American Politics

[JustTK]

Meanwhile clueless Joe and his minions seem unaware of the damage his woke socialist policies are causing the American people.

Which policies would those be? Was that the free education that they provided? Free healthcare for all? Write off of all student debt? The imposition of sky high tax rates on the rich? The public buy back of primary resources and utility services? The recognition of the sovereign rights of other countries?

[Gino02]

Washington Post is wrong again!

"How bad things are for Biden? It's not just his approval rating; it's his lack of a base".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ing-lack-base/

They missed Buyden's huge very smart base in this ISG thread.

[JustTK]

FDR being one of those incoming Dems. Barack Obama being another. I submit the same could be said for the results for JFK / LBJ, Carter and Clinton but to a lesser degree than for FDR and Obama. And the typically disastrous Repub to Dem handoff from Trump to Biden is definitely up there with the worst of all time as well.

This is the problem w cycical appointments. You can always blame your predecessor. I am sure the Reps would blame leaving dems for inflationary pressure caused by the overspending.

For me, the sign of a successful country is one that has a happy, healthy, educated and safe population. One that values all citizens equally (not just its own). On every metric the USA is a total failure. This is becuase both parties are owned by corporates, and corporations do not have morals.

[PVMonger]

Must you continue to post on my comments? I am really fatigued from calling you a complete moron.

I never said that it worked. You clearly cannot read and just make shlt up. No wonder your on a site like this. I mean, who could bear to live with you? Any Dem with at least half a brain must be embarrassed to have you on their side.

Here is what you said "Historically the Reps use supply side economics that favour business, so you would expect the Dems to do better on the factors that they target."

First, I assume that you meant to say "historically" and were simply too lazy to correct your error.

Second, you alluded to the fact that "supply side" economics worked. It is right there in black and white: "so you would expect the Dems to do better on the factors that they target. " In other words, if "Dems do better on the factors they target", Repubs do better on the factors "they" target.

Now you're saying that "supply side" economics doesn't work? Are you saying that "supply side" economics might be great for companies but it almost always fails the workers? Or are you saying that Repubs are great con men because they tell the masses that "supply side" economics will be great for them but those same Repubs know that what they're saying is bullshit?

[EihTooms]

As usual the daily hyperbolic, false dichotomy is expounded. Others have taken a look at the last 100 years, and while the Dems overall have performed better, still four of the seventeen "devastating, mind boggling, atrocious, crashing and life destroying recessions" (wink) started under Democratic administrations. He's alluding to the post WW I recession, another after the Great Depression that started in '37, the one post WW II, and the undeniable one that began in the last year of Carter's presidency, speaking of "bad handoffs. " And this is from a historic, well reputed left wing publication that is decidedly on your side. They also have no failed fact checks in the last five years. I doubt a guy in a monger forum that has long painted himself in a corner singing the same tune for two years can adequately correct them, but feel free to give it a shot.

One Quarter of 7% GDP Growth contraction followed by a consecutive quarter of 0. 7% GDP Growth contraction, followed by two more consecutive quarters of positive GDP Growth of 7.5% and 8. 5%, all while both inflation and the unemployment rate (that only spiked up to 7.8% for a single month during those barely two negative quarters) were steadily declining month over month into that Dem to Repub handoff and that mini "recession" having been purposely induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated Carter economy that was creating too many more jobs than there were applicants to take them is in your mind as "devastating" as the ones under Hoover, the combined three under Eisenhower, the huge and prolonged one under Reagan, the long one under Bush1, the gigantic one under Bush2 (his 2nd one) and the colossal one under Trump?

Uh. Carter's was barely a blip on the screen by comparison. And his was probably closer to "life-altering" than any of the other two Dem-related ones of the past 100 years you mentioned. LOL. The "'37" recession and post WWII recession were as minor and forgettable as Biden's minor GDP Growth contraction that is so far as close to flat as it is to even a 3% contraction.

Carter's handoff to Reagan was still better than any Repub to Dem or even the Repub to Repub (1988) handoff of the past 100 years. Dems can only dream and wish they could ever enjoy the economic conditions, trends and trajectory Reagan inherited from Carter in a someday, faraway future Repub to Dem handoff.

