Goldman Sachs: A Democratic sweep would mean faster economic recovery

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  65 comments

By:   Mark Zandi (KRDO)

Goldman Sachs: A Democratic sweep would mean faster economic recovery
President Donald Trump is once again warning voters that Democrats would "shut our economy and jobs down" if they win in November. Goldman Sachs is telling its clients the exact opposite.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Donald Trump is once again warning voters that Democrats would "shut our economy and jobs down" if they win in November.

Goldman Sachs is telling its clients the exact opposite.

Just hours after Trump's all-caps Monday morning tweet predicting economic disaster, Goldman economists pointed out that polls "suggest a 'blue wave' in which Democrats gain unified control of Washington is becoming more likely" — and they're not suggesting investors dump stocks.

In fact, "all else equal, such a blue wave would likely prompt us to upgrade our forecasts," Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius wrote in a Monday report.

It's true that if Democrats sweep into power early next year, it would likely translate to higher taxes and regulation. Such a reversal from the Trump agenda could eat into corporate profits and the earnings for affluent families.

But Joe Biden is also promising a bonanza of government spending that, coupled with extremely low interest rates, would likely speed up the economy.

Goldman Sachs wrote that a blue wave would "sharply raise the probability" of a fiscal stimulus package of at least $2 trillion shortly after the January 20 inauguration. The bank also cited Biden's longer-term spending plans on infrastructure, climate, health care and education.

Taken together, this spending "would at least match the likely longer-term tax increases on corporations and upper-income earnings," Goldman Sachs wrote.

"It would likely result in substantially easier US fiscal policy, a reduced risk of renewed trade escalation, and a firmer global growth outlook," the report said.

Moody's: 7.4 million more jobs under Biden's plan


Goldman Sachs isn't the only Wall Street firm to point out the positive benefits of a blue wave.

Moody's Analytics found that Biden's economic proposals, if enacted, would create 7.4 million more jobs than would Trump's. The economy would return to full employmentin the second half of 2022, nearly two years earlier than under Trump's plan, Moody's said.

"The economic outlook is strongest under the scenario in which Biden and the Democrats sweep Congress and fully adopt their economic agenda," wrote Moody's economists led by Mark Zandi, who advised Senator John McCain during the 2008 presidential race.

Although few on Wall Street had expected a sweep for Democrats earlier this year, that thinking has changed significantly.

"We view a 'blue wave' as the most likely outcome of the election," strategists at UBS wrote to clients Monday.

The prediction markets are also pointing to a blue wave, though it's no slam dunk. A bettor on PredictIt can pay 58 cents to win $1 if Democrats win the White House, Senate and House in 2020. That's up from 43 cents in late August.

Polls leaning in Biden's direction


It's too early to say how Trump's fight with Covid-19 will impact the election. But Biden's lead over Trump expanded to its widest yet in a CNN poll conducted after the first debate and a few days after the president's coronavirus infection was made public. Among likely voters, 57% back Biden and 41% support Trump.

Not only is Trump trailing nationally overall, but his lead over Biden on the economy specifically has vanished in CNN's polling.

In May, 54% of registered voters said Trump would handle the economy better, compared with 42% for Biden. Now it's tied, with 49% of registered voters backing each candidate. Among likely voters, Biden gets 50%, compared with 48% for Trump. That's little changed from the last CNN poll, conducted August 28 to September 1.

Citing FiveThirtyEight polling averages, Goldman Sachs also pointed out that Biden leads by an average of six percentage points in the "most likely tipping-point" state: Pennsylvania. Biden expanded his lead to 12 percentage points in Pennsylvania in a new Monmouth University poll of registered voters published Tuesday.

Biden also holds smaller leads in Florida and Arizona. Goldman Sachs notes those battleground states "should finish their voting around midnight and could therefore resolve the uncertainty earlier than widely expected."

'Mixed' impact for stocks


In other words, clear-cut wins for Biden in Florida and Arizona could lower the risk of a contested election, a nightmare scenario that would rattle financial markets. And that, in turn, could boost markets that have been bracing for post-election turmoil.

Looking at the bigger picture, a blue wave would create newwinners and losers on Wall Street.

