American Politics

[EihTooms]

There seems to be confusion and misunderstanding about the words "Escalate" and "Increase" as they pertain to Eisenhower's Vietnam War. I assure you that confusion has been going on since the 1960's. Please note; one cannot "Escalate" or 'Increase" military presence and involvement in a war that had not yet begun or wasn't ongoing. The typical year cited as the beginning of the Vietnam War and America's involvement in it militarily is 1955, not 1963 and not 1964.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution merely legally and officially authorized USA Forces to shoot back after the North Vietnamese had provoked an armed response with their multiple attacks on USA Navy Destroyers, as reported by USA Military commanders on the scene.

U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War: the Gulf of Tonkin and Escalation, 1964

https://history.state.gov/milestones...gulf-of-tonkin#text=On%20 August%207%2 see%201964%2 see%20 Congress, and%20 security%20 in%20 southeast%20 Asia.

In early August 1964, two U.S. destroyers stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam radioed that they had been fired upon by North Vietnamese forces. In response to these reported incidents, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested permission from the U.S. Congress to increase the U.S. military presence in Indochina. On August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing President Johnson to take any measures he believed were necessary to retaliate and to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. This resolution became the legal basis for the Johnson and Nixon Administrations prosecution of the Vietnam War.

Of course, USA Forces would never have been in a position to be provoked into an escalation and increase in our presence by multiple attacks from the North Vietnamese or to shoot back had President Eisenhower not made it his mission as early as 1954 to commit the USA Fully, totally and unambiguously by word, deed and treaty to fighting North Vietnam on behalf of South Vietnam.

Sure enough, it turned out once we started shooting back the fatalities rose on both sides. On the other hand, no one knows how much more lopsided the USA Fatalities would have been by the end of it if LBJ and the USA Congress had not reacted or done anything at all in response to those reported multiple attacks on our troops. Would North Vietnam had said, "Well, that was interesting. Nevermind. Let's change the subject and do something else" or would they have been emboldened to engage in more and bigger attacks on our troops without them shooting back or retaliating?

As was typical then and now, Mainstream Media and even this site spent decades bending over backwards to keep beloved old WWII General Eisenhower's name out of it, despite him being the President who committed us to fighting that war in the first place, putting us in harms way for the North Vietnamese provocation, making it necessary to shoot back, retaliate and escalate our involvement and despite his apparent idiotic expectation that we would or could fight and win it for sake of Democracy by only being shot at but never shooting back.

Notice how even this site pretends as though Eisenhower's zealously guarded, super secret pseudonyms during his presidency were "the countries" and "The United States".

After the end of the First Indochina War and the Viet Minh defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the countries meeting at the Geneva Conference divided Vietnam into northern and southern halves, ruled by separate regimes, and scheduled elections to reunite the country under a unified government. The communists seemed likely to win those elections, thanks mostly to their superior organization and greater appeal in the countryside. The United States, however, was dedicated to containing the spread of communist regimes and, invoking the charter of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (1954), supported the South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, when he refused to hold the elections. Diem held control of the South Vietnamese Government, but he could not halt the communist infiltration of the South. By 1959, the Viet Cong, South Vietnamese communist guerillas, and the Viet Minh, began a large scale insurgency in the South that marked the opening of the Second Indochina War.

See, they had no qualms about naming names for these military commitments to the Vietnam War as long as it was Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon. But, strangely, they seem to think "the countries" and "The United States" were some disembodied entities without a first, middle and last name. Hey guys, they had one alright. It was Dwight David Eisenhower. They even had a nickname; Ike.

[EihTooms]

Tooms, please see below. The good parts are highlighted!

Again, this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect.... I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

LOL. Clever of you to omit the first war listed at the very top of your link, The American Civil War, where 620,000 Americans were killed in that one alone, every one of them killed on a Repub President's watch in a war begun on his watch, possibly by whoever was Speaker of the House I suppose, but for sure started by America and by no other country. And the Per Capita American Fatality rate for that Repub war must have been astronomical. I suspect it was much higher than it was for WWI and the Korean War combined.