[EihTooms]

The Jan. 6 Hearings' 2nd day did a masterful job of confirming what 225+ Million Americans already knew at least since 2015; that the other 74 Million Americans who could possibly be conned by a blatantly obvious even lousy con man are either total numbskulls, have as much contempt for the country and the people in it as he does or both.

[EihTooms]

Supply-side economics supposedly "works by giving incentives to businesses to expand. A corporate tax cut gives businesses more money to hire workers, invest in capital equipment, and produce more goods and services. An income tax cut increases the dollars per hour worked. It boosts workers' incentive to remain employed and creates more labor. "

Therefore, if supply-side economics actually worked, Republicans would have better employment numbers than Democrats because businesses would hire more people, pay them more which, in turn would mean more workers.

In practice, none of that happens. Supply-side economics is bullshit. Everybody with a brain knows this. The only people who don't know this are Republicans because the wealthy people who bankroll Republican candidates are the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts for the rich.

"While progressives may not have all the answers to achieve equitable growth, conservatives have the wrong answers. If conservatives are serious about promoting economic growth and prosperity, they need to stop fetishizing tax cuts and start proposing policy ideas that are based on actual facts. Indeed, history would tell us that investing in the middle class and those who want to rise into it is the best long-term economic growth strategy. " https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...e-and-for-all/.

The only question is do Repubs promote and pass their beloved economically disastrous Supply-Side / Trickle-Down policies over and over again whenever the electorate is dumb or careless enough to put them in a position to do it because they are hopelessly unchangeable numbskulls or because their primary mission is to destroy the USA economy, wipe out millions of jobs and produce rock bottom bargain basement prices for America's assets and wages so their monied political donors can swoop in to buy at the ideal times and get even wealthier at the great expense of everyone else.

Not that it matters which, really.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Yes, the exact link you provided here was one of 3 additional links I included in my previous post but got edited down what you see now.

As long as GDP Growth is a factor you cited and used that link to support your claim that Obama did poorly on that factor it should at least be pointed out by one of us that Obama got tagged and therefore undeservedly "credited" with a huge decline in GDP Growth just as he was getting elected and then taking the Oath of Office from the Bush2 handoff. Same for the unemployment rate and Niagara Falls job losses going on in those very months.

There are a few examples of these horrific GDP Growth declines, massive job losses and skyrocketing Unemployment Rate events going on just as a Repub was on his way out and the Dem was on his way in and, consequently, the incoming Dem's positive record of results was unfairly diminished by the sins of the outgoing Repub.

FDR being one of those incoming Dems. Barack Obama being another. I submit the same could be said for the results for JFK / LBJ, Carter and Clinton but to a lesser degree than for FDR and Obama. And the typically disastrous Repub to Dem handoff from Trump to Biden is definitely up there with the worst of all time as well.

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/...central-china/

[Paulie97]

Yes, the exact link you provided here was one of 3 additional links I included in my previous post but got edited down what you see now.

As long as GDP Growth is a factor you cited and used that link to support your claim that Obama did poorly on that factor it should at least be pointed out by one of us that Obama got tagged and therefore undeservedly "credited" with a huge decline in GDP Growth just as he was getting elected and then taking the Oath of Office from the Bush2 handoff. Same for the unemployment rate and Niagara Falls job losses going on in those very months.

There are a few examples of these horrific GDP Growth declines, massive job losses and skyrocketing Unemployment Rate events going on just as a Repub was on his way out and the Dem was on his way in and, consequently, the incoming Dem's positive record of results was unfairly diminished by the sins of the outgoing Repub.

FDR being one of those incoming Dems. Barack Obama being another. I submit the same could be said for the results for JFK / LBJ, Carter and Clinton but to a lesser degree than for FDR and Obama. And the typically disastrous Repub to Dem handoff from Trump to Biden is definitely up there with the worst of all time as well..

As usual the daily hyperbolic, false dichotomy is expounded. Others have taken a look at the last 100 years, and while the Dems overall have performed better, still four of the seventeen "devastating, mind boggling, atrocious, crashing and life destroying recessions" (wink) started under Democratic administrations. He's alluding to the post WW I recession, another after the Great Depression that started in '37, the one post WW II, and the undeniable one that began in the last year of Carter's presidency, speaking of "bad handoffs. " And this is from a historic, well reputed left wing publication that is decidedly on your side. They also have no failed fact checks in the last five years. I doubt a guy in a monger forum that has long painted himself in a corner singing the same tune for two years can adequately correct them, but feel free to give it a shot.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1662...s-vs-democrats

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/...-examples.html

[Axel Heyst]

We live in historic and insane times.