For instance, oil-and-gas companies, private prisons, student lenders and some banks could underperform because of the risk of new regulation. High-tax stocks that benefited from Trump's corporate tax cut could get punished, too, but companies that would benefit from increased spending on infrastructure, education and clean energy could outperform.

"A blue wave would have mixed implications for broad US equity indices," Goldman Sachs wrote, adding that stronger government spending and faster economic growth would be a positive for cyclical sectors of the market.

When will the Fed get off zero?


One risk for the stock market is that it alters Wall Street's expectation of never-ending easy money from the Federal Reserve.

The US central bank has signaled rock-bottom interest rates are here to stay, through at least 2023. Goldman Sachs thinks the Fed won't hike rates until early 2025. Those forecasts have essentially forced investors to bet on stocks because returns on government bonds are muted.

But if Democrats sweep in November, the economy could speed up so much that it creates long-elusive inflation, forcing the Fed to act. Goldman Sachs said its analysis suggests a blue wave could pull forward the Fed's first rate hike by up to two years.

"The rising probability of a blue wave," Goldman Sachs wrote, "adds to our sense that markets may have become too complacent about Fed policy."

Even if markets object to rate hikes, average Americans would benefit if the economy is growing fast enough for the Fed to begin gradually raising interest rates.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

How about a swift kick in the nuts for Trump and his cult.  -----

"The economic outlook is strongest under the scenario in which Biden and the Democrats sweep Congress and fully adopt their economic agenda," wrote Moody's economists led by Mark Zandi, who advised Senator John McCain during the 2008 presidential race.

Although few on Wall Street had expected a sweep for Democrats earlier this year, that thinking has changed significantly.

"We view a 'blue wave' as the most likely outcome of the election," strategists at UBS wrote to clients Monday.
 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

I wonder if the financial gurus at Goldman were able to foretell their own failing as a company that required a bailout loan?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    2 weeks ago

Are you saying that Trump is a better businessman than the honchos at Goldman Sachs? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Are you saying that Trump is a better businessman than the honchos at Goldman Sachs? 

Seriously, WTF???????

How did THAT particular question pop into your head based on the following:

I wonder if the financial gurus at Goldman were able to foretell their own failing as a company that required a bailout loan?

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

The word Trump appears 12 times in the seeded article, including in the first sentence in the article and in the third sentence in the article. 

And you think Trump is off topic? 

Yikes. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.4  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Are you saying that Trump is a better businessman than the honchos at Goldman Sachs? 

Are you saying Goldman Sachs is more honest than Trump? 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/goldman-sachs-reaches-3-9b-settlement-in-1mdb-money-laundering-case

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-06/ex-goldman-banker-must-pay-9-million-in-money-laundering-case

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

I have no love for Goldman Sachs.  The point of the article is that "Wall St" seems to think Biden will be better for the economy. 

As as far as honesty goes, almost anyone on earth is more honest than Trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Wall Street is ultra pro Establishment. Biden is a part of the very same Establishment politicians that bailed Wall Street's sorry asses out while fucking over main street. So of course they want Biden over Trump!

They want to protect themselves and fuck the rest of us over again in the process; and Biden is a far better bet for doing that than Trump.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
I have no love for Goldman Sachs.  The point of the article is that "Wall St" seems to think Biden will be better for the economy.  As as far as honesty goes, almost anyone on earth is more honest than Trump. 

Totally missed the point, dude. I put up a straw man just as egregious as yours was of Texan1211

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
I put up a straw man

Yes, yes you did. But the facts do show Goldman Sachs has actually made money while Trump has only lost it even though both do some despicable things. How else would Trump pay virtually no taxes for at least the last decade? He was given nearly half a billion by his daddy and has squandered his inheritance and owes hundreds of millions. Trump is a loser and Goldman Sachs sees that and are obviously not betting on this feckless moron in the white house to be able to actually effect a rational financial recovery from the pandemic.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
But the facts do show Goldman Sachs has actually made money

Yes. Interesting you don't seem to care how but seem to mind with Trump. 

Trump is a loser and Goldman Sachs sees that and are obviously not betting on this feckless moron in the white house to be able to actually effect a rational financial recovery from the pandemic.

