Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 4,051 to 4,065 of 14404
-
09-26-22 01:01 #10354
Posts: 5452I think it would be a very short and sweet Civil War
Is this a preview of the protests "the likes of which blah blah blah" we'd see if Trump gets indicted for his crimes against America?
Sad.
Tens Of People Showed Up For Pro-Trump Rally For Jan. 6 Defendants
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/09/t...mp-truth-rally
I'm not sure if anyone has calculated this exactly, but I suspect all of the attendees of all of the Trump rallies combined do not match the number of attendees at just that one anti Trump rally after his inauguration.
Just sayin'.
-
09-26-22 01:01 #10353
Posts: 2794Originally Posted by ScatManDoo [View Original Post]
-
09-26-22 00:33 #10352
Posts: 5452Yeah
Originally Posted by CaliGuy [View Original Post]
Yet Trump still managed to turn that gift hand off into total shit in just 4 years and Biden managed to turn that total shit hand off into a historically successful recovery in just 19 months.
Similar to the way George W. Bush managed to turn his gift hand off from Clinton into total shit and Obama turned the total shit hand off he got from George W. Bush into one of the longest and steadiest economic expansions and jobs creation runs ever.
That's quite a telling pattern. It's a pattern that has been repeating itself for about a century.
Thanks for the reminder.
-
09-25-22 23:44 #10351
Posts: 5452I already answered your question
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Biden had to keep him in place only because to have switched him out in the midst of Trump's Pandemic Crash would have driven brave Free Market "job creators" even further under their beds in abject terror.
-
09-25-22 23:42 #10350
Posts: 3230Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Scatmandoo and Spidy seem to be in a contest to see who can call Trump more names per square inch than anyone. Unlike the first two, I do not recall them doing anything outside of calling Trump and Republicans names.
Eih put himself out as this financial genius, which is ridiculous, because he seems to think all stock market gains or losses accrue simply due to who is president. So of course, he has been long with Biden. I told him in April that it was finally right to go short the market, and I am up 45% since then and he is down at least 20% since then.
The problem with investing based on whom is president of course is you are ignoring market conditions and what the Fed is doing. I hold Biden responsible for the mess he has made in the energy markets, but the other portions of inflation really are not on him. Outside of that, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Things are way worse now than they were in 2019, but guys like Eih are constantly showing Trump's numbers post pandemic to try to justify how horrible things were and how much better they are now. Of course, it is a false equivalence. By every measure, the Dems did worse economically with the pandemic than Republicans did.
-
09-25-22 23:39 #10349
Posts: 1604Then there's this
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
And before the Moron Brigade says anything, everything in this article is per capita so there goes the stupid "but NYC is bigger than Memphis" argument. Of course, the Moron Brigade doesn't know what "per capita" means, so there's that.
In recent years, Republicans have tagged Democrats as the party of "defund the police. " This political charge has at it roots an unfortunate choice of sloganeering and policy from a small number of progressive activists frustrated and fed up with longstanding police violence and abuse directed toward minorities. However intentioned, the defund charge proved damaging to Democrats. Republicans ran myriad attack ads in 2020 and the attack was credited with Republican upsets in swing districts that narrowed Democratic majorities in the House. This attack was so successful that during his 2022 State of the Union address, President Biden felt compelled to say, "We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them. "1 The President also dedicated $10 billion from the American Rescue Plan for public safety, including $6. 5 billion in crime-fighting aid to state and local communities.
But is the Republican charge even remotely true? It has been taken as a given by much of the media just as Democrats have been pigeon-holed as soft on crime and being responsible for rampant crime across the country. Yet as our March 2022 report showed, the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump had a murder rate 40% higher than the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden. And 8 of the 10 states with the highest murder rates not only voted for Donald Trump, they voted Republican in every presidential election this century. Is the Democrats' defund the police portrait as inaccurate as its soft on crime portrait?
To answer this question, we compared the police budgets of the 25 largest Democrat-run cities and the 25 largest Republican-run cities. 2 We pulled FY2021 and FY2022 funding data directly from city operating budgets, as well as police force data from a mixture of police department websites, city budgets, and local news sources. Using this, we calculated several key metrics—the number of police officers, police officers per capita, police funding per capita, and percent change in police budgets from FY2021 to FY2022. Per capita data allows us to control for population and compare cities like New York City and Fort Worth.
We found that despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, Democrat-run cities employ far more police officers and spend far more money on policing per capita than Republican-run cities. In fact, police forces in Dem cities are 75% larger than police forces in GOP cities. And Democrats spend about 38% more per person on policing than Republicans do. On average, Democrat- and Republican-run cities all saw an increase in police funding in 2022, with Democrats actually increasing police budgets by slightly more.
The data make clear—Republicans may talk about funding the police, but they trail badly as compared to Democrats.
The size of a city's police force is often seen as indicative of its support for law enforcement. Democrats have been accused of defunding the police and cutting police funding and staff. We compared the 25 most populous cities run by each party as defined by the political affiliation of its mayor to see if this potent political charge is true.
