View Full Version : American Politics
BTW, do you have a link for any of the figures you cited in your posts about this? You know, something like the reports, charts and data links I usually provide along with the pertinent entry for it.The data is from Bloomberg. It requires a subscription to access but you can get the info by Googling from other sources if you're willing to spend the time. The St. Louis Fed is often a good source for USA Data.
See, here's the problem.
One one hand you have the anti-everything Moron Brigade claiming that everything about the relocation was above-board. They hear that, of course, from the two idiot governors (Abbot and his partner Costello aka DeSatan) as well as rightwingnut media. They complain about government spending but are completely OK with DeSatan using taxpayer money to do this. They complain about "government overreach" but are completely OK with the government overreaching in this case. They complain about the government lying but are completely OK with the government lying here (but, to be fair, they were completely OK with Donnie the Dumbass lying his ass off for 6 years) so who knows what they stand for.
On the other hand you have the immigrants themselves who say they were lied to and mislead. There are dozens on first-hand reports about this. Here are some: https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/1123109768/migrants-sent-to-marthas-vineyard and https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/09/17/desantis-migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod/10410896002/ and https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-governor-florida-flies-migrants-marthas-vineyard-political-stunt-2022-09-15/ and https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-00057247 The Moron Brigade will, predictably, say that this is "fake news" and that the only source of "real news" is Donnie the Dumbass and his merry band of rightwingnut minions.
What I find absolutely comical is that the wingers say that transporting the migrants from MV to Cape Cod means that MV didn't want them when in reality, they were able to get access to more and better services at the AFB in CC. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-00057247.
But keep on drinking that KoolAid. What flavor is it? Orange? Red? Or just ignorant?I don't know enough about this issue to argue about it, or even to have an informed opinion, except that those billionaires in Martha's Vineyard are hypocrites. I have some sympathy for the Cubans and Venezuelans who have escaped totalitarian regimes and who were living in destitute poverty. And I love the influx of Cuban strippers who have showed up in my area. I mentioned this earlier, but in the county where I live, Trump won in 2020 by 60 percentage points. This is even though a plurality of the population is Hispanic and the majority are people of color. (You would have had a tough time getting me to vote for Trump short of holding a gun to my head, but that's neither here nor there.) A lot of Hispanics vote for Republicans. A majority of Cuban Americans vote Republican. I suspect the same may end up being true of the Venezuelans. As to the Cubans, whether this is because the Republican Party was more anti-Castro than the Democrats or whether it's because Cubans were fleeing socialism, and the Republicans are more anti-Socialist, I don't know. Anyway I don't see Bernie Sanders getting a lot of Cuban or Venezuelan votes.
You realize that drilling on private lands, not owned by the federal government, is what has driven US production growth. Federal leases account for about 24% of oil production and 11% of gas production. Also advances in hydraulic fracturing, as well as horizontal drilling, have been an essential part of the production growth since 2011. Hydraulically fracked wells in the unconventional plays that have become the mainstay of US oil and gas production decline quickly. Production for example may start at 1,000 barrels a day in the first month, and decline to 400 BOPD after 12 months. If you ban hydraulic fracturing, total US production will decline rapidly, as maintaining the rate depends on constantly drilling and fracking new wells.
Well, Bernie Sanders, who came within a c**t hair of becoming president of the United States, would have banned hydraulic fracturing through executive orders the minute he was elected. He would have done this on private lands, as well as federal leases. Elizabeth Warren and some other Democratic candidates for president campaigned on similar platforms in 2020. Sanders wanted to eliminate fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation by 2030. Biden wants to go to "0" net carbon emissions by 2050. Both basically would eliminate the oil and gas refining and production businesses in the USA, except perhaps for exports. The only question is the timing.
So given those types of threats, does it make sense for a company like Shell or Exxon to invest billions developing an offshore oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that won't go on stream for 10 years? Or does it make sense to put a refinery that was mothballed during COVID back into service?
Back to the leases. You need to understand a bit about petroleum geology to understand what's going on. Basically, conventional oil and gas accumulations, and many unconventional accumulations, occur in traps like anticlines. A company may acquire a large lease block, say 50,000 or 100,000 acres, and then acquire seismic data over the block, to try to identify potential traps. Then it drills wells, both to try to prove up traps and provide additional data that will help ongoing exploration. This is a multi year process. And at the end of it, you may be lucky to have identified traps that occupy 1000 acres out of the initial 50,000 or 100,000 acres. Or you may just drill dry holes and not find anything, so the leases expire without production.
As to the drilling permits, Biden campaigned on doing away with new drilling permits on federal leases, not banning drilling. And he did suspend the issuance of new permits, but backed off in part because of court challenges. So yes, oil and gas companies have stockpiled drilling permits, to have an inventory in case no additional permits are issued. They're hoping, if that happens, that sanity will some day return to the executive branch and they'll be allowed to drill again.I assume you were referring to the 2016 Democratic Primary election and not some secret or imaginary Presidential election involving Bernie Sanders, right?[/QUOTE]Was The Democratic Primary A Close Call Or A Landslide?https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/.
Hillary Clinton will officially become the Democratic nominee for president this week, at which point well finally close the chapter on the 2016 primaries. But when we look back on the 2016 race, how should we think of it, as a close call or as a blowout? Could a few small changes have made Sanders the nominee and could a higher-profile candidate such as Elizabeth Warren have beaten Clinton, when Sanders didnt?
My view is that the race wasnt really all that close and that Sanders never really had that much of a chance at winning. From a purely horse-race standpoint, in fact, the media probably exaggerated the competitiveness of the race. But thats not to diminish Sanderss accomplishments in terms of what they mean for the Democratic Party after 2016. Its significant that Sanders in particular and not Warren or Joe Biden or Martin OMalley finished in second place.Really, it's fun to make a point and claim for which you can actually provide links to reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate your claim. Then it doesn't look like you're just making up stuff on the fly.
I encourage you to try it sometime.
The data is from Bloomberg. It requires a subscription to access but you can get the info by Googling from other sources if you're willing to spend the time. The St. Louis Fed is often a good source for USA Data.I have provided links to both of those sources many times. I don't have a subscription to either and am not aware of anyone being blocked from accessing my links for lack of a subscription.
Also, what you assert ought to be easy to find from various sources as well as quoting the pertinent passages. Same as I do. Same as I did recently from, yes, Bloomberg.
Ascribing all the credit to the political party in power doesn't make sense. And ascribing credit to increasing tax rates really doesn't make sense, based what little I know about macroeconomics.I admire your patience and I read your comments with interest. But you're really wasting your time on these two. They are like Born Again Christians. They have drunk the KoolAid long and deep. Another good. Must be "Dem Party did it". Anything bad: "Chump". No other scenario is possible.
I asked you a question. You can refuse to answer it if you like, but this is sposed to be an opinion board. You shared your opinion, and I asked you a question on it. Why share your opinion if you are not going to support it? ...
... Go back to your neo-lib corner and thinki it over.
Okay, so I have questions now, after contemplating in my "neolib corner".
Well since we live in a neoliberal world (as the argument is often made), do you think we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism? Provide support your opinion/argument.
And what does "bothsidesism" have to say about neoliberalism, in America or Worldwide? Provide support your opinion/argument.
Now your turn, to go back to your "bothsidesism" neoliberal corner and think on my questions and report back.
I don't know enough about this issue to argue about it, or even to have an informed opinion, except that those billionaires in Martha's Vineyard are hypocrites. I have some sympathy for the Cubans and Venezuelans who have escaped totalitarian regimes and who were living in destitute poverty. And I love the influx of Cuban strippers who have showed up in my area. I mentioned this earlier, but in the county where I live, Trump won in 2020 by 60 percentage points. This is even though a plurality of the population is Hispanic and the majority are people of color. (You would have had a tough time getting me to vote for Trump short of holding a gun to my head, but that's neither here nor there.) A lot of Hispanics vote for Republicans. A majority of Cuban Americans vote Republican. I suspect the same may end up being true of the Venezuelans. As to the Cubans, whether this is because the Republican Party was more anti-Castro than the Democrats or whether it's because Cubans were fleeing socialism, and the Republicans are more anti-Socialist, I don't know. Anyway I don't see Bernie Sanders getting a lot of Cuban or Venezuelan votes.Billionaires? Really? As of 2011, there were 31 millionaires. About 50 in 2016. Maybe more now, but exactly how are they "hypocrites"? Are they more hypocritical than Donnie the Dumbass who loves idiot supporters but won't socialize with them?
One needs to remember that Latinos are a very conservative demographic, regardless of what Donnie the Dumbass and rightwingnut media spout. That they vote "conservative" doesn't surprise me.
I'd a hell of a lot rather live in Martha's Vineyard than South Texas, where the largest number of Latin American asylum seekers start out. South Texas is perhaps the most impoverished part of the USA. I saw a couple of the immigrants interviewed who were in Martha's Vineyard. They were damn glad to be there. But the locals, who likely are mostly greenies, won't even stand for construction of windmills offshore of Massachusetts. So you know they're going to throw up a stink at this. No windmills or poor Venezuelan asylum seekers in their backyards. Hypocrites.Exactly Martha Vineyard residents and VP Harris are going ballistic about the 50 illegals dumped on their doorstep. They are calling for emergency measures to stop this. The border is secure according to Harris but her neighborhood is no longer secure with 50 illegals. She will need to spend another $500,000 to build another wall around her property like Biden just did in Delaware. Remember walls don't work unless they are protecting the elite like Harris, Pelosi and Biden. Democrats definitely defund the police but get millions of dollars of private security. Remember you are not the elite. You do not need security or police to make your life safe. Just the elite politicians need security. You are just a citizen. It does not matter if you are robbed or assaulted as long as the elite are safe. And yes. Very dumb people still vote the elite in.
And on windmills you are correct. No windmills can be built were the elite live. They need to be built where the poor suckers who voted for them live. You the voter can't drive your gas car to work burning 2 gallons of gas because of emissions but the elite can jet everywhere burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel a day. Yes you willing be driving an EV in California in a few years but CA politicians will still be flying their jets.
Do you have any clue whatsoever of the requirements of applying for asylum? No, you don't.
Otherwise, you would realize that asylum seekers must enter the US at a normal POE and once they have applied for asylum, they are automatically given protected status. That something that FUX Snooze and rightwingnut media never mention and Repubs never bother to investigate. I would post a link but even though it is a government website, you would just idiotically call it "fake news". But go ahead and do an internet search. You won't, of course, but that's your problem.
Add to the above that virtually all of the families that were transported were lied to and were told that they would have jobs and housing provided. Of course, you believe (I won't use the word think because that'd be an impossible task) that lying is perfectly OK. After all, you believed every single one of Donnie the Dumbass' lies for 6+ years.
Add to the above that many of the folks who were transported had "court dates" as early as Monday and as far away as Texas. So, according to you, it was just fine that 50 folks were shipped to Martha's Vineyard without the funds to get them back to where they needed to be for their court dates..Yes I have a clue but obviously you don't. If you want to claim asylum you must go to a legal border crossings not illegally cross the border. All these people came illegally not legally trying to get asylum. It does not matter where these illegals end up because 97% of them will never attempt to go to their hearing. None of the people coming into USA are ever told by border agents that they will be getting jobs because it is illegal for them to work if they are not legal residents. In most states it is illegal to hire these people and companies can be fined.
I can assure you the way the asylum courts are backed up that if you illegally cross into USA on the weekend that your court date will not be the next Monday. Why do you post these lies.
It is not a publicity stunt because Texas, Florida and Arizona are overwhelmed by millions of illegals. These liberals are crying about 50. Wait until several thousand are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard and VP Harris back yard. There will be a border crises declared by democrats once thousands are in Martha's Vineyard.
Washington DC The situation of migrants being transported throughout the United States escalated even further today as Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to the media and officially declared a crisis at the border surrounding her residence in Washington, the. See.
There is now a serious border crisis. Not at our southern border, which is completely secure. I'm referring to the border around my own property, Vice President Harris said in her statement. My home is now under siege, surrounded by foreign nationals attempting to circumvent our laws and invade my estate. This is simply unacceptable and must be addressed.
The Vice President has already ensured the high-security fence around her home is in good condition and has instructed her Secret Service detail to perform routine, armed patrols of the property's perimeter to maintain strict border security from the busloads of migrants being dropped off outside.
When asked about allegations of hypocrisy regarding declaring a border crisis at her home while saying the nation's southern border is secure, the Vice President had this to say: "We understand that time and space are things that cannot be understood. To move forward, we look to the past and hold onto the hope for tomorrow. We have knowledge that isn't knowable, and we know that. Now get these people away from my house. ".
Yes total hypocrisy. I love it. Wait until thousands are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard. And thousands more on Harris front yard.
The data is from Bloomberg. It requires a subscription to access but you can get the info by Googling from other sources if you're willing to spend the time. The St. Louis Fed is often a good source for USA Data.FYI for those who don't know: Firefox has an extension aptly named Bypass Firewall. It has Bloomberg among other subscription-based media, so I would encourage anyone to post the links to any reputable media, subscription or not.
ScatManDoo
09-18-22, 19:27
That might be the exact hour where real judges in Atlanta end the rogue "mini rule" of the wicked witch judge of the east.
It might not work out the way I expect it to.
But my best guess is the reason the 11th Circuit federal court of appeals requested that TrumpShit's attorneys respond to the current DOJ's stay request by 10:00 AM Tuesday:
Is so the 11th Circuit Appeals Court can grant the stay (and further agree with DOJ) plus cancel the entire Special Master masterbation session (that's scheduled to begin at 2:00 PM on Tuesday in New York).
And on windmills you are correct. No windmills can be built were the elite live. They need to be built where the poor suckers who voted for them live. You the voter can't drive your gas car to work burning 2 gallons of gas because of emissions but the elite can jet everywhere burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel a day. Yes you willing be driving an EV in California in a few years but CA politicians will still be flying their jets.
Canada, manufacture of EV's leaves a larger carbon footprint than internal combustion vehicles. Volvo did a study on one of their vehicles and concluded you had to drive it 68,000 miles before you reach the crossover point, that is, before the EV would cumulatively be responsible for less carbon emissions than the ICV. And that's assuming you don't have to replace the batteries, in which case it will take longer. I think there's a lot of feelgoodism associated with the EV's. Some people are buying them to feel like they're doing something good for the environment. Maybe they are and maybe they're not. Mining lithium and cobalt and nickel devastates the environment more than extracting oil and gas, which you can do do with a small surface imprint.
Source for Tooms and Xpartan:
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf
Hint, You'll need to convert kilometers to miles.
Now if you generate a lot more electricity from wind and the like you'll lower the cross over point. But will that happen if the windmills obscure the views from the billionaire Democrats' houses, and kill birds that the Billionaire Democrats want to save?
I admire your patience and I read your comments with interest. But you're really wasting your time on these two. They are like Born Again Christians. They have drunk the KoolAid long and deep. Another good. Must be "Dem Party did it". Anything bad: "Chump". No other scenario is possible.I haven't quit trying yet TK. They're both very smart. Or at least I know Tooms is from being a fan of his in the Bangkok thread. I think they're a little lazy and just take for granted what they read in their favorite media sources is true and complete, as long as it agrees with their prejudices.
FYI for those who don't know: Firefox has an extension aptly named Bypass Firewall. It has Bloomberg among other subscription-based media, so I would encourage anyone to post the links to any reputable media, subscription or not.
I have provided links to both of those sources many times. I don't have a subscription to either and am not aware of anyone being blocked from accessing my links for lack of a subscription.
Also, what you assert ought to be easy to find from various sources as well as quoting the pertinent passages. Same as I do. Same as I did recently from, yes, Bloomberg.If you have a Bloomberg terminal, you can check my numbers in about 5 minutes. If not, you should be able to in under 45 minutes, with Google and web pages you can link to. Be sure you're looking at year on year numbers and not month on month numbers. Have at it.
Btw Tooms, since you posted a similar statement in reply to my post about oil and gas, and since I actually know a good bit about that, I think you should start posting links to justify all your observations about Bangkok working girls in the relevant threads.
I assume you were referring to the 2016 Democratic Primary election and not some secret or imaginary Presidential election involving Bernie Sanders, right?
Was The Democratic Primary A Close Call Or A Landslide?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/.
Really, it's fun to make a point and claim for which you can actually provide links to reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate your claim. Then it doesn't look like you're just making up stuff on the fly.
I encourage you to try it sometime.OK, you're right. Hillary Clinton won by a lot more than a c**t hair. I'm not going to argue with Nate Silver.
Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump like a drum in 2016 if you believe the polls. I have to give Democrats credit for picking the sane candidate, Hillary, even though she carried a lot of baggage. I have at least two friends whose political views are spot on with yours, who voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated Hillary.
As you requested, here's a link to something along the lines of reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate my claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Yes I have a clue but obviously you don't. If you want to claim asylum you must go to a legal border crossings not illegally cross the border. All these people came illegally not legally trying to get asylum. It does not matter where these illegals end up because 97% of them will never attempt to go to their hearing. None of the people coming into USA are ever told by border agents that they will be getting jobs because it is illegal for them to work if they are not legal residents. In most states it is illegal to hire these people and companies can be fined.
I can assure you the way the asylum courts are backed up that if you illegally cross into USA on the weekend that your court date will not be the next Monday. Why do you post these lies.
It is not a publicity stunt because Texas, Florida and Arizona are overwhelmed by millions of illegals. These liberals are crying about 50. Wait until several thousand are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard and VP Harris back yard. There will be a border crises declared by democrats once thousands are in Martha's Vineyard.You weren't there so you have absolutely no idea where or not they went to a legal border crossing and applied for asylum. Instead, you just parrot rightwingnut media BS. Nobody ever said they were told anything by border agents anyway. But don't let that stop your spin. Keep on going and you may make whipped cream and you can spread that on Donnie's schwantze.
Of course you don't believe any of the sources I posted. The only sources you believe are Fucker Carlson and other racist trolls like him and the rest of rightwingnut media.
Nobody is "crying" about anything. They are complaining that Costello and DeSatan shipped folks there any didn't bother to tell anybody. Even Ted "Who went to Mexico to keep warm" Cruz said that what they did was illegal if a private citizen had done it. But sure, keep on drinking the KoolAid. It must taste good.
And by the way, if it is illegal to hire these folks, why do you believe that they are coming to steal jobs?
You really need to start coming up with some new material. The rest of your comedy routine is getting a little old.
Yes total hypocrisy. I love it. Wait until thousands are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard. And thousands more on Harris front yard.It takes a complete fool to realize that what Travv posted was satire. I guess he should have posted a winkie-winkie icon in order to forewarn the numbskulls.
Yes I have a clue but obviously you don't. If you want to claim asylum you must go to a legal border crossings not illegally cross the border. All these people came illegally not legally trying to get asylum. It does not matter where these illegals end up because 97% of them will never attempt to go to their hearing. None of the people coming into USA are ever told by border agents that they will be getting jobs because it is illegal for them to work if they are not legal residents. In most states it is illegal to hire these people and companies can be fined.
I can assure you the way the asylum courts are backed up that if you illegally cross into USA on the weekend that your court date will not be the next Monday. Why do you post these lies.
It is not a publicity stunt because Texas, Florida and Arizona are overwhelmed by millions of illegals. These liberals are crying about 50. Wait until several thousand are dropped off in Martha's Vineyard and VP Harris back yard. There will be a border crises declared by democrats once thousands are in Martha's Vineyard.Martha's Vineyard is to democrat to accept illegals. Within 48 hours of the illegals arriving the military was called to bus and ferry the illegals of the island. Illegals are welcome by democrats but just not in their neighborhoods. Hypocrisy and racist at its finest. Hopefully Texas will send thousands more to Martha's Vineyard so they can keep showing the world the hypocrisy of the left.
Canada, manufacture of EV's leaves a larger carbon footprint than internal combustion vehicles. Volvo did a study on one of their vehicles and concluded you had to drive it 68,000 miles before you reach the crossover point, that is, before the EV would cumulatively be responsible for less carbon emissions than the ICV. And that's assuming you don't have to replace the batteries, in which case it will take longer. I think there's a lot of feelgoodism associated with the EV's. Some people are buying them to feel like they're doing something good for the environment. Maybe they are and maybe they're not. Mining lithium and cobalt and nickel devastates the environment more than extracting oil and gas, which you can do do with a small surface imprint.
Source for Tooms and Xpartan:
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf
Hint, You'll need to convert kilometers to miles.
Now if you generate a lot more electricity from wind and the like you'll lower the cross over point. But will that happen if the windmills obscure the views from the billionaire Democrats' houses, and kill birds that the Billionaire Democrats want to save?Windmills are banned offshore Martha's Vineyard and in areas of Delaware where Biden resides. Windmills will never be in neighborhoods of the democrat / socialist / communist elite.
MarquisdeSade1
09-19-22, 00:21
OK, you're right. Hillary Clinton won by a lot more than a c**t hair. I'm not going to argue with Nate Silver.
Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump like a drum in 2016 if you believe the polls. I have to give Democrats credit for picking the sane candidate, Hillary, even though she carried a lot of baggage. I have at least two friends whose political views are spot on with yours, who voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated Hillary.
As you requested, here's a link to something along the lines of reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate my claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.htmlWell firstly he wasnt legitimately elected.
But nonetheless hes in the oval office (for now).
But I digress, worst POTUS of our lifetimes? Nope I'm guessing that title will goto BUBBA until the end of time.
I could give Joe a tie with BUBBA but hes actually in 2nd place, nobody could outdo the damage BUBBA did.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/18/michael-savage-biden-worst-president-in-my-lifetime-administration-unrivaled-in-evil-corruption/
Okay, so I have questions now, after contemplating in my "neolib corner".
Well since we live in a neoliberal world (as the argument is often made), do you think we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism? Provide support your opinion/argument.
And what does "bothsidesism" have to say about neoliberalism, in America or Worldwide? Provide support your opinion/argument.
Now your turn, to go back to your "bothsidesism" neoliberal corner and think on my questions and report back.I'm confused. I'm a classical liberal. I think you may be confusing neoliberalism with classical liberalism. If so, please don't. It's insulting. The developed countries with the lowest government revenues and expenditures as a % of GDP are the USA, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. And when you kick out the petrostates and small countries, the places with the highest GDP per capita are the USA, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. That should tell you something.
Edit: Sorry, after reading JustTK's post, I don't really understand what this is all about. But I never want to lose a chance to point out the superiority of small government, so am not deleting the post.
Well firstly he wasnt legitimately elected.
But nonetheless hes in the oval office (for now).
But I digress, worst POTUS of our lifetimes? Nope I'm guessing that title will goto BUBBA until the end of time.
I could give Joe a tie with BUBBA but hes actually in 2nd place, nobody could outdo the damage BUBBA did.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/18/michael-savage-biden-worst-president-in-my-lifetime-administration-unrivaled-in-evil-corruption/Bubba kicked ass in his second term. But only because he worked with Newt Gingrich and likeminded Republicans. Together they balanced the budget, promoted free trade, reformed the welfare system, and cut the capital gains tax. And he stayed out of wars.
Okay, so I have questions now, after contemplating in my "neolib corner".
Well since we live in a neoliberal world (as the argument is often made), do you think we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism? Provide support your opinion/argument.
And what does "bothsidesism" have to say about neoliberalism, in America or Worldwide? Provide support your opinion/argument.
I have no idea what bothsideriem says about anything. Your binary brain taking over again I spose. I appreciate it must be difficult for you, and I won't hold you to blame since I don't beleive in free will anyway.
But I can speak for myself. You ask me to provide support for my opinion that we are in the End Times of Capitalism. Well, you can find many excellent books full of evidence on the subject. It is well documented and not something I can sum up in a forum post here. If you want the contents of long books summarized in to a few words, then you will most of the points (which it looks like you already did).
You ask me to provide support to my opinion that we are in the End Times of Capitalism. Well, you can find many excellent books full of evidence on the subject. It is well documented and not something I can sum up in a post on a forum here. If you want the contents of long books summarized in to a few words, then you will most of the points.
I have read several books by economist Harry Shutt. And I learnt that the main economic theories taught at university are a complete sham; what we take to be 'fact' are in truth a narrow dead-end view of what current economics is. He wrote: The Trouble with Capitalism, An Enquiry into the Causes of Global Economic Failure. This book's subject matter is self-explanatory. You can read a superb intro here: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-trouble-with-capitalism-an-enquiry-into-the-causes-of-global-economic-failure/introduction.
He then wrote Beyond the Profits System. Possibilities for a Post-Capitalist Era, another excellent read and superb insight into possible solutions. "Since 2008, we have found ourselves confronted by an historic financial holocaust that world leaders have struggled to come to terms with. All have willfully ignored its long-term, systemic causes and are thus unable to chart a way to survival. Their continued denial stems from a vested interest in maintaining a capitalist profits system which is not only as destructive as it was in the 1930's but as outmoded as feudalism was in 1789. Thus it can now only be sustained by an increasing reliance to official misinformation, massive criminal fraud and the ever greater dependence of private corporations on state subsidy. ".
The book explains why attempts of Western governments to use 'extraordinary measures' to try and avert economic collapse are bound to fail, and why our only hope of reversing the tide is to abandon the traditional economic logic of endlessly expanding production in favour of responding to the aspirations of ordinary people. Such a transformation would make possible the allocation of resources to more socially desirable ends, including the assurance of basic economic security for all as a human right.
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/beyond-the-profits-system-possibilities-for-a-post-capitalist-era/introduction?from=search
Shutt is one of the few to expose capitalism's lies and imperfections, faults that critically threaten our democratic survival. ' - Publishers Weekly.
'Offers no easy answers, but suggests the West is going to have to face the fact that profit-maximising capitalism has run its course. ' - Tribune.
'Based on wide knowledge, well documented source material and sharp analysis, everyone who reads it will learn from it. ' - Liberation.
'This has been the most interesting discussion with an economist I have ever had in my life' George Galloway, Press TV.
If you want more: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+collapse+of+capitalism.
Bubba kicked ass in his second term. But only because he worked with Newt Gingrich and likeminded Republicans. Together they balanced the budget, promoted free trade, reformed the welfare system, and cut the capital gains tax. And he stayed out of wars.Few POTUSes and Congresses fought and were at opposite ends of agenda than Clinton and Newt Gingrich's fiasco House / Congress.
You do remember Gingrich's repeatedly failed Repub agenda was thwarted so often by Clinton and his far superior Dem agenda that he shut down the government, right? Twice. Clinton won and his agenda prevailed every time. Thank god.
The historically successful Clinton / Dem economy was already on its upward trajectory by mid 1994, long before Repubs took control of Congress. Thank god again.
After that, the only thing Repubs did was sniff around Clinton's balls and dick to find out where they'd been until Gingrich was kick out of office in humiliation.
LOL. The revisionist history about these things by Repubs and Repub Bothsiders is astonishing.
If you have a Bloomberg terminal, you can check my numbers in about 5 minutes. If not, you should be able to in under 45 minutes, with Google and web pages you can link to. Be sure you're looking at year on year numbers and not month on month numbers. Have at it.
Btw Tooms, since you posted a similar statement in reply to my post about oil and gas, and since I actually know a good bit about that, I think you should start posting links to justify all your observations about Bangkok working girls in the relevant threads.No, I'm not going to do your work for you. "Look it up" is not even substantiation for your conclusions about the data you cite. There might be tons more data on, say, Bloomberg, that tweaks and clarifies a reasonable conclusion that turns out to refute yours. There are usually articles and reports written by staffers and contributors for sources like Bloomberg based on all the data compiled without requiring every subscriber to dig in deep and come to limited conclusions about it.
And they are never shy about slamming Dems or Biden where the data justifies it. Then you will see the info in those articles repeated elsewhere, in sources that rarely require a subscription.
OK, you're right. Hillary Clinton won by a lot more than a c**t hair. I'm not going to argue with Nate Silver.
Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump like a drum in 2016 if you believe the polls. I have to give Democrats credit for picking the sane candidate, Hillary, even though she carried a lot of baggage. I have at least two friends whose political views are spot on with yours, who voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated Hillary.
As you requested, here's a link to something along the lines of reports, charts, data, etc that substantiate my claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.htmlThanks for the link. Yes, Bernie's poll numbers vs Trump circa April, May and June 2016 when they stopped polling for him were very good.
But so were Hillary's.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls.
There were plenty of Hillary advantages in the double digits at that time. Then, as usual, the polls tighten as each side pitches their pros and cons of the other.
Surely you don't think that consensus of polls' 10 point advantage for Bernie would have held or expanded all while Trump, Miller and Bannon were tapping into their warehouse of anti Semitic, anti Socialist, Ageist attack tools over the next several months, do you?
That warehouse is likely better stocked than their anti Woman, anti Clinton warehouse.
I have no idea what bothsideriem says about anything. Your binary brain taking over again I spose. I appreciate it must be difficult for you, and I won't hold you to blame since I don't beleive in free will anyway. ...
You ask me to provide support to my opinion that we are in the End Times of Capitalism. Well, you can find many excellent books full of evidence on the subject. It is well documented and not something I can sum up in a post on a forum here. ...
Sorry but I don't see your opinion on the subject matter anywhere in that diatribe you provided. Which is not surprising, given your "bothersidesism".
The question was, "Do you think we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism?" not what "Joe Author" thinks.
The "Joe Author" reference material is much appreciated, but you still have not told me what you think w/r to the question, followed by the reference material affirming your claims/opinions.
I understand, thinking for yourself, might actually mean standing up for something, but really, it not that hard if your have the courage of your convictions?
I'm beginning to think you don't actually think for yourself much.
I admire your patience and I read your comments with interest. But you're really wasting your time on these two. They are like Born Again Christians. ... Now who sounds like a broken record, lost, trapped, in your never ending, repeating the same chorus line, feeding off the same QAnon/Repub propaganda, that masks itself as "bothsidesism".
You just repeat that same ole QAnon/Repub dogma to support your so called "bothsidesism". Sad indeed!
To their credit many of your QAnon/Repub cohorts at the very least provide some form of evidence / data (minus the "cut-and-paste" artists), to support their claims/opinions.
Since you "admire" them so much, you would do well to follow their example and support your claims/opinions when you post, much like when you ask it of other BMs.
Again noted here:
I asked you a question. You can refuse to answer it if you like, but this is sposed to be an opinion board. You shared your opinion, and I asked you a question on it.
Why share your opinion if you are not going to support it? ... But like most QAnon/Rebup/Bothsidesists, it's rare (if at all), that you hold yourselves accountable for much these days.
I'm confused. I'm a classical liberal. I think you may be confusing neoliberalism with classical liberalism. If so, please don't. It's insulting. ...
Sorry, after reading JustTK's post, I don't really understand what this is all about ...
Hmmmm.....It's interesting to note that, the fact that you mistook neoliberialism for some form of imagined classical liberalism, does make me wonder about your US socio-eco-political understanding of things.
Not to be insulting, but it's always good to look before you leap, especially when trying to come to the aid of JustTK.
Anywho, you did apologize, so benefit of the doubt and all that...carry on!
Can I get YOUR opinion on neoliberalism? .Yep, read those books. Then you will understand my opinion. I agree w the author. I am not going to rewrite a text book for you.
You asked "provide support your opinion/argument." I did. I gave you plenty of references.
Bothsiderism - ergo, there are only 2 sides - ergo, "ur either with us or against us" neo-lib thinking - > ergo, binary thinking again - ergo, spider.
Bubba kicked ass in his second term. But only because he worked with Newt Gingrich and likeminded Republicans. Together they balanced the budget, promoted free trade, reformed the welfare system, and cut the capital gains tax. And he stayed out of wars.100% correct.
Martha's Vineyard is to democrat to accept illegals. Within 48 hours of the illegals arriving the military was called to bus and ferry the illegals of the island. Illegals are welcome by democrats but just not in their neighborhoods. Hypocrisy and racist at its finest. Hopefully Texas will send thousands more to Martha's Vineyard so they can keep showing the world the hypocrisy of the left.First off, the word you want is "too", with two (2) o's. There are three words in English that sound the same but are spelled differently and mean different things. Those words are 'to', 'too' and 'two'. Most people learn the difference by the third grade. Most people also know to proofread what they write and not rely on spellcheck. Evidently you missed class those years.
Second, what you wrote it classic rightwingnut media spin. You will call the following article "fake news" because of the source: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/marthas-vineyard-migrants-shelter-desantis/index.html You will also call the next articles "fake news" because it didn't come from the only news sources you believe, which are rightwingnut media or Q-Anon or straight from the asshole of Donnie the Dumbass: https://www.mvtimes.com/2022/09/16/migrants-refugees-will-move/ and https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/16/migrants-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-00057247 and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11219897/Marthas-Vineyard-migrants-moved-billionaire-enclave-Cape-Cod-military-base.html and hundreds more.