And "Democrat" President LBJ "started" the Vietnam War? In 1955, eight years before he became President? LOL. Oh wait. Who was Speaker of the House in 1955? Maybe we can pass the buck of blame for that one to him.

Well, since you have fessed up about the humorous tone of all your other posts on this topic it is nice to see you admit that, contrary to your "wouldn't vote for Trump" claim, you are actually quite happy to help Trump win any and every election thanks to your stealth pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiderism rather than by voting directly for him. The latter of which is not really necessary to help Repubs win elections, as your beloved Repub Party and I am sure you know perfectly well, considering their foremost strategy for winning elections has for decades been to challenge, obstruct, suppress, deny, not count or overturn likely Dem / Lib votes.

That has been understood by politically ambitious "Conservatives" for decades, even before Repub Chief Justice Oath of Office Gobbledygook's Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in order to better facilitate that now critical Repub election strategy and certainly for every Trump-involved election ever since.

Of course, you know it is fine and dandy for you to proudly proclaim you would not vote for Trump. You and The Party know very well your Bothsider / Neithersiderism and any vote not for a Dem works almost as well to help Repubs win as a direct vote for one. You just don't have to openly admit your stance is really a vote for Trump anyway, that's all.

It's similar to the Repub delusion applied to their "no Russian collusion by Team Trump" claim. Putin and Russia knows very well they colluded with Team Trump to help Trump win those elections even if Team Trump was too ashamed to openly admit it or too stupid to realize it was happening all around them all along.

[Tiny 12]

Yes, the list of wars fought by Americans are many more than most can even recall. Under both Parties. I will leave calculating the overall number of American fatalities under this or that POTUS to the noted Mathematicians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

However, if we just look at the big wars with American involvement that resulted in notable numbers of American fatalities that most of us even know occurred it should at least be among the ones where someone in American leadership, either the President or the Speaker of the House and I'll go with it being the President on that, voluntarily committed us to by word, deed and / or treaty and not because we were provoked into it by a direct attack on our soil, our troops or by an official declaration of war against us.

So in order to at least compare Repub vs Dem Presidents on that issue, why be so cavalier about American War fatalities and omit that first really big one where a true comparison could begin, The American Civil War? Yeah, I'll put that one on the Repub President at the time. Started by Americans and nobody else on his watch, no argument about it.

Then there was Eisenhower's Vietnam War. He plunged us into that one voluntarily by word, deed and treaty. Sure enough. We were not required to take over for the French when they were defeated and retreated. There was no direct attack on our troops prior to Eisenhower choosing to do that.

George H. W. Bush's Gulf War. Again, not provoked by an attack on our soil or troops.

George W. Bush's War in Irag and Afghanistan. Again, neither of those nations attacked our soil or troops.

Well, that leaves WWI and the Korean War to the Dem presidents up to now. Although I think Truman probably should share a bit of that with Ulysses S. Grant. Yep, Grant. Look it up.

Now, noted Mathematician that you are, I always wondered why you never applied the most rudimentary factor to just about any calculation regarding what happens to some people within a population; the Per Capita number rather than the raw number. Shouldn't we be less cavalier about American fatalities in those wars by at least considering the Per Capita number of Americans killed in them?

Oh, but then I realized going back to at least that first Repub President for the Dem vs Repub comparison, Lincoln and his American Civil War, that Per Capita thing would not be helpful to your cause.

Then I wondered why someone as adamant about deflecting responsibility from Presidents for just about anything negative, passing the buck to others, well especially Repub presidents since almost every really bad thing that has happened to America over the past several decades has happened on a Repub President's watch and extremely little positive, which as we all now know is a wild coincidence of course, why you didn't deflect and pass the buck for all those big war fatalities from the President's responsibility to that of the Generals? That would even apply to the provoked wars.

I mean, much like the Speaker of the House is to the President on economic results, shouldn't you be arguing that those American fatalities in war are the Generals' responsibility? Aren't they the ones who take the basic agenda and goal of the ineffectual and unnecessary President and "originate", "pen" and "control" the details and produce the results?

But then I remembered who the Party affiliation of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Force in Europe was during WWII and realized that would not serve your purposes either.

