- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If Harris had won, how many rate cuts would have already occurred since 11/2024?
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:23 am
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:23 am
Big one in September 2024 when they thought she would win.
Inflation still had not come down when they cut it, yet they cite inflation returns if they do so now?
quote:
In September 2024, the Federal Reserve (Fed) cut interest rates for the first time since March 2020, lowering the federal funds rate to a range of 4.75%-5%. This decision, a 0.50 percentage point decrease, marked a shift in monetary policy after a period of raising rates to combat inflation. The Fed's move is expected to ease borrowing costs for consumers and businesses and potentially stimulate the economy.
Inflation still had not come down when they cut it, yet they cite inflation returns if they do so now?
This post was edited on 7/3/25 at 10:27 am
13
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:26 am to Blutarsky
quote:
If Harris had won, how many rate cuts would have already occurred since 11/2024?
None. They might let politics influence their decisions but not in the first year of a new Presidency, maybe in the second year.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:27 am to Penrod
fricking zero. Another 10 billion to Ukraine and billions to US AID and DEI bullshite.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:29 am to Blutarsky
I'll play.
Probably several as her disastrous policies would have further eroded the economy and required a stimulus.
The fact that rates have not been cut is evidence of Trump's stewardship of a growing economy and more favorable trade balance.
Downvote that...howboutdat
Probably several as her disastrous policies would have further eroded the economy and required a stimulus.
The fact that rates have not been cut is evidence of Trump's stewardship of a growing economy and more favorable trade balance.
Downvote that...howboutdat
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:30 am to Blutarsky
You have any idea the tidal wave of buyers ready if the rates go below 3%? If we ever see them again, it will be a super flood
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:31 am to Blutarsky
Would have been lowered to 3.50%.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:31 am to Blutarsky
My whole issue with Powell.. he shouldn’t have lowered them then and we shouldn’t lower them now because of that. I won’t pretend to know if they hadn’t been lowered if it would be wise at this time but it’s frustrating hearing him give his reasons knowing the conditions a year ago vs today.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:38 am to TROLA
An economic downturn isn’t the only reason for lowering rates as many on this board assume. If inflation is low but bowering rates are high and driving higher debt then it is also a good time to slightly lower them. Lowering rates doesn’t mean 3%. A 5% rate for borrowing wouldn’t create massive inflation increases and would allow many buyers to enter the market. Most of the people arguing for higher rates likely have a 3-4% rate on their mortgage. Most new buyers cannot afford to buy and that needs to change
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:00 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Most new buyers cannot afford to buy and that needs to change
This is 100% because of decades of historically low interest rates causing home prices to be artificially inflated. Home prices need to drop a lot more.
Cut interest rates and prices will increase again.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:19 am to Blutarsky
We wouldn't have had the tariff upheaval, the market convulsions, the dollar drop, and a hundred other ridiculous and unnecessary economic policies, and retractions, and changes, and reversals, etc., etc.
Interest rates would probably have remained unchanged anyway.
Interest rates would probably have remained unchanged anyway.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:46 am to Blutarsky
As many as were needed to prop up her sorry Indian arse.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:55 am to Blutarsky
Inflation is finally becoming stable and these threads are asking for more rate cuts to speed up inflation. Make it make sense.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:59 am to Blutarsky
They would be increased because of spending induced inflation, with a side of high oil prices!
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:59 am to Blutarsky
0-100 is my guess
Posted on 7/3/25 at 12:07 pm to Blutarsky
quote:
If Harris had won
She didn't, move on with the winning
Posted on 7/3/25 at 12:33 pm to Penrod
quote:
They might let politics influence their decisions but not in the first year of a new Presidency
Posted on 7/3/25 at 12:35 pm to Blutarsky
The trade war spooked the fed board...so probably 1 or 2. The lack of rate cuts is Trump's advisors fault. They should have focused on immigration and status quo so the bankers would lower rates THEN do all their mad man strong arm campaign to squeeze our trade partners.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 12:36 pm to Sweep Da Leg
Probably but home prices will never drop to a level that justifies high interest rates barring a market collapse
Posted on 7/3/25 at 12:39 pm to Rip Torn
Coming at housing affordability from interest rates is wrongheaded in my opinion. Housing affordability is a supply problem first and foremost. We need more home builders and not D.R. Horton shoddy bullshite that is unlikely to survive 20 years without major structural issues.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 1:17 pm to junkfunky
What’s to gain in the first year? There are no elections. In the second year you have the Congressional elections coming up; that’s when they would want to affect things.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News