Martha's Vineyard is to democrat to accept illegals. Within 48 hours of the illegals arriving the military was called to bus and ferry the illegals of the island. Illegals are welcome by democrats but just not in their neighborhoods. Hypocrisy and racist at its finest. Hopefully Texas will send thousands more to Martha's Vineyard so they can keep showing the world the hypocrisy of the left.Yes you are right. Sanctuary city but they had the National Guard kick the illegals off the island. Those are your compassionate democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.
When neo-liberalism was alive and well. The Other 9-11. Conveniently overlooked by the criminals that rule the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L5mMTO_J3Y
But the USA still never stops runing the lives of the others so they can make money for the wealthy.
Yep, read those books. Then you will understand my opinion ...
ergo, binary thinking again - ergo, spider.
What, just so I can come up with NO opinions of my own, like you. That's a hard pass!!! Nice case study you present, as someone that "stands for nothing and falls for everything".
Ergo be the next bothsidesist with no opinions of their own, ergo spout QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist dogma, ergo justt KKK!!.
Once again it's amazing you cannot provide an opinion and support it, yet you ask other BMs to provide, what you cannot.
From my point of view. Your question was irrelevant. I asked you a question. You can refuse to answer it if you like, but this is sposed to be an opinion board. You shared your opinion, and I asked you a question on it. Why share your opinion if you are not going to support it? ...
No wonder another BM, rightly so, called your question(s) irrelevant. Kudos to him, as he was very much correct in his assessment of your question(s).
MarquisdeSade1
09-20-22, 12:37
You and a few others here used to love to post poll numbers just a few months ago. You know, "How low can he go? Jajaja" and all that.
Don't worry. The Repub Party is stationing all the election-denying QAnon loons they can scrape off the underside of rocks wherever necessary at the state and local level to make sure the election-denying Repub candidates on the ballots "win" no matter what the polls show or what the legitimate vote count is. As they wish they had done in 2020.I'm guessing most people with even the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty (ok maybe not you LOL) will agree many polls are paid by politicians and / or partisan media outlets to overtly manipulate the expectations of the electorate, that said there are fake polls and there are FAKE polls, not all fake polls are equal.
They can't lie all the time or even the dumbest of the dum dums (see this thread) wouldn't even believe them.
So I'm guessing they are bit more accurate between elections when they can do their least evil.
That said they go extra heavy on the deceit the closer an election gets, they churn out more and more polls in an effort to manipulate voters in their direction.
Even if they can only steer 1% in their direction they will feel that it was worth it.
Once again it's amazing you cannot provide an opinion and support it, yet you ask other BMs to provide, what you cannot.
WTF are you talking about? I have given you plenty of support. Bcos I asked you to do some research and read instead of writing it here, you think it is not valid? You think anyone here invented their own economic or political theory? So you do not credit anyone's opinion here bcos they didn't invent it themselves? What type of world do you live in UFM.
Yes you are right. Sanctuary city but they had the National Guard kick the illegals off the island. Those are your compassionate democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.It is quite amusing to see these two (as opposed to 'to' or 'too') charter members of the Moron Brigade believing whatever BS rightwingnut media spews. And not only do they believe it, they congratulate each other on believing it.
These two support lying to these folks and trafficking them and using them as a political stunt. I hope that the Texas sheriff and others find Abbott and Costello (aka DeInsaneness) guilty of human trafficking. If anyone else would have done the same thing they'd have been thrown in jail already.
FYI, you two ID ten t's, the National Guard escorted them to an ABF where they were provided shelter and services. But don't let facts stand in the way of a lie you two (not 'to' or 'too') believe.
Maybe Hanlon was right.
I'm guessing most people with even the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty (ok maybe not you LOL) will agree many polls are paid by politicians and / or partisan media outlets to overtly manipulate the expectations of the electorate, that said there are fake polls and there are FAKE polls, not all fake polls are equal.
They can't lie all the time or even the dumbest of the dum dums (see this thread) wouldn't even believe them.
So I'm guessing they are bit more accurate between elections when they can do their least evil.
That said they go extra heavy on the deceit the closer an election gets, they churn out more and more polls in an effort to manipulate voters in their direction.
Even if they can only steer 1% in their direction they will feel that it was worth it.Then why is it that you and the rest of the Moron Brigade believe that polls are all "fake" unless the poll shows what you want it to show? We saw this in the 2020 Presidential polls. If a poll showed Biden leading, you ID ten ts said that the poll was "fake". If the poll showed Donnie the Dumbass leading, you ID ten ts said the poll was accurate.
FYI, the polls that showed Donnie the Dumbass losing were the accurate ones!
Donnie the Dumbass banned offshore windmills in Florida. So much for the Biden lies, huh?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-28/trump-s-offshore-oil-ban-to-halt-coastal-wind-farms-too
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/9/29/trump-s-offshore-energy-ban-includes-east-coast-wind-farms
WTF are you talking about? ... So you do not credit anyone's opinion here bcos they didn't invent it themselves?You know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't provide any opinions of your own and it appears you are only here simply to USA / America bash.
Surely, you're not that dumb you can't paraphrase in your own words, expressed as your opinions, the "bothsidesism" writings of "Joe Author(s)"?
Or is that just too difficult for you to formulate an opinion of your own, after said reading? Let me put it too you in simpler terms. Consider it like a book report a school child has to give. They then use their own words to summarize their opinions as to what "Joe Author(s)" were saying. Simple enough!
From my point of view. Your question was irrelevant. I asked you a question. You can refuse to answer it if you like, but this is sposed to be an opinion board. You shared your opinion, and I asked you a question on it. Why share your opinion if you are not going to support it? ... As you said this is an opinion board. Where's are your opinions?
... What type of world do you live in UFM.Thank God its not your UFM, MFW.
Well LOL there are fake polls and there are FAKE polls ... Dude, if ya gonna to use my schtick, then at least get it right.
"There's evil and then there's E. V. I. L. ", just like Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf.
Shheesh!
MarquisdeSade1
09-21-22, 01:37
100% correct.Bubba belongs in a cell in Florence Co. With that hideous pig he calls his husband.
They are two low life criminals.
I'll name just a couple things he did to get a few hundred million in kickbacks laundered thru the CF.
CCP into the WTO, NAFTA Glass Steagal and gutted the safety net for millions of poor Americans not unlike that scumbag Ronnie the Retard.
MarquisdeSade1
09-21-22, 02:06
Then why is it that you and the rest of the Moron Brigade believe that polls are all "fake" unless the poll shows what you want it to show? We saw this in the 2020 Presidential polls. If a poll showed Biden leading, you ID ten ts said that the poll was "fake". If the poll showed Donnie the Dumbass leading, you ID ten ts said the poll was accurate.
FYI, the polls that showed Donnie the Dumbass losing were the accurate ones!https://www.dickmorris.com/the-polls-are-wrong-again/
Donnie the Dumbass banned offshore windmills in Florida. So much for the Biden lies, huh?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-28/trump-s-offshore-oil-ban-to-halt-coastal-wind-farms-too
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/9/29/trump-s-offshore-energy-ban-includes-east-coast-wind-farmsStupid politicians. They only care about political power, not what's best for the country.
Bubba belongs in a cell in Florence Co. With that hideous pig he calls his husband.
They are two low life criminals.
I'll name just a couple things he did to get a few hundred million in kickbacks laundered thru the CF.
CCP into the WTO, NAFTA Glass Steagal and gutted the safety net for millions of poor Americans not unlike that scumbag Ronnie the Retard.Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill saved social security and Medicare from bankruptcy. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich accomplished great things during Bill's second term. But yeah, we would have been better off if China had been forced to play by the same rules as everyone else when it came into the WTO. I don't know jack about Glass Steagall, but suspect you're right. Or at least if our regulations and regulators had been up to snuff, we might have foregone the 2008/2009 recession.
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill saved social security and Medicare from bankruptcy. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich accomplished great things during Bill's second term. But yeah, we would have been better off if China had been forced to play by the same rules as everyone else when it came into the WTO. I don't know jack about Glass Steagall, but suspect you're right. Or at least if our regulations and regulators had been up to snuff, we might have foregone the 2008/2009 recession.May I ask what on earth would lead you to suspect anything said about Glass-Steagall in that post or anywhere else is correct?
It is incorrect:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/repeal-glass-steagall-act-myth-reality
Just wondering. Are sources like that post where you got the idea that Ronald Reagan and later Newt Gingrich had anything to do with "saving Social Security" etc or anything other than obstructing and diminishing a much better Clinton / Dem economy in the 1990's than the historically positive one we had despite the Gingrich's Repub Congress' zero votes for the Clinton / Dem legislation and efforts to produce it?
MarquisdeSade1
09-21-22, 04:13
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill saved social security and Medicare from bankruptcy. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich accomplished great things during Bill's second term. But yeah, we would have been better off if China had been forced to play by the same rules as everyone else when it came into the WTO. I don't know jack about Glass Steagall, but suspect you're right. Or at least if our regulations and regulators had been up to snuff, we might have foregone the 2008/2009 recession.https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill saved social security and Medicare from bankruptcy.
Wow that's a tuff sentence to wrap my mind around LOL.
RR / and the GOP saved SS and Medicare LOL.
Those are really some Baghdad Bob like sentiments LOL.
And it was BUBBA that came up with his bullshit evil plan, the "3rd way" aka selling the DNC to Wall Street.
A model Barry Hussein dutifully continued as is Joe the Turd.
https://unherd.com/2018/10/third-way-lost-way/#text=How%20 the%20 Third%20 Way%20 lost%20 its%20 way%20 By, fateful%20 consequences%20 for%20 politics%20 throughout%20 the%20 democratic%20 West.
Republicans in some key swing states push back against Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf, daemon spawn incarnate and "standup for democracy".
Group of Pennsylvania Republicans back Democrat Shapiro for governor.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/group-of-pennsylvania-republicans-back-democrat-shapiro-for-governor/ar-AAZh1nj
https://www.koin.com/news/group-of-pennsylvania-republicans-back-democrat-shapiro-for-governor
Former Kansas Gov. (Rep) Bill Graves once again endorses (Dem) Laura Kelly in gubernatorial election.
https://kansaspublicradio.org/kpr-news/former-kansas-republican-governor-bill-graves-backs-democrat-kelly
https://www.kcur.org/podcast/up-to-date/2022-09-08/former-kansas-gov-bill-graves-once-again-endorses-laura-kelly-in-gubernatorial-election
Prominent Republicans (in Michigan) join a coalition to support (Dem) Whitmer for re-election.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news/prominent-republicans-join-coalition-to-support-whitmer-for-reelection-31063447
https://democraticgovernors.org/updates/coalition-of-prominent-michigan-republicans-endorses-gov-gretchen-whitmer
Meanwhile, many of the QAnon / Repubs quackery, after campaigning on "stop the steal" and "Trump Won" rhetoric, to win their Primaries, suddenly do an "about-face" and declare Biden the winner of the 2020 election. (...kkk!)
Typical QAnon / GQP gutless, two-face hypocracy. So for now, like (R) Donald C. Bolduc of New Hampshire, lets just call Biden the winner, so we can pretend like we are "a moderate conservative Republican", in order to compete in the general election.
https://www.dickmorris.com/the-polls-are-wrong-again/Obviously you believe that Donnie the Dumbass won the 2020 election. ROFLMFAO.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill saved social security and Medicare from bankruptcy.
Wow that's a tuff sentence to wrap my mind around LOL.
RR / and the GOP saved SS and Medicare LOL.
Those are really some Baghdad Bob like sentiments LOL.
And it was BUBBA that came up with his bullshit evil plan, the "3rd way" aka selling the DNC to Wall Street
A model Barry Hussein dutifully continued as is Joe the Turd.
https://unherd.com/2018/10/third-way-lost-way/#text=How%20 the%20 Third%20 Way%20 lost%20 its%20 way%20 By, fateful%20 consequences%20 for%20 politics%20 throughout%20 the%20 democratic%20 West.You have really gone off the deep end with your headline: God (aka Trump) saved America in 2016.
If this was a public forum, I'd say you won the "Dumb Internet Comment Of The Century" award.
ScatManDoo
09-21-22, 22:20
So, to what country do you expect TrumpShit to flee to in exile?
In the prior century there were over 50 different known countries (documented) that were hosts of ousted dictators.
The leading exile destinations were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Argentina, and France.
I expect it will be Russia, where he's earned a double-agent pension (vested in it one week after stealing documents from the White House on moving day, Tuesday 1/19/2021).
How apropos, to a recent post here, as Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf, daemon spawn incarnate, is steaming mad that Ronald De-Satan-is, stole his idea for sending immigrants to the blue states.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-raged-desantis-stealing-his-limelight-immigrant-stunt-2022-9?op=1
https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/19/report-trump-mad-desantis-migrants-blue-states/
https://sports.yahoo.com/trump-fumes-desantis-stole-plan-235939712.html
It seems Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf, doesn't like it when someone else "steals his schtick". (....kkkk!)
Not to worry though, for unlike, Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf, I'm willing to share with anyone who wants to use "my schtick".
Peace Brother!
May I ask what on earth would lead you to suspect anything said about Glass-Steagall in that post or anywhere else is correct?
It is incorrect:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/repeal-glass-steagall-act-myth-reality
Just wondering. Are sources like that post where you got the idea that Ronald Reagan and later Newt Gingrich had anything to do with "saving Social Security" etc or anything other than obstructing and diminishing a much better Clinton / Dem economy in the 1990's than the historically positive one we had despite the Gingrich's Repub Congress' zero votes for the Clinton / Dem legislation and efforts to produce it?May I repeat myself, "I don't know jack about the Glass-Steagall Act."
Social Security would have gone bankrupt if not for the 1983 Amendments. Since you kindly pulled info from a think tank dear to my heart, the Cato Institute, I'll try to repay the favor. This is from the CBPP, a left of center organization.
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-its-not-1983
From the piece, "On April 20,1983, President Reagan signed major Social Security reform legislation, which Congress had passed by large bipartisan majorities. The program's actuaries had warned that unless policymakers acted Social Security would be unable to continue paying full benefits in July 1983. But soon after the law's enactment, the trustees certified that the trust funds wouldn't become insolvent until sometime outside their 75-year window for evaluating the program's long-term finances that is, until after the late 2050's....While Social Security isn't in crisis, 1983 does have lessons for us. One is the importance of bipartisanship; much of the credit for pushing a deal sometimes ascribed to the so-called Greenspan Commission actually belongs to then-Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan and pragmatists from both parties. ".
Take a look at the last column in the first table in the following.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
The growth in asset reserves in the "Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Funds," from $24.9 billion in 1983 to $2.9 trillion at present, is due almost entirely to changes in funding and spending provided for in the 1983 amendments.
You said you believe that bills that are passed with ANY Republican support are bad bills. So I can't sensibly argue with you about Clinton and Gingrich, any more than I could sensibly argue with a Trumpster about election fraud in 2020.
But, since I'm a fool....
The 1994 and 1995 budgets, passed when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, resulted in deficits of $203 billion and $164 billion respectively. After Republicans took control of the House, the deficits moved to surpluses. When we have split government, so that one party can't get everything it wants, spending isn't as likely to get out of control. You have to go back 30 years before Clinton and Gingrich to see a surplus -- a measly 3.2 billion in 1969. And we haven't seen once since. See https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays
I'd count the Welfare to Work bill and cutting the capital gains tax to 20% as other good things that happened during this period. You'd undoubtedly disagree.
Are you proud of me? I'm providing links!!!
ScatManDoo
09-22-22, 03:15
Yes you are right. Sanctuary city but they had the National Guard kick the illegals off the island. Those are your compassionate democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.What news programs do you watch?
That have left you so uninformed of what really happened?
MarquisdeSade1
09-22-22, 03:42
You have really gone off the deep end with your headline: God (aka Trump) saved America in 2016.
If this was a public forum, I'd say you won the "Dumb Internet Comment Of The Century" award.https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/hillary-and-bill-clinton-spotted-in-the-hamptons/
Hillary and bubba 2 low life white trash grifters that belong in prison!!
May I repeat myself, "I don't know jack about the Glass-Steagall Act."
Social Security would have gone bankrupt if not for the 1983 Amendments. Since you kindly pulled info from a think tank dear to my heart, the Cato Institute, I'll try to repay the favor. This is from the CBPP, a left of center organization.
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-its-not-1983
From the piece, "On April 20,1983, President Reagan signed major Social Security reform legislation, which Congress had passed by large bipartisan majorities. The program's actuaries had warned that unless policymakers acted Social Security would be unable to continue paying full benefits in July 1983. But soon after the law's enactment, the trustees certified that the trust funds wouldn't become insolvent until sometime outside their 75-year window for evaluating the program's long-term finances that is, until after the late 2050's....While Social Security isn't in crisis, 1983 does have lessons for us. One is the importance of bipartisanship; much of the credit for pushing a deal sometimes ascribed to the so-called Greenspan Commission actually belongs to then-Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan and pragmatists from both parties. ".
Take a look at the last column in the first table in the following.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
The growth in asset reserves in the "Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Funds," from $24.9 billion in 1983 to $2.9 trillion at present, is due almost entirely to changes in funding and spending provided for in the 1983 amendments.
You said you believe that bills that are passed with ANY Republican support are bad bills. So I can't sensibly argue with you about Clinton and Gingrich, any more than I could sensibly argue with a Trumpster about election fraud in 2020..Yes, and may I remind you you said an utterly inaccurate Clinton-bashing claim by a "my lord and savior" QAnon Repub was "probably right."
No, I didn't say bills that any Repubs vote for are "bad". Just that if it is a Dem-proposed bill it will be diminished in its positive results with every Repub vote for it. If it is a rare Repub-proposed bill it is generally improved with every Dem vote for it. 95%+ Dem-supported bills are bound to be effective and revered. 95%+ Repub-supported bills are bound to be crap wastes of money. As a rule.
There were several amendments to Social Security before and after 1983. It always must be tweaked for age demographics and contribution limits to "save it."
The only thing special about the one Reagan signed was that it included taxing Social Security for the first time. Reagan raised taxes, which would shock typically pro-Repub MSM today. Yeah, the "Great Economic Repub Icon" Teflon Ronnie raised a lot of taxes on a lot of Americans. To help pay for stuff.
The same way Clinton and the Dems' 1993 legislation produced those balanced budgets and budget surpluses in the following years. They raised taxes on the right people. "Because of", not just "after".
Clinton ran in 1992 on welfare reform. When Newt's Congress wasn't busy sniffing around Bill's balls and dick and not shutting down the government at a cost of millions, Clinton got it done.
In addition to giving serious consideration that some inaccurate Clinton / Dem-bashing statement by a QAnon Repub is "probably right", give this a thought:
Shall we dance through a short list of legislation passed when a Dem was in the White House and Dems controlled both Houses of Congress?
Social Security. A favorite of yours I believe.
Medicare. Ditto above.
Medicaid.
Unemployment Insurance.
The Civil Rights Act.
401 ks For Rank and File Employees.
The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Affordable Care Act.
The American Rescue Plan.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
To name just a few.
Ok, now it's your turn or anyone else's turn. Please list a few legislation highlights from when a Repub was in the White House and Repubs controlled both Houses of Congress.
I am anxious to see how the latter and when there is a governance "split" between the two major Parties compares so favorably to what is accomplished when Dems control of the Executive and Legislative Branch.
So, to what country do you expect TrumpShit to flee to in exile?
In the prior century there were over 50 different known countries (documented) that were hosts of ousted dictators.
The leading exile destinations were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Argentina, and France.
I expect it will be Russia, where he's earned a double-agent pension (vested in it one week after stealing documents from the White House on moving day, Tuesday 1/19/2021).Wherever it is, if he can be joined by the violent hillbilly suckers who send him their government checks to keep him barely afloat financially, likely the only "honest" money he has ever banked since daddy died and that money got flushed down the shitter, then Letitia James will be cited in history as a Great American Heroine.
The demonstrably Repub-leaning RealClearPolitics site and the highly regarded FiveThirtyEight site are both showing the Dems expanding their lead in those ever popular Poll of Polls questions:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
So the Repubs really need to get those Big Liar, Election-denying QAnon Repub Loons placed in their strategic state and local positions in order to overturn the legitimate vote results favoring Dems ASAP if they're going to squeak out a Congressional "win" here and there this Nobember:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=buHIY1dDaeA
Meanwhile, Joe Biden continues to score the highest Job Approval and Favorability rating on those sites of any party leader, each House of Congress and the Repub Party front-runner for the 2024 presidential nomination.
Donald J Trump aka God of All Gods, Our Supreme LeaderJajajaja, I think you're looking up when you should be looking down. As in it won't be a trident he's holding it will be a pitchfork.
Yes, and may I remind you you said an utterly inaccurate Clinton-bashing claim by a "my lord and savior" QAnon Repub was "probably right."
No, I didn't say bills that any Repubs vote for are "bad". Just that if it is a Dem-proposed bill it will be diminished in its positive results with every Repub vote for it. If it is a rare Repub-proposed bill it is generally improved with every Dem vote for it. 95%+ Dem-supported bills are bound to be effective and revered. 95%+ Repub-supported bills are bound to be crap wastes of money. As a rule.
There were several amendments to Social Security before and after 1983. It always must be tweaked for age demographics and contribution limits to "save it."
The only thing special about the one Reagan signed was that it included taxing Social Security for the first time. Reagan raised taxes, which would shock typically pro-Repub MSM today. Yeah, the "Great Economic Repub Icon" Teflon Ronnie raised a lot of taxes on a lot of Americans. To help pay for stuff.
The same way Clinton and the Dems' 1993 legislation produced those balanced budgets and budget surpluses in the following years. They raised taxes on the right people. "Because of", not just "after".
Clinton ran in 1992 on welfare reform. When Newt's Congress wasn't busy sniffing around Bill's balls and dick and not shutting down the government at a cost of millions, Clinton got it done.
In addition to giving serious consideration that some inaccurate Clinton / Dem-bashing statement by a QAnon Repub is "probably right", give this a thought:
Shall we dance through a short list of legislation passed when a Dem was in the White House and Dems controlled both Houses of Congress?
Social Security. A favorite of yours I believe.
Medicare. Ditto above.
Medicaid.
Unemployment Insurance.
The Civil Rights Act.
401 ks For Rank and File Employees.
The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Affordable Care Act.
The American Rescue Plan.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
To name just a few.
Ok, now it's your turn or anyone else's turn. Please list a few legislation highlights from when a Repub was in the White House and Repubs controlled both Houses of Congress.
I am anxious to see how the latter and when there is a governance "split" between the two major Parties compares so favorably to what is accomplished when Dems control of the Executive and Legislative Branch.What are you talking about? I like Bill Clinton. I'd rather have a beer with him than any other living ex-president. We could sit around and swap stories about poontang. I'd love to get the inside story on Monica Lewinsky. What possessed him to take up with her? He was the leader of the free world for goodness sake. She must have given an outstanding BBBJ.
The 1983 Amendment to the Social Security Act was the biggie. I believe it increased contribution %'s to where they are now. All adjustments since then have been small potatoes. Yes, Reagan and Tip O'Neill and others increased contributions. And in the process took a Ponzi scheme and changed it into a lesser sort of Ponzi scheme, that wouldn't go bankrupt in 1983.
My preference is for something like the Singapore's Central Provident fund, where employees and their employers pony up lots of money (37% of a person's salary) for investment for retirement, medical care, a downpayment on a house, and higher education. Or, for social security, something like Australia's superannuation scheme. But given the USA is unlikely to adopt either of those, making sure social security didn't go bankrupt is admirable.
Please note that I've already highlighted some of the good things that came out of bipartisanship in the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Just because you highlighted some legislation that was passed when Democrats controlled government does not make me feel compelled to highlight legislation that was passed when Republicans were in power. It does however make me feel compelled to slam some of the measures you mentioned.
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Unemployment Insurance.
The Affordable Care Act.
Social security, again, is a Ponzi scheme that depends on new entrants to the scheme to pay off people who were in it earlier. And the money that is set aside is invested in low return Treasury securities. Medical costs are totally out of control in the USA, over 18% of GDP! Crazy! The ACA, while admirable in extending insurance to more people, was doubling down on a failed system. Again, if I were dictator, I'd replace all of the above with something that makes sense like the Central Provident Fund. No points for Democrats for this legislation.
The American Rescue Plan.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
Great examples of pork heavy legislation targeted to corporate interests and citizens to get them to channel more contributions and votes to the Democratic Party, respectively! The American Rescue Plan supercharged inflation. The Infrastructure and CHIPs acts were bipartisan. The Inflation Reduction Act had "0" to do with inflation, and everything to do with channeling tax credits to smug upper income suburban Americans who want to feel good by driving EV's. And throwing money at green businesses that may or may not survive, but that will contribute to Democratic Party candidates and causes.
The other items, I'm too lazy to read up on them. I believe the Civil Rights Act had bipartisan support.
So, to what country do you expect TrumpShit to flee to in exile?
In the prior century there were over 50 different known countries (documented) that were hosts of ousted dictators.
The leading exile destinations were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Argentina, and France.
I expect it will be Russia, where he's earned a double-agent pension (vested in it one week after stealing documents from the White House on moving day, Tuesday 1/19/2021).My vote would be Russia as the first place he'd go.
Second place would be Hungary since their leader is a mini-Donnie-The-Dumbass.
Third would be Turkey although not likely.
What are you talking about? I like Bill Clinton. I'd rather have a beer with him than any other living ex-president. We could sit around and swap stories about poontang. I'd love to get the inside story on Monica Lewinsky. What possessed him to take up with her? He was the leader of the free world for goodness sake. She must have given an outstanding BBBJ.
The 1983 Amendment to the Social Security Act was the biggie. I believe it increased contribution %'s to where they are now. All adjustments since then have been small potatoes. Yes, Reagan and Tip O'Neill and others increased contributions. And in the process took a Ponzi scheme and changed it into a lesser sort of Ponzi scheme, that wouldn't go bankrupt in 1983.
My preference is for something like the Singapore's Central Provident fund, where employees and their employers pony up lots of money (37% of a person's salary) for investment for retirement, medical care, a downpayment on a house, and higher education. Or, for social security, something like Australia's superannuation scheme. But given the USA is unlikely to adopt either of those, making sure social security didn't go bankrupt is admirable.
Please note that I've already highlighted some of the good things that came out of bipartisanship in the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Just because you highlighted some legislation that was passed when Democrats controlled government does not make me feel compelled to highlight legislation that was passed when Republicans were in power. It does however make me feel compelled to slam some of the measures you mentioned.
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Unemployment Insurance.
The Affordable Care Act.
Social security, again, is a Ponzi scheme that depends on new entrants to the scheme to pay off people who were in it earlier. And the money that is set aside is invested in low return Treasury securities. Medical costs are totally out of control in the USA, over 18% of GDP! Crazy! The ACA, while admirable in extending insurance to more people, was doubling down on a failed system. Again, if I were dictator, I'd replace all of the above with something that makes sense like the Central Provident Fund. No points for Democrats for this legislation.
The American Rescue Plan.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
Great examples of pork heavy legislation targeted to corporate interests and citizens to get them to channel more contributions and votes to the Democratic Party, respectively! The American Rescue Plan supercharged inflation. The Infrastructure and CHIPs acts were bipartisan. The Inflation Reduction Act had "0" to do with inflation, and everything to do with channeling tax credits to smug upper income suburban Americans who want to feel good by driving EV's. And throwing money at green businesses that may or may not survive, but that will contribute to Democratic Party candidates and causes.
The other items, I'm too lazy to read up on them. I believe the Civil Rights Act had bipartisan support.Ok, I'll just count that as a No, neither you nor anyone else can think of one damn effective and now revered legislation promoted and passed when a Repub was in the White House and Repubs controlled both houses of Congress.
Of course, that combo does have the distinction of producing the Great Repub Crash and Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's and passing those Bush2 and Trump tax cuts that precipitated the 2-3 next biggest economic downturns and massive jobs destruction of the past 100 years. Along with the greater expansion of debt and deficits whenever a Repub is in the White House regardless which party controls Congress.
But don't worry. If this midterm goes the way these particular midterms traditiinally go despite the Repubs' total incompetence and their dismal polling trend, they and their undying supporters will again be able to claim all the positive results of the historic legislation passed by Biden and his Dem-controlled Congress happened "after" Repubs took majority control of this or that house of Congress, right? LOL. Yes, the same legislation they blasted and largely tried only to obstruct and thwart. Obviously, you know how that works.
Actually, congressional Repubs are already trying to take credit for positive results thanks to Biden / Dem legislation they didn't even vote for. Which is typical Repub behavior. Right up there with praising themselves for "saving" this or that revered Dem program while at the same time trashing it as a ponzi scheme and trying to repeal it.
Biden mockingly impersonated Republicans who tried to take credit for an infrastructure bill they didn't vote for
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-republicans-taking-credit-bill-they-didnt-vote-for-2022-9
Biden recession is now confirmed. The stock market is now lower than the day Biden took office. 401 K's and peoples life savings disappeared. Officially it is the worst performance of any president in history. Even worst than Carter. Biden policies are a joke. Leaders of other countries are mocking him as did South Korea's this week. Idiots are still talking about Trump rather than acknowledge the disaster that Biden has created. Economy and stock market thrived during Trump presidency even with democrat states shutting down businesses at record levels during pandemic. Market gain in 4 years in Trump presidency was 60%. Biden's is a negative. Worst first 2 years of any president in history. Losers continue to support Biden that is why they are losers. Biden has destroyed the prosperity of millions of Americans. Biden stupid followers tout highest inflation in 40 years, high crime and disaster on our border with trafficking and drugs coming into USA as accomplishments. Gas prices still over $5 a gallon is evidence of Biden energy policy. Idiots can not admit this has happened in Biden presidency so they continue to try to divert attention away from the Biden failures but running down Trump and republicans. Remember it was the dumb socialists and democrats who put Biden into office not republicans. Democrats officially got America into this recession.
MarquisdeSade1
09-23-22, 16:25
Biden recession is now confirmed. The stock market is now lower than the day Biden took office. 401 K's and peoples life savings disappeared. Officially it is the worst performance of any president in history. Even worst than Carter. Biden policies are a joke. Leaders of other countries are mocking him as did South Korea's this week. Idiots are still talking about Trump rather than acknowledge the disaster that Biden has created. Economy and stock market thrived during Trump presidency even with democrat states shutting down businesses at record levels during pandemic. Market gain in 4 years in Trump presidency was 60%. Biden's is a negative. Worst first 2 years of any president in history. Losers continue to support Biden that is why they are losers. Biden has destroyed the prosperity of millions of Americans. Biden stupid followers tout highest inflation in 40 years, high crime and disaster on our border with trafficking and drugs coming into USA as accomplishments. Gas prices still over $5 a gallon is evidence of Biden energy policy. Idiots can not admit this has happened in Biden presidency so they continue to try to divert attention away from the Biden failures but running down Trump and republicans. Remember it was the dumb socialists and democrats who put Biden into office not republicans. Democrats officially got America into this recession.https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/23/joe-biden-quietly-lowers-expectations-for-democrats-in-the-midterms-remember-barack/
Biden recession is now confirmed. The stock market is now lower than the day Biden took office. 401 K's and peoples life savings disappeared. Officially it is the worst performance of any president in history. Even worst than Carter. Biden policies are a joke. Leaders of other countries are mocking him as did South Korea's this week. Idiots are still talking about Trump rather than acknowledge the disaster that Biden has created. Economy and stock market thrived during Trump presidency even with democrat states shutting down businesses at record levels during pandemic. Market gain in 4 years in Trump presidency was 60%. Biden's is a negative. Worst first 2 years of any president in history. Losers continue to support Biden that is why they are losers. Biden has destroyed the prosperity of millions of Americans. Biden stupid followers tout highest inflation in 40 years, high crime and disaster on our border with trafficking and drugs coming into USA as accomplishments. Gas prices still over $5 a gallon is evidence of Biden energy policy. Idiots can not admit this has happened in Biden presidency so they continue to try to divert attention away from the Biden failures but running down Trump and republicans. Remember it was the dumb socialists and democrats who put Biden into office not republicans. Democrats officially got America into this recession.Makes Trump look like a savior. Only the fools will disagree with the facts. Not only has Biden presidency been a complete disaster but he has no clue on how to reverse this downward trend. And he has no qualified staff to help him. He is either just totally incompetent or just plain stupid. The only ones better off in USA from Biden presidency are the illegals, criminals and politicians. Not a sane person in USA would deny this.
MarquisdeSade1
09-23-22, 19:39
You have really gone off the deep end with your headline: God (aka Trump) saved America in 2016.
If this was a public forum, I'd say you won the "Dumb Internet Comment Of The Century" award.He saved this great country from the likes of a 3rd /4th terms of BUBBA.
DO not forget the 3 SC justices he appointed that will protect us going forward for the next 30-40 yrs from trash like you.
Dirtbag Biden is doing everything he can to destroy us for his CCP friends.
But we will survive, our Lord and Savior should be coming to the rescue very soon.
