American Politics

[Tiny 12]

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.



Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

I don't see where you're disagreeing with me, except to say the Spidy and Tooms tribe is always clearly right. Well, someday Joe Biden is going to say that all the Democrats will be raptured and go to heaven. And all the Republicans will stay behind on earth. And he's going to set a date. And all the Democrats are going to say Biden is clearly right. And when that day passes and you're still here, I wonder what you and Tooms are going to say. It's going to be the Democrat Tribe's "January 6 moment. " I can't wait!

[Paulie97]

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.

Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

The term is clearly used by individuals like Tooms as an ad hominem against those who aren't on board with his cherry picking and Dems are light / Repubs are darkness interpretive framework. Online definitions of the term involve the accusation that one is unjustifiably giving equal validity to two sides of an argument, but such an error hardly of necessity follows from questioning some of Toom's simplistic, dubious and blustery claims or his far left sources. Tiny is correct, responsible economic and historical analysis is more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. " End of story.

[Spidy]

I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. I'm not sure what it means, but suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself.

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.

As I use it, "Bothsiderism" is only a derogatory term or a pejorative if one sees being identified as "pro-Repub" as an insult. Bothsiderism and False Equivalencies are generally meant to elevate the slackers, bring them up a notch or two, and denigrate the performers, bring them down a notch or two so as to suggest "both sides" are more or less "equally" responsible for good or bad outcomes. Sure, that can be a fun exercise. But it can be quite damaging when it comes to elections and who is handed the levers of control for serious matters like money, jobs, national security, etc. ...

Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

[Tiny 12]

Interesting that your 1 and 2 reasons for favoring Repubs are among the many reasons I favor Dems and have only voted for Dems without voting for a Repub since Reagan's first term in office. I don't vote based on repeatedly unfulfilled campaign promises. I vote based on what actually happens when each of the two major Parties is in the White House. Factoring in the Repub penchant for never meeting an opportunity to plunge America into a Great Recession they didn't embrace, those piddling tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans they dangle before us on the campaign trail and sometimes plant into legislation pale in comparison to the massive jobs destruction, skyrocketing debt and deficits spent during and to pull us out of them that must be paid for by somebody eventually.

Yes, that pattern began even before FDR. But it didn't stop there. It continued right through to Trump less than two years ago. Even Trump's pre-Trump's Pandemic years underperformed on "greater prosperity" if prosperity has anything to do with jobs creation, earned income and GDP growth and "smaller federal government" if by that you mean less government spending with virtually nothing to show for it. And, of course, by the end of Trump's disastrous four year economic stewardship it is certain more people and businesses did not find themselves with "more money in their pockets".

Now, I didn't live, work, invest, buy things and pay taxes in Switzerland, Singapore or any of those other countries. So while it is interesting to note how they did over time, what matters more to me in terms of those very 1 and 2 factors you mentioned as well as many others is what happened in the USA over time.

Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen faster under Democrats for nearly the past century.
Feb. 2, 2021


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...s-economy.html

So you honestly think that Democrats are the Party of small government and lower taxes? In the words of our Commander In Chief, "Come on man!"

For every article you trot out from a left of center New York Times opinion columnist arguing for the superiority of Democratic governance, I could trot out two from right of center Wall Street Journal columnists if I weren't so damn lazy. When Leonhardt writes off Congressional control as a factor he loses credibility in my eyes. And when you look at his list of presidents, the top one, FDR, came to power in the aftermath of the worst depression in modern USA History, while the person in last place, Trump, had the misfortune to be in office when COVID hit.

At the risk of sounding immodest, my post #10362 in this thread makes more sense and is less biased than Leonhardt's article.

[JustTK]

Now I know what Tooms response will be. "So what, Trump killed a lot of people with COVID." Well, yes, he killed about 370,000 people with COVID, until he left office.

Right! And why? Why does everything need to be a dick measuring competition against the Reps? Why can't a performance simply be assessed for what it is? If the Dems did shlt, saying they did better than the Reps, does not excuse them.

[Tiny 12]

Here are the total number of USA Casualties in the 20th and 21st centuries, in major wars that Democratic Presidents chose to enter. I'm defining "major" as any war that resulted in more than 50,000 USA Casualties:

World War I: 320,518.

World War II: 1,076,245.

Korean War: 128,650.

Vietnam War: 211,454.

Total: 1,736,867 casualties.

Here's the total number of casualties in "major" wars started by Republicans, in the 20th and 21st centuries:

0.

This shows that Democratic Presidents have a very callous attitude about the lives and well being of our servicemen.

Now I know what Tooms response will be. "So what, Trump killed a lot of people with COVID." Well, yes, he killed about 370,000 people with COVID, until he left office. But Biden killed more, 700,000 so far! and he's still killing 500 a day! There's no telling how many people Biden's going to end up killing with COVID.

