You're trolling again. When you're interested in engaging with the data, just let me know.
Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
You're trolling again. When you're interested in engaging with the data, just let me know.
Into the Night AKA Sybil has two other accounts (personalities) : gfm7175 and IBDaMann. All three have the same links in their signatures leading to a fake forum loaded with Sybil's thoughts, ideas, etc. It's his online manifesto.
For a while, the way the GOP functioned is that they strictly served the upper class, and particularly those with older family money -- and they won elections by way of using some of that money to harness the passions of various factions. That could include inflaming the gun fetishists, or getting the evangelicals worked up about abortion or gay people, or triggering xenophobia and racism. But I think what has really change just in the last ten years or so is that where once those factions were basically just dumb beasts hitched to the GOP's wagon to pull it wherever the economic elite wanted to go, now the dumb beasts are increasingly in charge, pulling whichever way they like.
You can see that with Roe v. Wade, for example. The GOP had a Supreme Court majority for decade after decade after Roe passed -- at one point they even had an 8-to-1 majority! Yet in all that time, they never overturned Roe.... opting, instead, to nibble tantalizingly at the edges of the ruling, while leaving abortion generally legal nationwide. They'd carefully pair each new anti-choice nominee like Scalia, with another nominee who would defend Roe, like Souter, so that the issue would remain on the table (since it was valuable for keeping the evangelicals mobilized for them). But Trump didn't follow that pattern, and went for multiple anti-choice nominees, and now it looks like Roe will be gone. At this point, the mouth-breathers really are running the show, with plutocrats like Trump and DeSantis trying to figure out where the mob is heading so they can jump in front of the pitchforks-and-torches brigade and pretend to lead it.
Yep. The pattern is surprisingly consistent. It's extremely hard to find a Republican president who DIDN'T have a higher average unemployment rate than what his predecessor left him, or a Democratic president who DIDN'T have a lower one. It's hard to find any Republican president who didn't lead the nation into a recession.
I think what we see is a pattern whereby Democrats make people prosperous enough that they get complacent and start voting Republican (or not voting), because they think they'll never need the social net the Democrats defend, but that they may benefit from the upper-class tax cuts the Republicans are pursuing. Eventually, within eight years of a Democratic presidential era starting, prosperity is widespread enough that the Dems can no longer win an election, and a Republican becomes president. Then, within four to twelve years, everything has gone to shit and the American people decide they've had enough with chugging snake-oil, and they throw the bums out and put a Democrat in place to clean up the mess. Then the process repeats.
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
Government ONLY creates jobs within government, such as if they create a new alphabet letter bureaucracy. They do not create any jobs outside of government, and they can only create jobs within government due to money that they stole from taxpayers.
All other jobs (jobs that actually create wealth instead of an authoritarian police state) are created by entrepreneurs who are willing to risk their wealth that the government has yet to steal (or at least a portion of it) because they believe that they can provide a desirable product or service for a profit. Some examples of such entrepreneurs are electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, and small engine mechanics. Such a business that was created by a single entrepreneur might grow to the point where employees are needed in order to expand any further. This is where other people who don't wish to risk their wealth in the same manner as the entrepreneur did can instead provide labor to their employer in return for a wage or salary.
Nope. The entrepreneur does all of the facilitating; the government mainly just creates a shit ton of regulations that get in the way or otherwise make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to facilitate such job creation.
The government didn't do a damn thing besides create a depression, and FDR made it into a Great Depression (currently Biden is trying to outdo him). I would imagine that the last of one's worries during the Great Depression was further innovating electrical infrastructure to where it would be feasible for rural areas.
As a side note: If there is one thing that really pisses me off more than most other things, it is when Demonkkkrats like you pretend to give a damn about rural areas and rural folks all across the various states. Don't stomp on me with your skyrocketing gas prices, energy prices, and inflation and then act like you actually give a shit about me. Don't call me an endless number of gibberbabble slurs and then pretend to actually want "unity" "equality" "diversity" or whatever else.
Don't tread on me.
Fuck Demonkkkrats.
Fuck Joe Biden.
1776, not 1984.
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
Sybil only exists inside of your mind, dude. Only you can communicate with her.Into the Night AKA Sybil has two other accounts (personalities) : gfm7175 and IBDaMann. All three have the same links in their signatures leading to a fake forum loaded with Sybil's thoughts, ideas, etc. It's his online manifesto.