The 25 most populous Democratic cities run from New York City with 8,177,025 inhabitants to Memphis with 650,980. The 25 most populous Republican cities run from Jacksonville with a population of 949,611 to Glendale in Arizona with 248,325 residents. In total, the 25 most populous Democratic cities are home to 37,470,584 people, while the commensurate 25 Republican cities have a combined total of 10,415,763.
We found that in the aggregate:
Democrat-run cities employ 288.2 officers per 100,000 residents, compared to Republican-run cities with only 164.6 officers per 100,000 residents.
Police forces in cities with Democratic mayors are 75.1% larger than police forces in GOP cities.
Of the ten cities with the largest per capita police forces, nine are run by Democrats—Washington DC, Chicago, Las Vegas, New York City, Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis, Boston, and LOS Angeles. Miami, coming in at ninth, is the only Republican-run city in the top ten.
We also compared the median per capita police force average since larger cities like New York and LOS Angeles can skew results. Among these same cities, those with Democratic mayors had a median of 195.3 officers per 100,000 residents, or 23.1% more than the 158.7 median for Republican run cities.
The size of a city didn't seem to be a determining factor in the per capita rate of police officers. For example, Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego ranked 5th, 6th, and 8th in population, but ranked 34th, 4 oth, and 42nd in police per capita. Meanwhile, Las Vegas, Detroit, Memphis, and Miami ranked 25th, 27th, 28th and 33rd in population, but ranked 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th in police per capita. Oklahoma City and Las Vegas have nearly identical populations (676,492 versus 675,592), but Republican-led Oklahoma City had a police force roughly one-third the size of Las Vegas with its Democratic mayor (162.6 officers compared to 444.1 per 100,000 residents).
Dem cities spend more money on policing than GOP cities.
Republicans have decried Democrats' attempts to cut police budgets in liberal cities across the country. But we found that Democrats spend more on policing than Republicans do.
Republican-run cities spend $361 per resident on police. Democrat-run cities spend $498 per resident, about 38% more than Republicans. Because aggregate police budgets can be skewed by larger cities, we also looked at the median per capita police budgets for these sets of 25 cities. Once again, Democrat-run cities had median police budgets 31% greater than Republican-run cities, $423.55 to $323.40 per resident.
Of the ten cities that spent the most on policing per capita, six of them are Democrat-run and four are Republican-run. Cities often criticized by Republicans for being "soft-on-crime"—New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle—are all in the top 15 on police funding per person. Republican strongholds like Bakersfield and Oklahoma City spend less than half of what New York City and Chicago spend on their police.
Dem cities saw slightly larger police budget increases than GOP cities in 2022.
Defund the police may exist as a slogan, but it does not exist as a policy–at least in the 50 cities that we reviewed. Between FY2021 to FY2022, Democrat-run cities saw a 4. 34% increase in police funding—from $17.89 billion to $18.67 billion, or about $775 million in the aggregate. Republican-run cities saw a 4. 11% increase–from $3. 62 billion to $3. 76 billion, or $148 million in the aggregate.
Twenty-one of 25 Democratic cities and 21 of 25 Republican cities showed budget increases in FY2022. Cities like New York and LOS Angeles are often mentioned in defund the police attacks–both cities increased their police budgets in 2022. In fact, the ten largest Democrat-run cities increased their police budgets in 2022, though Philadelphia's held fairly constant with a 0. 28% increase. New York City's increase of 3. 75% added $196 million. Chicago, Portland, and Seattle—cities often accused of defunding the police—all saw increases in their 2022 police budgets. Paradoxically, Washington DC had the largest budget cut of 3. 98%, but also the largest police budget per resident at $751.62.
Conclusion.
Democrats have been accused of defunding the police as a larger "soft on crime" message from Republican officeholders and conservative media. In a previous report, we found that homicide rates were significantly higher in the 25 states that voted for Trump compared to the 25 states that voted for Biden.
In this report, we find that police funding and police personnel levels are far higher in the 25 largest Democrat-run cities compared to the 25 largest Republican-run cities. In the most recent funding cycle, these same Democratic cities increased their police budgets to a greater degree than cities with Republican mayors.
Our conclusion is that the defund the police charge against Democrats may be politically damaging, but it is factually inaccurate. If anything, Republican mayors have a defund problem.
-
09-25-22 23:33 #10348
Posts: 5452Who said that?
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Ok, here is a pop quiz to identify the pro Repub Bothsiders. And you don't even need to research every nit-picky, inconsequential little detail about what some Senator did, who thought what at the time and all that drivel.
Looking back at the 4 most recent completed Presidential Administrations, 2 Dems (Clinton and Obama) and 2 Repubs (George W. Bush and Trump) history, all available data and the record of results show that from their starting points until the end, the 2 Dem Administrations produced among the best overall results of any Presidential Administrations ever while the 2 Repub Administrations produced among the worst if not objectively the absolute worst ever.
Does anyone honestly believe for one minute that had the 2 Repubs been in office during the years the Dems were and the 2 Dems been in office during the years the Repubs were, each facing the same challenges requiring decisions to be made about them during those years, that those years would have resulted in the same historically positive vs negative outcomes?
