that the public sector is inherently less efficient than the private and that policy makers should generally defer to markets. Biden stressed his campaign pledge that people making less than $400,000 wouldn’t pay more in taxes, but he said that it was time for companies and the wealthiest Americans to “pay their fair share.” – something I have been ranting about in these posts for the past 15 years…
Tim Scott gave the Republican rebuttal to Biden's speech so, if your brain needs a quick wash, spend 15 minutes listening to his spin – including how things were better under Trump! Also fun to read Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Jounal Editorial rebuttal of the Biden Plan. Who knew caring about others was so evil?
The destructive part is the way the plan seeks to insinuate government cash and the rules that go with it into all of the major decisions of family life. The goal is to expand the entitlement state to make Americans rely on government and the political class for everything they don’t already provide.
What is Head Start if not government pre-school education and child care? Weren’t school lunches and the Women, Infants and Children program supposed to prevent child hunger? Food stamps, welfare checks, child-care subsidies and a supplement to earned-income, plus public housing. Weren’t all of these programs and more from previous decades supposed to end poverty?
Seriously, it sounds like this was written by Ebeneezer Scrooge, not 21st Century journalists:
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
That's right, according to the GOP and Mr. Murdoch, you don't want major decisions like whether Tiny Tim gets heart surgery or a college education to be clouded by Government giving you their dirty money to help you. These are decisions you should be making WITHOUT Government money – especially if the Government is trying to get that money from people who make over $400,000 a year.or, even worse, from our Corporate Masters!
Murdoch's cronies continue:
The new pre-school entitlement will go to all families, as would free community college. The tax-credit expansion to $3,600 per child in the Covid bill, which Mr. Biden wants to make permanent, is on top of the other welfare subsidies. The Biden plan also makes permanent an expansion of ObamaCare subsidies for more affluent adults, eliminating the subsidy cap that was 400% of poverty. A new paid family leave entitlement will be an incentive for companies to drop leave benefits that already cover most workers.
All of this adds up to healthy guaranteed annual income largely untied to the social contract that requires work, which is the real path to independence and self-respect.
A healthy guaranteed annual income? Bah, humbug!
In 1921, 90% of all Americans worked – including Children. They had to as we had a largely unmechanized society. In 2021, 160M Americans have jobs and the rest are "idle" yet unemployment is only at 3.5% (5.6M) – so clearly we don't need 1/2 of our nation's 320M people to work at all. Of course many of them are wives and children who are supported by a single wage-earner in the family but what happens in 2121, when only 80M people are required to work to produce as much as we need? Should they get all the money while the other 300M people get nothing? After all, they will have broken Rupert's "social contract that requires work."
In 2221, when 40M people can produce all that can be consumed by the other 400M people, should we have a 90% poverty rate and refuse to share the wealth created by the 40M. 2321 (probably much sooner) we will essentially be the Jetsons, where one guy pushes a button to start up the automated factory – AND THAT'S ALL YOU NEED! Should that one guy get all the money and the rest of us are considered leeches and welfare queens? This is actually happening, every year less people need to work – we need to accept that at some point.
GDP came in at 6.4%, which is fantastic but that includes $2Tn of stimulus in a $5Tn quarter so is +6.4% really that great when 40% was stimulus?