I'm communicating with her now, Sybil. LOL
Absolutely, my friend. But at this time, it looks like it my work against them. Finally after decades of lying, misrepresenting, cheating and outright criminality, the Republicans finally have the SCOTUS they want, a plethora of right-wing, religious, thugs. They might be the ugly dog who caught the car. Their true goals have been realized, but now what? The countries a mess and Republicans solution is to just attack minorities, gays, and women.
How long can this last? How long can people, who are true conservatives, women, for example that have always, until now voted Republican? Even conservative women don't like being told what they can and can't do.
So lets see how they do now ? Stay tuned.
I suppose we may be off on a semantic tangent here, since it depends on what you define as "creating" a job. If you define it strictly as being the direct employer, sure, by definition that would then be correct. But if you start talking about jobs that would not exist but for a government action, then it's much broader. Most obviously, that would include lots of jobs at government contractors. Like if the Navy orders a big new ship and the private shipyard has to staff up to build that ship, those are jobs the government created, in that sense.... and the government is indirectly paying for those workers. Another degree of removal from that, if the government expands some government activity (e.g., expanding the size of a government facility), that can result in a lot of hiring in the area by those who aren't government contractors, but who are primarily serving government employees (e.g., a new McDonalds gets built next to a new military base, as a result of those new potential customers being there). And then there are the "down the road" jobs, where government created the infrastructure or other preconditions for the work -- for example, towns that sprung up in what used to be the middle of nowhere, because a new interstate highway was built through the area, making it possible for various businesses to be located there and still easily ship to other areas.
I suspect that the failure of Republicans to fully appreciate the way the government can facilitate job creation is part of why Republican-led eras tend to be so much worse for the job market -- they basically sit around with their thumbs up their butts waiting for the laissez fairy to wave its magic wand and create jobs, rather than taking steps to facilitate that process.
Here's a way to think of it. Here is the change in the unemployment rate from the last rate of the prior president to the average rate during the presidency in question:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
Ford: +2.34 (inherited an unemployment rate of 5.5%, and averaged 7.84%)
Eisenhower: +2.03
Nixon: +1.63
Bush2: +1.11
Bush1: +0.94
Trump: +0.34
Reagan: +0.01
Obama: -0.39
Kennedy: -0.64
Carter: -0.96
Johnson: -1.52
Biden: -1.54
Clinton: -2.13 (inherited a rate of 7.3% and averaged 5.17%)
Now, if you start with the assumption that government has little to do with job creation, that's an astonishingly perfect sorting of eras by presidential party. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT gave us higher average unemployment rates than what he'd inherited (and though unemployment rates weren't officially compiled before that era, you'd find the same is true for Hoover, before that, meaning you'd have to go at least back to Calvin Coolidge, over ninety years ago, to find a Republican who beat his benchmark).
Of course, if instead of starting with the assumption the government has little to do with job creation, but rather a great deal to do with it, then there's nothing at all surprising about those facts. When you have one party sitting around waiting for someone else to create jobs, while the other actively gets to work facilitating the process, we'd fully expect there to be a big and pretty consistent gap in how well the country did under each kind of leadership.
Mina, your post is dog shit. You have your own opinion, which is also dog shit, and you have two sources on crime and one of them is wikipedia. lol
You also linked a chart that shows the highest inflation point being under Jimmy Carter. Was that intentional self sabotage or do you not understand how charts work?
In this rising age of Wokeness, leftism has zero ground to stand on. Between you leftist idiots and your enforcement arms (BLM and Antifa) it's all destruction all the time with you people. Nobody's buying it except your fellow pail carriers for the Biden dictatorship.
The nice thing about Wikipedia is that if you expect their data is wrong, you can simply follow their links and confirm. Here's where their data comes from:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s
https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
That data all ultimately comes from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports program, which in turn collects data from the NIBRS program.
So, for example, you'll see that Wikipedia claims Mississippi had a murder rate of 10.6 and Massachusetts had one of 2.3, in 2020. So, go to that data explorer link for the FBI, select "Mississippi" and Homicide, and you immediately confirm it was at 10.6. Now do the same for Massachusetts and you confirm it was at 2.3.