Oh, and the Party affiliation of the Supreme Union General during The American Civil War.

And the Party affiliation of the Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front during World War I.

And the Party affiliation of the USA General of the Army during the Korean War.

And the Party affiliation of the Commander of Military Assistance and Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the Vietnam War.

And, well, you get the idea I'm sure.

Tooms, please see below. The good parts are highlighted!

Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-1775-present/

Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.

So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.

Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic Party president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating. Democrats know the best way to win an election or pull the country out of a recession is to start a war.

And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

Reply to Paulie:

Yes, it is curious that Tooms is compelled to label the Civil War as a Republican War. Presumably if he maintains that the present day Republican Party should accept responsibility for the Civil War, then he believes present day Democrats should accept responsibility for slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow and repression afterwards.

Reply to you:

Agreed except for the Vietnam War. Only two Congressmen voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so it's not fair to pin the War entirely on LBJ. However you mischaracterize Eisenhower's role. Only nine out of 58,220 American casualties in Vietnam occurred during the Eisenhower administration.

https://www.archives.gov/research/mi...lty-statistics

Now that I've cleared that up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.

Again, this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect.... I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

[EihTooms]

These are the first words in our Constitution, Article I, Section 1:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Yes, the president does have the power to veto legislation, although Congress can override his veto.

Our founders did not want to recreate a European style monarchy in the United States of America, let alone some kind of command and control style economy directed by a single person.

A Speaker Pelosi or Speaker McCarthy works for and serves at the pleasure of members of her or his party who are members of the House of Representatives. The actual power is vested in the 435 voting representatives.

As I've stated repeatedly, Fed policy, population growth, innovation and technology, oil shocks, changes in productivity, a pandemic, what's happening outside the USA, Congress, and the business cycle have collectively affected GDP and jobs growth, much, much more than the Presidents. And policies and legislation which presidents helped implement often don't affect the economy until after they've left office.

Given that I said I would not vote for Trump for dogcatcher, you should assume I would also not vote for him as a representative in a house district.

As to wars and national security, I'm not sure that either party has done a better job than the other. You can credit Reagan for helping end the cold war, and criticize LBJ and George W. Bush for getting us into stupid wars. You guys of course argue that every war pursued by a Democratic President is right and just, while those pursued by the Republicans are wrong and stupid. Which can become confusing when wars overlap presidencies. And which makes you look warlike and cavalier about the lives of our young men, given that (coincidentally in my view), Democratic presidents have presided over more wars and American fatalities.

Yes, the list of wars fought by Americans are many more than most can even recall. Under both Parties. I will leave calculating the overall number of American fatalities under this or that POTUS to the noted Mathematicians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

However, if we just look at the big wars with American involvement that resulted in notable numbers of American fatalities that most of us even know occurred it should at least be among the ones where someone in American leadership, either the President or the Speaker of the House and I'll go with it being the President on that, voluntarily committed us to by word, deed and / or treaty and not because we were provoked into it by a direct attack on our soil, our troops or by an official declaration of war against us.

So in order to at least compare Repub vs Dem Presidents on that issue, why be so cavalier about American War fatalities and omit that first really big one where a true comparison could begin, The American Civil War? Yeah, I'll put that one on the Repub President at the time. Started by Americans and nobody else on his watch, no argument about it.

Then there was Eisenhower's Vietnam War. He plunged us into that one voluntarily by word, deed and treaty. Sure enough. We were not required to take over for the French when they were defeated and retreated. There was no direct attack on our troops prior to Eisenhower choosing to do that.

George H. W. Bush's Gulf War. Again, not provoked by an attack on our soil or troops.

George W. Bush's War in Irag and Afghanistan. Again, neither of those nations attacked our soil or troops.

Well, that leaves WWI and the Korean War to the Dem presidents up to now. Although I think Truman probably should share a bit of that with Ulysses S. Grant. Yep, Grant. Look it up.

Now, noted Mathematician that you are, I always wondered why you never applied the most rudimentary factor to just about any calculation regarding what happens to some people within a population; the Per Capita number rather than the raw number. Shouldn't we be less cavalier about American fatalities in those wars by at least considering the Per Capita number of Americans killed in them?