The S&P 500 closed today in a Bear Market.

Inflation is running white-hot at 8. 6 percent, much more if you factor in gas and food prices and there is no letup in sight because the Democrat politicians in power are blinded by their wokeness and lack of courage.

Thus a recession is imminent.

Meanwhile clueless Joe and his minions seem unaware of the damage his woke socialist policies are causing the American people. So, it looks like tough times ahead for all working Americans. Our financial security and well being is clearly at risk, our personal safety in our once great cities is threatened by criminals who are not prosecuted by incompetent woke District Attorneys, and millions of illegal aliens (foreign nationals) stream across the border illegally along with tons of lethal narcotics.

The only good news is American people are starting to wake up. The American people are not insane, or at least the majority of them are not insane. KKK. Even San Francisco residents had enough of the BS and gave the boot to to the completely incompetent Chesa Boudin.

ABC News poll released last week says just 28 percent of American adults think Biden is doing a good job handling inflation. (Not sure, but I think some of the 28 percent were smoking crack when ABC called).

A Quinnipiac poll also last week has Clueless Joe at 35 percent job approval.

But the problem is that unless clueless Joe wakes up, fires some people, and changes his economic policies; the situation will only get worse until 2024/2025 when he and the woke minions are canned. How much worse will it get? A lot worse. Just you wait and see.

[JustTK]

if supply-side economics actually worked, Republicans would have better employment numbers than Democrats because businesses would hire more people, pay them more which, in turn would mean more workers.
In practice, none of that happens. Supply-side economics is bullshit. Everybody with a brain knows this. The only people who don't know this are Republicans.

Must you continue to post on my comments? I am really fatigued from calling you a complete moron.

I never said that it worked. You clearly cannot read and just make shlt up. No wonder your on a site like this. I mean, who could bear to live with you? Any Dem with at least half a brain must be embarrassed to have you on their side.

[Elvis 2008]

They are both trying to out-perform each other in the race to see who is the dumbest of the dumb.

While you idiots were debating masks, I studied Covid on my own. What I saw was that asymptomatic infection early on was rare if not nonexistent. Often in medicine, there is the temptation to "do something", and the government was happy to oblige and ordered up its share of stupid "doing something" remedies: social distancing, hand washing and sanitizers, lockdowns, and lastly masks.

My advice and the advice I followed was to avoid sick people and of course, others said that was not going to cut it. LOL. Mask wearing was stupid because most cases were transmitted in the home, and the notion that you wear masks everywhere but the home was and is completely moronic. Mask wearing then was not about stopping disease but showing you complied with government mandates. Yeah, if someone has Covid and is coughing, mask wearing makes sense. Wearing it around healthy people makes no sense at all.

Thing is while you dummies were scared shitless about Covid, locked in your basements, and ODing on MSNBC, I was out traveling the world scoring babes with cheap airfares and getting said babes at ridiculously low prices. I cannot recall bang as many 10's at any other time in my life than in 2020 and 2021. So let's get the whining straight. I am whining at how dumb you two are for staying home.

With Biden, I said before that I was going into 3 X inverse funds on the stock market. And just like with Covid, while everyone else is getting killed, I am having a bonanza. The net of the funds I listed are up 50% since April while you dummies keep going on about how great Biden and the economy are doing.

[EihTooms]

Yes, I didn't look so closely at those bcos I assumed they would be correlated and, well, I have a life. Hehe. Historically those are the factors that the Dems used to run on and target. Histroically the Reps use supply side economics that favour business, so you would expect the Dems to do better on the factors that they target.

Let's look a little at a different measure. GDP - check out this report - https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839.

Obvioulsy FDR is the clear winner bcos he was pres during the economic vacuum post WW2. But what happened to his successor HST? Terrible performance. Obama also did terrible.

So on this, I would say its a close race.

If you look at real wages. Both have failed.

But as I said in my other comments, these are economic factors that without doubt you value highly. Thats your choice. I prefer to value foreign policy and related issues. On these factors both parties fail miserably.