Goldman Sachs doesn't give a damn about economic recovery. They only care about making money. If they think Biden is their better bet you can be sure it doesn't necessarily mean anything good for the rest of us. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2  Sparty On    2 weeks ago

Yeah John, it's win win right?  

If Biden wins and the recovery doesn't happen, it's all Trumps fault.   If it does happen it was all Biden's doing right?

You can't lose baby, you can't lose.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2    2 weeks ago
Moody's Analytics found that Biden's economic proposals, if enacted, would create 7.4 million more jobs than would Trump's. The economy would return to full employmentin the second half of 2022, nearly two years earlier than under Trump's plan, Moody's said.
 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 weeks ago

And one of the lefts darling economists predicted a Global recession if Trump got elected.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055

And please John, don't try to say Krugman was predicting the pandemic recession .....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @2    2 weeks ago

Sparty, in all fairness, isn't that what the Obama people were saying? That the recovery was on the way and Trump inherited it?

In truth, economics is a long game. It helps in the short run, but really things put into motion will just play out for the most part. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2    2 weeks ago

That's the problem with some of these people. They don't want to wait for the economy to get back on its feet. They want it NOW! They want instant gratification and it's not possible with our current economic situation. It took the Obama administration at least 5-6 years before we started seeing results in economic growth

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Sharp recessions led to sharp recoveries, at least pre Obama. Obama’s recovery was the worst post WWII...

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2    2 weeks ago

Yes, that is my point.

The game of politics is afoot, once again.  

Using that logic (which i happen to agree with to a fairly large extent but only partially since it IS much more complicated than just who is POTUS) the boom experienced during the Clinton years was mostly Reagan and Bush's doing but Clinton took credit for that regardless.   Hell, many people here will tell you it was all Clintons doing to this day and will come up with all kinds of rationalizations for Clinton in that case.

Are you one of them?.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

Slow and steady wins the race. Just ask the tortoise

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
but Clinton took credit for that regardless.  

Clinton took over an economy that was booming  at 5% growth.  I've never heard a Democrat call the 90s the George Bush economy. 

Nor did they blame Clinton for  the recession that officially started six weeks after George W Bush was sworn in.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
I've never heard a Democrat call the 90s the George Bush economy. 

And you never will.   You especially will never hear it called the Reagan Economy.  

Which it really was imo.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.2.7  JumpDrive  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
Clinton took over an economy that was booming  at 5% growth.

False, the US was in a mild recession, and unemployment was at 7.3%. GDP growth in 1993 was 2.8%. Since fiscal years end 9/30, the year a president takes office is credited to the president leaving office because you're already 4 months into that fiscal year, and policies don't instantly affect the economy.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

I disagree with you on Reagen. I think that Clinton did something that was totally unique to any other president and that brought down the National Debt, and that had a huge impact on the economy. And that is not a rationalization. That is a fact. Did Reagen help, probably, but not to the degree that brought the economic prosperity that we had during the Clinton years. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JumpDrive @2.2.7    2 weeks ago
alse, the US was in a mild recession,

Well, that's simply false. I assume you are talking about the recession that ended in 1991, almost two years before Clinton was sworn in. 

GDP growth

As I said, the economy was booming in the 4th Quarter of 1992, Bush's last full term in office. It took until 1996 for the Clinton economy to have such a productive quarter. Granted, the media spent 1992 telling everyone how bad the economy was doing to help Clinton, but 30 years later believing that fake narrative  is no longer acceptable as the numbers speak for themselves. 

the year a president takes office is credited to the president leaving office because you're already 4 months into that fiscal year, and policies don't instantly affect the economy.

So you are arguing that Clinton took over a booming economy, and left it in recession.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
Obama’s recovery was the worst post WWII...

The 2008 great recession was the worst since post WWII. And under Obama there was a recovery that was steady and strong. He got unemployment down to 4.7% before leaving office and had cut the deficit in half. But some conservatives never want to give him even a speck of credit because it would destroy their anti-Obama narrative they've convinced themselves of which is why they hated what they would refer to as "boy" in the oval office... they can't admit to themselves that their real issue was that he was a highly educated constitutional scholar and professor because he's black and that doesn't square with the vision of "n*&^%r's" they were raised to hate and disrespect. No doubt those same bigoted folk flocked like fucking half witted moths to the racist dumpster fire that is Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.10    2 weeks ago
nd under Obama there was a recovery that was steady and strong

The worst recovery since WWII, despite the sharpest recession. Why do you deny reality? 