Inshallah.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
So, to what country do you expect TrumpShit to flee to in exile?
In the prior century there were over 50 different known countries (documented) that were hosts of ousted dictators.
The leading exile destinations were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Argentina, and France.
I expect it will be Russia, where he's earned a double-agent pension (vested in it one week after stealing documents from the White House on moving day, Tuesday 1/19/2021).
What better place for Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf, than 'Devil's Island', located in the group of islands called, Salvation Islands.
How very apropos!!! What better named place, could a devil seeking, a salvation hide-a-way, find?
Why is it called Devil's Island?
Well, its spoken of in reverential tones by the French underworld, Devils Island penal colony in French Guiana was home, at one time or another, to 80,000 of Frances worst criminals, the vast majority of whom never returned home. Made famous in Henri Charrires Papillon, prisoners endured a living death dubbed the 'dry guillotine'.
https://www.historyhit.com/locations/devils-island/
Apropos to the letter and by all accounts, sounds like the prefect get-a-way location for The E.V.I.L. Orange Menace.
Wow. Talk about a MEGA Bear crash in a stock. That is an 83% decline for Trump's signature foray into the stock market.
Trump SPAC shares are now around $16 after hitting $97 earlier this year
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/trump-merger-partner-shares-fall-dramatically.html?__source=androidappshare
After his two Bear Market declines in the stock market in his four miserable job destruction years in office and this huge decline in his stock, he should be considered the Patron Saint of Bear Markets and Massive Job Losses instead of anyone's lord and savior.
Biden recession is now confirmed. The stock market is now lower than the day Biden took office. 401 K's and peoples life savings disappeared. Officially it is the worst performance of any president in history. Even worst than Carter. Biden policies are a joke. Leaders of other countries are mocking him as did South Korea's this week. Idiots are still talking about Trump rather than acknowledge the disaster that Biden has created. Economy and stock market thrived during Trump presidency even with democrat states shutting down businesses at record levels during pandemic. Market gain in 4 years in Trump presidency was 60%. Biden's is a negative. Worst first 2 years of any president in history. Losers continue to support Biden that is why they are losers. Biden has destroyed the prosperity of millions of Americans. Biden stupid followers tout highest inflation in 40 years, high crime and disaster on our border with trafficking and drugs coming into USA as accomplishments. Gas prices still over $5 a gallon is evidence of Biden energy policy. Idiots can not admit this has happened in Biden presidency so they continue to try to divert attention away from the Biden failures but running down Trump and republicans. Remember it was the dumb socialists and democrats who put Biden into office not republicans. Democrats officially got America into this recession.Has the NBER issued an official statement on whether it is or isn't currently a recession but nobody heard about it?
Trump's Fed Chair appointee is certainly trying hard to artificially cool down Biden's roaring job-creating, wage increasing economy into perhaps a mild recession or close to one. But, being originally appointed by a Repub and, worse, by Repub Donald Trump, he's not very good at his job.
But replacing him in the midst of Trump's Pandemic Crash and Recession was not really an option for Biden without making the horrific conditions Trump made of everything and left behind even worse.
Interestingly, the Dow has yet to close in Bear Market territory even once so far and the S&P 500 Index has only barely closed below 20% from its all-time closing high. That's within a small handful of percentage points of their decline under Trump in 2018, a time many delusional Trumpsters identify as the "great" part of Trump's so-called presidency before his disastrous economic decisions resulted in, you know, disaster.
He saved this great country from the likes of a 3rd /4th terms of BUBBA.
DO not forget the 3 SC justices he appointed that will protect us going forward for the next 30-40 yrs from trash like you.
Dirtbag Biden is doing everything he can to destroy us for his CCP friends.
But we will survive, our Lord and Savior should be coming to the rescue very soon.
Inshallah.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/Calling people trash isn't argumentative? Really?
He saved this great country from the likes of a 3rd /4th terms of BUBBA.
DO not forget the 3 SC justices he appointed that will protect us going forward for the next 30-40 yrs from trash like you.
Dirtbag Biden is doing everything he can to destroy us for his CCP friends.
But we will survive, our Lord and Savior should be coming to the rescue very soon.
Inshallah.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/This time I will concede that you are "probably right".
No doubt about it your lord and savior Trump saved America from a 3rd /4th term of historic economic boom times, near all-time record high jobs creation, NO Recession, fantastic stock market gains, debt / deficit reduction leading to budget surpluses, exemplary National Security response and protections, incomparable Peace and Prosperity.
In fact, no other so-called potus dragged us away from any of those dreaded outcomes faster and further than did your lord and savior Trump.
When Repubs take over after Dems have shouldeted all the heavy lifting and assumed all the political risk of proposing, fighting for, negotiationg and passing complex but necessary and ultimately revered legislation, creating conditions that produce the only great economic results America has seen in 100 years and none of the major downturns that are the signature achievements of the Repub Party, they typically proudly announce something like "We're going to turn this economy around"!
Believe them.
There is no doubt that most Americans are unhappy with the state of America due to Trump's Pandemic mass-murder of at least a million Americans, Trump's extraordinarily irresponsible defunding of our Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams where they were most needed contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid, his critical year of lies about it on the world stage as if he were writing an "I Was a Pandemic-Producing World Leader" script. Well, let's say having someone else ghost write it.
Then there was the worldwide economic and supply chain collapse and inevitable hyper-inflation that Trump's astonishingly incompetent stewardship triggered.
And we'll never forget the ongoing damage done to America and the cause of democracy around the world by Trump's unprecedented attempted coup against America, trying to overturn a free and fair American election, overthrow American democracy and all that.
But apparently most Americans are smart enough not to blame Biden and the Dems for it. And the polls clearly show they must appreciate the historically positive legislation and measures Biden and the Dems have taken to pull is out of the horrific mess of everything Trump and his classic Repub policies and stewardship produced and left behind:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
To update, Biden's Job Approval Rating is still higher than any other Party leader, higher than both the House and the Senate, higher than Trump's were in each of his first two years in office. The "good" Trump years, LOL. It is higher than Trump's was for his entire miserable 4 year term.
Also, Biden's Favorability Rating is still higher than jobless Trump's. And he still routinely beats 2024 Repub Front Runner candidate Trump in the hypothetical match up polls.
Oh, and more pertinent to the upcoming election, Dems continue to lead Repubs in the Generic Ballot question, something rare for the "in the White House" Party for these particular midterms.
Here too:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
MarquisdeSade1
09-24-22, 13:13
This time I will concede that you are "probably right".
No doubt about it your lord and savior Trump saved America from a 3rd /4th term of historic economic boom times, near all-time record high jobs creation, NO Recession, fantastic stock market gains, debt / deficit reduction leading to budget surpluses, exemplary National Security response and protections, incomparable Peace and Prosperity.
In fact, no other so-called potus dragged us away from any of those dreaded outcomes faster and further than did your lord and savior Trump.
When Repubs take over after Dems have shouldeted all the heavy lifting and assumed all the political risk of proposing, fighting for, negotiationg and passing complex but necessary and ultimately revered legislation, creating conditions that produce the only great economic results America has seen in 100 years and none of the major downturns that are the signature achievements of the Repub Party, they typically proudly announce something like "We're going to turn this economy around"!.https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/23/jjoe-biden-blooper-i-sure-in-hell-dont-think-we-should-be-funding-the-fbi/
Any investor doing just the most cursory due diligence and with any awareness of economic history at all would know immediately that "Reaganomics" was one of if not THE biggest losing proposition in economics.
The Great Repub Depression, Reagan's Great Repub Recession, W's Great Repub Recession, Trump's Repub Recession, the next Great Repub Recession, the one after that, etc etc were and will all be ushered in and exacerbated by dumb Repubs cutting taxes disproportionately high on exactly the wrong people and income margins:
Britain's lurch toward 'Reaganomics' gets a thumbs down from the markets.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/24/liz-truss-britains-lurch-to-reaganomics-gets-thumbs-down-from-markets.html?__source=androidappshare
Sterling was sent into a freefall after hitting 37-year lows against the dollar in recent weeks.
It ended Friday down nearly 3.6% against the greenback.
On the week it lost 5% and is now down 27% since just before the 2016 Brexit vote.
ING analysts said in a research note that investors are worried that the U.K. Treasury has now effectively committed to open-ended borrowing for these tax cuts.
Deutsche Bank analysts said that the price of easy fiscal policy was laid bare by the market on Friday.Oh, but Reagan and a Dem Speaker of the House once "saved" Social Security! LOL.
Yep. That was after Reagan damn near cleaned out Social Security and destroyed the rest of the USA economy by tripling the debt, skyrocketing the deficit and driving the unemployment rate into double digits for almost a year thanks to his idiotic "Reganomics" that by rights should have been called "Coolidge-Hoovernomics" because that is the Great Repub Depression / Great Repub Recession template that Repubs have been touting and applying to Crash the economy and wipe out millions of jobs ever since they discovered how effective it was for achieving that result in the 1920's.
DramaFree11
09-25-22, 01:11
Makes Trump look like a savior. Only the fools will disagree with the facts. Not only has Biden presidency been a complete disaster but he has no clue on how to reverse this downward trend. And he has no qualified staff to help him. He is either just totally incompetent or just plain stupid. The only ones better off in USA from Biden presidency are the illegals, criminals and politicians. Not a sane person in USA would deny this.Well said. Biden is a complete train wreck, and his staff is even worse. So sad.
Any investor doing just the most cursory due diligence and with any awareness of economic history at all would know immediately that "Reaganomics" was one of if not THE biggest losing proposition in economics.
The Great Repub Depression, Reagan's Great Repub Recession, W's Great Repub Recession, Trump's Repub Recession, the next Great Repub Recession, the one after that, etc etc were and will all be ushered in and exacerbated by dumb Repubs cutting taxes disproportionately high on exactly the wrong people and income margins:
Britain's lurch toward 'Reaganomics' gets a thumbs down from the markets.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/24/liz-truss-britains-lurch-to-reaganomics-gets-thumbs-down-from-markets.html?__source=androidappshare
Oh, but Reagan and a Dem Speaker of the House once "saved" Social Security! LOL.
Yep. That was after Reagan damn near cleaned out Social Security and destroyed the rest of the USA economy by tripling the debt, skyrocketing the deficit and driving the unemployment rate into double digits for almost a year thanks to his idiotic "Reganomics" that by rights should have been called "Coolidge-Hoovernomics" because that is the Great Repub Depression / Great Repub Recession template that Repubs have been touting and applying to Crash the economy and wipe out millions of jobs ever since they discovered how effective it was for achieving that result in the 1920's.The Moron Brigade will claim that "voodoo economics" (the real name for 'trickle down economics') works fine. They won't show any sources for this claim (of course), but they'll say it works.
They have as many sources for this claim as they do for "the election was stolen and we can prove it because we found that Italian satellites changed votes".
MarquisdeSade1
09-25-22, 06:23
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/china-xi-jinping-rumor/2022/09/24/id/1088879/
He can share a 5 man cell with Bubba and his husband, Biden and his junkie son.
MarquisdeSade1
09-25-22, 06:30
Well said. Biden is a complete train wreck, and his staff is even worse. So sad.At this rate hopefully the last.
A great discussion on change. What is needed. This is a video for ET, PVM, Spider, et al. All those that cannot recognise that they are part of the problem bcos they are so self-interested that do not even recognise that they are supporting the neo-lib status quo. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQZrgnpHTM
Vijay Prashad is particularly persuasive.
Or a glutton for punishment.
I endured all 28 minutes and 28 seconds of those tired and hackneyed homilies. Where was "Love thy neighbor as thy self" and "It's always darkest before the dawn"?
A great discussion on change. What is needed. This is a video for ET, PVM, Spider, et al. All those that cannot recognise that they are part of the problem bcos they are so self-interested that do not even recognise that they are supporting the neo-lib status quo. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQZrgnpHTM
Vijay Prashad is particularly persuasive.Not that the sentiment isn't worth reflecting on. It's just that it will never change anything. Yeah, Capitalism and the advantages of the well connected is so unfair. Then what?
I assume those two authors of nothing new and Harry Shutt hand over all the profits from their book sales to poor farmers, right?
ScatManDoo
09-25-22, 16:17
Rudy is headed to jail to die.
Strictly because he was foolish enough to grant credit to TrumpShit.
Which has left him broke and defeated.
Deservingly.
Well said. Biden is a complete train wreck, and his staff is even worse. So sad.Agreed. Biden presidency is a complete train wreck. There never has been a president in history that has failed the American people so badly. His foreign policy has shown the world that the leader of our country is fool. USA is the only country in the world with open borders. There have been record levels of drugs from Mexico that have entered USA. Record number of criminals, terrorists and traffickers have entered USA in the last 20 months. Gas prices are still $6 in our state and over $5 a gallon in Nevada. Inflation is at 40 year high. Stock market is lower now than it was when Biden took office. USA is in a recession. Americans are suffering. The world sees this. Complete idiots can't see the truth and are in denial. Mid terms are near. Biden and democrats running for this election are counting on the socialists / democrat voters to remain stupid. Biden wants you to forget the last 20 months as if they never happened. The socialists / communist democrats are doing everything in their power to deflect blame and talk about everything and anything to try to distract the voters from the crises they created. There will be a complete idiot that will probably disagree with this truth but remember. That he is a complete idiot.
Has the NBER issued an official statement on whether it is or isn't currently a recession but nobody heard about it?
Trump's Fed Chair appointee is certainly trying hard to artificially cool down Biden's roaring job-creating, wage increasing economy into perhaps a mild recession or close to one. But, being originally appointed by a Repub and, worse, by Repub Donald Trump, he's not very good at his job.
But replacing him in the midst of Trump's Pandemic Crash and Recession was not really an option for Biden without making the horrific conditions Trump made of everything and left behind even worse.
Interestingly, the Dow has yet to close in Bear Market territory even once so far and the S&P 500 Index has only barely closed below 20% from its all-time closing high. That's within a small handful of percentage points of their decline under Trump in 2018, a time many delusional Trumpsters identify as the "great" part of Trump's so-called presidency before his disastrous economic decisions resulted in, you know, disaster.Comparison of Trump disaster to Biden success.
1. Stock market up 60% in 4 years compared during Trump presidency.
Stock market down 3% in 20 months during Biden presidency.
2. Gas prices up almost 100% with Biden president compared to low price of gas with Trump.
3. Inflation at 1% during Trump presidency and 9. 1% inflation in Biden presidency. Highest in 40 years.
4. No wars during Trump presidency but now war in Ukraine with Biden failed leadership.
5. Crimes up over 50% under Biden compared to Trump after Biden and democrats started defunding police.
I could go on for another 20 comments on how bad and reckless the Biden presidency has been but everyone knows this. Everyone sees this. Everyone is suffering from the Biden failed policies and presidency. There will be some fools that disagree. But they will be the dumbest fools you know.
MarquisdeSade1
09-25-22, 17:22
The Moron Brigade will claim that "voodoo economics" (the real name for 'trickle down economics') works fine. They won't show any sources for this claim (of course), but they'll say it works.
They have as many sources for this claim as they do for "the election was stolen and we can prove it because we found that Italian satellites changed votes".Werent you just the smelly vagina complaining to the admin about this very thing, I see you think its ok, but when others respond in kind.
You try to scream to mommy for help, so very typical from Dems.
Not that the sentiment isn't worth reflecting on. It's just that it will never change anything. Yeah, Capitalism and the advantages of the well connected is so unfair. Then what?
And therein lies the problem. You are an educated person yet you are not willing to stand up and be one of the drivers for change, because you doubt it will lead to anything. Becuase people have this attitude, you condone and maintain the neo-lib status quo. That is exactly what I am getting at here. You prefer to stick to your own "hackneyed homilies" - how wonderful the Dem Party, and what a monster Chump and the Reps are. Don't you see that?
I assume those two authors of nothing new and Harry Shutt hand over all the profits from their book sales to poor farmers, right?Complete strawman! No one claims people shuld not be able to earn a living, especially while we navigate a path through this capitalist world.
BUt ET, a sincere thanks for watching the video, at least. :)
There is no doubt that most Americans are unhappy with the state of America due to Trump's Pandemic mass-murder of at least a million Americans, Trump's extraordinarily irresponsible defunding of our Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams where they were most needed contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid, his critical year of lies about it on the world stage as if he were writing an "I Was a Pandemic-Producing World Leader" script. Well, let's say having someone else ghost write it.
Then there was the worldwide economic and supply chain collapse and inevitable hyper-inflation that Trump's astonishingly incompetent stewardship triggered.
And we'll never forget the ongoing damage done to America and the cause of democracy around the world by Trump's unprecedented attempted coup against America, trying to overturn a free and fair American election, overthrow American democracy and all that.
But apparently most Americans are smart enough not to blame Biden and the Dems for it. And the polls clearly show they must appreciate the historically positive legislation and measures Biden and the Dems have taken to pull is out of the horrific mess of everything Trump and his classic Repub policies and stewardship produced and left behind:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
To update, Biden's Job Approval Rating is still higher than any other Party leader, higher than both the House and the Senate, higher than Trump's were in each of his first two years in office. The "good" Trump years, LOL. It is higher than Trump's was for his entire miserable 4 year term.
Also, Biden's Favorability Rating is still higher than jobless Trump's. And he still routinely beats 2024 Repub Front Runner candidate Trump in the hypothetical match up polls.
Oh, and more pertinent to the upcoming election, Dems continue to lead Repubs in the Generic Ballot question, something rare for the "in the White House" Party for these particular midterms.
Here too:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/Did you look at your 538 link? OK, you said Biden's approval rating is higher than any other party leader. I'll buy that. There are three party leaders, in the White House, Senate and House. His rating is higher than Nancy Pelosi's. And his rating is higher than McConnell's because both Democrats and pro-Trump Republicans hate his guts. But Biden's approval rating sucks. The September 21 ABC News poll shows him at 39%.
Also in your 538 link, the most recent general election poll for 2024, on September 22, shows Trump ahead of Biden by 51% to 45%, and ahead of Harris by 51% to 42%. I don't know how meaningful one poll is, but in general Trump's leading Biden. Look at this table.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html#polls.
Think about that. Trump not that long ago tried to upend over 200 years of American democracy. He's constantly in the news as a result of various investigations into his business dealings, treatment of confidential government documents, and post election shenanigans. And yet still, in large part because many Americans disapprove of Democratic Party policies, he's leading Biden in the polls! Incredible!
I'd say the same about Republican chances in the midterms. Despite all the damage the Republicans have done to themselves, by an ill timed abortion decision in the Supreme Court and their support of Trump, and Trump torpedoing many good Republican general election candidates who wouldn't support his lies, punters still believe there's about a 75% probability Republicans will take control of the House:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/6892/Which-party-will-win-the-House-in-the-2022-election
And that's not to mention that Biden and Democratic Congressmen are pulling out all stops to win the mid term elections. Biden will be continuing to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, at least until November, to bring down gasoline prices, even though the price of oil is down to $78.74 per barrel. And even though the SPR was meant to be used for real emergencies, not to improve a party's chances at the polls.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-sell-up-10-mln-bbls-oil-spr-nov-delivery-2022-09-19/
https://oilprice.com/
Then there's some of the legislation you highlighted in your post below, among the bills passed when Democrats controlled the presidency, the Senate and Congress. During the Biden administration, it included pork for Democratic Party contributors and Democratic Party controlled districts, tax subsidies for upper middle class Democratic Party greenies, and, in 2021, plain cash, through the American Rescue Plan. Like someone told me the other day, Joe Biden bought his big screen TV! Right, and supercharged inflation.
You think these investigations of of Trump coming to a head around the time voting is getting started for the elections is a coincidence?
And finally how about Biden's appearance at the auto show the other day. He didn't wear a mask, and he declared that COVID was over, just in time for the mid term elections. Who does that sound like?
This time I will concede that you are "probably right".
No doubt about it your lord and savior Trump saved America from a 3rd /4th term of historic economic boom times, near all-time record high jobs creation, NO Recession, fantastic stock market gains, debt / deficit reduction leading to budget surpluses, exemplary National Security response and protections, incomparable Peace and Prosperity.
In fact, no other so-called potus dragged us away from any of those dreaded outcomes faster and further than did your lord and savior Trump.
When Repubs take over after Dems have shouldeted all the heavy lifting and assumed all the political risk of proposing, fighting for, negotiationg and passing complex but necessary and ultimately revered legislation, creating conditions that produce the only great economic results America has seen in 100 years and none of the major downturns that are the signature achievements of the Repub Party, they typically proudly announce something like "We're going to turn this economy around"!
Believe them.Yes, Donald Trump is responsible for COVID. And Joe Biden ended the pandemic! Or at least he said it at the auto show last week.
I've come around to your way of thinking. You haven't been interpreting American events through blue colored glasses, and there was nothing spurious about those correlations I questioned. The correlations were achieved through divine intervention! Democrats were anointed by the Almighty, and Republicans are instruments of Satan!
Has the NBER issued an official statement on whether it is or isn't currently a recession but nobody heard about it?
Trump's Fed Chair appointee is certainly trying hard to artificially cool down Biden's roaring job-creating, wage increasing economy into perhaps a mild recession or close to one. But, being originally appointed by a Repub and, worse, by Repub Donald Trump, he's not very good at his job.
But replacing him in the midst of Trump's Pandemic Crash and Recession was not really an option for Biden without making the horrific conditions Trump made of everything and left behind even worse.
Interestingly, the Dow has yet to close in Bear Market territory even once so far and the S&P 500 Index has only barely closed below 20% from its all-time closing high. That's within a small handful of percentage points of their decline under Trump in 2018, a time many delusional Trumpsters identify as the "great" part of Trump's so-called presidency before his disastrous economic decisions resulted in, you know, disaster.
Has the USA gone through two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? Are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth popularly considered to constitute a recession?
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.
Elvis 2008
09-25-22, 19:07
The Moron Brigade will claim that "voodoo economics" (the real name for 'trickle down economics') works fine. They won't show any sources for this claim (of course), but they'll say it works.
They have as many sources for this claim as they do for "the election was stolen and we can prove it because we found that Italian satellites changed votes".I must be missing something. What is the Democratic alternative? We just saw the Dems keep the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers. Yes, those in the financial industry pay much less in taxes than the rest of us. It was the typical Democratic bullshit. All the Dems really, really wanted to end this but one senator said no, and they had no choice. Glenn Greenwald called the Dems out on this crap but you and Eih still buy it.
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.
Agreed. Biden presidency is a complete train wreck. There never has been a president in history that has failed the American people so badly. His foreign policy has shown the world that the leader of our country is fool. USA is the only country in the world with open borders. There have been record levels of drugs from Mexico that have entered USA. Record number of criminals, terrorists and traffickers have entered USA in the last 20 months. Gas prices are still $6 in our state and over $5 a gallon in Nevada. Inflation is at 40 year high. Stock market is lower now than it was when Biden took office. USA is in a recession. Americans are suffering. The world sees this. Complete idiots can't see the truth and are in denial. Mid terms are near. Biden and democrats running for this election are counting on the socialists / democrat voters to remain stupid. Biden wants you to forget the last 20 months as if they never happened. The socialists / communist democrats are doing everything in their power to deflect blame and talk about everything and anything to try to distract the voters from the crises they created. There will be a complete idiot that will probably disagree with this truth but remember. That he is a complete idiot.Yes you are correct on the Biden train wreck and the problem is he is to incompetent to fix it and his diversified and unqualified staff have no clue.
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.
Elvis 2008
09-25-22, 19:16
I could go on for another 20 comments on how bad and reckless the Biden presidency has been but everyone knows this. Everyone sees this. Everyone is suffering from the Biden failed policies and presidency. There will be some fools that disagree. But they will be the dumbest fools you know.I hate to disagree with you Cali, all your data points are right, but with inflation and the Fed raising rates, the dollar has gotten stronger under Biden. So an expat like Eih is laughing it up in Thailand with the stronger dollar while we suffer.
He is selfishly trying to convince us that we are doing better while in fact only people like he are.
Any investor doing just the most cursory due diligence and with any awareness of economic history at all would know immediately that "Reaganomics" was one of if not THE biggest losing proposition in economics.
The Great Repub Depression, Reagan's Great Repub Recession, W's Great Repub Recession, Trump's Repub Recession, the next Great Repub Recession, the one after that, etc etc were and will all be ushered in and exacerbated by dumb Repubs cutting taxes disproportionately high on exactly the wrong people and income margins:
Britain's lurch toward 'Reaganomics' gets a thumbs down from the markets.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/24/liz-truss-britains-lurch-to-reaganomics-gets-thumbs-down-from-markets.html?__source=androidappshare
Oh, but Reagan and a Dem Speaker of the House once "saved" Social Security! LOL.
Yep. That was after Reagan damn near cleaned out Social Security and destroyed the rest of the USA economy by tripling the debt, skyrocketing the deficit and driving the unemployment rate into double digits for almost a year thanks to his idiotic "Reganomics" that by rights should have been called "Coolidge-Hoovernomics" because that is the Great Repub Depression / Great Repub Recession template that Repubs have been touting and applying to Crash the economy and wipe out millions of jobs ever since they discovered how effective it was for achieving that result in the 1920's.Paul Volker's interest rates were primarily what pushed the USA from stagflation into recession, and then back into growth mode again. You can really blame the recession and job loss on high oil prices and what came before Reagan. That's unless you're a believe of Recep Erdogan, and believe lower interest rates are the cure for high inflation. That hasn't worked very well BTW.
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/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-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/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
Yes, Donald Trump is responsible for COVID. And Joe Biden ended the pandemic! Or at least he said it at the auto show last week.
I've come around to your way of thinking. You haven't been interpreting American events through blue colored glasses, and there was nothing spurious about those correlations I questioned. The correlations were achieved through divine intervention! Democrats were anointed by the Almighty, and Republicans are instruments of Satan!Nobody ever said that Donnie the Dumbass was responsible for COVID. What everybody with a brain has said is that Donnie the Dumbass fucked up the US response to COVID. He did so by lying to everybody in the US and by ignoring his own experts. Because, according to him, he alone could fix it.
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".
Ok, I'll just count that as a No, neither you nor anyone else can think of one damn effective and now revered legislation promoted and passed when a Repub was in the White House and Repubs controlled both houses of Congress....I don't have much to add to what I already said. I question whether the bills you listed were all that effective in producing good results, except for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And 75% of the Congressmen and Senators who voted against that were Democrats. The bill was filibustered by Senate Democrats for 74 days. Now yes, some southern Democrats switched sides. But since you believe in spurious correlations that shouldn't matter.
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/Divided_government_in_the_United_States
5. Crimes up over 50% under Biden compared to Trump after Biden and democrats started defunding police.This article might be of interest. Please note that Minneapolis, also known as "Murderapolis", hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1973.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html
Yes, Donald Trump is responsible for COVID. And Joe Biden ended the pandemic! Or at least he said it at the auto show last week.
I've come around to your way of thinking. You haven't been interpreting American events through blue colored glasses, and there was nothing spurious about those correlations I questioned. The correlations were achieved through divine intervention! Democrats were anointed by the Almighty, and Republicans are instruments of Satan!I never said Trump was responsible for COVID. Too nuanced?
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?
This article might be of interest. Please note that Minneapolis, also known as "Murderapolis", hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1973.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.htmlhttps://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red-city-defund-police-problem
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.
Elvis 2008
09-25-22, 23:42
Yes, Donald Trump is responsible for COVID. And Joe Biden ended the pandemic! Or at least he said it at the auto show last week.
I've come around to your way of thinking. You haven't been interpreting American events through blue colored glasses, and there was nothing spurious about those correlations I questioned. The correlations were achieved through divine intervention! Democrats were anointed by the Almighty, and Republicans are instruments of Satan!Tiny, you are finally catching on. Eih and PVM will post links to support their POVs, but I never remember either saying a Democratic has ever made a mistake. The only people who make mistakes in government are Republicans.
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.
Has the USA gone through two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? Are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth popularly considered to constitute a recession?
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.The answer is that Powell is not very good at his job. How could he be? He was originally appointed by a Repub, Trump no less. No way he could have or for that matter would have handled the challenge better if at all.
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.
Comparison of Trump disaster to Biden success.
1. Stock market up 60% in 4 years compared during Trump presidency.
Stock market down 3% in 20 months during Biden presidency.
2. Gas prices up almost 100% with Biden president compared to low price of gas with Trump.
3. Inflation at 1% during Trump presidency and 9. 1% inflation in Biden presidency. Highest in 40 years.
4. No wars during Trump presidency but now war in Ukraine with Biden failed leadership.
5. Crimes up over 50% under Biden compared to Trump after Biden and democrats started defunding police.
I could go on for another 20 comments on how bad and reckless the Biden presidency has been but everyone knows this. Everyone sees this. Everyone is suffering from the Biden failed policies and presidency. There will be some fools that disagree. But they will be the dumbest fools you know.Whenever we see a list like that we are only reminded what a fantastic great gift hand off Obama gave Trump vs the total shit hand off Trump gave Biden.
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.
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/tens-people-showed-pro-trump-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'.
DramaFree11
09-26-22, 01:01
Rudy is headed to jail to die.
Strictly because he was foolish enough to grant credit to TrumpShit.
Which has left him broke and defeated.
Deservingly.You claim all of Trump associates are going to Jail and none of them ever go.
I must be missing something. What is the Democratic alternative? We just saw the Dems keep the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers. Yes, those in the financial industry pay much less in taxes than the rest of us. It was the typical Democratic bullshit. All the Dems really, really wanted to end this but one senator said no, and they had no choice. Glenn Greenwald called the Dems out on this crap but you and Eih still buy it.It was Kyrsten Sinema who demanded that carried interest stay in place. I think she was taking the heat for Chuck Schumer and other Democratic Senators who wanted to continue receiving the largesse of private equity fund managers but didn't have the balls to admit it publicly. See this,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-houdinis-of-carried-interest-schumer-sinema-manchin-private-equity-loophole-capital-gain-political-charade-11659895350
That said, and while I agree with you about carried interest, I do like Sinema, a lot. Not only is she blonde and bisexual, but the woman has a head on her shoulders. We'd be stuck with at least another $2.5 trillion in pork laden spending and higher taxes if not for her and Joe Manchin.
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.I agree 100% about energy markets Elvis. He and the Progressives have destroyed a good part of the incentive to invest in fossil fuels in the USA. And then they go and blame the oil companies and refiners for high gasoline prices.
However, I must quibble about "other portions of inflation are not on him." Look at what Larry Summers, the most influential Democratic Party economist of the last 30 years, was saying before and after Biden et al passed the American Rescue Plan. He said it would supercharge inflation. And it did. I posted this before and it bears repeating.
"Larry Summers, the top economic adviser to former President Obama, warned in an op-ed on Friday that President Biden's proposed COVID-19 relief package is too big and could overheat the economy. Summers, the Treasury secretary under former President Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post that the proposed $1. 9 trillion stimulus could ignite inflationary pressures "of a kind we have not seen in a generation." He said the risk of inflation could have "consequences for the dollar and financial stability." "Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown," Summers wrote."
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5...us-is-too-big/
It turns out Summer's earliest but strangely rarely cited observation that Trump's Fed Chair appointee Powell was "behind the curve" on inflation, in other words Not Very Good At His Job, was dead on correct. Few other highly regarded economists disagree.
But on Biden? Summers' strangely too often cited opinion gets slammed by other highly regarded economists:
Is Larry Summers really right about inflation and Biden?
The Harvard economist is getting plaudits for the warnings he issued early last year, but some Administration officials and economists are questioning the basis of his arguments.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-larry-summers-really-right-about-inflation-and-biden
He certainly had those inflationary concerns very early, an economist said, of Summers. He also put out plenty of other scenariosenough that he almost couldnt be wrong.Cherry pick from the various and sundry Summers scenarios he flapped his yap about at every turn from very early on that you like and have fun with it. Oh, but be sure to include the global events that he didn't know were coming after he made those various and sundry predictions.
Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":
Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839
https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/
https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787
Tiny, you are finally catching on. Eih and PVM will post links to support their POVs, but I never remember either saying a Democratic has ever made a mistake. The only people who make mistakes in government are Republicans.
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.
Really? "By every measure, the Dems did worse economically with the pandemic than Republicans did.".
Tell me again that President Biden has lost more jobs than Donnie the Dumbass and provide a source that proves it. Unless, of course, you don't consider "jobs lost during the pandemic" to be either an economic factor or a pandemic factor.
I'll wait, gladly.
So says leading economist Jeremy Siegel.
I see Siegel agrees with Summers and me that the earliest cause of persistently high inflation in the wake of Trump's Pandemic's global economic destruction is that Trump's Fed Chairman appointment was just not good at his job.
Wharton's Siegel says Jerome Powell owes 'the American people an apology'
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/whartons-siegel-says-jerome-powell-owes-the-american-people-an-apology-for-poor-fed-policy.html?__source=androidappshare
"Honestly, I think Chairman Powell should offer the American people an apology for such poor monetary policy that he has pursued, and the Fed has pursued, over the past few years, Siegel said.