Oh, but then I realized going back to at least that first Repub President for the Dem vs Repub comparison, Lincoln and his American Civil War, that Per Capita thing would not be helpful to your cause.

Then I wondered why someone as adamant about deflecting responsibility from Presidents for just about anything negative, passing the buck to others, well especially Repub presidents since almost every really bad thing that has happened to America over the past several decades has happened on a Repub President's watch and extremely little positive, which as we all now know is a wild coincidence of course, why you didn't deflect and pass the buck for all those big war fatalities from the President's responsibility to that of the Generals? That would even apply to the provoked wars.

I mean, much like the Speaker of the House is to the President on economic results, shouldn't you be arguing that those American fatalities in war are the Generals' responsibility? Aren't they the ones who take the basic agenda and goal of the ineffectual and unnecessary President and "originate", "pen" and "control" the details and produce the results?

But then I remembered who the Party affiliation of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Force in Europe was during WWII and realized that would not serve your purposes either.

Oh, and the Party affiliation of the Supreme Union General during The American Civil War.

And the Party affiliation of the Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front during World War I.

And the Party affiliation of the USA General of the Army during the Korean War.

And the Party affiliation of the Commander of Military Assistance and Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the Vietnam War.

And, well, you get the idea I'm sure.

[Tiny 12]

Then I guess presidential elections don't matter to you regarding the economy, national security and wars since "shit happens" that presidents can neither avert, avoid, prevent or respond well or badly to.

Maybe you, Elvis, Caliguy and the others should demand Dear Leader run for Representative in whatever House distrct he retreats to and calls home during the indictments and trials. He would surely be elected by his fellow Repubs as Minority Leader or Majority Leader and Speaker of the House on the first vote on day one. If the latter, then he will again be Leader of the Free World and Steward of the Economic Agenda usually but apparently mistakenly reserved for whoever runs for and wins the presidency.

You know, like President Pelosi and President McQarthy.

That way he won't have to hide from another debate with Biden or encite another violent, cop-killing Insurrection on a future January 6.

These are the first words in our Constitution, Article I, Section 1:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Yes, the president does have the power to veto legislation, although Congress can override his veto.

Our founders did not want to recreate a European style monarchy in the United States of America, let alone some kind of command and control style economy directed by a single person.

A Speaker Pelosi or Speaker McCarthy works for and serves at the pleasure of members of her or his party who are members of the House of Representatives. The actual power is vested in the 435 voting representatives.

As I've stated repeatedly, Fed policy, population growth, innovation and technology, oil shocks, changes in productivity, a pandemic, what's happening outside the USA, Congress, and the business cycle have collectively affected GDP and jobs growth, much, much more than the Presidents. And policies and legislation which presidents helped implement often don't affect the economy until after they've left office.

Given that I said I would not vote for Trump for dogcatcher, you should assume I would also not vote for him as a representative in a house district.

As to wars and national security, I'm not sure that either party has done a better job than the other. You can credit Reagan for helping end the cold war, and criticize LBJ and George W. Bush for getting us into stupid wars. You guys of course argue that every war pursued by a Democratic President is right and just, while those pursued by the Republicans are wrong and stupid. Which can become confusing when wars overlap presidencies. And which makes you look warlike and cavalier about the lives of our young men, given that (coincidentally in my view), Democratic presidents have presided over more wars and American fatalities.

[EihTooms]

You don't have to believe in mystical magical cycles or witches' curses on Republicans any longer Tooms. I've shown you stronger correlations between Democratic control of the House and recessions. And Democratic presidents and American fatalities in wars.

What are the odds that the Democrats would control the House of Representatives for every recession after the great depression except two? One of those two exceptions was the mildest recession (only 0.3% decline from peak to trough) since we began keeping records. And one was preceded months earlier by 4 years of continuous Democratic Party rule in the House.

And what are the odds that 95% of the American fatalities in wars fought since the turn of the last century would have occurred under Democratic Presidents?