-
09-25-22 20:25 #10347
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by CaliGuy [View Original Post]
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/mi...nvs/index.html
-
09-25-22 19:52 #10346
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073
There is one thing. You can similarly say that the Communist Party of China is responsible for all the good legislation that's come out of that country since 1950. Starting with the first piece of legislation on your list, Social Security, and going forward to present, Democrats have controlled the Presidency, Senate and House for 35 years. Republicans have controlled them for 8 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide..._United_States
-
09-25-22 19:46 #10345
Posts: 1604Nope
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
I could point out multiple instances of his monumental screwups but you won't listen. And the Moron Brigade will say it is all "fake news".
-
09-25-22 19:40 #10344
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
From having read David Stockman's book, I can say that Reagan wanted to cut spending, except for defense, but Congress wouldn't cooperate. Now I'm no fan of higher defense spending, but believe the increased spending during his administration was part of the reason for the end of the Cold War. The Soviets couldn't keep up. The result was that freedom and democracy came to Eastern Europe, and the USA was set up for a peace dividend. This manifested in lower defense expenditures going forward. And helped Clinton, Gingrich et al balance the budget in Clinton's second term.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...defense-budget
When Reagan left office, federal debt held by the public was only 39% of GDP, far below the 100% that's been problematic for countries like Greece and Spain. It came down to 31% around the end of Clinton's second term.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYPUGDA188S
Finally, here's an article about Reagan and taxes that's enlightening. This link is from a friend of mine who knows a lot more about economics than any of us. He believes the changes in tax policy during the Reagan administration made the system more progressive, by eliminating loopholes and broadening the base:
https://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/new...n_years_taxes/
-
09-25-22 19:16 #10343
Posts: 3230Originally Posted by CaliGuy [View Original Post]
He is selfishly trying to convince us that we are doing better while in fact only people like he are.
-
09-25-22 19:15 #10342
Posts: 1068Biden's train wreck
Originally Posted by CaliGuy [View Original Post]
Yes and you are also right that a complete idiot will disagree with your post and try to blame anyone and everyone but Biden. Possibly more than one idiot that is in denial over Biden failed policies.
-
09-25-22 19:07 #10341
Posts: 3230Originally Posted by PVMonger [View Original Post]
And then there was the Obama alternative. Let us print up a bunch of money and hand it to the banks after the banks engaged in blatantly illegal activity and many bankers should have been jailed. Maybe you all can brag about how great that was. Look at how great the numbers were after that.
If you compare apples to apples, the Obama and Reagan recovery were much the same. Unemployment down, stock market up, inflation was low, but debt was way up. And with Obama, you had trillions put on the Fed's balance sheet, an accounting gimmick to be sure.
The difference between Obama and Reagan though was how they campaigned. Obama put on the "we are going to be tough on the rich" mask but he tossed all his progressive economists off the boat as soon as he won. Even Jon Stewart of Comedy Central showed clips of Obama talking tough on the rich in his campaign and laughing it up with the rich once he was elected.
That is the only difference I see with regards to the Dems and Republicans on taxing the rich, the fake tough talk. Maybe a better way to put is the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich while the Dems want to just cut taxes for THEIR rich.
Here is a classic example of a Dem talking tough on the rich.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is calling on the wealthy to return to New York City from their weekend homes in the surrounding suburbs, fearing they may choose to stay and file taxes there.
"I literally talk to people all day long who are now in their Hamptons house who also lived here, or in their Hudson Valley house or in their Connecticut weekend house, and I say, 'You got to come back, when are you coming back? Cuomo said at a press conference Monday.
"'We'll go to dinner, I'll buy you a drink, come over, I'll cook, Cuomo added in jest.
I was in Cabo recently and the property tax on a $300,000 house, I was told, was $300 a year. In Texas, it would be about $6000. God knows what it would be in California.
And of course, we have Eih doing the same thing. Instead of staying in high tax California, we have Eih living it up in Thailand. Yes, he is all in favor of taxing the rich in the USA but how about those expats in Thailand? Why are we rewarding those people who live abroad and are not paying their "fair share" of taxes?
I was in France in the 1980's and talked to a family who voted for the socialist Mitterand. The joke was that I voted for Mitterand because he said he would tax the rich. He won, became president, and then turned to me and said, "You are rich. ".
And Eih is bragging about being rich and "helping out" a young gal in Thailand in college. Excuse me but isn't that trickle down economics in action? LOL.
-
09-25-22 18:58 #10340
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#:~:text=A%20recession%20is%20a%20significant,%2C%20consumer%20demand%2C%20and%20employment.
What's the current USA fed funds rate? Answer: 3% to 3.25%
What is the most recent CPI YoY inflation rate? Answer: 8.3%
What is is the real interest rate based on the fed funds rate? Answer: In excess of NEGATIVE 5%
Why on God's green earth would someone criticize current Fed policy for being too tight and "artificially cooling down Biden's roaring job-creating, wage increasing economy into perhaps a mild recession or close to one"? Answer: Heck if I know. He probably hasn't lived or worked in a place like Argentina or Turkey, and doesn't remember the late 70's and early 80's too well.