Yes, the exact link you provided here was one of 3 additional links I included in my previous post but got edited down what you see now.

As long as GDP Growth is a factor you cited and used that link to support your claim that Obama did poorly on that factor it should at least be pointed out by one of us that Obama got tagged and therefore undeservedly "credited" with a huge decline in GDP Growth just as he was getting elected and then taking the Oath of Office from the Bush2 handoff. Same for the unemployment rate and Niagara Falls job losses going on in those very months.

There are a few examples of these horrific GDP Growth declines, massive job losses and skyrocketing Unemployment Rate events going on just as a Repub was on his way out and the Dem was on his way in and, consequently, the incoming Dem's positive record of results was unfairly diminished by the sins of the outgoing Repub.

FDR being one of those incoming Dems. Barack Obama being another. I submit the same could be said for the results for JFK / LBJ, Carter and Clinton but to a lesser degree than for FDR and Obama. And the typically disastrous Repub to Dem handoff from Trump to Biden is definitely up there with the worst of all time as well.

There is no Dem to Repub handoff counterpart to this problem where the incoming Repub's record of economic results is unfairly diminished by the sins of the outgoing Dem. Not for at least the past 100 years. Far from it. In fact, the exact opposite has been the case. The incoming Repub's record of economic results have been improved by the positive trajectories put in place by the outgoing Dem.

So when you review and unavoidably note that the Dems' overall positive record of economic results beats those of the Repubs rather consistently, bear in mind the data credited to incoming Dems has been unfairly diminished by the outgoing Repubs while the data credited to incoming Repubs has been unfairly elevated by the outgoing Dems.

Which means the superior economic performance by Dems is even better than it looks on paper while the inferior economic performance of Repubs is even worse.

[Paulie97]

You cite the Dems as clear winners on the Unemployment Rate comparison but I submit the record shows them clear winners on the other links I provided regarding jobs creation and GDP Growth vs Contraction (Economic Expansions vs Recessions) and some of the other elements you say should be factored into the assessment. I agree. That's why I provided those other links; to factor them in.

Moreover, only rarely if ever does any of the factors I provided the links for operate in isolation from the other elements you cited, including the Unemployment Rate. Skyrocketing unemployment rates generally accompany Great Recessions (significant GDP Growth contraction), which generally accompany massive jobs destruction, falling wages, deep Bear Market declines, housing value declines, etc.

He didn't read the links though. That's why he didn't respond to the evidence. He has his talking points though and will keep repeating them over and over ad nauseam. Welcome to monger forum debate.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-by-Repetition

[PVMonger]

Yes, I didn't look so closely at those bcos I assumed they would be correlated and, well, I have a life. Hehe. Historically those are the factors that the Dems used to run on and target. Histroically the Reps use supply side economics that favour business, so you would expect the Dems to do better on the factors that they target.

Let's look a little at a different measure. GDP - check out this report - https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839.

Obvioulsy FDR is the clear winner bcos he was pres during the economic vacuum post WW2. But what happened to his successor HST? Terrible performance. Obama also did terrible.

So on this, I would say its a close race.

If you look at real wages. Both have failed.

But as I said in my other comments, these are economic factors that without doubt you value highly. Thats your choice. I prefer to value foreign policy and related issues. On these factors both parties fail miserably.

Supply-side economics supposedly "works by giving incentives to businesses to expand. A corporate tax cut gives businesses more money to hire workers, invest in capital equipment, and produce more goods and services. An income tax cut increases the dollars per hour worked. It boosts workers' incentive to remain employed and creates more labor. "

Therefore, if supply-side economics actually worked, Republicans would have better employment numbers than Democrats because businesses would hire more people, pay them more which, in turn would mean more workers.

In practice, none of that happens. Supply-side economics is bullshit. Everybody with a brain knows this. The only people who don't know this are Republicans because the wealthy people who bankroll Republican candidates are the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts for the rich.

"While progressives may not have all the answers to achieve equitable growth, conservatives have the wrong answers. If conservatives are serious about promoting economic growth and prosperity, they need to stop fetishizing tax cuts and start proposing policy ideas that are based on actual facts. Indeed, history would tell us that investing in the middle class and those who want to rise into it is the best long-term economic growth strategy. " https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...e-and-for-all/.