...
Siegel said on CNBCs Squawk Box that persistently high inflation in 2022 is due in large part to mistakes made by the Fed in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, which caused economic shutdowns around the world and big drops in global markets, and that the Feds pivot to fast rate hikes would cause more economic damage.Powell is certainly no Carter appointee, Paul Volker, who manipulated rates early and effectively enough beginning in late 1979 to establish a steady month-over-month decline in inflation starting in early 1980, almost a full year before Reagan took office.
And he barely triggered a recession in Carter's strong, job-creating economy at all. It was over just a few weeks after it began.
MarquisdeSade1
09-26-22, 16:50
Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":
Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839
https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/
https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/24/23366464/italy-elections-meloni-sweden-europe-far-right
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/democrats-lose-midterms-referendum-biden-jen-psaki/
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/26/italys-move-to-the-right-shakes-europe-as-giorgia-meloni-looks-set-to-form-government/
Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":
Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839
https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/
https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787Your Wikipedia link includes a section on "Reasons for over-performance by Democratic presidents". I'll quote in its entirety.
Blinder and Watson studied the comparative economic performance from Truman's elected term through Obama's first term in 2012. They excluded certain causes, and identified some possible causes. Excluded as causes were age and experience of the president, which political party controlled Congress, and quality of economy inherited (as Democrats tended to take over when times were more difficult). Further, fiscal and monetary policy did not seem to be possible causes. Changes in tax policy had little impact; for example, Clinton raised taxes while Reagan cut them, but both had strong growth. Interest rates had typically risen under Democrats and fallen under Republicans, which theoretically should have favored Republicans. Democrats did benefit from lower oil prices, larger increases in productivity, and better global conditions.
Blinder and Watson concluded that: "Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. ".
In other words, it wasn't party's policies or governance that accounted for over or under performance, it was blind luck.
I refuse to do more than scan the "Balance" article. Looking over the sections on taxation and climate, it's partisan bullshit. The USA has had the most progressive tax system in the OECD for a long time, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And why would Democrats' climate change policies affect economic performance?
As to Evonimics and New Republic, Mediabiasfactcheck.com indicates they're about as far left as you can get. I've got better things to do than read those.
I can't read your New York Times OPINION piece unless I'm a subscriber.
The market watch article agrees at least in part with my earlier reply to one of your posts. The outperformance is because recessions have occurred predominately during Republican administrations. The writer attributes this to three possible causes.
Luck.
Factors a president has no control over, like a sudden increase in oil prices.
Deregulation implemented during Republican administrations.
He fails to list a pandemic.
Given that I believe deregulation is a bull shit explanation, at least from what I've observed in my lifetime, I continue to believe the relationship between the party of the president and measures like GDP growth, median household income, median weekly wages, and unemployment is mostly spurious. I do give the Republicans some credit however for higher median weekly wages, higher median household income, and lower unemployment pre-COVID, in 2019, because of the corporate tax cut and deregulation.
On that last point, I haven't forgotten about your earlier post that included a couple of links, including one that used IRS tax statistics to show that lower income Americans haven't seen much wage growth during the Trump years, pre-COVID. I actually don't disagree with that, but suspect the IRS data will show that from the 50th percentile on up, we did very well. I just haven't had the time to download the IRS's excel tables and look at the data. But I will. I'll be back!
It turns out Summer's earliest but strangely rarely cited observation that Trump's Fed Chair appointee Powell was "behind the curve" on inflation, in other words Not Very Good At His Job, was dead on correct. Few other highly regarded economists disagree.
But on Biden? Summers' strangely too often cited opinion gets slammed by other highly regarded economists:
Is Larry Summers really right about inflation and Biden?
The Harvard economist is getting plaudits for the warnings he issued early last year, but some Administration officials and economists are questioning the basis of his arguments.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-larry-summers-really-right-about-inflation-and-biden
Cherry pick from the various and sundry Summers scenarios he flapped his yap about at every turn from very early on that you like and have fun with it. Oh, but be sure to include the global events that he didn't know were coming after he made those various and sundry predictions.I read the New Yorker article a long time ago. Here's a google news search on "Larry Summers Inflation" for 12/15/2020 to 3/10/2021, before the American Rescue Plan was passed. It's hilarious reading the criticism of Summers coming from administration officials and other pundits. Well, Summers turned out to be dead right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=larry+summers+inflation&rlz=1 C1 CHBD_enUS898 US898&biw=1920&bih=969&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3 A1%2 Ccd_min%3 A12%2 F1%2 F2020%2 Ccd_max%3 A03%2 F10%2 F2021&tbm=nws.
Maybe this will make sense to you. I'm quoting from the Financial Times, which is behind a paywall, so no link. This is Summers, in his own words, in an interview with Martin Wolf.
If you look at the economy at the beginning of this year, prevailing forecasts were that Covid would reduce wages and salaries to American households by $20 bn-$30 bn a month, with that figure declining over the year. So, that would be a $250 bn-$300 bn hole in wages and salaries over the course of the year.
So, I look at this hole and then I see $900 bn of stimulus in the December package, $1. 9 tn of stimulus in the recently passed package and $2 tn in the savings overhang, which is also likely to be spent. I see the Fed with its foot on the accelerator as hard as any Fed has ever done.
That could manifest itself, as a much smaller period of excess did during the Vietnam war, in rising inflation and a ratcheting-up of inflation expectations. It could, as has often happened, manifest itself in the Federal Reserve feeling a need for a sharp and surprising increase in interest rates, and the subsequent deceleration of the economy into recession.
It could manifest itself in a period of euphoric boom and optimism that leads to unsustainable bubbles, or it could all work out well. But, it doesn't seem to me that the preponderant probability is that it will work out well. So I'm concerned that what is being done is substantially excessive.
So you've got a $2 trillion savings overhang, wages reduced by $250 to $300 billion per year, and Biden et al helicopter drop $1. 9 trillion into the economy! That's almost 10% of GDP! Crazy! Nuts! No wonder the labor force participation rate hasn't bounced back to where it should be, despite there being 2X more job openings than people looking for jobs.
As to cherry picking Summers' scenarios, he said probably one of two things would happen.
1. High inflation and / or stagflation, or.
2. The Fed slams on the breaks so hard to prevent high inflation so that we go into a deep recession.
Well, "1" has already happened. "2" may be next. For completeness sake, the third possibility he threw out was that the Fed might adroitly avoid high inflation or recession. Well, that didn't come to pass.
MarquisdeSade1
09-26-22, 19:52
Your Wikipedia link includes a section on "Reasons for over-performance by Democratic presidents". I'll quote in its entirety.
Blinder and Watson studied the comparative economic performance from Truman's elected term through Obama's first term in 2012. They excluded certain causes, and identified some possible causes. Excluded as causes were age and experience of the president, which political party controlled Congress, and quality of economy inherited (as Democrats tended to take over when times were more difficult). Further, fiscal and monetary policy did not seem to be possible causes. Changes in tax policy had little impact; for example, Clinton raised taxes while Reagan cut them, but both had strong growth. Interest rates had typically risen under Democrats and fallen under Republicans, which theoretically should have favored Republicans. Democrats did benefit from lower oil prices, larger increases in productivity, and better global conditions.
As far as "overperformance" LOL.
You are much more astute about these matters than everyone else around here.
Here's a question, aren't Barry Husseins numbers largely skewed by the fact that the economy imploded right before he took the "bestest" ghost payroll gig of all time in Jan 2009.
Largely in part at the behest of BUBBA repealing Glass Steagal, tanking GWs #s and propping up Barry Husseins after the market inevitably recovered.
A great discussion on change. What is needed. This is a video for ET, PVM, Spider, et al. All those that cannot recognise that they are part of the problem bcos they are so self-interested that do not even recognise that they are supporting the neo-lib status quo. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQZrgnpHTM
Vijay Prashad is particularly persuasive.
Is there a "bothsidesism" opinion in your post? Or just more America and BM bashing from the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, JustTKKK?
Try looking at "the man in the mirror", as the one who remains the real problem, for their politics, stand for nothing and falls for everything.
Whenever we see a list like that we are only reminded what a fantastic great gift hand off Obama gave Trump vs the total shit hand off Trump gave Biden.
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.As always well said and a great reminder of what a good stable economy looks like under good and great leadership, in the form of Clinton, Obama and Biden, portraying the basic tenants of good governing and having decorum and decency w/r to the long standing tradition and honor of the transference of power.
Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf, couldn't even spell "decency", let alone have enough of it, to do the honorable thing and perform the peaceful transference of power.
As far as "overperformance" LOL.
You are much more astute about these matters than everyone else around here.
Here's a question, aren't Barry Husseins numbers largely skewed by the fact that the economy imploded right before he took the "bestest" ghost payroll gig of all time in Jan 2009.
Largely in part at the behest of BUBBA repealing Glass Steagal, tanking GWs #s and propping up Barry Husseins after the market inevitably recovered.Yes, GDP growth during Obama's terms wasn't anything special. It should have been exceptional, at least during the first term, given we were coming out of a deep recession. That's not to necessarily say Obama had much to do with that though. I have to give him and the Democrats in Congress credit for not raising taxes by rolling off the Bush tax cuts early, when they could have. Contrast with Biden who proposed raising taxes a lot in 2021, after another deep recession. Obama had some decent, although left of center, economic advisors like Larry Summers. Biden's more influenced by progressives, who are more interested in achieving progressive goals than sound management of the economy. Our Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen seems like she's willing to say whatever the White House wants her to.
Whenever we see a list like that we are only reminded what a fantastic great gift hand off Obama gave Trump vs the total shit hand off Trump gave Biden.
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.Yes. Obama made it very easy for Trump to turn around the economy and drive income and stock market soaring. All he had to do was reverse all Obama policies and get rid of all the stupid regulations that Obama put on businesses. Just doing the exact opposite of Obama policies created record growth and employment and a great America. It just took Biden a few days to reverse Trump policies on immigration and energy to get us in this disastrous presidency and economy. Yes Biden is stupid. Yes Biden is Incompetent. But the people that support and defend him are much dumber.
MarquisdeSade1
09-26-22, 22:17
Yes, GDP growth during Obama's terms wasn't anything special. It should have been exceptional, at least during the first term, given we were coming out of a deep recession. That's not to necessarily say Obama had much to do with that though. I have to give him and the Democrats in Congress credit for not raising taxes by rolling off the Bush tax cuts early, when they could have. Contrast with Biden who proposed raising taxes a lot in 2021, after another deep recession. Obama had some decent, although left of center, economic advisors like Larry Summers. Biden's more influenced by progressives, who are more interested in achieving progressive goals than sound management of the economy. Our Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen seems like she's willing to say whatever the White House wants her to.I have to give him and the Democrats in Congress credit.
He was too busy shooting hoops and smokin weed and having big parties snorting coke etc.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/obama-proposed-to-white-girlfriend-before-michelle-26jm0xq5g
Here's something in line with the rest of his self serving 8 yr ghost payroll gig.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-bill-reducing-cocaine-sentencing-disparity
https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/1172193879392772102
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-democrats-cocaine-issue-obama-233032
MarquisdeSade1
09-26-22, 22:18
https://stormer-daily.rw/apple-to-move-iphone-14-manufacturing-from-china-to-india/
I read the New Yorker article a long time ago. Here's a google news search on "Larry Summers Inflation" for 12/15/2020 to 3/10/2021, before the American Rescue Plan was passed. It's hilarious reading the criticism of Summers coming from administration officials and other pundits. Well, Summers turned out to be dead right.
https://www.google.com/search?q=larry+summers+inflation&rlz=1 C1 CHBD_enUS898 US898&biw=1920&bih=969&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3 A1%2 Ccd_min%3 A12%2 F1%2 F2020%2 Ccd_max%3 A03%2 F10%2 F2021&tbm=nws.
Maybe this will make sense to you. I'm quoting from the Financial Times, which is behind a paywall, so no link. This is Summers, in his own words, in an interview with Martin Wolf.
If you look at the economy at the beginning of this year, prevailing forecasts were that Covid would reduce wages and salaries to American households by $20 bn-$30 bn a month, with that figure declining over the year. So, that would be a $250 bn-$300 bn hole in wages and salaries over the course of the year.
So, I look at this hole and then I see $900 bn of stimulus in the December package, $1. 9 tn of stimulus in the recently passed package and $2 tn in the savings overhang, which is also likely to be spent. I see the Fed with its foot on the accelerator as hard as any Fed has ever done.
That could manifest itself, as a much smaller period of excess did during the Vietnam war, in rising inflation and a ratcheting-up of inflation expectations. It could, as has often happened, manifest itself in the Federal Reserve feeling a need for a sharp and surprising increase in interest rates, and the subsequent deceleration of the economy into recession.
It could manifest itself in a period of euphoric boom and optimism that leads to unsustainable bubbles, or it could all work out well. But, it doesn't seem to me that the preponderant probability is that it will work out well. So I'm concerned that what is being done is substantially excessive.
So you've got a $2 trillion savings overhang, wages reduced by $250 to $300 billion per year, and Biden et al helicopter drop $1. 9 trillion into the economy! That's almost 10% of GDP! Crazy! Nuts! No wonder the labor force participation rate hasn't bounced back to where it should be, despite there being 2X more job openings than people looking for jobs.
As to cherry picking Summers' scenarios, he said probably one of two things would happen.
1. High inflation and / or stagflation, or.
2. The Fed slams on the breaks so hard to prevent high inflation so that we go into a deep recession.
Well, "1" has already happened. "2" may be next. For completeness sake, the third possibility he threw out was that the Fed might adroitly avoid high inflation or recession. Well, that didn't come to pass."could, could, could. " Exactly the hedging all bets bit by Summers as cited by his critics.
And we "could" have an exceptionally bad Hurricane Season where my tax dollars will for the umpteenth time bail out deadbeat Repubs in Florida and Texas who crow about low taxes but can't ever seem to deal with their shit weather conditions on their own.
If that happens or if there is a new and unexpected virulent outbreak of Trump's Pandemic virus in key supply chain sources of the world or Putin decides to invade the United Kingdom, etc, at least we will have kept tens of thousands of businesses open and created millions more jobs along with the revenue generated with those Biden / Dem recovery measures that "could" have looked like too much to Mr. "could" Be Too Much or Too Hot For My Perfect World Summers but will definitely come in handy come emergency response time.
Yes, GDP growth during Obama's terms wasn't anything special. It should have been exceptional, at least during the first term, given we were coming out of a deep recession. That's not to necessarily say Obama had much to do with that though. I have to give him and the Democrats in Congress credit for not raising taxes by rolling off the Bush tax cuts early, when they could have. Contrast with Biden who proposed raising taxes a lot in 2021, after another deep recession. Obama had some decent, although left of center, economic advisors like Larry Summers. Biden's more influenced by progressives, who are more interested in achieving progressive goals than sound management of the economy. Our Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen seems like she's willing to say whatever the White House wants her to.We were not "coming out of a deep recession" on January 20,2009. We were deep in the middle of that particular Great Repub Recession. We would not be pulling out of it until the middle of Obama's first year in office. So all the total shit GWB to Obama hand off conditions and data up until at least that time unfairly landed on Obama's overall GDP and Jobs Creation record.
Or maybe, like Trump's Fed Chairman appointee, the problem was Larry Summers just wasn't very good at his job as Director of the National Economic Council from January 20,2009 to January 20,2011.
As always well said and a great reminder of what a good stable economy looks like under good and great leadership, in the form of Clinton, Obama and Biden, portraying the basic tenants of good governing and having decorum and decency w/r to the long standing tradition and honor of the transference of power.
Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf, couldn't even spell "decency", let alone have enough of it, to do the honorable thing and perform the peaceful transference of power.And we can not ignore the fact that Biden only had 51 potential votes in the Senate with 50 total deadbeat Repubs bent on little more than making their beloved lord and savior's horrific hand off even worse.
Biden could not ignore it.
Of course, Goldilocks Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold, Just Right For My Perfect World Larry Summers has never mentioned that factor.
Nor has he factored in the very good chance of things involving extreme weather conditions, flare ups of new and more virulent strains of Trump's Pandemic virus anywhere in the world, former nutty KGB World Leaders going nuttier, oh and how about whatever violent, explosive Domestic Terrorism acts might occur any minute incited and led by an even nuttier former so-called potus in the mix?
Gee, it just might turn out going a tad overboard rather than woefully under estimated on economic stimulus the one and only time you can bet on going to the well before that traditional 1st Midterm outcome comes around was really the best and most prudent option for a Real POTUS who knows he has no option to taste a bit of this porridge, a bit of that porridge and then the third porridge until he finds the exact right one before he heads up to the bedroom to test this mattress, then that one and on and on.
Goldilocks Summers and others like him can disregard those real world risks in order to opine in all directions what "could" happen if you create too many jobs and put too much money in the system in response to a totally new and unprecedented way for godawful Repub stewardship to destroy the economy and the country.
Biden can't.
Yes. Obama made it very easy for Trump to turn around the economy and drive income and stock market soaring. All he had to do was reverse all Obama policies and get rid of all the stupid regulations that Obama put on businesses. Just doing the exact opposite of Obama policies created record growth and employment and a great America. It just took Biden a few days to reverse Trump policies on immigration and energy to get us in this disastrous presidency and economy. Yes Biden is stupid. Yes Biden is Incompetent. But the people that support and defend him are much dumber.Obamas Last Three Years Of Job Growth All Beat Trumps Best Year
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/07/obamas-last-three-years-of-job-growth-all-beat-trumps-best-year/?sh=764e7d306ba6
Did Obamas Last 3 Years See More Jobs Created Than Trumps First 3?
TRUE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-created-more-jobs-trump/
FACT: New figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas ― a decline of 19% under Trump.And that was before Trump's disastrous economic decisions and stewardship back to 2018 and all through 2020 wiped out millions upon millions of jobs.
Which, as we all know, is the classic outgoing Repub hand off to the incoming Dem.
Yes. Obama made it very easy for Trump to turn around the economy and drive income and stock market soaring. All he had to do was reverse all Obama policies and get rid of all the stupid regulations that Obama put on businesses. Just doing the exact opposite of Obama policies created record growth and employment and a great America. It just took Biden a few days to reverse Trump policies on immigration and energy to get us in this disastrous presidency and economy. Yes Biden is stupid. Yes Biden is Incompetent. But the people that support and defend him are much dumber.Yes. Not only were big corporations affected with dumb Obama policies but small businesses as well. Trump reversing Obama policies were a blessing for small business. Trump decisions helped small business and led Americans into prosperity. But even though Obama was bad for Americans just look what the incompetent idiot Biden is doing. He even makes Obama look half decent. Biden is confident democrats are to stupid to see that inflation and open borders are bad for them.
The charts, graphs and data on this site comparing Obama's economy vs Trump's economy on most of the important metrics only go to the end of 2019, the "good" Trump years. So they don't even reflect Trump's final year where all of his worst economic decisions, crap stewardship and lies came home to roost and virtually all of the upward trajectories he inherited from Obama-Biden and coasted on until something challenging finally occurred went to total shit.
But all of the evidence, data and record of results throughout Trump's only "good" years clearly prove he most certainly did not build that good economy, he inherited it:
Donald Trump
stated on February 4, 2020:
"Years of economic decay are over" because Trump "reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration."
FALSE
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/06/donald-trump/no-economy-didnt-suddenly-get-strong-under-donald-/
Oh, and about that supposedly "roaring Stock market" under Trump where, sure enough, it appears the gains were somewhat bigger under Trump than under Obama.
Would you like to know why that happened?
Yep, we were warned by the Dems that did not vote for that crap legislation that this would happen when Trump and his Repubs handed the American taxpayer a bill for about $2. 5 Trillion for their god awful Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And, sure enough, this is exactly what happened:
What did corporate America do with that tax break? Buy record amounts of its own stock.
The White House promised '70 percent' of the tax cut would go to workers. It didn't.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-did-corporate-america-do-tax-break-buy-record-amounts-n886621
The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.So, for those out there who cannot connect 2 dots, allow me to help you. The $2. 5 Trillion bill Trump handed to the American taxpayer did NOT create more jobs. In fact, Trump's economy created 1. 5 million fewer jobs with it than without it during Trump's only "good" years until his economy wiped out millions upon millions of jobs at the Trump-to-Biden classic Repub hand off. It did NOT raise wages greater than the Obama-Biden economy did without it. It did NOT produce so much as a half a percentage point of increased GDP growth with it than without it.
It BOUGHT back stocks for corporate bigwigs in their own companies. LOL.
So whenever you see, hear or read someone crowing about those "great stock market gains" under Trump, now and forever you will know that was BOUGHT by the American taxpayer for a whopping $2. 5 Trillion along with the expense of FEWER jobs created, NO improvement in wages and NO noticeable improvement in GDP growth!
And now you know THE REST of the story.
Obamas Last Three Years Of Job Growth All Beat Trumps Best Year
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/07/obamas-last-three-years-of-job-growth-all-beat-trumps-best-year/?sh=764e7d306ba6
Did Obamas Last 3 Years See More Jobs Created Than Trumps First 3?
TRUE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-created-more-jobs-trump/Say you decide you want to start running the mile when you're in your mid 20's. The first time you go out to the track, it takes you 7 minutes. You do it a while, maybe a month or two, and your time goes down to 5-1/2 minutes. That's all well and good. Now, how long is it going to take you to get to 5 minutes? Will you ever do it?
It's the same with employment numbers. How many people have you got left to fill jobs as you get closer to full employment? The unemployment rate was 4. 7% when Obama left office, which is pretty respectable. It was 3. 5% in February, 2020, before we were feeling the effects of COVID. 3. 5% was the lowest we'd seen since 1969, and we haven't seen significantly lower numbers since the early 1950's.
Also, the wind was at our back, in terms of demographics. The working aged population increased by 2. 3 million during the three year period from 2013 to 2016. It only increased by 270,000 during the 3 years from 2017 to 2020. There were more working aged people entering the work force to fill jobs during the last three years of the Obama administration.
And that was before Trump's disastrous economic decisions and stewardship back to 2018 and all through 2020 wiped out millions upon millions of jobs.
Which, as we all know, is the classic outgoing Repub hand off to the incoming Dem.You may recall that I pulled Bloomberg data showing the USA had the smallest decline in GDP in the year ended 12/31/2020 of the five largest developed economies. I could try something similar for employment but since you question the veracity of the data I don't see the point. As to 2018 and 2019, equating lower corporate tax rates and deregulation with job losses is really topsy turvy. The Republicans' corporate tax cut and deregulation created jobs.
You don't have to live in a hyperpartisan world. Look,
Biden and the Democrats' move to negotiate drug prices for Medicare was long overdue.
Biden did not steal the 2020 election.
Biden is not the head of a crime syndicate that has taken billions in payoffs from Communist China.
Biden did not get the attorney general of Ukraine fired to help his son.
That was easy. You should try something similar.
Elvis 2008
09-27-22, 17:10
However, I must quibble about "other portions of inflation are not on him." Look at what Larry Summers, the most influential Democratic Party economist of the last 30 years, was saying before and after Biden et al passed the American Rescue Plan. He said it would supercharge inflation. And it did. I posted this before and it bears repeating.
"Larry Summers, the top economic adviser to former President Obama, warned in an op-ed on Friday that President Biden's proposed COVID-19 relief package is too big and could overheat the economy. Summers, the Treasury secretary under former President Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post that the proposed $1. 9 trillion stimulus could ignite inflationary pressures "of a kind we have not seen in a generation." He said the risk of inflation could have "consequences for the dollar and financial stability." "Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown," Summers wrote.I have no issue with your facts, Tiny. Thing is Trump did huge giveaways too and the Fed added $3 trillion to its balance sheet. Outside of oil, I would say the blame with inflation goes three ways then: on Trump, on Biden, and on the Fed with each getting 1/3 of the blame outside of energy. Add in energy and at least half of the inflation mess is on Biden.
I just do not want to engage in the cheap shots like Eih does, calling Chair Powell, Trump appointee Powell. Powell was kept on as Chair by Biden: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/22/president-biden-nominates-jerome-powell-to-serve-as-chair-of-the-federal-reserve-dr-lael-brainard-to-serve-as-vice-chair/.
This is what I call the Dems here dumb Dems. In their eyes, the only bad people in government are Republicans. Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.
Elvis 2008
09-27-22, 17:16
Really? "By every measure, the Dems did worse economically with the pandemic than Republicans did.".
Tell me again that President Biden has lost more jobs than Donnie the Dumbass and provide a source that proves it. Unless, of course, you don't consider "jobs lost during the pandemic" to be either an economic factor or a pandemic factor.
I'll wait, gladly.Trump and Biden's policies during the Pandemic were practically identical. What was a little different with Biden was more mask mandates, testing prior to returning to the USA, and pushing people to get vaccinated. None of which had much of an economic impact.
The economic differences were at the state level and economically there was a huge difference with regards to red and blue states.
Moron brigade? Werent you just the smelly vagina complaining to the admin about this very thing, I see you think its ok, but when others respond in kind.
You try to scream to mommy for help, so very typical from Dems.
When it comes to whining to the Admin/Mods, you QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, take "the orange cake".
As noted here:
And there it is again, attacking the messenger.Mod, can you ban this troll please?
Talk about whining like a "smelly pussy"-cat, when "the message" is the truth and is too much to bear for the uninitiated.
Typical, for most QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, when the truth hurts and all that's left, is a not too subtle cry for "h-e-l-p" to the Admin/Mods.
Anywho, Brother, whine on!
So says leading economist Jeremy Siegel.
I see Siegel agrees with Summers and me that the earliest cause of persistently high inflation in the wake of Trump's Pandemic's global economic destruction is that Trump's Fed Chairman appointment was just not good at his job.
Wharton's Siegel says Jerome Powell owes 'the American people an apology'
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/whartons-siegel-says-jerome-powell-owes-the-american-people-an-apology-for-poor-fed-policy.html?__source=androidappshare
Powell is certainly no Carter appointee, Paul Volker, who manipulated rates early and effectively enough beginning in late 1979 to establish a steady month-over-month decline in inflation starting in early 1980, almost a full year before Reagan took office.
And he barely triggered a recession in Carter's strong, job-creating economy at all. It was over just a few weeks after it began.Hey, I agree completely, that the Fed was asleep at the wheel. It's curious we're in agreement, because you support the Biden administration's extremely loose fiscal policy while you slam the Fed's extremely loose monetary policy. I can only figure it's because you somehow believe you can solely blame Jerome Powell for monetary policy, and let the other governors and the Fed bureaucracy off the hook. And, you believe since Trump originally elevated Powell to Chairman, Trump is somehow indirectly responsible. However, you fail to note that Obama originally appointed Powell to the Fed's Board of Governors. And you somehow brush off the fact that Biden re-appointed him as Chairman. You're really having to jump through hoops to blame Fed policy and inflation on Donald Trump.
Since Biden became president, there have only been two dissenting votes when the Fed Open Market Committee was setting the fed funds rate. Bullard wanted to increase the rate 0.5% instead of 0.25% in March, 2022, and George voted to increase 0.50% instead of 0.75% in June, 2022. Lael Brainard, the Vice Chair of the Fed who progressives were promoting to replace Powell, has voted with Powell and the majority every time.
Here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Federal_Open_Market_Committee_actions
And as to jumping through hoops, painting Volker, a Carter appointee, as one of the heroes who savaged inflation (which I agree with btw) while elsewhere pinning the blame on Reagan for the 1981/1982 recession takes the cake.
About my last reply to one of your posts, I forgot to include a link for population growth in the 18 to 64 year old age group. Since you like to see supporting links, here's one.
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6538-adult-population-by-age-group#detailed /1/ any / false /574,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867/117,2801,2802,2803/13515,13516.
Say you decide you want to start running the mile when you're in your mid 20's. The first time you go out to the track, it takes you 7 minutes. You do it a while, maybe a month or two, and your time goes down to 5-1/2 minutes. That's all well and good. Now, how long is it going to take you to get to 5 minutes? Will you ever do it?
It's the same with employment numbers. How many people have you got left to fill jobs as you get closer to full employment? The unemployment rate was 4. 7% when Obama left office, which is pretty respectable. It was 3. 5% in February, 2020, before we were feeling the effects of COVID. 3. 5% was the lowest we'd seen since 1969, and we haven't seen significantly lower numbers since the early 1950's.
Also, the wind was at our back, in terms of demographics. The working aged population increased by 2. 3 million during the three year period from 2013 to 2016. It only increased by 270,000 during the 3 years from 2017 to 2020. There were more working aged people entering the work force to fill jobs during the last three years of the Obama administration..And then with the wind at your back you jumped through 3 flaming hoops in a row and, behold, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses are no different than Great Dem Recoveries, Expansions and Historic Job Gains!
Fine. Then you might as well stop voting from now on because you can't tell the difference in the results of either Party anyway. Too many nit-picky irrelevant details have led you unavoidably to that conclusion. Congratulations.
Tallahassee, FL — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is being hailed as a hero after he used top-secret technology to reroute Hurricane Ian to Martha's Vineyard.
"I'll tell you what, hurricanes have been tormenting Florida for too long. Not on my watch!" said DeSantis to a crowd of screaming fans. "So you know what? We're going to load this hurricane onto a plane and fly it north. Martha's Vinyard, you'd better board up your 10,000 square foot mansions and cancel your polo matches, because Ian is on its way!
Martha's Vinyard residents have responded by flying to their winter homes in Florida and directing their house servants to prepare their homes for hurricane landfall. "The fact that DeSantis would spare his own densely populated cities and send the hurricane to ravage our multi-million-dollar mansions as a political stunt is beyond the pale," said Vineyard resident Karen Von Karen. "First the migrants, and now this? Haven't the good people of Martha's Vineyard suffered enough?
The DOJ has also responded, saying they will investigate the governor for using unapproved top-secret hurricane trafficking technology. "Hurricane trafficking is a serious offense, almost as serious as protesting at a school board meeting," said Attorney General Merrick Garland. "We will not let this horrific act go unpunished. The FBI will be sent to kick in doors, confiscate cellphones and stuff, and investigate to find what crimes he can be charged with!
At publishing time, the National Guard announced they will return all the Venezuelan migrants back from detention on the Army base to Martha's Vineyard to assist in Hurricane cleanup efforts. . .
Hey, I agree completely, that the Fed was asleep at the wheel. It's curious we're in agreement, because you support the Biden administration's extremely loose fiscal policy while you slam the Fed's extremely loose monetary policy. I can only figure it's because you somehow believe you can solely blame Jerome Powell for monetary policy, and let the other governors and the Fed bureaucracy off the hook. And, you believe since Trump originally elevated Powell to Chairman, Trump is somehow indirectly responsible. However, you fail to note that Obama originally appointed Powell to the Fed's Board of Governors. And you somehow brush off the fact that Biden re-appointed him as Chairman. You're really having to jump through hoops to blame Fed policy and inflation on Donald Trump.
Since Biden became president, there have only been two dissenting votes when the Fed Open Market Committee was setting the fed funds rate. Bullard wanted to increase the rate 0.5% instead of 0.25% in March, 2022, and George voted to increase 0.50% instead of 0.75% in June, 2022. Lael Brainard, the Vice Chair of the Fed who progressives were promoting to replace Powell, has voted with Powell and the majority every time..Yep. Some people are fine at one job and crappy at others. Eisenhower was a lucky General but as president he presided over three Recessions and one of the worst jobs creation records of any president in modern history. Go figure.
The Great Reagan Recession.
Below is a valuable piece of contemporaneous history in real time as it was happening. Later, revisionist historians, comfy Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders such as yourself would lay it all on the Fed's monetary policy and leave Reagan's Repub agenda and economic philosophy out of it.
But the Fed had tightened the money supply and raised rates even more under Carter and we didn't plunge into a Great Recession then. Presidents matter. They can promote measures that either contribute to reducing if not narrowly avoiding economic disaster or light a flame to trigger one or do nothing or do something that only serves to exacerbate a downturn.
Dems are masters of the former, far more positive approach. Remember Obama's Cash For Clunkers and the extraordinary measures he took to keep auto sales going and rescue the auto industry so as to deftly avoid worsening the Great Repub Recession he inherited from GWB? Repubs laughed at him and derided him for it. "Stop the bailouts. Just let it happen. Laissez Faire". They weren't any kinder to his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed and passed in late February 2009. "he will only make things worse! In fact, he did make things worse"!
MittWitt Romney was still claiming such a ridiculous thing in 2012.
By mid June 2009, not only was the Great Repub GWB Recession not "worse", we were pulling out of it and heading to one of the best, recession-free, job creating runs in history.
By contrast, disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins appears to be the all-purpose solution for every problem a Repub sees if he sees a problem at all.
And that's what Reagan did in 1981. It is not what Carter did in 1980. It is not what any Dem would have done on the mistaken belief that "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" policies would improve anything in the economy. In all likelihood, Carter and most other Dems would have found a way to extend those auto rebates and more. Demand-Side economic stimulus, not Supply-Side policy.
