@RVonse -- Three points:
(1) I asked you to read the opinions of rational objective observers, or to watch videos by rational reporters to acquaint yourself with the absurdities Trump is subjecting the country to. It appears you have not done so.
How can your opinions about Trump and his Presidency have any value at all when you deliberately blinder yourself?
(2) You are dreadfully confused about inflation. You appear to get some of your ideas from the fear-mongering nonsense on YouTube, mostly designed to help sell over-priced gold-plated medallions.
(2a) Price rises in the distant past are irrelevant to the present. "I know from first hand experience you could buy a coke for a dime and gas for 35 cents a gallon. I've done this." When you bought 15 gallons of gas for $5 -- when was this? Circa 1970? -- Did you say "Should I fill my tank or should I put this $5 bill under my mattress and spend it 55 years from now?" Of course not. You MIGHT have said "Instead of filling my tank I'll invest my money in a stock or fund in case I need money when I'm an old man." But investment returns normally keep pace with inflation. All else equal, a fund which returns 10% when inflation is 2% will return 12% when inflation is 4%.
Did you really not even know this much? Can you cite any economist (other than a YouTube scamster) who touts scary 50-year old comparisons as you do?
(2b) Predicted inflation in the present is generally not a problem. The Fed sets a 2% inflation target; 2% is implicitly added to nominal interest rates. Wages and pensions typically have increases built in, either contractually or via automatic COLA adjustments. And so on.
There ARE disadvantages even to predicted inflation. And there are also advantages not mentioned above. These are all "2nd-order" effects; start a new thread if you REALLY want to educate yourself. For now, think of predicted inflation as a "lubricant." Note that many menus and contracts use fixed prices so 2% inflation actually maps to 2% DEFLATION in "REAL" prices.
Mention of DEFLATION points to the main reason the Fed deliberately targets a 2% inflation rate. The Fed cannot control inflation exactly, but a small positive target rate reduces the risk that the inflation rate will fall BELOW zero! I suppose YOU, RVonse, think deflation is good. With enough deflation you'll get your 10 cent can of Coke again. But in fact, deflation contributed to the Great Depression and many of the financial panics in the 19th century. Start a new thread if you're interested in educating yourself about this.
(2c) Past inflation is NOT and (SHOULD not be) undone in general. Once there has been a general price rise, it is difficult to undo the price increases. Briefly, such a decrease would be DEFLATION, not good. Contracts and debts which assume present prices would turn into traps.
Note that SPECIFIC price increases for SPECIFIC reasons can be reversed. Expect egg prices to plummet when America's chickens are healthy again.
(2d) Last I checked, the present "core inflation" number is 3.3%. This is not at all out-of-line for Biden's robust economy. The touts trying to scare you on FoxNews or Youtube are selling snake oil. Biden is not to blame for the price of eggs. Some of the price increases 4 or 5 years ago will not be reversed (see above).
There are some conspiracy theorists who believe the FedRes doctors its numbers to make inflation look less bad. Are you one of these, RVonse? Was the Moon landing faked? Was 9/11 an inside job?
I've invested some time to aid your understanding of inflation, RVonse. Has it done any good?
Raise your hand please if you have even read this far.
(3) A tiny few of the "problems" you point out actually ARE real problems!! If you had a clue about basic economics you might even be able to contribute to useful discussion. To that end, let's address some more of your confusions:
My conclusions may be wrong but the problems are not. These problems are known not by watching Fox news but by real life experience.
I know from first hand experience you could buy a coke for a dime and gas for 35 cents a gallon. I've done this. I know from first hand experience a middle class tax payer could simply use the IRS table that goes to $100k without any difficulty. Now the government pretends anyone making over 100k is extremely wealthy.
You have told us you want to balance the budget. Income taxes are the obvious route to do so. Do you want to increase taxes on the poor, the middle or the rich? (Or do you want to lie to yourself and pretend that tariffs will raise more than income tax or that DOGE will find trillions in waste?)
The poor lack the money to help balance the budget, so you're left with taxing the middle or taxing the very rich.
Which do you choose, RVonse? The Rs want to cut taxes on the VERY RICH and RAISE taxes on the middle (the $100k-$300k set). The Ds want the vice versa. Clear?
There are some simple changes that can be made that you and the Ds might agree on. As just one example, the SocSec tax falls to Zero after $130k of income -- the Super Rich pay no more into SocSec than the $130k earner you worry about. Do you prefer the D's stance or the R's stance on this issue?
I know from first hand experience all the manufacturing plants I have seen shut down. And all the once prosperous workers no longer employed.
Many of the jobs did NOT go to Latinos or Chinamen who don't look like us. They went to ROBOTS.
The Democrats may choose to ignore these problems and lose more elections. But I believe the winning strategy for them is to acknowledge these issues and provide their own superior solutions
Over and over and over you've been told about the CHIPS and Science Act and other recent "superior solutions" from the D's. Trump wants to CANCEL these programs. (Why? He's just a childish brat; he'll cancel them simply because they don't have his name on them.)
Can you imagine how frustrating this dialog is for us? We inform you over and over and over. You learn NOTHING. Zero.
Due to union busting efforts middle class incomes have NOT risen more than prices.
Which political party is most responsible for "Union busting"?