Disclaimer: While my numbers are correct, I don't believe this. Democrats aren't any bigger war mongers than Republicans. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious correlations and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.

[Tiny 12]

As I use it, "Bothsiderism" is only a derogatory term or a pejorative if one sees being identified as "pro-Repub" as an insult.

Bothsiderism and False Equivalencies are generally meant to elevate the slackers, bring them up a notch or two, and denigrate the performers, bring them down a notch or two so as to suggest "both sides" are more or less "equally" responsible for good or bad outcomes. Sure, that can be a fun exercise. But it can be quite damaging when it comes to elections and who is handed the levers of control for serious matters like money, jobs, national security, etc.

For example, there is no reputable source of economic data or spin on it that can or has shown that over the past 100 years or so, right up to Trump, it was Repubs and not Dems who were better at producing prosperity, increasing GDP growth, creating jobs, putting money in pockets and businesses, paying down the debt and deficit, averting or avoiding major economic downturns, recovering us from major economic downturns and so on. None.

So by rights Repubs ought to by now have no more than, oh, maybe a 5% fluky chance of ever winning any election for any office ever.

However, thanks to the magic of "Bothsiderism" and "False Equivalency", their chances are often raised to as much 47-50%! That is quite an improvement for those folks. And if MSM and other "Bothsider, False Equivalency" practitioners do a bang up job of demonizing some relatively insignificant sucker social issue here and there, the Repubs' chances improve to as mush as 52% or so and, bingo, we're saddled with another Repub economic steward bent on finding whatever new and unprecedented way to crash the USA economy and wipe out millions of jobs is out there to be embraced by them.

See, it is only an insult if you think that is a bad thing for which to be a proponent.

Understood. I don't think Bothsiderism is appropriate for what you're describing. I prefer Double Think, as it's more descriptive of what we're talking about, and the word has a rich literary history, having originated in Orwell's 1984. So, if you see me use the word "Double Think", please realize it translates to "Bothsiderism" in the Tooms vocabulary.

[Tiny 12]

Tiny, I do not mean to shoot down your guy Captain Midnight but the importance of M1 to M3 markers were of huge importance in the 1980's and I think it was Milton Friedman who brought their importance to the public. That said, how often do you use cash these days? Not much right? What freezes the market is not a lack of cash but a lack of credit. Banks can lend 5 to 10 X the amount of cash they have on hand. The bonds and stocks they own can easily be liquidated into cash. The stock market is down 10 trillion and the bond market is probably close to the same since the Fed started raising rates. M1 is $20 trillion, and that much has been lost in the stock and bond market in the last six months but more importantly potentially 10 X that amount has been taken out of the liquidity market.

The CEO of Landry's restaurants was on CNBC and he confirmed the obvious. The credit markets have dried up. Everyone is looking at credit markets these days versus money supply because the credit markets are so much bigger. And the reason everyone talks about the Fed is that they pretty much set the rates on the credit market.

But that is the demand side, and the Fed can control that by restricting the amount of credit there is out there. When you look at supply, we were already having issues just keeping up with the post-Covid world. Then you look at the war in Ukraine and there has been and will be tightness with fertilizer, oil, gas, and food as both Ukraine and Russia were huge wheat exporters.

Thing is if you look at all those things the only one the USA does not have is the potash type fertilizer but we rely on friendly Canada for 83% of our needs of it. The rest of it the USA has in abundance and in particular Texas. China, Europe, and Japan are hugely dependent on exports for all of those things. I do not see anyone coming up with solutions for the loss of Russian oil and gas for at least 3 to 5 years, and food and fertilizer have really not been hit to the extent they will be.

People call inflation in housing stick but to me this is the most sticky of them all. Demand for food and energy is pretty much inelastic. Mankind will solve the problem, however the incentive for that solution will be higher prices.

So everyone thinks the dollar's move is due to its reserve currency status and the Fed raising rates, but I think a huge part of it is how much the world is going to have to buy our stuff and how much it is going to cost.

And Texas has it all: food, fertilizer, natural gas, gas pipelines, refineries, and oil.

I know very little about macroeconomics Elvis. And overall your argument makes sense. That looking at the supply side more inflation is in store. The Fed Funds rate is 3% to 3. 25%, and YoY inflation is 8. 3%! That also seems like a recipe for continued and perhaps higher inflation.

I don't have a strong view on this one way or the other. However, in the interest of being a good little bothsider, I shall quibble. M2 "is a measure of the USA Money stock that includes M1 (currency and coins held by the non-bank public, checkable deposits, and travelers' checks) plus savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts), small time deposits under $100,000, and shares in retail money market mutual funds. " M3 includes M2 plus CD's and the like.