Well, like your belief that Republican Presidents screw up the economy worse than Democrats, that's all a load of crap. There's no cause and effect. For example, Trump couldn't have prevented the pandemic and the consequent recession and loss of jobs. Or at least that's what Anthony Fauci said on CNN last night. And Roosevelt just happened to be president when World War II broke out. Shit happens.

I actually believe over the last 30 years the best combination for the economy has been a Democratic President and Republican House, or, better yet, Democratic President and Republican House and Senate. That combination has actually cut spending as a % of GDP and resulted in smaller government. Smaller government means a larger private sector. And when you leave more money in the hands of the private sector, that is, in the hands of the people and businesses, the economy grows and we're all more prosperous. .

Then I guess presidential elections don't matter to you regarding the economy, national security and wars since "shit happens" that presidents can neither avert, avoid, prevent or respond well or badly to.

Maybe you, Elvis, Caliguy and the others should demand Dear Leader run for Representative in whatever House distrct he retreats to and calls home during the indictments and trials. He would surely be elected by his fellow Repubs as Minority Leader or Majority Leader and Speaker of the House on the first vote on day one. If the latter, then he will again be Leader of the Free World and Steward of the Economic Agenda usually but apparently mistakenly reserved for whoever runs for and wins the presidency.

You know, like President Pelosi and President McQarthy.

That way he won't have to hide from another debate with Biden or encite another violent, cop-killing Insurrection on a future January 6.

[Tiny 12]

Here are two possible explanations:

1. The agenda proposed and won on by the POTUS as presented by him to the House on which it is now their turn to "originate", "pen" and "control" tax and spending legislation to enact under his direction and power to veto is crap out of the brain of a Repub so-called president and highly effective out of the brain of a Dem President.

Or.

2. It is just a chaotic mess of Mystical Magical Economic Cycles, Witch's Curses, Once in a Hundred Years Catastrophes and Wild Coincidences plaguing Repub so-called presidents and blessing Dem Presidents over and over again.

Does it really matter which reason it is? Your vote for a Dem President has been a vote for every Great Recovery, Economic Expansion and Historic Job Gains if you are that witch and have been voting for almost 100 years so far while voting for any other candidate or not at all has been a vote for every Great Depression, Great Recession, Serial Recessions, Atrocious Jobs Creating Record and Massive Jobs Destruction.

You don't have to believe in mystical magical cycles or witches' curses on Republicans any longer Tooms. I've shown you stronger correlations between Democratic control of the House and recessions. And Democratic presidents and American fatalities in wars.

What are the odds that the Democrats would control the House of Representatives for every recession after the great depression except two? One of those two exceptions was the mildest recession (only 0.3% decline from peak to trough) since we began keeping records. And one was preceded months earlier by 4 years of continuous Democratic Party rule in the House.

And what are the odds that 95% of the American fatalities in wars fought since the turn of the last century would have occurred under Democratic Presidents?

Well, like your belief that Republican Presidents screw up the economy worse than Democrats, that's all a load of crap. There's no cause and effect. For example, Trump couldn't have prevented the pandemic and the consequent recession and loss of jobs. Or at least that's what Anthony Fauci said on CNN last night. And Roosevelt just happened to be president when World War II broke out. Shit happens.

I actually believe over the last 30 years the best combination for the economy has been a Democratic President and Republican House, or, better yet, Democratic President and Republican House and Senate. That combination has actually cut spending as a % of GDP and resulted in smaller government. Smaller government means a larger private sector. And when you leave more money in the hands of the private sector, that is, in the hands of the people and businesses, the economy grows and we're all more prosperous.

Furthermore, our national debt is out of control. Somebody needs to stop the fuckers in Washington from spending us into oblivion. And when one party controls government, especially if it's the Democrats, they spend like there's no tomorrow. A Republican president and Democratic House sometimes isn't much better. Look at how Democrats followed right along with George W. Bush in wasting massive amounts on the Iraq invasion. Trump jumped into bed with Pelosi, and he and a Democratic House ran up the national debt by over 20% in just 2020. But admittedly Trump is a Democrat who infiltrated the Republican Party, so maybe that's not the best example.