Reagan just sat on his pony and waited for his Repub Coolidge-Hoovernomics tax cuts for the rich to do what they always do. And, sure enough, they did. LOL. Nothing.
So, even though the Fed rates were higher under Carter a year earlier and they were trending downward under Reagan a year later, Carter's recession was barely a blip on the screen while Reagan's was one of the longest, deepest and most damaging in history. While he and every other "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" believer was waiting for their all-purpose solution to work its mythical and nonexistent magic.
And waiting. And waiting.
WHAT CAUSED THE RECESSION
November 24, 1981
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/24/business/what-caused-the-recession.html
...Economists offer several theories to explain the sudden shift downward. One was the further deterioration of consumer buying, which occurred gradually. The Fed's tight monetary policy is viewed as one factor behind the slowdown in sales. Another factor was inflation's continued erosion of personal real income. Yet another blow was the end of the rebates that stimulated automobile sales. 'An Additional Whammy'
....
'I think that business thought that the tax cuts would move the economy forward, and that by the fourth quarter, everything would work out,'' Mr. Ratacjzak said. 'A Shift in Perceptions'
But as the summer waned, so did confidence. ''There was a dramatic shift in perceptions between July and August,'' hed added. ''The mood had been that everything still looked good. Then the feeling that there would be immediate gains from the President's economic program just vanished, about the time the President signed the tax bill last August..
I have no issue with your facts, Tiny. Thing is Trump did huge giveaways too and the Fed added $3 trillion to its balance sheet. Outside of oil, I would say the blame with inflation goes three ways then: on Trump, on Biden, and on the Fed with each getting 1/3 of the blame outside of energy. Add in energy and at least half of the inflation mess is on Biden.
I just do not want to engage in the cheap shots like Eih does, calling Chair Powell, Trump appointee Powell. Powell was kept on as Chair by Biden: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/22/president-biden-nominates-jerome-powell-to-serve-as-chair-of-the-federal-reserve-dr-lael-brainard-to-serve-as-vice-chair/.
This is what I call the Dems here dumb Dems. In their eyes, the only bad people in government are Republicans. Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.Did Trump or did he not initially appoint Powell as Fed Chair? By definition and all available evidence, that assumes he would be very bad at his job. And he has been. I have explained numerous times why Biden avoided making Trump's horrific handoff even worse by not replacing him on day one. In many respects, Powell being the Fed Chair was a part of Trump's total shit but typical Repub-to-Dem handoff.
Stating a fact is not a cheap shot. Trump appointed Powell. If you want to mention that Biden kept him in place when that was the least bad of his options at the time, fine. But that does not mean Biden thought he was a great choice to appoint as Fed Chair. Trump did.
Tallahassee, FL Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is being hailed as a hero after he used top-secret technology to reroute Hurricane Ian to Martha's Vineyard.
"I'll tell you what, hurricanes have been tormenting Florida for too long. Not on my watch!" said DeSantis to a crowd of screaming fans. "So you know what? We're going to load this hurricane onto a plane and fly it north. Martha's Vinyard, you'd better board up your 10,000 square foot mansions and cancel your polo matches, because Ian is on its way!
Martha's Vinyard residents have responded by flying to their winter homes in Florida and directing their house servants to prepare their homes for hurricane landfall. "The fact that DeSantis would spare his own densely populated cities and send the hurricane to ravage our multi-million-dollar mansions as a political stunt is beyond the pale," said Vineyard resident Karen Von Karen. "First the migrants, and now this? Haven't the good people of Martha's Vineyard suffered enough?
The DOJ has also responded, saying they will investigate the governor for using unapproved top-secret hurricane trafficking technology.Once again you fail to list the source of your cut-and-paste. This satire is from "The Babylon Bee."
https://babylonbee.com/news/hero-desantis-flies-hurricane-ian-to-marthas-vineyard.
Werent you just the smelly vagina complaining to the admin about this very thing, I see you think its ok, but when others respond in kind.
You try to scream to mommy for help, so very typical from Dems.There's a big difference between labeling a group of people the "Moron Brigade" and calling a single individual as you did a "smelly vagina", etc.
And my post, if you recall, was to complain about the unequal treatment of comments. Several of my posts have been banned because the mods felt that they were "generally argumentative" but I was not given any specifics about what in the post was argumentative. Contrast to your post above where you called me a "smelly vagina" which is not, for some reason, considered "generally argumentative."
Of course, anybody with a functional brain will see that what I said is correct. The Moron Brigade doesn't fit that category.
Great discusion here on the current US immigration issues. Causes, solutions, etc (first half of program).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E_CbkA0Enk
Note, these anti-American, US-hating presenters do not take sides. They reflect on ALL bad policy. All government parties are to blame. And these 2 should be hung, drawn and quartered for their disloyalty to the flag.
No doubt no one here will be able to credit this video bcos it not biased to one party or the other.
PedroMorales
09-28-22, 15:52
Great discusion here on the current US immigration issues. Causes, solutions, etc (first half of program).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E_CbkA0Enk
Note, these anti-American, US-hating presenters do not take sides. They reflect on ALL bad policy. All government parties are to blame. And these 2 should be hung, drawn and quartered for their disloyalty to the flag.
No doubt no one here will be able to credit this video bcos it not biased to one party or the other.I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS. Though the USA stinks, there are Egyptian plovers who feed off it. Interesting who gets deplatformed and de monetized and who does not. I didn't watch the video because a. Nasal American accent like hers make me puke (did someone break her nose or is it an American thing)? Be. Directionless yap yap.
I feel, tin hat foil time perhaps, the USA promotes its own micro oppositions so it can control it. One recent case is that of Caleb Maupin, an American leftie (sic). Google him and you will see he was running a cult, turning his junkie comrades into hookers and dominatrixes, and was into being spanked. Like wtf. The moderator has threads like this for family value apple pie reasons but when alternative Americans are the biggest sex freaks in the room.
Scott Ritter, done on a kiddie charge, most of the independent journalists in Ukraine seem to be sex criminals of one sort or another. And Joe Biden does like the little ones; he goes way back with them.
So, who but the desperate and the Jeffrey Epsteins would want to migrate to the land of the free and the food banks?
World War cannot come soon enough.
Biden has asked all US citizens to vacate Russia. Hopefully, they will return to Hamburger Land and stay there.
And then with the wind at your back you jumped through 3 flaming hoops in a row and, behold, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses are no different than Great Dem Recoveries, Expansions and Historic Job Gains!
Fine. Then you might as well stop voting from now on because you can't tell the difference in the results of either Party anyway. Too many nit-picky irrelevant details have led you unavoidably to that conclusion. Congratulations.In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. ".
Yep. Some people are fine at one job and crappy at others. Eisenhower was a lucky General but as president he presided over three Recessions and one of the worst jobs creation records of any president in modern history. Go figure.
The Great Reagan Recession.
Below is a valuable piece of contemporaneous history in real time as it was happening. Later, revisionist historians, comfy Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders such as yourself would lay it all on the Fed's monetary policy and leave Reagan's Repub agenda and economic philosophy out of it.
But the Fed had tightened the money supply and raised rates even more under Carter and we didn't plunge into a Great Recession then. Presidents matter. They can promote measures that either contribute to reducing if not narrowly avoiding economic disaster or light a flame to trigger one or do nothing or do something that only serves to exacerbate a downturn.
Dems are masters of the former, far more positive approach. Remember Obama's Cash For Clunkers and the extraordinary measures he took to keep auto sales going and rescue the auto industry so as to deftly avoid worsening the Great Repub Recession he inherited from GWB? Repubs laughed at him and derided him for it. "Stop the bailouts. Just let it happen. Laissez Faire". They weren't any kinder to his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed and passed in late February 2009. "he will only make things worse! In fact, he did make things worse"!
MittWitt Romney was still claiming such a ridiculous thing in 2012.
By mid June 2009, not only was the Great Repub GWB Recession not "worse", we were pulling out of it and heading to one of the best, recession-free, job creating runs in history.
By contrast, disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins appears to be the all-purpose solution for every problem a Repub sees if he sees a problem at all.
And that's what Reagan did in 1981. It is not what Carter did in 1980. It is not what any Dem would have done on the mistaken belief that "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" policies would improve anything in the economy. In all likelihood, Carter and most other Dems would have found a way to extend those auto rebates and more. Demand-Side economic stimulus, not Supply-Side policy.
Reagan just sat on his pony and waited for his Repub Coolidge-Hoovernomics tax cuts for the rich to do what they always do. And, sure enough, they did. LOL. Nothing.
So, even though the Fed rates were higher under Carter a year earlier and they were trending downward under Reagan a year later, Carter's recession was barely a blip on the screen while Reagan's was one of the longest, deepest and most damaging in history. While he and every other "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" believer was waiting for their all-purpose solution to work its mythical and nonexistent magic.
And waiting. And waiting.
WHAT CAUSED THE RECESSION
November 24, 1981
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/24/business/what-caused-the-recession.htmlYou're going to find very few economists who would agree with you, that high interest rates, to control inflation, weren't what caused the 1981/1982 recession. Or that the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, passed by Democrats and Republicans and signed by Reagan, exacerbated the recession. I have been known to read CBO reports for fun, and invariably tax cuts are associated with higher GDP growth. The incremental growth in some instances may not be that significant, but cuts don't cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, the 1981 act basically cut the maximum rate from 70% to 50%. The only people in favor of 70% maximum rates are Progressives and people like Saez and Zucman, who believe the revenue maximizing tax rate is about 75%. First of all, I believe that's bull shit, the maximizing rate is lower. And second I don't believe the chief end of man, or upper income earners, is to maximize government revenues, as I don't believe in slavery. And third, I believe the federal government, as opposed to my local and state governments, flushes a lot of the money I send it down the drain. And finally fourth, by eliminating loopholes and lowering the motivation to shelter income from extortionate taxation, the changes in tax policy during the Reagan administration may have increased the amount paid by upper income earners and even increased the progressivity of our tax system.
The tax cuts during the Bush and Reagan administration likewise may have increased the progressivity of the tax system. If you just look at tax rate tables, you'd say they did, as the % cut in rates for lower income levels was greater than for higher levels.
There's lots of blame to go around for the 2008/2009 recession, and our anemic recovery coming out of it, which resulted in higher deficits as a result of bailouts, stimulus spending and lower government revenues. Who do you blame? A lot of people and institutions -- politicians, regulators, mortgage companies, and investment banks among others. And perhaps most of all Americans who thought it was reasonable to buy $500,000 houses on $50,000 per year paychecks.
As to the NYT article, that's hilarious. The 1981 act was passed in August, and so by November, 1981, three months later, they hadn't ended the recession. No shit Sherlock (referring to the writer, not you.) Hell, the effect would have been limited to a reduction in a grand total of one quarterly estimated tax payment.
I have no issue with your facts, Tiny. Thing is Trump did huge giveaways too and the Fed added $3 trillion to its balance sheet. Outside of oil, I would say the blame with inflation goes three ways then: on Trump, on Biden, and on the Fed with each getting 1/3 of the blame outside of energy. Add in energy and at least half of the inflation mess is on Biden.
I just do not want to engage in the cheap shots like Eih does, calling Chair Powell, Trump appointee Powell. Powell was kept on as Chair by Biden: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/22/president-biden-nominates-jerome-powell-to-serve-as-chair-of-the-federal-reserve-dr-lael-brainard-to-serve-as-vice-chair/.
This is what I call the Dems here dumb Dems. In their eyes, the only bad people in government are Republicans. Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.You've got a good point Elvis. Total stimulus spending was around $5 trillion, and the over half of the occurred during the Trump administration. McConnell and Senate Republicans, at least by December of 2020, were more than ready to cut off the spigot, but ended up compromising with Trump and Pelosi to keep the funds flowing. I'm not a fan of putting all the blame on specific individuals, but would perhaps put slightly more blame on the politicians than the Fed. And of course commodity prices and supply chain glitches hurt too.
Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.One other thing, as I noted below, Obama originally nominated Powell. And the total number of Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, voting against Powell's reappointment this year was six. Thirteen Republicans voted against Powell and one abstained. So exactly why is Powell Trump's man? And why would you give him all the credit or blame for Fed decisions, when there are 7 governors and 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee? And the current bunch is usually mostly in agreement? Is John Roberts the only person on the Supreme Court who matters?
Great discusion here on the current US immigration issues. Causes, solutions, etc (first half of program).
Someone else watched this video and commented on it. Great comments here from Craig Jardula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAc23r2TwEU
In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. ".Without a doubt.
US immigration... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E_CbkA0Enk ...
I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS ... I didn't watch the video because ... Outta all that rant and ramble, I'll agree, that QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, will offer up BS as evidence of what I don't know.
As he's still yet to formulate an opinion of anything.
I didn't watch said video, click on it or link to the "bothsidesist" BS either! Don't plan to either!
Great comments here ...
While the "bothsidesist" is at it, consider the fact that by extension, one could also equally blame ALL RELIGIONS, for all the ilk in the world, too.
Go think on it, in your "bothsidesism" neoliberal corner! An opinion would be much appreciated.
I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS. ... I didn't watch the video because a. Nasal American accent like hers make me puke..
I didn't bother with the rest of your comments because your first comment carries such a strong contradiction.
MarquisdeSade1
09-29-22, 00:55
Wait and see until after the bloodbath of Nov 8 LMAO seems they can't wait that long.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/us/politics/biden-jackie-walorski.html
Wait and see until after the bloodbath of Nov 8 LMAO seems they can't wait that long.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/us/politics/biden-jackie-walorski.htmlBiden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.
In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad..I see you're scratching and clawing at every detail you can dig up to demonstrate that those Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses over the past 100 years or so really weren't all the Repubs' fault or, oh look, that 25th crank of the meat grinder out of thousands in the sausage factory of legislation by a Repub and not a Dem produce a few jobs too and all that typical pro Repub Bothsiderism stuff.
But I'll bet even the dead Steve Jobs would concede that one's intentions, agenda and goals matter much, much more to an outcome than dumb luck here and there and interesting but ultimately meaningless anecdotal details.
Here's the deal: Repubs are at war with this government by, for and of the people. Have been for many decades. Their previous iconic Repub lord and savior, Reagan, popularized a war whoop against America; "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. " Reagan wasn't talking about a dictatorship or a monarchy in some faraway country. He was talking about America. And in America, great crises are solved by us, the government, we, the people.
It was not a giant leap at all to go from there to the current iconic Repub lord and savior's literal war against the American form of government.
So it is blissfully easy to predict that a, say, Fed Chairman originally appointed by a Repub and that had to be kept by the incoming Dem and others to avert even greater disaster at a time of crises would not be very good at his job. Repubs are at war with the Federal Reserve, too, or hadn't you noticed that detail?
When an entire Party is at war with the American government and has been working mightily for decades to prove that it "doesn't work", please explain why on god's green earth an administration of that Party would ever appoint someone as Secretary of a department, Fed Chairman, judges, staffers, you name it, that would do a great job of it and show how well this government works?
Yes, this is quite the opposite of the Dem Party agenda. They actually want to prove that this government of, by and for the people works and works very well to produce positive results.
Do you honestly believe for one minute a Repub administration within memory has wanted a team working hard to show the American people and the world that this government of, by and for the American people that they have been at philosophical and now literal war against for decades and decades "works" great, hey everybody, join the club?
Of course, that doesn't happen.
There are thousands of decisions that need to be made by a POTUS and an administration every day. If your underlying philosophy and intellectual goal and agenda is to prove "government is not the solution to our problems" in America, that we really should just cater to the financial wishes of and advantages to those kindly corporate CEOs, top income margins and business owners because of course they'll do the right thing for America and all the good they do will come "trickling down" to everyone else, then by the end of each day you will have inched the country closer to the next crisis and not further away from it. And that is so even if one of those detailed decisions accidentally turns out not to be so bad.
You cannot then be surprised, puzzled or bewildered enough by the pattern of Great Repub Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction vs Great Dem Recoveries, Expansions and Jobs Creation over the past 100 years to insist that if we just look at this or that silly detail, one out of a thousand cranks on the meat grinder of legislation, this or that perceived "hypocrisy", slight or imperfection, oh the demographics here, oh what that Senator did or said, magical economic cycles and so on unless you are just trying to stick your head in the sand and pretend the truth about it isn't the truth.
Steve Jobs would have kicked out an employee in a nanosecond if the overwhelming evidence was that employee was bent on making sure his company was a failure and decidedly not on making it a success. And he wouldn't have given a shit about some relatively insignificant detail. I doubt he would have even stood still for one minute to factor in such a detail before kicking out the traitor.
In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad..I'll add that this "bothsider" pejorative gets plenty of misuse. Attempts to examine many variables or to find truth wherever it may be found is a matter of integrity, and depending on your field, a professional responsibility. Calling out the bias and fallacies of partisans isn't always "bothsiderism. " In fact calling it such often serves as an ad hominem that short circuits legitimate discussion.
Elvis 2008
09-29-22, 16:58
One other thing, as I noted below, Obama originally nominated Powell. And the total number of Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, voting against Powell's reappointment this year was six. Thirteen Republicans voted against Powell and one abstained. So exactly why is Powell Trump's man? And why would you give him all the credit or blame for Fed decisions, when there are 7 governors and 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee? And the current bunch is usually mostly in agreement? Is John Roberts the only person on the Supreme Court who matters?I totally agree, and that is why it is a cheap shot to call Powell, Trump's Powell. Of course, we are all familiar with Eih's constant refrain of Dems good, Republicans bad, and this is another example of it.
Eih stayed long the market even when the Fed was tightening rates. I went short, and the reason is the Fed said they were raising rates. If you watch CNBC, 75% of the discussion there is what is the Fed going to do. It is an economic law that if the Fed raises rates, the overall stock market will go down, and the Fed has been saying literally every week in the clearest language possible, they are raising rates. Hell, one Fed governor even said "good" after the stock market went down.
Eih and I got into about investing and he bragged about his wealth and how smart he was which I avoid like hell. The last thing I want to hear about is why you were right (or more likely lucky) in the past. I do not care that much about track records. Make your case for today. His case was Biden is president. When the Nasdaq was down 20%, he refused to say there was a bear market because the NASDAQ was not a real index; only the S&P 500 is. Of course, the S&P 500 is now in bear territory too.
Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward.
If you get a chance, Tiny, check this out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c.
This guy Peter Zeihan gives out information I have not seen elsewhere. He makes a compelling case for why Texas is going to be the best place for world growth in the coming decades. In my mind, the USA enters a recession and the rest of the world a depression in the next year.
Why? Well, some people really thought you can just shut down world production for two years, print a bunch of money, and everything is going to be fine. Yeesh. The economic effects of the pandemic have just been delayed.
And if you read what Eih wrote, you will see the pandemic was Trump's fault too.
Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.I once heard a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus mistake 4,996 living American voters for corpses:
Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four.
Claim was part of push to overturn election but officials confirm four cases, all involving family members submitting votes
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/28/donald-trump-georgia-2020-election-dead-people
And, yeah, he was not using a teleprompter. It was 100% on him.
It just got a lot harder for the National Bureau of Economic Research to officially declare what is currently happening a "recession":
Jobless claims hit five-month low despite Fed's efforts to slow labor market
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/29/jobless-claims-hit-five-month-low-despite-feds-efforts-to-slow-labor-market.html?__source=androidappshare
Initial filings for unemployment claims fell last week to their lowest level in five months last week.
The drop to 193,000 was below the estimate of 215,000.
A separate report showed inflation running hotter than previously reported in the second quarter.A Bear Market decline, yes. Trump's Pandemic supply-chain destruction Inflation, yes. Putin's Dumbest War Ever oil and grain supply-chain destruction Inflation, yes.
But falling jobless claims, a Full Employment unemployment rate under 4% and monthly jobs creation in the hundreds of thousands do not typically spell "recession."
Powell probably should have led his board to increase the Fed Funds Rate to 5%+ months ago.
Yes, that would have thrown hand-wringing, crybaby Wall Street into a tizzy. But that's nothing new. Hand-wringing, crybaby Wall Street is always in a tizzy. Bad economic news, good economic news, no economic news, pending economic news, Wall Street is always in a hand-wringing, crybaby tizzy.
I totally agree, and that is why it is a cheap shot to call Powell, Trump's Powell. Of course, we are all familiar with Eih's constant refrain of Dems good, Republicans bad, and this is another example of it.
Eih stayed long the market even when the Fed was tightening rates. I went short, and the reason is the Fed said they were raising rates. If you watch CNBC, 75% of the discussion there is what is the Fed going to do. It is an economic law that if the Fed raises rates, the overall stock market will go down, and the Fed has been saying literally every week in the clearest language possible, they are raising rates. Hell, one Fed governor even said "good" after the stock market went down.
Eih and I got into about investing and he bragged about his wealth and how smart he was which I avoid like hell. The last thing I want to hear about is why you were right (or more likely lucky) in the past. I do not care that much about track records. Make your case for today. His case was Biden is president. When the Nasdaq was down 20%, he refused to say there was a bear market because the NASDAQ was not a real index; only the S&P 500 is. Of course, the S&P 500 is now in bear territory too.
Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward..I have been generously giving you a pass on your lies about what I post lately, Elvis my boy.
Now I will generously give you some free advice; Stop lying about what I post just to make you feel better about your apparently pathetic life. Try living well instead. I guarantee that will make you a happier fellow.
You're welcome.
You're going to find very few economists who would agree with you, that high interest rates, to control inflation, weren't what caused the 1981/1982 recession. Or that the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, passed by Democrats and Republicans and signed by Reagan, exacerbated the recession. I have been known to read CBO reports for fun, and invariably tax cuts are associated with higher GDP growth. The incremental growth in some instances may not be that significant, but cuts don't cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, the 1981 act basically cut the maximum rate from 70% to 50%. The only people in favor of 70% maximum rates are Progressives and people like Saez and Zucman, who believe the revenue maximizing tax rate is about 75%. First of all, I believe that's bull shit, the maximizing rate is lower. And second I don't believe the chief end of man, or upper income earners, is to maximize government revenues, as I don't believe in slavery. And third, I believe the federal government, as opposed to my local and state governments, flushes a lot of the money I send it down the drain. And finally fourth, by eliminating loopholes and lowering the motivation to shelter income from extortionate taxation, the changes in tax policy during the Reagan administration may have increased the amount paid by upper income earners and even increased the progressivity of our tax system.
The tax cuts during the Bush and Reagan administration likewise may have increased the progressivity of the tax system. If you just look at tax rate tables, you'd say they did, as the % cut in rates for lower income levels was greater than for higher levels.
There's lots of blame to go around for the 2008/2009 recession, and our anemic recovery coming out of it, which resulted in higher deficits as a result of bailouts, stimulus spending and lower government revenues. Who do you blame? A lot of people and institutions -- politicians, regulators, mortgage companies, and investment banks among others. And perhaps most of all Americans who thought it was reasonable to buy $500,000 houses on $50,000 per year paychecks.
As to the NYT article, that's hilarious. The 1981 act was passed in August, and so by November, 1981, three months later, they hadn't ended the recession. No shit Sherlock (referring to the writer, not you.) Hell, the effect would have been limited to a reduction in a grand total of one quarterly estimated tax payment.I didn't say Reagan's Supply-Side / Trickle-Down disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins exacerbated his Great Recession, although I think a case can be made for that. I said they did what they always do as an economic stimulus; nothing. And they did nothing to prevent that recession from being one of the worst in history.
I agree with you that tax cuts are often associated with higher GDP. I'll go further to state that tax cuts are also often associated with jobs creation and paying down the debt and deficit. But only when Dem Presidents propose tax cuts and get their way. Not when Repub Presidents propose tax cuts and get their way.
Where Repubs love to cut taxes disproportionately high is on the top margins. That is their signature Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax policy move. Which does very little or nothing to produce the positive results you and I both cited above.
Where it leads to exacerbating economic downturns rather than averting them is the Repub generally has to cut taxes at a markedly lower percentage, if at all, for the middle and lower income earners in order to "pay for" those beloved disproportionately high tax cuts for "the wealthy. " That 70% to 50% cut you mentioned regarding the 1981 act.
I think you will find that the 1981 act you referred to did cut taxes disproportionately high on the top, as you already mentioned, but at a much smaller percentage on the middle and lower margins, if at all. So what you got was a huge tax cut for a relatively tiny number of people, many of whom barely noticed it in terms of food on their table and cars in their garage, and meager tax cuts, if any, on a relatively gigantic number of people.
And, as that NYT article pointed out, there seemed to be an expectation that those Supply-Side tax cuts alone would avert a recession or at least diminish it without having to combine it with pro-acrive Demand-Side stimulus. Those auto rebates that were ended.
BTW, on that point, the NYT article didn't make the case that anyone expected the 1981 act to end the Recession "three months later". It was about how businesses had lost faith in Reagan's tax cuts to prevent a Recession in the first place, literally at his signing of it. And they were right to have lost faith in that. Maybe by then they did a little more due diligence on that 1929 Repub Crash and Depression.
And remember, in November 1981 nobody knew for sure we were officially in a Recession by then. So the tax bill was simply about stimulating and growing the economy, not to "recover" us from a Recession exactly. What was known was there was little to no positive sentiment and anticipation about the economy at the signing of the act.
I love tax cuts. One of the main reasons I vote for Dems is because of their tax cuts. Repub tax cuts have proven not to be worth shit for the general economy. But Dem tax cuts greatly improve the lives of most Americans. It's all about where, when and how the tax cuts are applied. You know, details.
So why did Dems vote for Reagan's ultimately practically useless except for racking up huge debt and deficits Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts in 1981? Three big reasons:
We had not yet seen that style of favorite Repub tax cuts demonstrate the disastrous pattern we are all familiar with now and learned more about from Reagan.
Dems believe in elections, Reagan ran on that nonsense, Reagan won, the electorate who voted for him should get what they wished for.
And most of all, Reagan had earlier that year taken a bullet from a nut with a gun trying to impress a lesbian actress. It would have been politically impossible to deny him his dream tax policy during his big comeback and recovery.
I see you're scratching and clawing at every detail you can dig up to demonstrate that those Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses over the past 100 years or so really weren't all the Repubs' fault or, oh look, that 25th crank of the meat grinder out of thousands in the sausage factory of legislation by a Repub and not a Dem produce a few jobs too and all that typical pro Repub Bothsiderism stuff....Here's the deal: Repubs are at war with this government by, for and of the people. Have been for many decades. I don't much care what happened 100 years ago, during FDR's time or whenever.
My reasons for favoring Republicans are two fold:
1. I believe more Republicans than Democrats favor smaller federal government. And clearly, IMO, smaller government is correlated with greater prosperity. When you leave more money in the pockets of the people and businesses, instead of channeling it off as directed by politicians in Washington D.C. to a massive federal bureaucracy, we're better off. Government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector does.
2. Republicans are less likely to levy extortionate taxes on me.
So how do I justify "1"? Well, as follows.
This table shows GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita
When you kick out small places and petrostates, including Norway, the wealthiest countries per capita in the world are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong.
This table shows government expenditure and government revenue as a % of GDP, by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
Sort this table by government revenue, in increasing order. Kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government revenue as a % of GDP are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, the United States, and Switzerland.
You could also sort the same table by government expenditure as a % of GDP. But the ranking of the USA and other countries will be misleading because of the massive amounts dumped into economies for COVID stimulus in 2020. So, instead, look at the same table, with 2018 data, in the Wayback Machine. (Wikipedia never provided the 2019 data):
https://web.archive.org/web/20210224223114/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
You'll need to copy and paste to Excel to Sort. Sort from smallest to largest by government expenditure. Again, kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government expenditure as a % of GDP are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States.
Do you see a pattern? The five wealthiest countries in the world, sans small places and petrostates, are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. And the developed countries, excluding small places and petrostates, with the smallest governments are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. So they're the same, except for Taiwan! And Taiwan is no slouch.
An interesting observation IMO, the United States has the most progressive taxation system in the OECD. And Hong Kong, if it were a country, would have one of the most regressive tax systems among developed countries. In other words, the level of taxation and government expenditure, i.e. the size of government, is what matters most, not the progressivity of the tax system.
The majority of the Democratic Party wants to grow government so it's comparable in size, in relation to the economy, to European social welfare states. I figure over the long term this would perhaps result in a 15% to 25% hit to GDP per capita. That is, a reduction to levels comparable to Germany or France. And that's huge.
The left's response to what I've thrown out would be, so what. The GDP per capita for those countries is pumped up by the billionaires. What does that do for the workingman? And I suspect they'd have basis to say that for Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent for Ireland. But in terms of "median equivalent adult income" for OECD countries, which represents median disposable income per person including all forms of income and taxes and transfer payments from government, the USA is number 2 and Switzerland is number 4. The number 1 country, Luxembourg, is a small place (600,000 population) and number 3, Norway, is a petrostate. Please recall the definition of median. Median means the 50th percentile -- half of Americans make more than the median income and half make less. Here's a link to median equivalent adult income by country, for the OECD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
Note that median equivalent adult income for Germany is 27% less than the USA, and it's 33% less for France! We in the USA are blessed to have small (relatively speaking) government.
I once heard a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus mistake 4,996 living American voters for corpses:
Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four.
Claim was part of push to overturn election but officials confirm four cases, all involving family members submitting votes
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/28/donald-trump-georgia-2020-election-dead-people
And, yeah, he was not using a teleprompter. It was 100% on him.And I saw Donnie the Dumbass say that injecting disinfectant would cure COVID. I heard him say that shoving a lightbulb up your ass would cure it too. I heard him say that he'd make Mexico pay for the wall he was going to build. I heard him say thousands of stupid things.
Somehow, though, the Moron Brigade and the rest of MAGAt-nation gives him a pass on those things. And they wonder why I call him Donnie the Dumbass?
Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward.
If you get a chance, Tiny, check this out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c.
This guy Peter Zeihan gives out information I have not seen elsewhere. He makes a compelling case for why Texas is going to be the best place for world growth in the coming decades. In my mind, the USA enters a recession and the rest of the world a depression in the next year.
Why? Well, some people really thought you can just shut down world production for two years, print a bunch of money, and everything is going to be fine. Yeesh. The economic effects of the pandemic have just been delayed.
And if you read what Eih wrote, you will see the pandemic was Trump's fault too.Hi Elvis, I've blown way too much time this afternoon replying to Tooms, so haven't had time to take a look at the video yet.
One comment about the rest of your post. I'm privileged to know the smartest son of a bit**h, at least as far as economics is concerned, who posts on hooker boards. He used to go by Captain Midnight. He points out that the U.S. money supply, M1 and M2, have been flat since February. And commodity prices have been coming down. As such, he thinks high inflation may not last as long as many think. He still thinks we're in for a recession though. This makes sense to me for the USA. But I'm not so sure about other countries. If you look at M1 and M2 for most other countries, in their local currencies, they're still increasing at a rapid clip. And commodity prices haven't really fallen. If you live in Europe, you're looking at crazy prices for electricity and home heating. Why the difference between what's happening in the USA and other countries? Well a lot of it's the strength of the dollar. We in the USA are blessed to have the predominant reserve and trading currency.
Kudos for going short! You're right about interest rates and the stock market, but most people, including me, didn't take advantage of what we all knew was coming.
I'll add that this "bothsider" pejorative gets plenty of misuse. Attempts to examine many variables or to find truth wherever it may be found is a matter of integrity, and depending on your field, a professional responsibility. Calling out the bias and fallacies of partisans isn't always "bothsiderism. " In fact calling it such often serves as an ad hominem that short circuits legitimate discussion.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. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.
MarquisdeSade1
09-29-22, 21:51
Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/philadelphia-record-crime/2022/09/29/id/1089560/?fbclid=IwAR2EWiTq9I0tp09d4FrnoQrn7A41MKkwmm5Pb8ouLhZm60QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/29/pollak-why-is-no-one-discussing-the-25th-amendment-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.
I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. ... 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. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.
Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.
Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.
Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.Speaking of out of the box thinking about politics, I watched all of your short video and about 20% of the long one while I was doing my three S's this morning (shit, shower, shave). I think they're definitely right about sanctions. They don't hurt the leaders, just the people, and give the leaders an excuse to blame all their f*ck ups on the USA. And they're partly right about meddling in other country's affairs. I'd part company with them on economics though. Pinochet may have been a son of a bi*tch, and his regime may have killed 2000 or 2500 people, but he did wonders for the economy. I don't think the ends justified the means though. We shouldn't have helped depose Allende.
I don't much care what happened 100 years ago, during FDR's time or whenever.
My reasons for favoring Republicans are two fold:
1. I believe more Republicans than Democrats favor smaller federal government. And clearly, IMO, smaller government is correlated with greater prosperity. When you leave more money in the pockets of the people and businesses, instead of channeling it off as directed by politicians in Washington D.C. to a massive federal bureaucracy, we're better off. Government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector does.
2. Republicans are less likely to levy extortionate taxes on me.
So how do I justify "1"? Well, as follows.