It seems to me like higher money supply would result in higher inflation. Maybe for a while it wasn't because Americans were saving a lot of what they made, during COVID. But that's not the case any more. See this graph, which represents personal income that people save rather than spend on consumption.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVE

This is the same series expressed as a % of GDP.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

After the massive helicopter drops of money by Biden, Trump and the Democrats during COVID, when personal savings were high, people appear to be back to their spendthrift ways.

You also have the wealth effect. As you more or less say, instead of keeping their savings in cash, people are more inclined to invest in the market or their houses or whatever. And they can borrow against their home values or sell their stock to fund consumption. Well, with stock prices going down and home values leveling off in recent months, that's going to reduce people's propensity to spend.

As to the supply side, good points. I hadn't really thought about that so much.

I'd disagree with you about the vulnerability of the USA The USA Current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit, is running about 3. 9% of GDP. This is the worst it's been since 2009. It means we're buying more from the rest of the world than we're selling to it. We're dependent on China, directly and indirectly, for rare earth elements, and Korea and Taiwan for higher end chips. We are now roughly self sufficient overall in the combination of oil plus petroleum products. Total exports and imports are about equal. However if the Progressives get their way, we'll go back to being net importers. If Sanders or Warren had been elected president and had fulfilled his or her campaign promise to end fracking, we'd be in the same shape as Europe this winter. And Schumer and other Senate Democrats recently reneged on their agreement with Manchin to lighten up on permitting for pipelines and the like.

Getting back on inflation and supply, the trend towards de-globalization along with supply chain glitches isn't helping things. When you have to go build new factories to replace production from China and other places, prices go up.

[ScatManDoo]

And why does beating the Reps mean it is a good performance?

Did JustTK ask why in a two party system does it matter if one party consistently performs better than the other?

Maybe JustTK just does not see it when always looking from both sides!

[Tiny 12]

Of course, the 100 stock NASDAQ is an Index. I have not seen anyone here argue otherwise. It is the 3rd most popularly quoted Index in the USA stock market.

But that one and the 30 stock Dow Jones Industrial Average are not the most often go-to Index for Wall Street to more accurately measure the state of the USA stock market. As I have posted many times here, that would be the S&P 500 Index, so named because it includes 500 of the biggest company stocks in America. It is market-weighted and represents 80% of the value of the USA stock market.

I think the overviews of those 3 Indexes here can help even a stock market investment novice, wannabe long term investor or short term speculators alike, understand why the S&P 500 Index and not the NASDAQ, many of which stocks are not even based in the USA, as that aforementioned go-to measure:

What is an Index

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/index.asp#text=An%20 index%20 is%20 a%20 method, certain%20 area%20 of%20 the%20 market.

As you see, they do make a compelling case that the Wilshire 5000 Index, sometimes referred to the Total Stock Market Index, might actually be a better measure for the USA stock market for reasons that I think are clear in its often referenced name.

As I have posted here more than once already, that is the Index I have had money earmarked for equities in for many years. Prior to that, going back to the early 1990's, I was in an S&P 500 Index Fund because the Wilshire 5000 Index Fund was not available to me in my company's 401 k investment options.

Again, as I have posted here more than once already, I generally maintain 80-90% of my equity holdings in that Total Stock Market Index Fund and the rest in a Global Equity Fund.

Again, as I have posted here more than once already, I have only sold out and bought back into the market a couple of times over the decades. And then only because I had identified what I felt was a set of circumstances that would lead to a deep Recession, which is quite often accompanied by a major Bear Market decline and, later, a major recovery.

For me, it was not the other way around. As a long term investor I had little interest in tracking yield curves, Fed Funds moves and so on in order to scramble around hourly, daily or weekly worrying about market tops, bottoms, shorts or longs and all that stuff. I was only looking for indicators of a major Recession and, later, a major recovery or expansion. The stock market move would mostly just be an accompanying factor.

I have been even less interested in tracking the the ups and downs of the stock market over the past decade or so. I have opened my Vanguard account only once in the past year. And that was only because I got an email from Vanguard suggesting I open it every now and then or they will think I have died and they will proceed with beneficiary distributions, taxes on withdrawals and so on. LOL.

Luckily, I made enough money in those great Clinton and Obama Bull Runs and managed to dodge or at least weather the various GW Bush and Trump Bear Market declines that I was able to bank and invest in sources of ongoing streams of income along the way such that I don't need to bother with the stock market game at all. Just not interested. It's there. I'm glad I have it. But I don't need it to enjoy the lifestyle I looked forward to enjoying decades ago exactly the way I am enjoying it today.

If anything, my current retirement lifestyle exceeds what I'd hoped for.