In hindsight, I should have voted for Clinton for president in 1996 instead of Dole. I wouldn't ever vote for Obama or Biden though, any more than I'd vote for Trump. Those two bastards say I didn't build my business and I didn't pay my fair share. And Biden and the Progressive politicians who increasingly control the Democratic Party want to take the jobs away from my friends and family who work for oil and gas and related companies. Screw them. Why can't they be content to wield power over the states and cities they represent. Why do they have to impose their agendas on the rest of us. There are some parallels between today and 18th century America. And the bicoastal Democratic elite (the politicians, not misguided souls like you) are the Redcoats.

[EihTooms]

I'll quote here from a a New York Times article penned by Neil Irwin. While most journalists don't know jack about economics, Irwin has an MBA from Columbia. He's an exception.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/u...ght-think.html

In most democracies, the lower house of the legislature has more control over fiscal policy than the president or the upper house. In our Congress, the House of Representatives is the lower house. All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. While admittedly budget bills are an exception, the Senate in general can only pass bills with 60% approval, making party politics less relevant.

As Irwin says, "Congress has, if anything, greater power than the president over how the government taxes and spends. It's almost a punch line that when a president issues a proposed budget each winter, congressional opponents call it "dead on arrival.".

Here are two possible explanations:

1. The agenda proposed and won on by the POTUS as presented by him to the House on which it is now their turn to "originate", "pen" and "control" tax and spending legislation to enact under his direction and power to veto is crap out of the brain of a Repub so-called president and highly effective out of the brain of a Dem President.

Or.

2. It is just a chaotic mess of Mystical Magical Economic Cycles, Witch's Curses, Once in a Hundred Years Catastrophes and Wild Coincidences plaguing Repub so-called presidents and blessing Dem Presidents over and over again.

Does it really matter which reason it is? Your vote for a Dem President has been a vote for every Great Recovery, Economic Expansion and Historic Job Gains if you are that witch and have been voting for almost 100 years so far while voting for any other candidate or not at all has been a vote for every Great Depression, Great Recession, Serial Recessions, Atrocious Jobs Creating Record and Massive Jobs Destruction.

[Tiny 12]

Ok, so your best shining example of Repub economic stewardship since the late 1920's was just three medium Recessions in 8 years instead of one or two Great ones under Eisenhower along with one of the worst jobs creation records of all time.

But at least some cool cars were built in those Happy Days that many Americans could continue making payments on under those crap jobs creation circumstances thanks to the Unemployment Insurance program set up by FDR.

Impressive.

I guess that one sterling Repub economic stewardship success changes everything else the data shows and proves over and over and over again.

I'll quote here from a a New York Times article penned by Neil Irwin. While most journalists don't know jack about economics, Irwin has an MBA from Columbia. He's an exception.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/u...ght-think.html

In most democracies, the lower house of the legislature has more control over fiscal policy than the president or the upper house. In our Congress, the House of Representatives is the lower house. All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. While admittedly budget bills are an exception, the Senate in general can only pass bills with 60% approval, making party politics less relevant.

As Irwin says, "Congress has, if anything, greater power than the president over how the government taxes and spends. It's almost a punch line that when a president issues a proposed budget each winter, congressional opponents call it "dead on arrival."

Please recall my groundbreaking research, first published here, where I showed that twelve of the fourteen recessions that occurred after the Great Depression occurred under Democratic leadership and control of the House. Republicans did control the House when the 1953 recession started in July, but Democrats controlled it for the four years prior to that, up through January of 1953. Republicans also controlled the House during the 2001 recession. But the GDP decline, from peak to trough, was only a measly 0. 3%.

Yes, Democrats in the House have presided over all the Great Recessions after the Great Depression, which occurred almost 100 years ago.