This table shows GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita
When you kick out small places and petrostates, including Norway, the wealthiest countries per capita in the world are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong.
This table shows government expenditure and government revenue as a % of GDP, by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
Sort this table by government revenue, in increasing order. Kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government revenue as a % of GDP are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, the United States, and Switzerland.
You could also sort the same table by government expenditure as a % of GDP. But the ranking of the USA and other countries will be misleading because of the massive amounts dumped into economies for COVID stimulus in 2020. So, instead, look at the same table, with 2018 data, in the Wayback Machine. (Wikipedia never provided the 2019 data):
https://web.archive.org/web/20210224223114/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
You'll need to copy and paste to Excel to Sort. Sort from smallest to largest by government expenditure. Again, kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government expenditure as a % of GDP are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States.
Do you see a pattern? The five wealthiest countries in the world, sans small places and petrostates, are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. And the developed countries, excluding small places and petrostates, with the smallest governments are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. So they're the same, except for Taiwan! And Taiwan is no slouch.
An interesting observation IMO, the United States has the most progressive taxation system in the OECD. And Hong Kong, if it were a country, would have one of the most regressive tax systems among developed countries. In other words, the level of taxation and government expenditure, i.e. the size of government, is what matters most, not the progressivity of the tax system.
The majority of the Democratic Party wants to grow government so it's comparable in size, in relation to the economy, to European social welfare states. I figure over the long term this would perhaps result in a 15% to 25% hit to GDP per capita. That is, a reduction to levels comparable to Germany or France. And that's huge.
The left's response to what I've thrown out would be, so what. The GDP per capita for those countries is pumped up by the billionaires. What does that do for the workingman? And I suspect they'd have basis to say that for Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent for Ireland. But in terms of "median equivalent adult income" for OECD countries, which represents median disposable income per person including all forms of income and taxes and transfer payments from government, the USA is number 2 and Switzerland is number 4. The number 1 country, Luxembourg, is a small place (600,000 population) and number 3, Norway, is a petrostate. Please recall the definition of median. Median means the 50th percentile -- half of Americans make more than the median income and half make less. Here's a link to median equivalent adult income by country, for the OECD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
Note that median equivalent adult income for Germany is 27% less than the USA, and it's 33% less for France! We in the USA are blessed to have small (relatively speaking) government.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/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html
Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans, according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoovers watch.
The six presidents who have presided over the fastest job growth have all been Democrats, as you can see above. The four presidents who have presided over the slowest growth have all been Republicans.
Why?
What, then, are the most plausible theories?
First, its worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesnt explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have*run up larger deficits*than Democrats.
That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.
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. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.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.
2020 Census Vastly Overcounted Democratic States, Undercounted GOP States.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/2020-census-overcounted-democratic-states-undercounted-gop-states/ar-AA12o1jd
Elvis 2008
09-30-22, 05:52
One comment about the rest of your post. I'm privileged to know the smartest son of a bit**h, at least as far as economics is concerned, who posts on hooker boards. He used to go by Captain Midnight. He points out that the U.S. money supply, M1 and M2, have been flat since February. And commodity prices have been coming down. As such, he thinks high inflation may not last as long as many think. He still thinks we're in for a recession though. This makes sense to me for the USA. But I'm not so sure about other countries. If you look at M1 and M2 for most other countries, in their local currencies, they're still increasing at a rapid clip. And commodity prices haven't really fallen. If you live in Europe, you're looking at crazy prices for electricity and home heating. Why the difference between what's happening in the USA and other countries? Well a lot of it's the strength of the dollar. We in the USA are blessed to have the predominant reserve and trading currency.
Kudos for going short! You're right about interest rates and the stock market, but most people, including me, didn't take advantage of what we all knew was coming.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.
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.
MarquisdeSade1
09-30-22, 09:43
[Deleted by Admin]
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!
I watched all of your short video and about 20% of the long one. I think they're definitely right about sanctions. . And they're partly right about meddling in other country's affairs. I'd part company with them on economics though. Pinochet may have been a son of a bi*tch, and his regime may have killed 2000 or 2500 people, but he did wonders for the economy. I don't think the ends justified the means though. We shouldn't have helped depose Allende.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-examples/the-impact-of-adolf-hitler-on-the-economy-of-germany/
"We shouldn't have helped depose Allende".
Everyone deserves the right to self-determination.
As I use it, "Bothsiderism"
no reputable source has shown that 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.
BUt that is binary thinking ET. A vote for the opposition is not the same as a vote for no one, nor is it the same as a vote for a 3rd party. Neither practically nor in moral intent.
And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale. Even if we accpet that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. Only highlighting the metrics that favour the Dems. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc? Countless other metrics that you ignore.
You also only measure the Dems v Reps. Even if we accept what you claim is true again, so what?? Does that make it a good record? No! All it would prove is a better performance than a very poor record. The Dems have still done poorly themselbves. Just not as poorly as the Reps.
And now on to why I don't accept your claim. As I and Tiny have both pointed out to you countless times. And here one more time:
- When there is a gain during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Dems (never bcos of the previous Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Reps (never bcos of the Dems a 3rd factor).
- When there is a gain during Rep leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Dems (never bcos of the Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Reps (never bcos of the previous Dems a 3rd factor).
Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.Donnie the Dumbass told more lies in his so-called presidency* than any other president in history. Something like 30 K+. Since Donnie the Dumbass was only in office for 1460 days, that works out to more than 20 lies per day. All without a teleprompter.
Would you like me to post a link to a video that shows all of the just plain stupid teleprompter-less gaffes told by Donnie the Dumbass, your lord and savior? I thought not.
BUt that is binary thinking ET. A vote for the opposition is not the same as a vote for no one, nor is it the same as a vote for a 3rd party. Neither practically nor in moral intent.
And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale. Even if we accpet that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. Only highlighting the metrics that favour the Dems. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc? Countless other metrics that you ignore.
You also only measure the Dems v Reps. Even if we accept what you claim is true again, so what?? Does that make it a good record? No! All it would prove is a better performance than a very poor record. The Dems have still done poorly themselbves. Just not as poorly as the Reps.
And now on to why I don't accept your claim. As I and Tiny have both pointed out to you countless times. And here one more time:
- When there is a gain during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Dems (never bcos of the previous Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Reps (never bcos of the Dems a 3rd factor).
- When there is a gain during Rep leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Dems (never bcos of the Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Reps (never bcos of the previous Dems a 3rd factor).It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.
You have any quotes or examples for your accusations about what I assert when there is a gain for Repubs and all that? I suspect I provide plenty of substantiation for what I assert about what actually happened and why. But I am willing to review your linked quotes to give it some consideration.
Feel free to work in partnership with Tiny to see what you can come up with on that.
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-examples/the-impact-of-adolf-hitler-on-the-economy-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.
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?
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/philadelphia-record-crime/2022/09/29/id/1089560/?fbclid=IwAR2EWiTq9I0tp09d4FrnoQrn7A41MKkwmm5Pb8ouLhZm60QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/29/pollak-why-is-no-one-discussing-the-25th-amendment-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.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/philadelphia-record-crime/2022/09/29/id/1089560/?fbclid=IwAR2EWiTq9I0tp09d4FrnoQrn7A41MKkwmm5Pb8ouLhZm60QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/29/pollak-why-is-no-one-discussing-the-25th-amendment-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.
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-examples/the-impact-of-adolf-hitler-on-the-economy-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.
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.
ScatManDoo
09-30-22, 18:44
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.htmlSo 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.I already posted the link and report for what those Spineless Ryan, Moscow Mitch and Traitor Trump tax cuts accomplished; costing American taxpayers $2. 5+ Trillion just so corporate executives could buy their own company stocks.
Other than that, nothing. That is a Classic Repub tax policy result going back to Coolidge / Hoover. Well, that is, if we generously ignore the infrastructure projects, real jobs creation, border control and crime prevention investment opportunities lost by flushing all that money down the shitter as another Classic Repub tax and economic policy "accomplishment. ".
Yes, that helped keep Trump's stock market record afloat. So what? The stock market is not "the economy. " The reason the stock market also performs notably better under Dem stewardship than Repub stewardship is precisely because of those numbskull Repub tax and economic policy and agenda decisions and results that no Dem did nor should have supported and voted for.
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.Yes, Carter's reduction of the Capital gains tax from 35% to 28% along with his guidance to require companies to offer the tremendous tax-deferred long term retirement investment advantage of 401 k accounts to their rank and file employees and not just their top executives and Clinton's exemption of $500,000 for marrieds and $250,000 for singles on the equity of their primary residence sale every few years, just to name two, were far and away greater "wealth generating" tax and economic policy results for many, many more Americans than all of the piddling Repub 3-5% marginal tax cuts dangled over the heads of middle and lower income margin earners while those utterly useless disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy stood by slack-jawed stupid and useless during the following next Great Repub Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction.
You know, the Great Repub Recessions that always require a huge influx of deficit spending, government intervention and government expansion to pull us out of them because those brave free market top marginal income "job creators" who got the big tax cuts can't be coaxed out from under their beds without it?
Of course, that comes right before "smaller government" Repubs start repealing decades long precedent Rights To Privacy in order to invade our bedrooms, bathrooms, up asses, vaginas and around penises to outlaw sex for pleasure and restrict it for the purpose of procreation only.
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.Here are tax cuts from the Republican's 2017 TCJA, calculated as (1- (marginal rate after tax cut)/(marginal tax rate before tax cut)), for single filers at particular levels of income:
$30,000 - 20% tax cut.
$50,000 - 12% tax cut.
$100,000 - 14% tax cut.
$250,000 - 6% tax increase.
$400,000 - 6% tax increase.
$1,000,000 - 6. 5% tax cut.
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
The tax cut was not disproportionately directed to higher income earners. In fact, it made the tax system more progressive.
I take issue with your statement: "Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust. " Strictly speaking this is true, as no Democratic President has invaded Poland. Yet. However, please see my post below about the correlation between Democratic Presidents and major wars. The Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot, disposed to sacrifice many lives so they can juice the economy and get more votes come election time.
Disclaimer: I actually don't believe this, the part about bloodthirsty Democrats. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious relationships and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.
HOWEVER, In general, GDP growth during wars and their aftermath when Democrats were president was very good -- there were a few years with 18%+ GDP growth. Does this deserve consideration if you're trying to show that Republicans are worse than Hitler at managing the economy? Why of course not.
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.Oh, sorry, but if you don't like FDR (or JFK / LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama and now Biden) getting credit for pulling us out of serious economic downturns and catastrophes, the fix is for the American electorate to prevent the Repubs that preceeded them from producing serious economic downturns and catastrophes.
And from all available historic evidence the only way to prevent them from doing that is to vote all Dem down every ballot every time. Once in, Repubs apparently can't help but produce those results. And a vote for a Third Party candidate or not voting typically results in Repubs winning. So those last two are not options for America avoiding the next Great Repub Depression / Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Catastrophe.
Hoover famously exacerbated the Great Repub Depression with his Smoot-Hawley Tariffs and his Classic Repub mistake of providing Supply-Side / Trickle-Down government aid and spending on the exact wrong people. The Great Repub Depression didn't just "hit" or "happen" on Hoover's watch.
Coronavirus was another endemic viral spread that very likely could have been contained or at least significantly damage reduced had the leaders of the proven Pandemic Prevention and Response teams not gone missing where they were needed most for more than a year by Trump contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid. And especially had Trump not compounded that disastrous decision by spending critical year 2020 doing, lying and saying everything a World Leader could do, lie about and say to make sure it would become the historically deadly economy and global supply-chain-destroying and Inflation producing Trump's Pandemic it became.
Those were Trump economic decisions. Trump's Pandemic didn't just "hit" or "happen" on his watch.
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!
What are you talking about??? Not that there is anything wrong with being a right-wing evangelist, but that rant just sound like one. Just saying!
Look just because any BM here, in this discussion/opinion forum, is in disagreement with the arguments you put forth, be it, a Dem, Repub, QAnon, Bothsidesist, left, right or otherwise, is not a case IMHO about being "right".
Any political discourse, counterpoints or information I present is meant to frame and/or support my POV. I don't really care if you think, I'm simply trying to be "right".
You, Tiny 12 and the arch "bothsidesist", who stands for nothing and falls for everything, seem to think, we somehow need to accept/agree the arguments you put forth. WE DON'T!
Let me put it to you like this:
One BM here, thinks Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf (aka. the 45th pres. aka.Agent Orange) is a god, meanwhile I personally think he's a devil.
Is he right, I am I right? He'll continue to provide whatever opinions/evidence to support his claims and so will I.
While I may find his opinions/claims distasteful, I reserve the right for him to make them. The only "right(s)" that I'm concerned with is, equal rights, people's rights, human rights, civil rights, voting rights...etc
For me it's that simple. I am not here to be "right", as you see it. I'll provide my counterpoints, arguments and opinions and let them stand or fall on their own.
If you have an opinion on said topics and provide arguments to support your POV and not just here to BM bash or bash America, then I welcome your input.
I don't see where you're disagreeing with me .... BTW, I will say this however, you do, do the work and unlike the arch "bothsidesist", you do provide actual evidence, data and information to substantiate, support or refute said opinions / claims.
...And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale...
It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.
You have any quotes or examples for your accusations about what I assert when there is a gain for Repubs and all that? I suspect I provide plenty of substantiation for what I assert about what
actually happened and why. But I am willing to review your linked quotes to give it some consideration. ...Yep, I've said it before, about the "bothsidesist". The dude does not put in the work, to provide support to substantiate any of his claims / arguments. Next he'll tell ya to go read "book xyz" from "Joe Author", that'll explain all my "say so".
And now he's piggy-backing and riding on Tiny 12 "data / evidence" coat tails, and pawning off the work, as if its his own findings, as if he did the work.
Here are tax cuts from the Republican's 2017 TCJA, calculated as (1- (marginal rate after tax cut)/(marginal tax rate before tax cut)), for single filers at particular levels of income:
$30,000 - 20% tax cut.
$50,000 - 12% tax cut.
$100,000 - 14% tax cut.
$250,000 - 6% tax increase.
$400,000 - 6% tax increase.
$1,000,000 - 6. 5% tax cut.
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
The tax cut was not disproportionately directed to higher income earners. In fact, it made the tax system more progressive.
I take issue with your statement: "Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust. " Strictly speaking this is true, as no Democratic President has invaded Poland. Yet. However, please see my post below about the correlation between Democratic Presidents and major wars. The Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot, disposed to sacrifice many lives so they can juice the economy and get more votes come election time.
Disclaimer: I actually don't believe this, the part about bloodthirsty Democrats. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious relationships and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.
HOWEVER, In general, GDP growth during wars and their aftermath when Democrats were president was very good -- there were a few years with 18%+ GDP growth. Does this deserve consideration if you're trying to show that Republicans are worse than Hitler at managing the economy? Why of course not.I'm sure you just forgot about the phase outs, catch up increased taxes and cleverly concealed and delayed costs to the lower and middle income earners in order to "pay for" those disproportionately high tax cuts for corporations and top margins, the ones that wouldn't phase out, diabolically timed to kick in after certain subsequent midterm and general elections as I recall. Even Hitler wouldn't have done that. But it was in all the news at the time. That was one of the reasons "retiring" Senator John McCain slammed it. However, being a Repub he signed it anyway.
Nice try though.
A Year After the Middle Class Tax Cut, the Rich Are Winning.
December 18, 2018
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
Distribution of Trump Tax Cuts Favors Wealthiest
On average, in 2018, taxes declined for everyone, but top groups got the biggest benefit
Income group (Average income)
Percent change in after-tax income
Lowest quintile ($14,170) - 0.4%
Second quintile ($36,450) - 1.2%
Middle quintile ($65,640) - 1.6%
Fourth quintile ($114,370) - 1.9%
Top quintile ($347,940) - 2.9%
Source: Tax Policy Center estimates
Note: Average federal tax (includes individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, the estate tax, and excise taxes) as a percentage of average expanded cash income.Once the tax bill is paid for, low- and middle-income households will be worse off.
January 2, 2018
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/01/02/once-the-tax-bill-is-paid-for-low-and-middle-income-households-will-be-worse-off/
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will cut taxes by almost $1.5 trillion over the next decade, largely benefiting corporations, pass-through businesses such as partnerships, and people who inherit large estates. The bill will also provide modest tax reductions for most wage and salary earners.
Though some households will do better than others, it sounds like almost everyone is a winner at first glance. But tax cuts are not free; they eventually have to be financed with higher taxes or lower spending. And once those financing requirements are taken into account, most low- and middle-income households are likely to be worse off than they would have been without the tax cut in the first place.
Previous TPC analysis shows that households in every income group will be better off on average due to the direct provisions of the tax cut. However, after accounting for a plausible financing mechanismin which the tax cuts would be paid for with equal-per-household increases in taxes or reductions in benefitsmany low- and middle-income households will lose more than what they gain from the tax cuts themselves.
(and more)Remember when Trump proclaimed he was going to be the "most job-creating president in the history of the universe" or some such nonsense? He sold that god-awful waste of $2. 5+ Trillion in taxpayers' money on that premise and on his prediction that it would drive Real Annual GDP growth up to "3%, 4%, 5%, some people say 6% LOL. It never hit 3%.
Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no.
January 28, 2019
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
The vast majority of American businesses havent boosted hiring or investment as a result of the Republican tax law, according to a survey by the National Association for Business Economics.
Eighty-four percent of businesses said they didnt accelerate hiring because of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which President Donald Trump hailed as a bill for the middle class and a bill for jobs. Only 6 percent said they had more hires because of the law and 10 percent said they accelerated investments, according to the survey.Yeah, I'm pretty sure if those tax cuts had benefitted the lower and middle income earners as much or more than they did corporations and the top margins and not made those lower and middle income earners "pay for" Trump's Classic Repub tax cuts for the rich, the Trump economy would not have produced 1. 5 Million fewer jobs with those $2. 5 Trillion cuts than without the cuts.
But they didn't.
Actually, Biden and the Dems "extending" them as they were originally set DID cut taxes for lower and middle income earners since allowing them to do what they were destined to do re increasing costs for those marginal earners instead of cutting costs for them.
Dems, the Party of Meaningful Tax Cuts, Strike Again!
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.Japan attacked our military base at Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war on America in WWII. Do you really think that meant America "chose" to go to war with them?
Eisenhower committed America to the Vietnam War by word, deed and treaty:
Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/22/2002092352/-1/-1/1/USAF%20Vietnam%20Chronology%20v1.pdf
1959
May 25: With authorization from the White House, Adm. Harry Felt, the
CINCPAC, told General Williams that U.S. advisors with the ARVN could
accompany Vietnamese troops on operations, provided they do not become
involved in actual combat. Historian Fredrik Logevall called this new order
highly significant. To this point, U.S. troops had been confined to corps
and division headquarters, training commands, and logistic agencies and
had been obligated to remain behind whenever their units were on patrol.
Now they would be in the field, in harms way, their advising duties greatly
expanded. U.S. personnel had been participating in patrols before this time,
unofficially, including Williams himself on occasion.59
July 8: Six Vietnamese communist guerrillas attacked the quarters of the
thirteen-man U.S. advisory detachment at Bien Hoa. Two U.S. soldiers,
Maj. Dale R. Buis and MSgt. Chester M. Ovnand, died in the assault,
the first U.S. servicemen killed in action in Vietnam since Lt. Col. Peter
Dewey in 1945 (see Sept. 26, 1945). Buis and Ovnard are the first two
names that appear on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.63USA military body bags were being returned from Vietnam long before Kennedy was elected. The change Kennedy made was in allowing our troops to shoot back.
...
When Leonhardt writes off Congressional control as a factor he loses credibility in my eyes.
...
At the risk of sounding immodest, my post #10362 in this thread makes more sense and is less biased than Leonhardt's article.Ok, let's go with your idea.
With the constant and most common denominator for crap economic results being a Repub in the White House, accompanying oil shocks and all ("August 2001 PDB? What August 2001 PDB"? GW Bush might well have asked in September of that year), I guess the only conclusion is when Dems control Congress during those times the Repub POTUS is just plain ineffectual and unable to prevent those dastardly Dems from fucking up his economy. By contrast, Dems in the White House can somehow manage to get some positive things done anyway with Repubs controlling Congress.
So how does that support your contention again?
My contention still is that any legislation proposed, fought for and passed by Dem Presidents and Dems in Congress is diminished in its effectiveness and positive results with every Repub vote it receives. Why wouldn't that be so if those are votes are coming from people who think this government of, by and for We, The People and nobody else "is the problem" and have gleefully gone to war against it?
Oh, and on that last point, if Repubs are so effective and positive either when they are in the White House or when they control Congress, why have they never proposed and passed a single piece of meaningful legislation or anything whatsoever worthy of being revered and cited as something that Makes America Great when they controlled BOTH the White House and Congress over the past century?
I challenged you and anyone else here to rack their brains, rip through Google Search and come up with the list of legislation even remotely rivalling that of Dems when they were in the White House and controlled both houses of Congress. That was several days ago. So far not one person has been able to come up with anything.
I mean, we know they produced 2-3 of worst Great Repub Recessions and Crashes in history thanks to the legislation they came up with under those circumstances. But I was hoping to be surprised by something, you know, a bit more positive than those Repub "accomplishments. ".
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.Forgive the "simplistic" approach, Paulie. But it has been several days since I offered this exceedingly simple challenge and so far not one person has come up with a single item. Including you. Maybe you didn't see it so I will repost it here and now for you.
Yes, I was trying to make it as simple and easy as possible for any pro-Repub Bothsider or outright Repub supporter to jump in, meet or beat this simple challenge and show me the way.
However, unless someone wants to highlight and praise the 2-3 worst Great Repub Depressions / Great Repub Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction in history as fine examples of what Repubs can "accomplish" with legislation they pass while occupying the White House and controlling both houses of Congress, I'm afraid we're not going to see much of a list here:
Shall we dance through a short list of legislation passed when a Dem was in the White House and Dems controlled both Houses of Congress?
Social Security. A favorite of yours I believe.
Medicare. Ditto above.
Medicaid.
Unemployment Insurance.
The Civil Rights Act.
401 ks For Rank and File Employees.
The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Affordable Care Act.
The American Rescue Plan.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
To name just a few.
Ok, now it's your turn or anyone else's turn. Please list a few legislation highlights from when a Repub was in the White House and Repubs controlled both Houses of Congress.
Japan attacked our military base at Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war on America in WWII. Do you really think that meant America "chose" to go to war with them?
Eisenhower committed America to the Vietnam War by word, deed and treaty:
Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/22/2002092352/-1/-1/1/USAF%20Vietnam%20Chronology%20v1.pdf
USA military body bags were being returned from Vietnam long before Kennedy was elected. The change Kennedy made was in allowing our troops to shoot back.Please note my 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.
This is an attempt to try to get you to understand, for example, GDP growth is lower when a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic strikes. And higher after we're rebounding from the worst depression in USA History. And neither has anything to do with whether a Republican or Democrat is president.
PedroMorales
10-01-22, 17:00
Here is a thought: all Americans are war mongering sociopaths. Every last one of them. Nice numerical cut off points but little good to all the others murdered by Americans and their proxies. Despite the considerable competition, Americans are far and away the scummiest war mongers the world has ever seen.
I'm sure you just forgot about the phase outs, catch up increased taxes and cleverly concealed and delayed costs to the lower and middle income earners in order to "pay for" those disproportionately high tax cuts for corporations and top margins, the ones that wouldn't phase out, diabolically timed to kick in after certain subsequent midterm and general elections as I recall. Even Hitler wouldn't have done that. But it was in all the news at the time. That was one of the reasons "retiring" Senator John McCain slammed it. However, being a Repub he signed it anyway.
Nice try though.
A Year After the Middle Class Tax Cut, the Rich Are Winning.
December 18, 2018
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
Once the tax bill is paid for, low- and middle-income households will be worse off.
January 2, 2018
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/01/02/once-the-tax-bill-is-paid-for-low-and-middle-income-households-will-be-worse-off/
Remember when Trump proclaimed he was going to be the "most job-creating president in the history of the universe" or some such nonsense? He sold that god-awful waste of $2. 5+ Trillion in taxpayers' money on that premise and on his prediction that it would drive Real Annual GDP growth up to "3%, 4%, 5%, some people say 6% LOL. It never hit 3%.
Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no.
January 28, 2019
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if those tax cuts had benefitted the lower and middle income earners as much or more than they did corporations and the top margins and not made those lower and middle income earners "pay for" Trump's Classic Repub tax cuts for the rich, the Trump economy would not have produced 1. 5 Million fewer jobs with those $2. 5 Trillion cuts than without the cuts.
But they didn't.
Actually, Biden and the Dems "extending" them as they were originally set DID cut taxes for lower and middle income earners since allowing them to do what they were destined to do re increasing costs for those marginal earners instead of cutting costs for them.
Dems, the Party of Meaningful Tax Cuts, Strike Again!Interesting post, thanks. Bloomberg and Brookings are both basing their stories on the Tax Policy Center. The Tax Policy Center was set up by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. It's not merely left of center, it's left wing, and staffed by Progressive economists. The change in after tax income is explained by our sharply progressive tax system. Overall, we have the most progressive tax system in the OECD, and the federal income tax is more progressive than sales taxes and property taxes. Anyway, if a low income earner is paying at an average 10% tax rate, and you cut his taxes by 10%, the increase in his after tax income is 1%. If an upper income earner is paying at 40%, and you cut his taxes by 5%, his after tax income increases by 2%. So yes, the upper income earner shows a larger increase in after tax income.
You have a point when you say that all I looked at were the tax tables. I don't know everything that went into the TCJA. I make more than the average American, and my taxes went up. I have a real estate property in a foreign country that I hold through a foreign company. I have to pay at an 80%+ tax rate on income from the foreign property, because of the GILTI tax in TCJA! And I can't take full advantage of the state income tax deduction any longer. But certainly the TCJA helped Donald Trump, for example, a lot. The Trump Organization undoubtedly benefits greatly from the QBI deduction for pass through entities from income associated with high levels of depreciation.
Your sources are old and, being based on TPC analysis, biased. It would be better to look at actual, recent data. I pulled IRS tax statistics for 2017,2018 and 2019 (last year available), and compared tax rates for those years by income level. You can do this if you wish here.
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
The tax cuts took effect on January 1, 2018. It didn't really make a difference whether I looked at 2017 vs. 2018 or 2017 vs. 2019, overall the numbers looked similar. For 2017 vs. 2019, people earning $10,000 or less saw their taxes cut by 27% to 40%. That's not a big deal though, because they were paying little taxes to begin with. The big winners were people making $40,000 to $500,000. Their taxes went down from 16% to 18%. People making $20,00 to $40,000 and $500,000 to $1,000,000 saw cuts of 10% to 12%. Those who benefitted the least made in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 and $1 million+.
So this basically looked like another sop to the middle class, who account for the majority of voters. Which perhaps was the intention all along. One caveat, I'm not sure that the TCJA was entirely responsible for the changes in average tax rates, there may have been other factors at play.
Americans for Tax Reform, which like the Brookings Institute is biased, published this piece on how the tax system became more progressive after the TCJA. They don't really show cause and effect though. Anyway, their numbers are almost certainly correct:
https://www.atr.org/new-cbo-report-finds-tcja-made-tax-code-more-not-less-progressive/
Editorial Comment: One thing that amazes me, from the piece, is that the top 1% pays 41.7% of the income tax. And Democrats still say the wealthy don't pay their fair share. Democrats need to focus their efforts on helping those who aren't doing as well as the rest of us, instead of tearing down the people at the top. To their credit, Kyrsten Sinema and a few others do exactly that, despite the pressure from the progressives to concentrate on class warfare.
As to the corporate tax cuts, you really need to get over your Stockholm Syndrome and appreciate what's best for your stock portfolio and America. The effects of the tax cuts were reflected more in wages than in a reduced unemployment rate. We got to 3. 5% unemployment before COVID hit, the lowest since 1969. How much lower can you go? Real wages and household income took a huge jump upwards in 2019. As to capital spending, regardless of what the survey says, it jumped up after the TCJA. The "capital expenditures" component of stocks in the S&P 500 index was in the range of 71 to 76 in 2012 to 2017. It was 71.43 in 2017. It jumped up to 83.46 in 2019 and 90.90 in 2019.
A lot of money came back to the USA as a result of the TCJA. Companies were keeping it overseas because they'd have to pay up to 35% tax on it if they brought it back. Wharton said as much as $2. 8 trillion were parked overseas. I'm not sure how much of that came back, but through expansions, capital spending, dividends, share buybacks, and parking the money at USA Banks where it can be leant out, what money that did come back is now circulating in our economy.
I can't understand why anyone would take the position that the corporate tax rate didn't need to come down. Including state income taxes, our average rate was around 40%. The next highest in the developed world was Australia, at 30%. And Australia, unlike the USA, doesn’t tax dividends. Yeah, some companies with loopholes and who had subsidiaries in tax haven countries, were getting by just fine. (Aside: The TCJA helped in this regard with the GILTI tax that I was b*tching about above. Now companies can't park money overseas and avoid taxes from their foreign operations, because of TCJA.) But many of our companies just weren't competitive. Even Obama and Biden wanted to bring the rate down to 28%.
This will be my last post for a while. I've gotten addicted to replying to your posts and it's eating up way too much time. You're a worthy competitor on the battlefield of ideas, especially considering you're fighting from a much weaker position, having to defend the economic policies of a Democratic Party that's increasingly dominated by progressives.
P.S. If you want my Excel table or the capex data for the S & P 500 send me a PM with an email address. I cant link to them.
Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.
Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel.
Why wouldn't I respond here, it is a discussion/opinion forum after all. As you've reminded us on many occasions. But you seem to use this thread as a means to simply bash BMs and America.
...He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.
Better a dog with a bone, than a spewing "dog-ma" without one. Or a dog that stands for nothing and falls for everything, chasing its tail, like a half-crazed mutt.
Once again, your QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesism "dog-ma" is all bark and no bite.
Biden's plan to curtail inflation not working. Gas just went up to $6. 59 a gallon in San Diego today. Over $7 in some areas of California. Biden continues to spend tax payer dollars on giveaways and inflation rising. Idiots are still talking about Trump and past presidents while America suffers. Biden stupidly and incompetence may have USA equal the recession of the 1930's. The worst president ever and he hasn't a clue. Just like the idiots talking about the past. The past looks great with past republican or democrat presidents compared to todays leadership and the future looks even worse. Republicans are smart enough to acknowledge that Biden is a disaster. Several democrats admit USA is in trouble. The idiot socialists keep trying to talk nonsense thinking that Biden disasters will improve on their own. Stupidity at its finest.
Interesting post, thanks. Bloomberg and Brookings are both basing their stories on the Tax Policy Center. The Tax Policy Center was set up by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. It's not merely left of center, it's left wing, and staffed by Progressive economists. The change in after tax income is explained by our sharply progressive tax system. Overall, we have the most progressive tax system in the OECD, and the federal income tax is more progressive than sales taxes and property taxes. Anyway, if a low income earner is paying at an average 10% tax rate, and you cut his taxes by 10%, the increase in his after tax income is 1%. If an upper income earner is paying at 40%, and you cut his taxes by 5%, his after tax income increases by 2%. So yes, the upper income earner shows a larger increase in after tax income.
You have a point when you say that all I looked at were the tax tables. I don't know everything that went into the TCJA. I make more than the average American, and my taxes went up. I have a real estate property in a foreign country that I hold through a foreign company. I have to pay at an 80%+ tax rate on income from the foreign property, because of the GILTI tax in TCJA! And I can't take full advantage of the state income tax deduction any longer. But certainly the TCJA helped Donald Trump, for example, a lot. The Trump Organization undoubtedly benefits greatly from the QBI deduction for pass through entities from income associated with high levels of depreciation.
Your sources are old and, being based on TPC analysis, biased. It would be better to look at actual, recent data. I pulled IRS tax statistics for 2017,2018 and 2019 (last year available), and compared tax rates for those years by income level. You can do this if you wish here.
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
The tax cuts took effect on January 1, 2018. It didn't really make a difference whether I looked at 2017 vs. 2018 or 2017 vs. 2019, overall the numbers looked similar. For 2017 vs. 2019, people earning $10,000 or less saw their taxes cut by 27% to 40%. That's not a big deal though, because they were paying little taxes to begin with. The big winners were people making $40,000 to $500,000. Their taxes went down from 16% to 18%. People making $20,00 to $40,000 and $500,000 to $1,000,000 saw cuts of 10% to 12%. Those who benefitted the least made in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 and $1 million+.
So this basically looked like another sop to the middle class, who account for the majority of voters. Which perhaps was the intention all along. One caveat, I'm not sure that the TCJA was entirely responsible for the changes in average tax rates, there may have been other factors at play.