But the key word is "enough. " Unlike a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus, I have never bragged anywhere about being "wealthy" or "smart". But It turns out if you chose a no-brainer broadly diversified Index fund to invest in long term, rain or shine, good times and bad, since the early 1990's with only 1 or 2 judicious moves along the way, you would by now have indeed captured a 1000%+ return on those early dollars.

Oh, and again as I have posted here more than once already, my for the fun of it prognostication is that the S&P 500 Index, the USA stock market's most common measure on Wall Street, will be tickling around the area of 5,000 by the middle of next year if not the end of this year.

My goodness! You have Stockholm Syndrome! Ryan, McConnell and Trump cut the federal corporate income tax and regulations on business. That increased the after tax income of the companies you own through your funds. Biden on the other hand wanted to increase the corporate tax and, depending on your tax bracket, increase the federal tax you pay on dividends to as high as 43.4%.

I hope you haven't already "drunk the Kool Aid. " I shall pray for you, and do what I can in the way of intervention.

[Tiny 12]

It's not necessary. As I explained in my last post, I can grant you it, but it is still very poor rationale. Even if we accept that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc?

And why does beating the Reps mean it is a good performance?

. But the economy is a terribkle metric to use to view leadership performance. Why? Bcos it excuses failures on all other metrics. You have to look at the entire picture. And this is where I think ET fails when he defends the Dem Party. Even Hitler did a great job on the economy:
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-e...my-of-germany/

Don't let Tooms pull the wool over your eyes. If the Progressives who have come to control the Democratic Party have their way, our federal government will grow a lot, taking resources from the people and the private sector. In the longer term, most of us will be worse off than we would be otherwise.

[Canada]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ph...0QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...for-joe-biden/

No one wants to invoke the 25th amend because Harris is even more brain dead than Joe LMAO.

He picked her as a firewall for this very reason LOL.

Barry Joe and Harris aka dumb dumber and dumbest LOL.

Yes Biden proved how stupid he is once again. It is amazing how his supporters ignore this proving once again his supporters are dumber than him. Biden dumbass supporters just continue to talk about Trump or try to deflect Biden's stupidity and incompetence with talking about non issues of the past. Americans are suffering from Biden incompetence and the dumbest people in the world continue to think he is doing a decent job. But remember Biden supporters are criminals, illegals and welfare cases. Pretty much over 90% of Biden supporters are losers. Do you want proof? Just read some of the comments defending Biden and blaming Trump and blaming everything else in the world rather than blaming the creator of Biden inflation and recession.

[Cali Guy]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ph...0QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...for-joe-biden/

No one wants to invoke the 25th amend because Harris is even more brain dead than Joe LMAO.

He picked her as a firewall for this very reason LOL.

Barry Joe and Harris aka dumb dumber and dumbest LOL.

So true. But don't forget why Biden picked Harris. He no longer is the dumbest VP in history as Harris has taken that title. It is going to be much harder for Biden to lose the title of dumbest president ever because democrats are getting smarter and won't ever vote someone this dumb and incompetent again. Unfortunately the socialists who are dumber than Biden think he is doing a good job. Some dumb socialist on this forum will probably try to defend Biden.

[JustTK]

It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.
Feel free to work in partnership with Tiny to see what you can come up with on that.

It's not necessary. As I explained in my last post, I can grant you it, but it is still very poor rationale. Even if we accept that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc?

And why does beating the Reps mean it is a good performance?

[EihTooms]

Its great that you took the time and show interest in broadening views. But the economy is a terribkle metric to use to view leadership performance. Why? Bcos it excuses failures on all other metrics. You have to look at the entire picture. And this is where I think ET fails when he defends the Dem Party. Even Hitler did a great job on the economy:
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-e...my-of-germany/

"We shouldn't have helped depose Allende".
Everyone deserves the right to self-determination.

I forget, did Hitler cut taxes disproprotionately high on the top income margins / the wealthy, give shit tax cuts to the middle and lower income margins to help pay for those top margin tax cuts and ignore or cut regulations, particularly on banks and financial institutions and have a Department of Thrift Supervision in his Treasury Department that didn't supervise or monitor a damn thing while billions in Liar Loans were being floated for years like notable USA Repub presidents did to produce their Great Repub Recessions and crap economic results?

If so then Hitler's great economic success was indeed a unicorn. But if not, then no wonder he produced better economic results than most Repubs of the past century.

Actually, reading your link I see Hitler most definitely focused on creating jobs, improving conditions for workers, utilizing government spending to stimulate the German economy and create even more and better jobs.

So even a lunatic like Hitler can produce better economic results than Repubs as long as he avoids like the plague duplicating the idiotic economic policies of the Repub Party.

Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust.

LOL. Great post and link! Thanks for that.