The rule is the sharper the recession, the more rapid the recovery, at least pre Obama. 

atives never want to give him even a speck of credit because it would destroy their anti-Obama narrative they've convinced themselves of which is why they hated what they would refer to as "boy" in the oval office... they can't admit to themselves that their real issue was that he was a highly educated constitutional scholar and professor because he's black and that doesn't square with the vision of "n*&^%r's" they were raised to hate and disrespect

Seems like some projecting going on., You never seem to discuss Obama without brining up his race.  One can only wonder why. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.2.12  JumpDrive  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.9    2 weeks ago
the US was in a mild recession,

Well, that's simply false. I assume you are talking about the recession that ended in 1991, almost two years before Clinton was sworn in. 

... As I said, the economy was booming in the 4th Quarter of 1992

GHWB was a one term president because of the economy. Unemployment was at 7.3%. If the economy was 'booming', it wasn't doing so for average Americans. People were sick of 'Reaganomics' because it became obvious that it primarily benefited the already wealthy at the expense of everybody else. Republicans are still stuck on this nonsense philosophy because it allows them to reward their rich benefactors; they simply don't care that it screws the middle class and below. If they cared, maybe their administrations wouldn't always end in disaster.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.8    2 weeks ago

Well as  stated, we all know it's more complicated than just one or two POTUS's but related to them:

People forget, the economic expansion in the Reagan years was record breaking for the time.   As we rang in the 90's we were at a "peace time" record breaking pace of nearly 90 consecutive months of economic growth.   Unemployment was down to a 15 year low from over 8% to about 5%, nearly 20 million jobs were created from 82-89, another record for it's time.   The markets were no longer stagnant like they had been in the previous decade.   The S&P alone nearly tripled in Reagan's time.   Etc, etc

So credit where credit is due.   Reagan clearly set the table.   Clinton deserves credit as well for "serving the food" as it were.   Largely by beginning to reduce deficits with his 93 budget but if it weren't for Reaganomics, it likely never would have boomed like it did.   We can argue the minutia all day long but those ARE the facts.

So both do deserve credit and yet, people here continue to give only Clinton credit.   That was my main point.   Clinton ..... who left Bush-2 a rapidly slowing economy that slipped into recession just weeks after he was sworn in.

Alrighty then .....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

Shit will probably get done if Democrats held the Legislative and Executive Branches

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 weeks ago

So true and it would all be shit.

Left wing shit

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    2 weeks ago

So getting the ultra rich to pay their share and little people like me get more than 74 dollars a month in my paycheck more is shit?

Good to know where you stand.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    2 weeks ago
Left wing shit

Just like in 2009-10 when they controlled the federal government to an extent not seen since LBJ... 

That led to a Republican majority in both houses in 2012.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

You'd do well to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

As once again, you don't have the slight idea what you are talking about .....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

You're the only one that puts words in your mouth, Sparty. 

Now since I tire of you and I need a break, [deleted Toot-a-loo!]

 
 
 
MonsterMash
3.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
So getting the ultra rich to pay their share and little people like me get more than 74 dollars a month in my paycheck more is shit?

LOL, do you really think a President Biden is going put more money in your pocket? Biden has made it clear he's going tax the shit out of the middle class.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MonsterMash @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
LOL, do you really think a President Biden is going put more money in your pocket? Biden has made it clear he's going tax the shit out of the middle class.

Prove that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  MonsterMash @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MonsterMash @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

Instead of cherry-picking what he said, here is an actual video of what Biden actually said. What I heard is that he is going to raise taxes on corporations. 

So I am not sure where Breitbart got their quote from, because it was not from that debate.  

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.10  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Clinton got out of the way of a republican congress 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
You're the only one that puts words in your mouth, Sparty. 

Lol ... hardly ..... [deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

Who goes to Breitbart for facts, anyway?