Americans for Tax Reform, which like the Brookings Institute is biased, published this piece on how the tax system became more progressive after the TCJA. They don't really show cause and effect though. Anyway, their numbers are almost certainly correct:
https://www.atr.org/new-cbo-report-finds-tcja-made-tax-code-more-not-less-progressive/
Editorial Comment: One thing that amazes me, from the piece, is that the top 1% pays 41.7% of the income tax. And Democrats still say the wealthy don't pay their fair share. Democrats need to focus their efforts on helping those who aren't doing as well as the rest of us, instead of tearing down the people at the top. To their credit, Kyrsten Sinema and a few others do exactly that, despite the pressure from the progressives to concentrate on class warfare.
As to the corporate tax cuts, you really need to get over your Stockholm Syndrome and appreciate what's best for your stock portfolio and America. The effects of the tax cuts were reflected more in wages than in a reduced unemployment rate. We got to 3. 5% unemployment before COVID hit, the lowest since 1969. How much lower can you go? Real wages and household income took a huge jump upwards in 2019. As to capital spending, regardless of what the survey says, it jumped up after the TCJA. The "capital expenditures" component of stocks in the S&P 500 index was in the range of 71 to 76 in 2012 to 2017. It was 71.43 in 2017. It jumped up to 83.46 in 2019 and 90.90 in 2019.
A lot of money came back to the USA as a result of the TCJA. Companies were keeping it overseas because they'd have to pay up to 35% tax on it if they brought it back. Wharton said as much as $2. 8 trillion were parked overseas. I'm not sure how much of that came back, but through expansions, capital spending, dividends, share buybacks, and parking the money at USA Banks where it can be leant out, what money that did come back is now circulating in our economy.
I can't understand why anyone would take the position that the corporate tax rate didn't need to come down. Including state income taxes, our average rate was around 40%. The next highest in the developed world was Australia, at 30%. And Australia, unlike the USA, doesnt tax dividends. Yeah, some companies with loopholes and who had subsidiaries in tax haven countries, were getting by just fine. (Aside: The TCJA helped in this regard with the GILTI tax that I was b*tching about above. Now companies can't park money overseas and avoid taxes from their foreign operations, because of TCJA.) But many of our companies just weren't competitive. Even Obama and Biden wanted to bring the rate down to 28%.
This will be my last post for a while. I've gotten addicted to replying to your posts and it's eating up way too much time. You're a worthy competitor on the battlefield of ideas, especially considering you're fighting from a much weaker position, having to defend the economic policies of a Democratic Party that's increasingly dominated by progressives.
P.S. If you want my Excel table or the capex data for the S & P 500 send me a PM with an email address. I cant link to them.I appreciate all the details. But regardless whatever went into that hundreds of pages long TCJA, what matters is what came out of it. And what came out of it is fewer jobs were created with it than without it and the GDP growth rate did not produce a noticeable increase with it than without it. At a cost of Trillions. The unemployment rate was declining in a straight line from the year Obama and the Dems passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the end of February 2009 with no Repub votes. The fact that it continued on that trajectory until it declined to 3. 5% under Trump after it was already down to 4. 7% when he took over is nice, but meaningless in terms of the TCJA. Once the unemployment rate hits the "Full Employment" level, which it did in this era sometime about 2 years before Trump took office, a 1-2% uptick or dip here and there is really meaningless. Extreme weather events, baby-boom retirements, whatever. Not all that much to do with some economic legislation.
Almost all economic legislation is like the TCJA. Pages and pages of details, something given to someone here, something taken from someone there. And whatever is given in that bill sf often taken away in another bill and vice versa. That's why I try only to focus on the end results from administration terms, their budget proposals, what got passed and all that, not digging into the weeds so much since everyone digging is bound to miss some detail elsewhere that changed everything.
However, I do think it is valid to factor in the repeated and obvious stated goals and intentions of each party involved in crafting legislation. Because it is their overall philosophy that guides every detail they put into legislation. You will see the sum of all the details in all the related legislation in the results. That's where Dems' Demand-Side economic philosophy vs Repubs' Supply-Side economic philosophy comes into play.
There is a very good reason Dems' Demand-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of the lower and middle income earners) always significantly outperforms Repubs' Supply-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of corporations and the top income earners) on jobs creation, expanding the economy, paying down the debt and deficits, etc. And, sorry, it is also blissfully "simple".
Lower and middle income earners tend to spend all the money in their pockets very quickly, often right up to their next paycheck. For obvious reasons. All too often, they need to. Put more money in the pockets of lower and middle income earners and they will be hitting restaurants and malls to spend it today. The economy will grow. Businesses will get more customers and will need to expand just to keep up. Businesses will need to hire more workers. Grudgingly, as usual. But they will need to hire or miss out. Tax revenue from businesses and workers grows. Roads, bridges, schools, etc get repaired. More jobs are created from that. Police forces get funded. It goes on.
Corporations and top income earners tend not to spend extra money in their pockets very quickly, if at all. Again, for obvious reasons. They don't need to. There are only so many hamburgers a wealthy person or corporate CEO can eat in a week, only so many cars they can drive, boats they can sail, etc. They can bank it and forget about it. They can speculate on stocks with it. In fact, they can easily create a stock market bubble with fun discretionary money and laugh when the bubble bursts. They can buy another villa in Italy with it. And I assure you the last thing they want to do with extra money in their pocket is expand their business requiring them to hire more pain-in-the-ass employees if it is not clear their doing so would increase their pleasure in life rather than reduce it and add more complications and hassle to their lives.
On top of which, there are too few of those top marginal income earners compared to the huge percentage of lower and middle income earners for any big deal tax cut for them to matter. It cannot possibly do much for the economy and, guess what, it never does. Well, it does add to the deficit in a big way and diverts tax revenue money that sure could come in handy when the inevitable Great Repub Recession comes around.
It used to crack me up when weepy Repub John Boehner would take the floor of Congress and demand an answer from Obama, "Where are the jobs"? And then he would extoll the virtues of what he termed "Job creators", by which he meant the beneficiaries of his Party's typical Supply-Side / Trickle-Down economic failures. He was just slamming a Dem and flattering the ego of his favorite political donor class by telling them they and not the unwashed rabble were the "job creators. ".
First of all, Obama's economy recovered and created more jobs than any Repub ever could have created had a Repub ever taken over from a Dem with economic conditions as disastrous as it was when Obama took over from GWB. But, of course, they never have done that in at least 100 years.
Second, one reason Obama's recovery was slower than it easily could have been was because Moscow Mitch had that meeting on Obama's inauguration night and set the orders for everyone in his caucus and it was so in the House as well not to do anything to help Obama pull us out of that Great Repub Crash and Recession. Which in one case meant they would stubbornly obstruct Obama's efforts to go back to the Clinton / Dem top marginal tax rates. And that kept the recovery from really taking off. LOL. Let's just say there was no Repub counterpart to Tip O'Neill working with Obama.
Third, the relatively few typical beneficiaries of Repubs' consistently failed Supply-Side / Trickle-Down philosophy are not the true "job creators" in a national economy. The true "job creators" are the many, many more lower and middle income earners who go into the marketplace and spend all the money in their pockets as quickly as possible, essentially forcing businesses to do something they for the most part hate to do; hire more employees to keep up with the customer traffic.
Damn it Tooms, I'm trying to cut back on posting here. But you're making it hard. Real hard.
I appreciate all the details. They don't want you to look at the details, as long as you believe "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", they're happy.
But regardless whatever went into that hundreds of pages long TCJA, what matters is what came out of it. And what came out of it is fewer jobs were created with it than without it and the GDP growth rate did not produce a noticeable increase with it than without it. Aaagh! The TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018. Employment grew by 2.7 million in 2018 and 2.1 million 2019. Then COVID hit. If I may be allowed to cherry pick, like you and your left of center media sources do, the average growth per year in employment during Obama's administration was 1. 4 million.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/employment-growth-accelerates-in-2018.htm
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/employment-expansion-continued-in-2019-but-growth-slowed-in-several-industries.htm
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
And in 2018 and 2019, as described in post #10452, we were inching closer and closer to full employment. That made it harder to add jobs. Finally as described in post 10377 and the link in #10381, the demographic wind was at our back in the final years of Obama's administration. The working aged population, 18 to 64, increased by 2.3 million from 2013 to 2016, the last 3 years of Obama's administration, versus 270,000 from 2017 to 2020.
Finally, the labor force participation rate fell like a rock for the first 6 years of the Obama administration, prior to flattening in 2015. After the TCJA took effect, it kicked up, from 62.7% in January, 2017 to 63.4% in January, 2020, before COVID hit.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
We've already discussed GDP growth rate, and I've listed some of the factors like globalization, changes in technology, the business cycle, a pandemic, what's going on in China and the rest of the world, Congress, that often are as important or more important than who's president. And provided links that show the increase in growth in real median wages and real median household income was off the charts, compared to past years, in 2019.
At a cost of Trillions. You're just rehashing what we've already discussed. You have to assume all provisions of the TCJA will be extended to get to "trillions of dollars. " Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by $1.5 million. So far the amount has likely been under $1 trillion, maybe half of what the Democrats' American Rescue Plan cost in 2021 alone. The Democrats control the presidency, the Senate and the House, and they haven't repealed the TCJA. I believe Democrats should receive at least part of the credit and praise for any revenue losses after January 21,2021 from the corporate tax cuts. Although recent data shows corporate tax revenues were actually about as high in 2021 as what the CBO was predicting they would have been without the TCJA. Biden BTW only wanted to increase the corporate rate back to 28%.
https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-tax-revenue-federal-tax-collections/
Once the unemployment rate hits the "Full Employment" level, which it did in this era sometime about 2 years before Trump took office, a 1-2% uptick or dip here and there is really meaningless. Extreme weather events, baby-boom retirements, whatever. Not all that much to do with some economic legislation.PLEASE!! The closer you get to full employment, the harder it is to reduce the unemployment rate.
Almost all economic legislation is like the TCJA. Pages and pages of details, something given to someone here, something taken from someone there. And whatever is given in that bill sf often taken away in another bill and vice versa. That's why I try only to focus on the end results from administration terms, their budget proposals, what got passed and all that, not digging into the weeds so much since everyone digging is bound to miss some detail elsewhere that changed everything.I'm all for tax cuts, if the politicians will also reduce the spending, which they didn't during Trumps' term. However, I don't have an argument with what you're saying. The TCJA didn't reduce the complexity of the tax code. The one part of the TCJA I heartily approve of are changes in the corporate tax. They hurt me (and helped you), but still, they were so clearly needed I don't feel compelled to argue against them. You do because of your Stockholm Syndrome. As to the QBI deduction for pass throughs and cuts in individual rates, there are valid arguments for and against them.
However, I do think it is valid to factor in the repeated and obvious stated goals and intentions of each party involved in crafting legislation. Because it is their overall philosophy that guides every detail they put into legislation. You will see the sum of all the details in all the related legislation in the results. That's where Dems' Demand-Side economic philosophy vs Repubs' Supply-Side economic philosophy comes into play.It's not 1932 any more. Republicans are just as inclined to use Keynesian principles during a recession as Democrats. The problem is that no one, except for Clinton and Gingrich et al, have been inclined to cut the deficits. Most of the politicians around today who are inclined to do so, and they're a minority in both parties, are Republicans.
There is a very good reason Dems' Demand-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of the lower and middle income earners) always significantly outperforms Repubs' Supply-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of corporations and the top income earners) on jobs creation, expanding the economy, paying down the debt and deficits, etc. And, sorry, it is also blissfully "simple".
Lower and middle income earners tend to spend all the money in their pockets very quickly, often right up to their next paycheck. For obvious reasons. All too often, they need to. Put more money in the pockets of lower and middle income earners and they will be hitting restaurants and malls to spend it today. The economy will grow. Businesses will get more customers and will need to expand just to keep up. Businesses will need to hire more workers. Grudgingly, as usual. But they will need to hire or miss out. Tax revenue from businesses and workers grows. If you want to argue to increase the average federal corporate rate, say 3 or 4 percentage points, maybe you could make a case for it. If you want to take it back up to 35%, you're just not making sense. It's way out of sync with other countries. You're kneecapping our businesses. How are they supposed to make things in America and export them to other countries, when their taxes are so much higher?
https://taxfoundation.org/us-effective-corporate-tax-rate-oecd-peers/
As to higher earners, we already have the most progressive tax system in the developed world. If you want to significantly increase the size of government and the welfare state, the lion's share of the money can't come from the high earners, because they don't have enough money to pay for it. See the comments here by Peter Whiteford, the economist at the OECD who did the seminal study on the progressivity of tax systems of OECD countries:
http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html
I'm all for lower and middle income Americans making more money and saving. Some Democrat politicians don't want to see them doing well, with good paying jobs, because it's to their benefit if people get outsized transfer payments from and are dependent on the federal government. That will keep them voting for Democrats.
Roads, bridges, schools, etc get repaired. More jobs are created from that. Police forces get funded. It goes on.And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities. My city has a public transportation system now. And empty buses with no passengers. Because the buses didn't cost anything because they were paid for by the federal government. The power of the purse and governmental power are best exercised closest to the people, at the local and state level. My state and local governments are reasonably efficient and I have no problem paying state and local taxes. The federal government on the other hand flushes a huge amount of our money down the drain.
Corporations and top income earners tend not to spend extra money in their pockets very quickly, if at all. Again, for obvious reasons. They don't need to. There are only so many hamburgers a wealthy person or corporate CEO can eat in a week, only so many cars they can drive, boats they can sail, etc. They can bank it and forget about it. They can speculate on stocks with it. In fact, they can easily create a stock market bubble with fun discretionary money and laugh when the bubble bursts. They can buy another villa in Italy with it. And I assure you the last thing they want to do with extra money in their pocket is expand their business requiring them to hire more pain-in-the-ass employees if it is not clear their doing so would increase their pleasure in life rather than reduce it and add more complications and hassle to their lives.
On top of which, there are too few of those top marginal income earners compared to the huge percentage of lower and middle income earners for any big deal tax cut for them to matter. It cannot possibly do much for the economy and, guess what, it never does. Well, it does add to the deficit in a big way and diverts tax revenue money that sure could come in handy when the inevitable Great Repub Recession comes around.Baloney. Apparently you subscribe to Obama's belief that people don't build businesses, government does. You take money out of the private sector, away from the businessmen and the investors, and the economy won't grow as fast as it would otherwise. Cash flow of corporations, pass through businesses, and wealthy investors is mostly recycled back into the American economy, not spent on Italian villas. Again, look at CBO estimates for tax cuts and tax increases. You reduce taxes, you grow the economy faster. Nobody really disagrees with that.
It used to crack me up when weepy Repub John Boehner would take the floor of Congress and demand an answer from Obama, "Where are the jobs"? And then he would extoll the virtues of what he termed "Job creators", by which he meant the beneficiaries of his Party's typical Supply-Side / Trickle-Down economic failures. He was just slamming a Dem and flattering the ego of his favorite political donor class by telling them they and not the unwashed rabble were the "job creators. ".
First of all, Obama's economy recovered and created more jobs than any Repub ever could have created had a Repub ever taken over from a Dem with economic conditions as disastrous as it was when Obama took over from GWB. But, of course, they never have done that in at least 100 years.
Second, one reason Obama's recovery was slower than it easily could have been was because Moscow Mitch had that meeting on Obama's inauguration night and set the orders for everyone in his caucus and it was so in the House as well not to do anything to help Obama pull us out of that Great Repub Crash and Recession. Which in one case meant they would stubbornly obstruct Obama's efforts to go back to the Clinton / Dem top marginal tax rates. And that kept the recovery from really taking off. LOL. Let's just say there was no Repub counterpart to Tip O'Neill working with Obama. The recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was weak by historical standards. We didn't regain 2008 employment levels until May of 2014 (see St. Louis fed employment link above.) Annual YoY GDP growth in 2009 to 2014 ranged from -2. 6% to 2. 7%. Was this Obama's fault? Hell if I know. I give Obama and the Democrats credit for not rolling off the Bush tax cuts immediately after a recession.
Third, the relatively few typical beneficiaries of Repubs' consistently failed Supply-Side / Trickle-Down philosophy are not the true "job creators" in a national economy. The true "job creators" are the many, many more lower and middle income earners who go into the marketplace and spend all the money in their pockets as quickly as possible, essentially forcing businesses to do something they for the most part hate to do; hire more employees to keep up with the customer traffic.More "you didn't build that business" claptrap. I wish more Americans weren't spendthrifts. It would deprive the Democratic Party politicians of one of their major advantages -- as long as people are highly dependent on government they're more likely to vote for Democrats.
Biden's plan to curtail inflation not working. Gas just went up to $6. 59 a gallon in San Diego today. Over $7 in some areas of California. Biden continues to spend tax payer dollars on giveaways and inflation rising. Idiots are still talking about Trump and past presidents while America suffers. Biden stupidly and incompetence may have USA equal the recession of the 1930's. The worst president ever and he hasn't a clue. Just like the idiots talking about the past. The past looks great with past republican or democrat presidents compared to todays leadership and the future looks even worse. Republicans are smart enough to acknowledge that Biden is a disaster. Several democrats admit USA is in trouble. The idiot socialists keep trying to talk nonsense thinking that Biden disasters will improve on their own. Stupidity at its finest.Actually, stupidity is the fact that I spent 30-seconds reading this trash and I'll never get that time back.
Damn it Tooms, I'm trying to cut back on posting here. But you're making it hard. Real hard.
They don't want you to look at the details, as long as you believe "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", they're happy.
Aaagh! The TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018. Employment grew by 2. 7 million in 2018 and 2. 1 million 2019. Then COVID hit. If I may be allowed to cherry pick, like you and your left of center media sources do, the average growth per year in employment during Obama's administration was 1. 4 million.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/employment-growth-accelerates-in-2018.htm#text=According%20 to%20 data%20 from%20 the, monthly%20 gain%20 of%20223%2 C000%20 jobs.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/employment-expansion-continued-in-2019-but-growth-slowed-in-several-industries.htm#text=In%202019%2 C%20 total%20 nonfarm%20 payroll, the%20 Current%20 Employment%20 Statistics%20 survey.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
And in 2018 and 2019, the USA, as described in post #10452, we were inching closer and closer to full employment in 2018 and 2019. Finally as described in posts 10377 and the link in #10381, the demographic wind was at our back in the final years of Obama's administration. The working aged population, 18 to 64, increased by 2. 3 million from 2013 to 2016, the last 3 years of Obama's administration, versus 270,000 from 2017 to 2020.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/employment-growth-accelerates-in-2018.htm#text=According%20 to%20 data%20 from%20 the, monthly%20 gain%20 of%20223%2 C000%20 jobs.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/article/employment-expansion-continued-in-2019-but-growth-slowed-in-several-industries.htm#text=In%202019%2 C%20 total%20 nonfarm%20 payroll, the%20 Current%20 Employment%20 Statistics%20 survey.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
Finally, the labor force participation rate fell like a rock for the first 6 years of the Obama administration, prior to flattening in 2015. After the TCJA took effect, it kicked up, from 62.7% in January, 2017 to 63.4% in January, 2020, before COVID hit.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
We've already discussed GDP growth rate, and I've listed some of the factors like globalization, changes in technology, the business cycle, a pandemic, what's going on in China and the rest of the world, Congress, that are as important or more important than who's president. And provided links that show the increase in real growth in median wages and median household income was off the charts, compared to past years, in 2019.
You're just rehashing what we've already discussed. You have to assume all provisions of the TCJA will be extended to get to "trillions of dollars. " Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by $1. 5 million. So far the amount has likely been under $1 trillion, maybe half of what the Democrats' American Rescue Plan cost in 2021 alone. The Democrats control the presidency, the Senate and the House, and they haven't repealed the TCJA. I believe Democrats should receive at least part of the credit and praise for any revenue losses after January 21,2021 from the corporate tax cuts. Biden BTW only wanted to increase the corporate rate back to 28%.
PLEASE!! The closer you get to full employment, the harder it is to reduce the unemployment rate.
I'm all for tax cuts, if the politicians will also reduce the spending, which they didn't during Trumps' term. However, I don't have an argument with what you're saying. The TCJA didn't reduce the complexity of the tax code. The one part of the TCJA I heartily approve of are changes in the corporate tax. They hurt me (and helped you), but still, they were so clearly needed I don't see why you feel compelled to argue against them. As to the QBI deduction for pass throughs and cuts in individual rates, there are valid arguments for and against them.
It's not 1932 any more. Republicans are just as inclined to use Keynesian principles during a recession as Democrats. The problem is that no one, except for Clinton and Gingrich et al, have been inclined to cut the deficits. Most of the politicians around today who are inclined to do so are Republicans.
If you want to argue to increase the average federal corporate rate, say 3 or 4 percentage points, maybe you could make a case for it. If you want to take it back up to 35%, you're just not making sense. It's way out of sync with other countries. You're kneecapping our businesses. How are they supposed to make things in America and export them to other countries, when their taxes are so much higher?
https://taxfoundation.org/us-effective-corporate-tax-rate-oecd-peers/
As to higher earners, we already have the most progressive tax system in the developed world. If you want to massively increase the size of government and the welfare state, the lion's share of the money can't come from the high earners, because they don't have enough money to pay for it. See the comments here by Peter Whiteford, the economist at the OECD who did the seminal study on the progressivity of tax systems of OECD countries:
http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html
I'm all for lower and middle income Americans making more money and saving. Many Democrat politicians don't want to see them doing well, with good paying jobs, because it's to their benefit if people get outsized transfer payments from and are dependent on the federal government. That will keep them voting for Democrats.
And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities. My city has a public transportation system now. And empty buses with no passengers. Because the buses didn't cost anything because they were paid for by the federal government. The power of the purse and governmental power are best exercised closest to the people, at the local and state level. My state and local governments are reasonably efficient and I have no problem paying state and local taxes. The federal government on the other hand flushes a huge amount of our money down the drain.
Baloney. Apparently you subscribe to Obama's belief that people don't build businesses, government does. You take money out of the private sector, away from the businessmen and the investors, and the economy won't grow as fast as it would otherwise. Cash flow of corporations, pass through businesses, and wealthy investors is mostly recycled back into the American economy, not spent on Italian villas. Again, look at CBO estimates for tax cuts and tax increases. You reduce taxes, you grow the economy faster. Nobody really disagrees with that.
The recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was weak by historical standards. We didn't regain 2008 employment levels until May of 2014 (see St. Louis fed employment link above.) Annual YoY GDP growth in 2009 to 2014 reanged from -2. 6% to 2. 7%. Was this Obama's fault? Hell if I know. I give Obama and the Democrats credit for not rolling off the Bush tax cuts immediately after a recession.
More "you didn't build that business" claptrap. I wish more Americans weren't spendthrifts. It would deprive the Democratic Party politicians of one of their major advantages, as long as people are highly dependent on government they're more likely to vote for Democrats."And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities."
I am all for the Federal government not sending jack shit of what they collect back to the states. Since "red states" receive a disproportionate amount of those federal funds, they'll all wither and die. https://sipanews.fiu.edu/2021/03/24/2021s-most-least-federally-dependent-states/.
Errata, Post 10456
The labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.4% in February, 2020.
Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by 1.5 trillion.
I'm not able to link to Peter Whiteford's comments in Greg Mankiw's blog. Either replace the asterisks below with "b l o g s p o t", or Google Mankiw and Whiteford to read the piece.
http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html
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.Yes the dumbest people in the world keep blaming Trump and everything else in the world for Biden's stupidity and incompetence.
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, ..."
Well clearly you perceive the word is used pejoratively that way, while...I DO NOT!
... 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.
I think, whatever else the debate / discussion between the BMs have morphed into something different than perhaps my initial understanding from the genesis of the debate.
EihTooms is correct from my POV, w/r to the economic wellness of Americans. That is to say, he's has shown that historically, most Americans have prospered economically (or socially for that matter) and fared much better when Dems have been in power vs Repubs. That's IT!!! That was my take-away, from their initial arguments, that they put forth.
From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/stock-market-by-president/index.html
That's not to say Americans, didn't do well under a Repub Admin, but IMHO, it's that more Americans fared better under a Dems Admin. For example personally, economically I did okay under Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf admin, but did much better under Pres. Obama and Clinton Admin.
Going by my initial take on their debate, I found EihTooms, to be correct as he provided opinions and evidence/data to substantiate his claims, NOT AS a "Democrat good, Republican bad" economic issue, as you put it, but rather framed his arguments and substantiated claims, rather as "Repub okay-to-good economies vs. Dems better-to-much-better economies" historically, to dissuade any "bothsidesism" claims, to the contrary.
So not at all the "End of Story", but like democracy, we defend it, make it better and refine it with "new chapters". The fight for democracy, has always been a never ending story.
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 and Tooms are just reflecting what they read in left of center media, which has an agenda. You knock out the effect of recessions, and I bet you wouldn't see a lot of difference in performance of the stock market and the economy between Republican and Democratic administrations. And blaming recessions on the president is downright naive. To the extent that government has any control over the economic cycle, it's mostly in the hands of the Fed. What control does the chief executive, or the central bank (Fed) for that matter, have over whether there's a pandemic? Or whether OPEC decides to jack up oil prices? The timing of a dot com boom? Or, as an explanation of recessions in European countries, and a partial explanation of the upcoming Biden recession, a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, not a hell of a lot.
I tried to make this sink in by showing the correlation between Democratic presidents and American casualties in foreign wars, but it didn't stick, at least for Tooms.
I believe Republicans are better for America and me in the long term because more of them are in favor of smaller government and devolution of power and taxation to the state and local levels. Government closest to the people is better. And at the state and local level, I believe Republicans on average are the better executives. That's part of the reason why blue states like Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia have Republican governors.
"And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities."
I am all for the Federal government not sending jack shit of what they collect back to the states. Since "red states" receive a disproportionate amount of those federal funds, they'll all wither and die. https://sipanews.fiu.edu/2021/03/24/2021s-most-least-federally-dependent-states/.So am I, since my metropolitan area has the highest per capita personal income in the USA. We have a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Local and state government are run efficiently and we get good value for our tax dollars. A majority in the county are people of color and a plurality are Hispanics. And Republicans get about 60 percentage points more votes than Democrats in elections. I'd dearly love it if the busy body politicians in Washington D.C. would back off. To the extent possible, let people in cities and counties and states run their affairs as they see fit.
MarquisdeSade1
10-03-22, 03:36
https://www.breitbart.com/news/brazil-holds-historic-election-with-lula-against-bolsonaro/
Polls had Lula winning by 10-15%.
Fake polls don't work LMAO.
MarquisdeSade1
10-03-22, 04:09
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/10/02/bill-maher-suggests-dumping-kamala-harris-from-2024-democrat-ticket-shes-not-very-popular-anywhere/
https://stormer-daily.rw/satanic-hindu-of-color-kamala-says-only-blacks-will-get-hurricane-relief/
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/09/29/confused-kamala-harris-praises-the-republic-of-north-korea-on-visit-to-dmz/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5OkECyvCY8
"then Covid hit".
"then the Great Depression hit".
"then the Financial Crises hit".
"then the S&L Crash hit".
"then 9-11 hit".
And on and on.
You pro Repub Bothsiders are hilarious. Talk about head in the sand oblivious and niave.
When any one of you can point to thoughts, words, deeds and results by the Repub Party since at least Reagan's famous declaration of war against America, war whoop and all, that wouldn't better apply to a frankly stated enemy of America rather than people honestly trying to Keep America Great, that would be impressive.
But so far, you've got nothing.
Keep pushing those insignificant sucker social issues and setting up your Big Liar Election Denying QAnon Loons to throw out likely Dem ballots and only count the rest. That's your only hope for power.
Yes the dumbest people in the world keep blaming Trump and everything else in the world for Biden's stupidity and incompetence.Actually, the dumbest people in the world don't have a clue how inflation happens so they blame President Biden. And, like you, their cornbread ain't quite done in the middle.
Well clearly you perceive the word is used pejoratively that way, while...I DO NOT!
I think, whatever else the debate / discussion between the BMs have morphed into something different than perhaps my initial understanding from the genesis of the debate.
EihTooms is correct from my POV, w/r to the economic wellness of Americans. That is to say, he's has shown that historically, most Americans have prospered economically (or socially for that matter) and fared much better when Dems have been in power vs Repubs. That's IT!!! That was my take-away, from their initial arguments, that they put forth.
From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/stock-market-by-president/index.html
That's not to say Americans, didn't do well under a Repub Admin, but IMHO, it's that more Americans fared better under a Dems Admin. For example personally, economically I did okay under Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf admin, but did much better under Pres. Obama and Clinton Admin..Yes, it is not like the pro Repub Bothsiders who spout unsubstantiated opinions, dig deep to carve out some meaningless detail somewhere that they think saves the day for them and assert that all these sub par Repub outcomes occurred because something horrific happened to just "hit" only on the Repubs' watch that they had no control over and had no duty to prepare for and prevent.
Excuses excuses excuses.
Meanwhile, the only horrific conditions Dems ever happen to get "hit" with are the conditions the outgoing Repubs hand over to them on the way in and for which the Dems invariably succeed in recovering America from in historic fashion.
All while the Repubs and their pro Repub Bothsider partners in MSM and elsewhere yap their flaps, snipe at them, shout that they just ain't doing it right or good enough or fast enough or slow enough or for free! LOL.
I hear Biden has already assured doughy, infantile Ron "no Federal aid for Hurricane Sandy" DeSantis that real tax payers in responsible states like New York and California will pick up the tab for his massive shortfall on this.
Hurricane Ian could be Floridas costliest storm ever
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/30/business/hurricane-ian-cost
Considering Repub pols in states like Florida have for decades ignored the fact that their locations are ripe for the worst of ongoing Climate Change disasters, this might be a good time to start denying Federal assistance beyond immediate life-saving measures to states and districts whose Senators and Representatives did not vote for Biden's American Rescue Plan, Infrastructure Bill and especially the Inflation Reduction Act.
We'll see how inflation goes for those Repub areas when they get their wish to have all these issues taken care of and paid for from "smaller government" city, state and local tills and pay full boat to their ever popular private sector businesses from now on.
The QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesism talk about Dems supports being dumber than Biden, for several manufactured so called reasons, is just hilarious.
Let's for a moment entertain that notion (and play devil's advocate) and give the Repubs the benefit of the doubt, and said dumbness from the Dems were true, it still wouldn't mount to a hill of beans, over Donnie "the Devil" J. Dommkopf, fleecing his gullible, brain dead, dumb supporters/donors into welfare, hardship and saving account depletion.
How quickly the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesists, forget "the devil" saying, he loves "the uneducated". I wonder why that is? (....kkkk!). I guess ignorance is bliss.
https://onlysky.media/rsnedeker/ignorance-government-donald-trump-education
No amount of dumbness on behalf of Dems will ever surpass the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesism dumb-dumbs, getting a financial drubbing from their supreme grifter, supreme lair and all-a-round supreme fraudster and cheater.
BTW, don't forget to donate to this month's "get-outta-jail" fund raiser email drive.
PS: Donnie "the Devil" J. Dommkopf, I think this month's rally cry, is "...you know you can't be rich, so donate and make me rich instead." (...kkkk!)
Biden's plan to curtail inflation not working. Gas just went up to $6. 59 a gallon in San Diego today. Over $7 in some areas of California. Biden continues to spend tax payer dollars on giveaways and inflation rising. Idiots are still talking about Trump and past presidents while America suffers. Biden stupidly and incompetence may have USA equal the recession of the 1930's. The worst president ever and he hasn't a clue. Just like the idiots talking about the past. The past looks great with past republican or democrat presidents compared to todays leadership and the future looks even worse. Republicans are smart enough to acknowledge that Biden is a disaster. Several democrats admit USA is in trouble. The idiot socialists keep trying to talk nonsense thinking that Biden disasters will improve on their own. Stupidity at its finest.Biden claims oil companies are gouging Americans. Gas in Wyoming last week $3. 29 a gallon, gas in Houston $2.99 a gallon, gas in Tucson, AZ $3.19 a gallon. All republican areas. Gas in Las Vegas $5.19. Gas in Barstow, Ca $6.79. Democrat areas. Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? Trying to force people to buy electric cars? Yes stupidity at its finest as the dumbest people in America voted for these dems.
Damn it Tooms, I'm trying to cut back on posting here. But you're making it hard. Real hard.
They don't want you to look at the details, as long as you believe "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", they're happy.
Aaagh! The TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018. Employment grew by 2.7 million in 2018 and 2.1 million 2019. Then COVID hit. If I may be allowed to cherry pick, like you and your left of center media sources do, the average growth per year in employment during Obama's administration was 1. 4 million..Oh, the TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018? Then your boy Trump's one and only economic "stimulus" legislation reduced the unemployment rate a whopping 0. 4 percentage points from 3.9%, where his coasting on the Obama-Biden economy brought it down to by December 2017, to 3.5% several months later.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
And for that we paid $2.5+ Trillion? How many people did it effect to make that dramatic move? 150? That must have been the number of new Fact Checkers the networks had to hire in order to keep up with Trump's 30,000+ lies.