What was your explanation for this? Well, apparently you believe we live in a dictatorship, where the dictator changes every four years. The president controls the economy. Congress, Fed policy, population growth, innovation and technology, oil shocks, a pandemic, what's happening outside the USA, the business cycle, those are all irrelevant:

Neither any Great Depression, Great Recession or Massive Jobs Destruction nor any Great Recovery, Great Expansion or Historic Jobs Gain occurred because the House made some quirky or meaningful move contrary to what the POTUS ran on, proposed, lobbied for, directed, guided or could have vetoed. The House waits for guidance from the POTUS. The direction of the economy is in the hands of the POTUS as the direction of a ship is in the hands of the Captain. And no major historical result came about, good or bad, because of the ship's crew mutiny and insistence we reverse course.

Oh, but I forgot. You do find a way to put the blame for pandemic on Trump. Just like you also blame Trump for Fed policy that failed to control inflation during Biden's presidency, and Eisenhower for the Vietnam War. Do you think you may be a tad bit partisan?

In reality, correlations between economic performance and the party of the president and party that controls the House are spurious. There's no cause and effect. And the legislation and actions during a president's term often don't affect the economy until years later. For example, from Irwin's article.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated that (Obama's) Affordable Care Act would reduce the labor supply by 2. 3 million because more people would choose not to work. (The thinking being that they were working mainly so they could have employee-sponsored health insurance.) It said this would happen not immediately, but by 2021, a full 11 years after the law was passed and four years after the president who signed it would be out of office."

I provided a second example with corporate taxation below. Right now, the USA under a Biden presidency, is reaping the benefits of a competitive corporate tax regime, implemented by Republicans.

By far, the most cited paper on the correlation between the party of the President and economic performance was written by Alan Blinder, a Democrat who was one of Bill Clinton's economic advisers, and also an adviser to Al Gore and John Kerry during their presidential campaigns. Blinder did indeed find that GDP and employment growth historically were better on average under Democratic presidents. And what did he attribute it to? Luck. His conclusion:

"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. "

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/...7/aer.20140913

The most popular explanation for outperformance under Democratic presidents perhaps is that the Democrats supposedly emphasize short term demand stimulus while Republicans emphasize supply side economics. For example, when Biden and the Democrats passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and sent out $1400 checks to most Americans, the effects were felt almost immediately, while Biden was president. On the other hand, the changes in the corporate tax regime during the Trump presidency took longer to work. Biden's reaping the benefits now. HOWEVER, according to Blinder and others, this doesn't explain the Democratic Presidents' outperformance.

[EihTooms]

Tooms has also been presented with the failings of the one term wonder Jimmy Carter, the same which led to a landslide defeat in his re-election bid. No amount of singing, dancing, twisting himself in knots, or the easiest way out of all, ignore the facts and repeat the same lies over and over will make it all go away.

As you can also see in my links and in any data links on this subject you prefer, for those of you who are really into crediting "economic cycles" for obvious and irrefutable Dem superiority over Repub inferiority on the economy and jobs creation and blaming "wild coincidence" or a "once in a hundred years catastrophe" and a "witch's curse" for Repub economic stewardship leading us directly into every Massive Jobs Destruction and Great Depression or Great Recession of the past 100 years or so, please note the contrast between Dem and Repub results within the same era:

- Even though Obama's overall jobs creation results were greatly damaged by the timing of his taking over from George W. Bush just as Bush's classic Repub / Reaganomics-style stewardship was crashing the economy down around our ears and wiping out millions of jobs, Obama's jobs creation results still kicked the shit out of those of the Repub who was stewarding the economy immediately before and immediately after his presidency. Within the same era.

As did FDR's, Truman's, JFK / LBJ's, Carter's, whose jobs creation results even kicked the shit out of Reagan's on an average per year or an average per term basis, Clinton's and, so far with less than half of that comparison to go on, Biden's.

[EihTooms]

Tooms has also been presented with the failings of the one term wonder Jimmy Carter, the same which led to a landslide defeat in his re-election bid. No amount of singing, dancing, twisting himself in knots, or the easiest way out of all, ignore the facts and repeat the same lies over and over will make it all go away.

Number of jobs created in the United States from 1933 to 2022, by sitting president(in millions)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-president/

Eisenhower lands DEAD LAST with only 4. 8 million jobs created over 8 years. Oh, along with 3 medium Repub Recessions in those Happy Days years.