 
 
 
devangelical
3.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 weeks ago

with veto proof majorities in the house and senate, all things are possible.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @3.2    2 weeks ago

That's what I'm talking about. Give a little boost to the economy, people start working again, people spend money, more people working, more people spending....next thing you know you can start paying down the debt

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @3.2    2 weeks ago

Unless the SC is stacked with conservatives and the GOP sues over every little thing all the way to the Supreme Court

evrey time the Dems pass anything.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

That's a possibility.....but those remaining GOPers might want to think about holding onto their seats

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.4  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @3.2    2 weeks ago

You may just get access to your fellow citizens wealth.

 
 
 
Kavika
5  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Wharton Analysis: Biden Plan Would Lead To Greater Economic Growth

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wharton-analysis-biden-economic-plan-growth

Isn't where Trump claimed to have attended? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @5    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

That's a rousing endorsement for an alumni!

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1    2 weeks ago

An Alumni who had threatened Penn with a law suit if they released his grades...

Ahh, the college transcript. Trump famously graduated from Penn’s Wharton School in 1968 — a fact he reminds audiences of over and over again. (Per Penn’s student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian , he publicly name-dropped Wharton 52 times between June 2015 and January 2018.) But despite all his humble bragging about that Wharton degree, Trump has never allowed his academic performance there to be made public.

“This was a major, major thing with Trump — that people might think he’s stupid,” Michael Wolff told me around the time of Siege ’s publication earlier this summer. “The focus of that for Trump is the college transcripts, which are apparently terrible. I’ve spoken to friends of Trump from that time, and this was a guy that was obviously not interested in school and possibly never read a book in his life. For everyone that had known him then and years afterward, the assumption was that he had terrible grades, he was a lackluster student at best.”

In truth, Trump’s Wharton GPA is just one of many mysteries surrounding the 45th president’s relationship with Penn, Philadelphia’s most powerful private institution, which, unwittingly or not, helped unleash Trump on the world. Over the years, there have been rumors about how Trump might have gotten into Penn in the first place, and how much — or how little — he’s donated to the school as an alum. There are tales about Trump’s social life as a Penn undergrad — did he, in fact, have a fling with Candice Bergen? And there are stories — including one particularly juicy one — about the Penn careers of Trump kids Don Jr., Ivanka and Tiffany, all of whom followed in their old man’s red-and-blue footsteps.

Trump’s Wharton GPA is just one of many mysteries surrounding the 45th president’s relationship with Penn. Perhaps the biggest reason for this shroud of mystery is Penn itself; the school’s sphinx-like reticence about its most famous alumnus plays at times like a silent scream.

Perhaps the biggest reason for this shroud of mystery is Penn itself; the school’s sphinx-like reticence about its most famous alumnus plays at times like a silent scream. For instance, Penn has never had Trump deliver a commencement speech or conferred an honorary degree on him. In the wake of his election, Penn tour guides were discouraged from bringing up the T-word and issued simple instructions for handling questions about Trump’s tenure at Penn: Keep it short and sweet — “Yes, he graduated from Wharton in 1968” — and leave it at that. Tell Penn you’re writing an article about Donald Trump’s time there, and you’ll get the academic version of name, rank and serial number: “Donald J. Trump earned a B.S. in real estate, which was awarded on May 20, 1968,” says Ron Ozio, Penn’s director of media relations, declining my request for an interview. Which is peculiar, given that most universities make a lot of marketing hay out of an alumnus in the White House — and Trump is Penn’s first.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/09/14/donald-trump-at-wharton-university-of-pennsylvania/

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
It’s unlikely we’ll learn of his SAT scores in the near future — the College Board told HuffPost that they are not commenting on the issue, and as we know, Cohen threatened schools that Trump attended over the issue. In a letter sent to Fordham University in 2015, Cohen told administrators he would “hold [the] institution liable to the fullest extent of the law” if Trump’s records were to leak — a correspondence that Fordham spokesman Bob Howe confirmed . We do, however, know that Trump did not graduate at the top of his graduating class at Wharton, as reports have claimed since the 1960s; per school records , he wasn’t even in the top 15 percent. And while at Fordham, Trump’s grades apparently weren’t stellar — according to two former classmates, they were in the B/C+ range.

We also have an idea as to what kind of student Trump was: According to former Wharton classmates, he was an unmemorable one.