In 2012, MittWitt Romney assured America that his superior Repub economic policies would get the unemployment rate to 6% in four years if we would only put him in the WH to do it.
Obama-Biden got it below 6% in less than two years.
So it's "baloney" that the USA government is "people"? How about corporations? Are they "people" but the USA government of, by and for We, The People is not?
Weepy Boehner was the one making the Repub case that business owners were the "job creators", a position that fuels his Party's lamebrain notion that Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax and economic policy creates more jobs than the Dems' alternative even though it never has for almost 100 years.
Yeah, I am fine with Obama's take on it that corporations and business owners couldn't build anything without the economic infrastructure built by all taxpayers, not just them, and paying customers.
MarquisdeSade1
10-03-22, 17:00
https://www.breitbart.com/news/brazil-holds-historic-election-with-lula-against-bolsonaro/
Polls had Lula winning by 10-15%.
Fake polls don't work LMAO.The left is always the beneficiary of these fake polls.
So I'm guessing its deliberate, so that when "election" day rolls around they can "cover up" their cheating.
When something like this happens with Lula for some reason the right hand and the left hand didn't match up.
And you have a huge discrepancy.
Political 3 card Monte!
Here comes Uncle Sam and Sleep Joe to the rescue again.
I hear Biden has already assured doughy, infantile Ron "no Federal aid for Hurricane Sandy" DeSantis that real tax payers in responsible states like New York and California will pick up the tab for his massive shortfall on this. ...
We'll see how inflation goes for those Repub areas when they get their wish to have all these issues taken care of and paid for from "smaller government" city, state and local tills and pay full boat to their ever popular private sector businesses from now on.
Darn it!
I was just about to report on this very same topic, w/r to PVMongers post on "red states" and you beat me to punch...WELL DONE!
Great post!
MarquisdeSade1
10-03-22, 21:39
The left is always the beneficiary of these fake polls.
So I'm guessing its deliberate, so that when "election" day rolls around they can "cover up" their cheating.
When something like this happens with Lula for some reason the right hand and the left hand didn't match up.
And you have a huge discrepancy.
Political 3 card Monte!Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
Biden claims oil companies are gouging Americans. Gas in Wyoming last week $3. 29 a gallon, gas in Houston $2.99 a gallon, gas in Tucson, AZ $3.19 a gallon. All republican areas. Gas in Las Vegas $5.19. Gas in Barstow, Ca $6.79. Democrat areas. Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? Trying to force people to buy electric cars? Yes stupidity at its finest as the dumbest people in America voted for these dems.The mayor of Houston (Sylvester Turner) is a Republican? Really? Did he switch sides yesterday? Or did he switch sides after reading your horseshit post? Regina Romero (Mayor of Tucson) is a Republican too? Did she switch parties along with Turner?
You said this: "Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities?
The one thing we can count on you for is not doing any research before you bloviate. Smdh.
"And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities."
I am all for the Federal government not sending jack shit of what they collect back to the states. Since "red states" receive a disproportionate amount of those federal funds, they'll all wither and die. https://sipanews.fiu.edu/2021/03/24/2021s-most-least-federally-dependent-statesThat's exactly right. Although warranted, I thought it a bit harsh though, as there are some good Repubs in "red states", but I understand the frustration, w/r to Repubs in the "red states" as they often are their own worst enemy.
But inevitably, many of these "red states" rant, pomp, bloviate and bluster about Wash. DC should "back-off" and insistently crow about wanting a "laissez-faire" fed. government, that is of course, until the proverbial "shit hits the fan".
Meaning that, when every red city, county, or state run a foul of corruption, malfeasance, debt, bankruptcy, natural disaster or an inept mishandling of a viral epidemic outbreak (and it's not a matter of if, but rather when), they'll come to the feds with proverbial "tail tucked between leg", begging for help and a handout.
(As just noted in EihTooms' recent post http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?2467-American-Politics&p=2749548&viewfull=1#post2749548 ).
How many times have we seen this scenario play out, from capitalist fraudsters, to the bankster gangsters, to corporate welfare, to gov't funding of the "red states", all with "laissez-faire" hat-in-hand, when times get tough, but were more than happy to tell the feds. "go pound sand" and to "back-off" when the good-times / profits were rolling in.
MarquisdeSade1
10-04-22, 02:30
[Deleted by Admin]
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!
The mayor of Houston (Sylvester Turner) is a Republican? Really? Did he switch sides yesterday? Or did he switch sides after reading your horseshit post? Regina Romero (Mayor of Tucson) is a Republican too? Did she switch parties along with Turner?
You said this: "Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities?
The one thing we can count on you for is not doing any research before you bloviate. Smdh.Gas in New York is around $3. 30. Another Repub bastion, I suppose.
Elvis 2008
10-04-22, 12:05
Biden claims oil companies are gouging Americans. Gas in Wyoming last week $3. 29 a gallon, gas in Houston $2.99 a gallon, gas in Tucson, AZ $3.19 a gallon. All republican areas. Gas in Las Vegas $5.19. Gas in Barstow, Ca $6.79. Democrat areas. Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? Trying to force people to buy electric cars? Yes stupidity at its finest as the dumbest people in America voted for these dems.Good post, Canada. Some of us know the difference between Republican areas and Democratic cities.
ChuchoLoco
10-04-22, 17:15
Biden claims oil companies are gouging Americans. Gas in Wyoming last week $3. 29 a gallon, gas in Houston $2.99 a gallon, gas in Tucson, AZ $3.19 a gallon. All republican areas. Gas in Las Vegas $5.19. Gas in Barstow, Ca $6.79. Democrat areas. Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? Trying to force people to buy electric cars? Yes stupidity at its finest as the dumbest people in America voted for these dems.Do the oil companies or dems control the price? Seems to me that the oil companies do and they are taking care of their friends which explains the cheap prices in are areas. Electric cars are the latest joke. Remember when diesel cars were the future and EPA said they were less polluting? Really there is nobody to believe neither the nor are. When is Mexico's first payment coming for the Great Wall?
Biden claims oil companies are gouging Americans. Gas in Wyoming last week $3. 29 a gallon, gas in Houston $2.99 a gallon, gas in Tucson, AZ $3.19 a gallon. All republican areas. Gas in Las Vegas $5.19. Gas in Barstow, Ca $6.79. Democrat areas. Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? Trying to force people to buy electric cars? Yes stupidity at its finest as the dumbest people in America voted for these dems.Why are gasoline prices high in California? Well, if a person were interested in details, he might want to look into the taxes and fees charged by California, which add up to about $1. 00 a gallon. Or the fact that California has to import 55% of its oil, incurring transportation costs, from places like Asia, South America and Alaska, even though the state has large oil resources. Maybe the state's refusal to issue permits for fracking has something to do with that. Twenty six refineries have closed in California. Perhaps the biggest reason for higher prices is the excessive regulation in the formulations required for gasoline. But people here aren't interested in all those pesky details.
So, when you get right down to it, it's because the California Democratic politicians cater to the greenies who want to have a smug feeling of self satisfaction and superiority from doing good things for the environment, even though they're not in any meaningful way. And they cater to the people who are sitting home on their asses and sucking off the government tit, so they don't have to commute. The workingman, who's busting his ass and paying $4,000 a year for gasoline to go to and from work, he's the minority. And he tends to vote for Republicans anyway. So f* him.
Errata, Post 10456
The labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.4% in February, 2020.
Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by 1.5 trillion.
I'm not able to link to Peter Whiteford's comments in Greg Mankiw's blog. Either replace the asterisks below with "b l o g s p o t", or Google Mankiw and Whiteford to read the piece.
http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.htmlFirst of all, expand any Labor Force Participation Rate chart you've got to Max and you will see the gigantic plunge in the rate occurred throughout Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush's presidency. That downward plunging trajectory only came to a halt and began to painstakingly reverse course under Obama-Biden starting in September 2015.
So any vague suggestion that it was "down" under Obama or due to anything Obama had done is total BS. He is the one under whose presidency the dramatic downward plunge trajectory came to a halt and reversed course!
Second, the only notable increase in the rate from where it had increased under Obama began around June 2019. Then, of course, that 8 month uptick came to an abrupt halt in February 2020 when Trump's disastrous economic and stewardship decisions from 2018 and all through 2020 came crashing down with a vengeance.
Labor Force Participation Rate Chart
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
I have posted screen shots of the above interactive Labor Force Participation Rate chart at the various points I just referenced; at Max showing the dramatic plunge throughout Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush's presidency, at 10 years showing when it halted its downward plunge trajectory and reversed course under Obama and the June 2019 to February 2020 uptick before Trump's Pandemic crashed it. Although the screenshots are not necessarily in that order.
So what happened in 2019 to cause that 8 month notable uptick in the Labor Force Participation Rate under Trump before his crash? Could it have had anything whatsoever to do with his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? In all likelihood, not very much. Why would tax cuts for corporations that they used to buy back their own company stocks inspire anyone to re-enter the Labor Force? Why would any tax cuts for anyone inspire unemployed holdouts to re-entering the Labor Force?
Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush famously cut taxes a whole bunch, at least twice, and as you can see on that chart, Americans fled the Labor Force in droves!
I submit there was a far more logical reason for a notable uptick in American workers re-entering the Labor Force in 2019 and that trend would probably have continued doing so had Trump's Pandemic not derailed the entire USA economy as well as others around the world.
And it was a trend I already previously cited here as the real reason wages increased for women, blacks, hispanics and other minorities that Trump tried to take undeserved credit for but in fact it was something he, Moscow Mitch and most Repubs did and still do adamantly oppose:
Blue states $15 minimum wage push gets a jump-start.
February 19, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/16/new-jersey-minimum-wage-1173156
With a national $15 minimum hourly wage still out of reach, blue states are mounting an offensive to fill the void.
New Jersey this month joined three other states in raising its hourly minimum wage to $15, Illinois is poised to follow next week, and more states are waiting in the wings.
Its all part of an effort to leverage Democratic midterm election gains to advance the so-called Fight for $15 and increase pay for some of the lowest-paid workers even if the federal government wont.
(and more)
Beijing4987
10-04-22, 21:08
Did Anybody here bitching about gasoline formulations and "pesky regulations" live in So Cal in the 60's-70's?
Why are gasoline prices high in California? Well, if a person were interested in details, he might want to look into the taxes and fees charged by California, which add up to about $1. 00 a gallon. Or the fact that California has to import 55% of its oil, incurring transportation costs, from places like Asia, South America and Alaska, even though the state has large oil resources. Maybe the state's refusal to issue permits for fracking has something to do with that. Twenty six refineries have closed in California. Perhaps the biggest reason for higher prices is the excessive regulation in the formulations required for gasoline. But people here aren't interested in all those pesky details.
So, when you get right down to it, it's because the California Democratic politicians cater to the greenies who want to have a smug feeling of self satisfaction and superiority from doing good things for the environment, even though they're not in any meaningful way. And they cater to the people who are sitting home on their asses and sucking off the government tit, so they don't have to commute. The workingman, who's busting his ass and paying $4,000 a year for gasoline to go to and from work, he's the minority. And he tends to vote for Republicans anyway. So f* him.If somebody actually was interested in "pesky details", they could do some research instead of simply pointing fingers.
https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-why-fuel-prices-rising-170130453.html
"(Reuters) - After a tumultuous year, USA Gasoline prices have been steadily falling from peaks reached in June due to high demand and tight global refining supply. But in some regions, the average price is beginning to rise again, prompting concern from the Biden administration.
Although 60% of USA States saw gasoline prices fall week on week, the national average gas price increased by about 7 cents per gallon in the same period, according to data from the American Automotive Association.
Last week top White House officials met with oil executives to discuss Hurricane Ian and low gasoline inventories as President Joe Biden warned the industry not to price-gouge consumers.
Why are gasoline prices rising in some regions?
Gasoline prices have recently been affected by regional refinery outages in the west coast and the Midwest.
Refinery maintenance often takes place in the fall when demand drops after the summer driving season. This fall, however, other refineries had to shut units without warning due to infrastructure problems.
Three refineries in Washington state and California have had planned maintenance while another had an unplanned outage in September, according to Refinitiv data and refining sources.
Overall, USA Oil refiners are expected to have about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of capacity offline for the week ending Oct. 7, decreasing available refining capacity by 288,000 bpd, research company IIR Energy said on Monday.
In the Midwest, BP-Cenovus' Toledo refinery is still offline after a fatal explosion shut the plant late last month. On the East Coast, Irving Oil's Canadian refinery had maintenance this fall, according to refining sources.
Gulf Coast refineries are also undergoing maintenance this fall, including Marathon's Galveston Bay, Motiva's Port Arthur refinery, and Pemex Deer Park.
Where are gasoline prices rising and where are they falling?
Gasoline price spikes are most pronounced on the West Coast.
Average retail gasoline prices rose the most in California, rising 10% week on week to $6. 382 per gallon, and Alaska, rising by 11% to $5.34, according to AAA.
Prices have also increased by 11 cents in Ohio and 18 cents in Illinois due in part to the Ohio refinery fire.
Fuel prices fell the most in Florida, where demand was impacted by Hurricane Ian. The average price is now $3. 22, down 16 cents from a week ago. Gasoline prices also fell week on week in other states including Missouri, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota.
What other factors are affecting fuel prices?
Tight refining supply has caused the gap between wholesale gasoline futures and retail prices to remain wide this year. It currently sits at about $1.30 a gallon, compared with an average of 88 cents over the past five years."
Did Anybody here bitching about gasoline formulations and "pesky regulations" live in So Cal in the 60's-70's?If so. Cal had as much smog as, say, Mexico City, the Moron Brigade would claim that Dems weren't doing enough to keep the smog down. Maybe they'd say something stupid like "raking the forest will stop forest fires".
But the Moron Brigade will blame Democrats and they will not offer any constructive solutions. It is in their DNA (unless they think that their DNA was altered somehow, maybe by Chinese thermostats or Italian satellites).
Why are gasoline prices high in California? Well, if a person were interested in details, he might want to look into the taxes and fees charged by California, which add up to about $1. 00 a gallon. Or the fact that California has to import 55% of its oil, incurring transportation costs, from places like Asia, South America and Alaska, even though the state has large oil resources. Maybe the state's refusal to issue permits for fracking has something to do with that. Twenty six refineries have closed in California. Perhaps the biggest reason for higher prices is the excessive regulation in the formulations required for gasoline. But people here aren't interested in all those pesky details.
So, when you get right down to it, it's because the California Democratic politicians cater to the greenies who want to have a smug feeling of self satisfaction and superiority from doing good things for the environment, even though they're not in any meaningful way. And they cater to the people who are sitting home on their asses and sucking off the government tit, so they don't have to commute. The workingman, who's busting his ass and paying $4,000 a year for gasoline to go to and from work, he's the minority. And he tends to vote for Republicans anyway. So f* him.OPEC is cutting production again tomorrow and gas prices will rise again. Not much in Republican states but California will see $8 a gallon gas. I love it. I think it is great. Those dumb ass democrats can keep praising Biden and Newsome. I really feel bad that I am in the oil business and reaping the benefits of the dumbest president in USA history.
If somebody actually was interested in "pesky details", they could do some research instead of simply pointing fingers.
https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-why-fuel-prices-rising-170130453.html
"(Reuters) - After a tumultuous year, USA Gasoline prices have been steadily falling from peaks reached in June due to high demand and tight global refining supply. But in some regions, the average price is beginning to rise again, prompting concern from the Biden administration.
Although 60% of USA States saw gasoline prices fall week on week, the national average gas price increased by about 7 cents per gallon in the same period, according to data from the American Automotive Association.
Last week top White House officials met with oil executives to discuss Hurricane Ian and low gasoline inventories as President Joe Biden warned the industry not to price-gouge consumers.
Why are gasoline prices rising in some regions?
Gasoline prices have recently been affected by regional refinery outages in the west coast and the Midwest.
Refinery maintenance often takes place in the fall when demand drops after the summer driving season. This fall, however, other refineries had to shut units without warning due to infrastructure problems.
Three refineries in Washington state and California have had planned maintenance while another had an unplanned outage in September, according to Refinitiv data and refining sources.
Overall, USA Oil refiners are expected to have about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of capacity offline for the week ending Oct. 7, decreasing available refining capacity by 288,000 bpd, research company IIR Energy said on Monday.
In the Midwest, BP-Cenovus' Toledo refinery is still offline after a fatal explosion shut the plant late last month. On the East Coast, Irving Oil's Canadian refinery had maintenance this fall, according to refining sources.
Gulf Coast refineries are also undergoing maintenance this fall, including Marathon's Galveston Bay, Motiva's Port Arthur refinery, and Pemex Deer Park.
Where are gasoline prices rising and where are they falling?
Gasoline price spikes are most pronounced on the West Coast.
Average retail gasoline prices rose the most in California, rising 10% week on week to $6. 382 per gallon, and Alaska, rising by 11% to $5.34, according to AAA.
Prices have also increased by 11 cents in Ohio and 18 cents in Illinois due in part to the Ohio refinery fire.
Fuel prices fell the most in Florida, where demand was impacted by Hurricane Ian. The average price is now $3. 22, down 16 cents from a week ago. Gasoline prices also fell week on week in other states including Missouri, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota.
What other factors are affecting fuel prices?
Tight refining supply has caused the gap between wholesale gasoline futures and retail prices to remain wide this year. It currently sits at about $1.30 a gallon, compared with an average of 88 cents over the past five years."Nice try buckaroo, and definitely a better effort than "Houston has a Democratic mayor and gasoline prices there are lower than California. " But the price has been higher in California for a long time. Here's a comparison between two series for "the DOE Retail Automotive Gasoline All Grades Average Price" for California and Texas. I downloaded the data from Bloomberg to Excel, but if you're energetic you can probably do the same thing by going to the DOE web site.
How much more gasoline cost in California than Texas:
2015:43%.
2016:38%.
2017:34%.
2018:41%.
2019:56%.
2020:65%.
2021:50%.
2022 YTD: 48%.
By the way, the premium from 2006 to 2014 was in the range of 12% to 20%. I'm not sure what happened in 2015 to cause it to shoot up.
First of all, expand any Labor Force Participation Rate chart you've got to Max and you will see the gigantic plunge in the rate occurred throughout Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush's presidency. That downward plunging trajectory only came to a halt and began to painstakingly reverse course under Obama-Biden starting in September 2015.
So any vague suggestion that it was "down" under Obama or due to anything Obama had done is total BS. He is the one under whose presidency the dramatic downward plunge trajectory came to a halt and reversed course!
Second, the only notable increase in the rate from where it had increased under Obama began around June 2019. Then, of course, that 8 month uptick came to an abrupt halt in February 2020 when Trump's disastrous economic and stewardship decisions from 2018 and all through 2020 came crashing down with a vengeance.
Labor Force Participation Rate Chart
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
I have posted screen shots of the above interactive Labor Force Participation Rate chart at the various points I just referenced; at Max showing the dramatic plunge throughout Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush's presidency, at 10 years showing when it halted its downward plunge trajectory and reversed course under Obama and the June 2019 to February 2020 uptick before Trump's Pandemic crashed it. Although the screenshots are not necessarily in that order.
So what happened in 2019 to cause that 8 month notable uptick in the Labor Force Participation Rate under Trump before his crash? Could it have had anything whatsoever to do with his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? In all likelihood, not very much. Why would tax cuts for corporations that they used to buy back their own company stocks inspire anyone to re-enter the Labor Force? Why would any tax cuts for anyone inspire unemployed holdouts to re-entering the Labor Force?
Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush famously cut taxes a whole bunch, at least twice, and as you can see on that chart, Americans fled the Labor Force in droves!
I submit there was a far more logical reason for a notable uptick in American workers re-entering the Labor Force in 2019 and that trend would probably have continued doing so had Trump's Pandemic not derailed the entire USA economy as well as others around the world.
And it was a trend I already previously cited here as the real reason wages increased for women, blacks, hispanics and other minorities that Trump tried to take undeserved credit for but in fact it was something he, Moscow Mitch and most Repubs did and still do adamantly oppose:
Blue states $15 minimum wage push gets a jump-start.
February 19, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/16/new-jersey-minimum-wage-1173156That's quite a piece of creative trend analysis and partisan distortion. You could be Biden's press secretary. Don't take that the wrong way, it's a compliment. My favorite part is, "So any vague suggestion that (labor force participation rate) was 'down' under Obama...is total BS. " Classic double think. My six year old could look at your graphs and tell you the labor force participation rate was down under Obama. Another zinger was "Trump's Pandemic...derailed the entire USA economy as well as others around the world. " Hell, I don't much like Trump either, but blaming the pandemic and the 2020 recession in the USA and foreign countries on him is another departure from reality.
All other things being equal, an increase in the minimum wage will cause lower employment. And the the phased increases in minimum wage in the few states that you mentioned didn't do diddly squat in 2019. That said, I agree that many cities and states should increase their minimum wages. The poorest Americans have been left behind, and higher but reasonable minimum wages would help, even though it would reduce employment a bit.
OPEC is cutting production again tomorrow and gas prices will rise again. Not much in Republican states but California will see $8 a gallon gas. I love it. I think it is great. Those dumb ass democrats can keep praising Biden and Newsome. I really feel bad that I am in the oil business and reaping the benefits of the dumbest president in USA history.Californians should be free to do what Californians want to do. I just don't like it when their progressive politicians go to Washington and then try to impose their high tax, big government, anti-energy agenda on my community and state.
That's quite a piece of creative trend analysis and partisan distortion. You could be Biden's press secretary. Don't take that the wrong way, it's a compliment. My favorite part is, "So any vague suggestion that (labor force participation rate) was 'down' under Obama...is total BS. " Classic double think. My six year old could look at your graphs and tell you the labor force participation rate was down under Obama. Another zinger was "Trump's Pandemic...derailed the entire USA economy as well as others around the world. " Hell, I don't much like Trump either, but blaming the pandemic and the 2020 recession in the USA and foreign countries on him is another departure from reality.
All other things being equal, an increase in the minimum wage will cause lower employment. And the the phased increases in minimum wage in the few states that you mentioned didn't do diddly squat in 2019. That said, I agree that many cities and states should increase their minimum wages. The poorest Americans have been left behind, and higher but reasonable minimum wages would help, even though it would reduce employment a bit.And if you didn't reprimand and punish your six year old for a blatant bit of lying by omission like yours in that post you might be guilty of negligent parent.
I said any suggestion that it was "down" under Obama or because of something Obama did is BS. You omitted that last part trying to pull a little porkie pie, didn't you?
The downward plunge trajectory all through Reagan wannabe Repub GW Bush's presidency unavoidably bled into Obama's presidency in the wake of GW Bush's Great Repub Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction. It was "down" under Obama for that reason and that reason alone until Obama's economy halted the plunge and reversed the trajectory. Which is what Trump inherited.
Look at that Max chart and anyone can see that dramatic and steady downward trajectory for Labor Force Participation all through Reagan wannabe GW Bush's economy had no more to do with anything Obama did to put it there before his economy dramatically reversed course on it than the dramatic and steady downward trajectory for the unemployment rate through Obama's presidency that bled into Trump's presidency had anything to do with it continuing to decline from 3. 9% to 3. 5% after his typical Repub waste of Trillions TCJA took effect.
Seriously, show your six year old that chart and this one below and find out what he can teach you about easily observable reality:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Oh, be sure to set the above chart coverage range back to at least 2008. Your six year old can help you with that.
Did Anybody here bitching about gasoline formulations and "pesky regulations" live in So Cal in the 60's-70's?I loved the much cleaner air in the 2000's than we had in the 60's-70's. And California managed to responsibly deal with it, fix their LOS Angeles Basin "weather" problem in that regard and pay for it without draining America's coffers with constant emergency Federal Assistance. Imagine that.
I thank god every day that California knows how to apply sensible and responsible regulations and tax policy in order to make living and working there more attractive and profitable than most anywhere else in the country if not on Earth.
My beautifully increasing rental property values and rent rolls are evidence of that every year. Beats the hell out of scrambling around every hour of the day checking on yield curves and trends to guess what to buy and sell with some insignificant percentage of ones stock market holdings just to stay afloat and hopefully break even someday from when prior guesses and bets went south as others do.
Obama had at least two shots at defund, dismantle, mock, deride and lie about the international health and disease monitoring agencies and the intel they provide to prevent and, failing that, intelligently respond to emerging potential economy-crippling Pandemics.
But he didn't:
The 2009 influenza pandemic and the Ebola crisis: what are the lessons learnt?
April 27, 2015
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fvl.15.9
Instead, this is what he did a decade before Trump was forced to apply Obama's fast-track vaccination program when his lies could no longer prevent his stock market from crashing into a Mega Bear despite his defunding, dismantling, mockery, denigration, lies, etc on the World Stage trying so hard to prevent it:
Obama's science advisors outline plan for faster pandemic vaccine.
August 19, 2010
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/08/obamas-science-advisors-outline-plan-faster-pandemic-vaccine
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/10/02/bill-maher-suggests-dumping-kamala-harris-from-2024-democrat-ticket-shes-not-very-popular-anywhere/
https://stormer-daily.rw/satanic-hindu-of-color-kamala-says-only-blacks-will-get-hurricane-relief/
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/09/29/confused-kamala-harris-praises-the-republic-of-north-korea-on-visit-to-dmz/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5OkECyvCY8Bill Maher is funny. But his political instincts suck and his ill-informed Bothsiderism is idiotic.
Here is the latest highly regarded poll I've seen for Kamala Harris in a hypothetical head-to-head contest with the two top likely GOP candidates. This was just two months ago. She beat both of them, as did Biden:
Biden and Harris Would Both Beat Either Trump or DeSantis in 2024: Poll.
7/21/22
https://www.newsweek.com/2024-odds-biden-harris-trump-desantis-1726687
So which of the other Repub Party Superstars do you, Maher and the geniuses at breitbart think will be the greatest threat to another landslide victorious Biden-Harris ticket on your lord and savior's Repub Party ticket in 2024?
Pence?
Cruz?
Gohmert?
Greene?
... Electric cars are the latest joke. Remember when diesel cars were the future and EPA said they were less polluting? ... While I don't think EVs are a panacea to all our immediate transportation / environment problems, they will play a large role in the US becoming more energy independent. Not too mention, battery tech is advancing at an enormous pace, that should give EVs the advantage over ICE, in most vehicle type applications. Not all, but most.
Also, EVs and our foray into larger cleaner forms of energy, is definitely much to the chagrin of the oil and gas companies (domestic and foreign) and will most assuredly, help to loosen their soci-eco grip on us, addressing your question "Who Controls the Price? Will at least going forward.
Granted we'll have to deal with the "controllers of the electricity prices", but at least that's more of domestic ONLY problem.
So my question is, why do you say, "Electric cars are the latest joke?
P.S.: Florida, could have used a few F150 Lightning EVs to help supplement power. Yes?
Electric F-150 Lightnings save the day with power in Kentucky flood...
https://electrek.co/2022/08/06/electric-f-150-lightnings-save-the-day-kentucky-flood-response/
Nice try buckaroo, and definitely a better effort than "Houston has a Democratic mayor and gasoline prices there are lower than California. " But the price has been higher in California for a long time. Here's a comparison between two series for "the DOE Retail Automotive Gasoline All Grades Average Price" for California and Texas. I downloaded the data from Bloomberg to Excel, but if you're energetic you can probably do the same thing by going to the DOE web site.
How much more gasoline cost in California than Texas:.Gee, why not count the number of refineries in California and the number of refineries in Texas? I'll bet dollars to donuts that Texas has more than double the number of refineries than California. And I would also bet that the disparity has existed for a long time. Sure, let's not mention that, right?
Let's also not mention that California has unique fuel blends that help control smog. After all, that wouldn't have anything to do with price either, would it? Sheesh, the lengths you guys go to dig yourselves into a hole is astounding.
And, since you can't read, Canada said in his post "Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? I pointed out that Houston and Tucson (both cities that he used in his rant to prove that gas was cheaper in Republican cities) both had Democratic mayors. I can't help it if his analysis was faulty and I can't help it if you can't read.
ChuchoLoco
10-05-22, 14:04
While I don't think EVs are a panacea to all our immediate transportation / environment problems, they will play a large role in the US becoming more energy independent. Not too mention, battery tech is advancing at an enormous pace, that should give EVs the advantage over ICE, in most vehicle type applications. Not all, but most.
Also, EVs and our foray into larger cleaner forms of energy, is definitely much to the chagrin of the oil and gas companies (domestic and foreign) and will most assuredly, help to loosen their soci-eco grip on us, addressing your question "Who Controls the Price? Will at least going forward.
Granted we'll have to deal with the "controllers of the electricity prices", but at least that's more of domestic ONLY problem.The electricity that will be needed to charge the batteries will come from power plants, many of which are coal fired and a major contributor to air pollution as well as what the mining does to the earth. Maybe nuclear plants most of which have exceeded their 20 year design life and what are they doing with the spent fuel that lasts longer than civilized man and also risks of Chernobyl or Tree Mile Island. Now the batteries are most likely lithium and mining lithium is destructive and the batteries don't last forever and are a destructive pollutant. Where will we get all the additional electricity to fuel all these cars when we are at near capacity and many times there are brownouts. Texas a couple years ago. I'm sure with all the technology a very high mileage and les polluting gas engine can be designed and built. How about reducing the size of vehicles too? Do we really need all these huge pickups and SUV's? I'm always seeing women driving a huge SUV at the grocery store and no passengers. I'm just not as optimistic or a believer in EV's. I don't know the answer to this but how much does it cost to totally charge an EV? Also how long does it take to charge and if you only get 200 miles between charges it seems to me a trip over 200 miles is out of the question among other transits. Ethanol is another false savior. It takes more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of pure ethanol and mileage is much less than pure gas. So it really pollutes more and uses more fuel. EV's to me are the Latest joke but I'm not laughing.
While I don't think EVs are a panacea to all our immediate transportation / environment problems, they will play a large role in the US becoming more energy independent. Not too mention, battery tech is advancing at an enormous pace, that should give EVs the advantage over ICE, in most vehicle type applications. Not all, but most.
Also, EVs and our foray into larger cleaner forms of energy, is definitely much to the chagrin of the oil and gas companies (domestic and foreign) and will most assuredly, help to loosen their soci-eco grip on us, addressing your question "Who Controls the Price? Will at least going forward.
Granted we'll have to deal with the "controllers of the electricity prices", but at least that's more of domestic ONLY problem.
So my question is, why do you say, "Electric cars are the latest joke?
P.S.: Florida, could have used a few F150 Lightning EVs to help supplement power. Yes?
Electric F-150 Lightnings save the day with power in Kentucky flood...
https://electrek.co/2022/08/06/electric-f-150-lightnings-save-the-day-kentucky-flood-response/Most of the knocks on EV's, at least from the articles I've read, has been "The electric grid can't handle the load" and, to prove the point, the article uses logic like "what if everybody with an EV decided to charge them at the same time". What the article never mentions is "what if everybody with a gasoline powered car decided to fill up at the same time"? See, if that happened, gas stations would run out of gas. A typical gas station has 30 K gallons of gasoline in their underground tanks after a delivery. So that's about 1,500 cars and the station is dry.
The other knock is the range of the vehicle and that is where your battery technology comes into play.
OPEC is cutting production again tomorrow and gas prices will rise again. Not much in Republican states but California will see $8 a gallon gas. I love it. I think it is great. Those dumb ass democrats can keep praising Biden and Newsome. I really feel bad that I am in the oil business and reaping the benefits of the dumbest president in USA history.Not great if you live on California but I have been advising all my clients to be buying oil and gas stocks the last few months and it is working for them. Oil stocks are the only stocks going up today. Biden is begging OPEC countries today to not make the cuts in oil production but they just laugh at him. OPEC knows Biden is a fool for devastating his energy program in USA and begging other countries to produce more. But the dumbest people in the USA will continue to support Biden stupidity and incompetence and just blame Trump or Putin.
While I don't think EVs are a panacea to all our immediate transportation / environment problems, they will play a large role in the US becoming more energy independent. Not too mention, battery tech is advancing at an enormous pace, that should give EVs the advantage over ICE, in most vehicle type applications. Not all, but most.
Also, EVs and our foray into larger cleaner forms of energy, is definitely much to the chagrin of the oil and gas companies (domestic and foreign) and will most assuredly, help to loosen their soci-eco grip on us, addressing your question "Who Controls the Price? Will at least going forward.
Granted we'll have to deal with the "controllers of the electricity prices", but at least that's more of domestic ONLY problem.
So my question is, why do you say, "Electric cars are the latest joke?
P.S.: Florida, could have used a few F150 Lightning EVs to help supplement power. Yes?
Electric F-150 Lightnings save the day with power in Kentucky flood...
https://electrek.co/2022/08/06/electric-f-150-lightnings-save-the-day-kentucky-flood-response/That is a joke in itself. 2 trucks can save the day when there is no power in the area? What happens after 4 hours and the 2 trucks go dead? Propaganda at its best.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.