By stark contrast, Carter lands in 4th Place with MORE THAN TWICE the number of jobs created under Eisenhower's stewardship in only 4 years. Along with only one piddling Recession that only saw one quarter of GDP Growth contraction of more than -1% while the quarter after that only saw a contraction of less than a single percent. And that one piddling Recession was artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy that was creating way too many jobs for the number of applicants to take them. Which is the same reason the Fed is trying to artificially induce one today under Biden's stewardship.

BTW, there is no known record of the Fed having to do such a thing to cool down a Repub stewardship economy that was creating too many jobs. Ever. Just in their creating every Great Depression, Great Recession and Serial Recessions within one presidency of the past 100 years, whereupon the Fed had to react in a very, very different way, right? Gee, I guess that makes Repubs the champions of making sure their economic stewardship will never produce meaningful inflation. Oh boy. Or meaningful jobs creation and wage gains either. Congratulations.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms

Here again the Dem vs Repub pattern is unavoidable and inarguable. Yes, Obama's overall numbers were badly damaged by the fact that he took office just as George W. Bush's Reagonomics-style stewardship results were crashing in around our ears, wiping out millions of job over those first months of Obama's presidency before he and his Dem Congress' economic recovery legislation hit the streets, stopped that Great Repub Recession in its tracks and reversed it into a historic long term economic and jobs creation recovery.

However, as I assume you can plainly see, we've still got Carter soundly destroying Eisenhower in jobs creation and percentage of job gains either by term or if you combine both of Eisenhower's terms vs Carter's one term or reading them inside out or upside down or reverse or inverse, while singing, dancing, twisting or even if you throw in one of Tiny's E=MC2 equations for exponential gains per minute or any other way you want to look at it.

See, I wouldn't have to repeat these inarguable, irrefutable truths right there in the data and all historical records nearly so often if creative, pro-Repub revisionist historians here didn't continue to repeat falsehoods about what really happened and thereby encourage more crap Repub economic results to occur over and over again.

Now, the only question remaining is; Have you selected the Playlist for your singing, dancing and twisting performance tonight?

[EihTooms]

This has been demonstrated to you for years, with evidence of successes from certain Republican admins that did not experience the ills you speak of. Your coming here daily for years repeating the same fallacious talking points over and over will never change that. To quote a judge that shot down Trump's election lies, "Saying it's so doesn't make it so. "

Ok, so your best shining example of Repub economic stewardship since the late 1920's was just three medium Recessions in 8 years instead of one or two Great ones under Eisenhower along with one of the worst jobs creation records of all time.

But at least some cool cars were built in those Happy Days that many Americans could continue making payments on under those crap jobs creation circumstances thanks to the Unemployment Insurance program set up by FDR.

Impressive.

I guess that one sterling Repub economic stewardship success changes everything else the data shows and proves over and over and over again.

[Paulie97]

Tooms has also been presented with the failings of the one term wonder Jimmy Carter, the same which led to a landslide defeat in his re-election bid. No amount of singing, dancing, twisting himself in knots, or the easiest way out of all, ignore the facts and repeat the same lies over and over will make it all go away.

[Paulie97]

Oh, I have been patiently waiting for hard, real world evidence that Dem economic stewardship results in Great Depressions, Great Recessions, Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and Massive Job Losses while Repub Economic Stewardship does not for 70 years. And looking for it in the data prior to that going back about 100 years.

Patiently.

Waiting.

And Waiting.

And Waiting.

This has been demonstrated to you for years, with evidence of successes from certain Republican admins that did not experience the ills you speak of. Your coming here daily for years repeating the same fallacious talking points over and over will never change that. To quote a judge that shot down Trump's election lies, "Saying it's so doesn't make it so. "

[Paulie97]

How exactly has this person been "shut down"? He has 1. 2 M subscribers on Youtube. How are his (kooky, conspiritorial) views being suppressed? And by whom?

The more conspiratorial and kooky the content the more subscribers and the more $ the guy makes. It's a great racket in the modern era. And YouTube is pretty much the wild wild west, no responsible editorial departments to reign the logical fallacies, half-truths, and lies. This while there's no shortage of suckers eager to drink at those fountains.