“He was not first in the class,” a former classmate told the New York Daily News . “He was not known on campus for any reason at all.”

https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/cohen-says-trump-made-him-threaten-schools-over-sat-grades.html
 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Trump’s Wharton Professor: “Trump Was the Dumbest Goddamn Student I Ever Had”

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.4  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Trump is so dumb he failed his Covid test!

I'm surprised he didn't pay Steven Miller or Kellyanne Conway to take it for him...OPPS!

He couldn't. Everyone in the damn gop has it!

 
 
 
JBB
6  JBB    2 weeks ago

Of course it will. Democrats are the party of peace and prosperity. The gop is all about money, power and keeping working people down and out. History is replete with Democratic booms and republican busts! If you don't know that you haven't been paying attention. Try and catch up with the rest of the class. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
6.1  JumpDrive  replied to  JBB @6    2 weeks ago

I've watched this truth be repeated over and over during the last 40 years. After Reagan/Bush, we had unemployment at 7.3%, a recession, and gov’t borrowing increased by 300%. After Clinton, we had full employment, a booming economy, and gov’t borrowing reduced by 2/3s. After GWB, we had the worst recession since the Great Depression, unemployment at 8%, and gov’t borrowing increased by 1,300%. After Obama, we had full employment, a robust economy, and gov’t borrowing reduced by 2/3s. Trump's tax cut is busy adding $1.9T to the debt (primarily to benefit the already rich), his trade war devastated farming and drove manufacturing into recession, his purposely crippling the pandemic response has resulted in 200,000+ dead, 8% unemployment, and the gov’t pulling $6 trillion out of its ass to try and save us.

The middle class and below are the economic engine of this country. They decline under Republicans and flourish under Democrats.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JumpDrive @6.1    2 weeks ago
fter Clinton, we had full employment, a booming economy,

Per your own argument above, Clinton is responsible for the 2001 recession. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
6.1.2  JumpDrive  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

What Clinton & Obama handed to their successors was infinitely better than what Reagan/Bush, Bush II, & Trump handed/will hand to their successors. And in each case, policy decisions made that difference. We didn't have to be coronavirus central for the planet, the corrupt, malignant narcissist Trump can take full credit for that.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7  The Magic Eight Ball    2 weeks ago

yepp, because joe had 47yrs in politics to show his economic prowess...

  but he waited until now to show everyone how it's done.

and if ya believe that?  I got a bridge to sell.

 
 
 
MUVA
8  MUVA    2 weeks ago

I always find it funny that some still believe even after the debt is 26 trillion that we can still tax and spend our way to prosperity. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
8.1  JumpDrive  replied to  MUVA @8    2 weeks ago

We do tax and spend under Democratic Administrations, that's one of the reasons gov't borrowing decreased by 2/3s under the last two Democratic Administrations. The Republicans, on the other hand, borrow and spend vastly more, which is why we've seen deficits increase by 300%, 1300%, and with the gov't borrowing $6T this year to save us from Trump's epic mismanagement of the pandemic, it's surely the case he will keep up the 'good' work.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.1  MUVA  replied to  JumpDrive @8.1    2 weeks ago

Has taxing and spending lead to prosperity the answer no.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
8.1.2  JumpDrive  replied to  MUVA @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
Has taxing and spending lead to prosperity the answer no.

Clinton increased taxes on upper earners as did Obama. Both presidencies started with high unemployment and recessions. Both ended with full employment and robust economies. So you are wrong, the answer to your question is yes.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JumpDrive @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

If you are one being taxed your opinion might be different if you are hoping access to your fellow citizens wealth for a better life  someone would probably love higher taxes.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
8.1.4  JumpDrive  replied to  MUVA @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
If you are one being taxed your opinion might be different...

If my 'opinion' changed on that basis, then it would not really be an opinion, but rather a self-serving proclamation. For example, being in manufacturing, I do not approve Trump's trade war, or the tariffs it levies. But my reasons are that he's an idiot who does not have clear, obtainable objectives, and that he uses the tariffs collected from businesses like mine to fund his political objectives.

On the other hand, if a rational, intelligent person with a huge amount of experience, like Hillary, were in command, and any tariffs collected were used to help people at the bottom of the income spectrum, then I would support the effort to rein in China. With an intelligent person in control there would be a plan before such a potentially damaging move would be made.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Just Jim NC TttH
cjcold
FLYNAVY1


62 visitors