These data can be very emotionally difficult for right-wingers to deal with, since they fly in the face of their assumptions, and that can make it appealing to just try to dismiss the data from a Wikipedia link. But the FBI confirms what Wikipedia said.
Neither. What you need to know about me is that I don't start with the point I want to be true and then go searching for information to support it. Rather, I go searching for information to figure out what's true, and then I form my beliefs around that. The high inflation rate during the Carter years is part of the historical record and it factors into my beliefs, just like all the other data. But, when we take that data as a whole, we do see that inflation rates were lower, on average, during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones. That doesn't mean every moment of every Democratic presidency had low inflation. It just means that the average was lower.
Wrong. The nice thing about wikipedia is that you know not to use it in the first place. Of course I do like to use it against liberals from time to time.
There is no data you have that causes me emotional difficulty because I know your side is wrong nearly all of the time.
There's only one takeaway that's worth talking about and that's the stark contrast between Carter and Reagan. If you keep your head out of your ass long enough, you'll notice that most of us on the Right long for a return to the Reagan days. He is the antithesis of the inept asshole that was Jimmy Carter.
No. Wikipedia is fabulously useful, since it's so easily searchable and amply hyperlinked, allowing it to serve as a guidepost to more definitive sources.
For example, say you want to know what unemployment rates are in each state. You may know that it's the Bureau of Labor Statistics that keeps that data, and you may know your way around their website well enough to navigate to their data retrieval app so you can pull those records. But if not, you can go to Wikipedia, find the information quickly, along with a link to the relevant BLS page. Same with the Census website and median income data, or the OECD website and international GDP data, and so on.
That's why this is so emotionally difficult for you -- you start with the ASSUMPTION that my side is wrong nearly all the time, and seeing data consistently contradicting that assumption can be tough on you.
Let's see. Between January 1977 (Carter's first month) and January 1981 (his last), we added jobs at a rate of 3.06% annualized. Between January 1981 and January 1989, the Reagan era, that figure was 2.06%. So, yes I think I'd call that a "stark contrast." Job creation was a whole hell of a lot stronger on Carter's watch.
Or were you referring to deficits? In FY 1977 (which started in 1976, under Ford), the Federal deficit was 2.57% of GDP. BY FY 1981 (Carter's last budget), it was 2.46%. Then, by 1989 (Reagan's last budget) it was 2.71%. So, deficits shrank relative to GDP on Carter's watch and grew on Reagan's. So, again, I agree with you that it's a stark contrast.
This time.
Only in government.
It cannot create any other job.
A government program, and government jobs.
Special pleading fallacy.
It was building out that infrastructure. See the history of Westinghouse and the work of Nikoli Tesla.
Not the reason. See the War of the Currents.
Bigotry. Why do you think farmers are dirt poor?
Sybil is some sort of personage hallucinated in the mind of Dutch Uncle. He likes to talk about her and disparage her a lot. He thinks other people can talk to her.
Your fallacies, dude. There is no data.
There is no account called 'Sybil' here. You are hallucinating socks again.
Trolling. If you can think of any substantive arguments, feel free to offer.
I'm well aware of that history. I did a thesis on it. However, that history was in the 1880s and 1890s, when the early electrical systems were being built mostly in the heavily settled parts of the Northeast, and communities elsewhere that were easy to electrify for various reasons (e.g., proximity to hydro power). The Rural Electrification Act was in 1936, by which point Westinghouse had been dead for twenty-some years. As of 1936, 90% of America's farms lacked electricity, because the private sector hadn't built grids out into those rural areas, in all the decades since the end of the war of the currents. Like I said, the up-front costs were too great and the returns too distant, so the private sector focused on investing elsewhere. Government stepped into that gap and it was the seed money that helped make rural electrification almost ubiquitous. Within 14 years of that project starting, the large majority of rural areas, including about 80% of farms, had electricity. .
You misunderstood badly. I made no statement about current farmers. Current farmers tend, in fact, to be quite wealthy -- an average net worth for farm households of almost $2 million. Between the vast land holdings (generally inherited), the government handouts, and the wildly favorable tax treatment, they're effectively a kind of American aristocracy... our landed gentry. The reference to dirt poor farmers is to that earlier era, before rural electrification -- the "Grapes of Wrath" era farmers. And, yes, rural electrification played a significant part in enriching farmers. Take the Grapes of Wrath as an example. One reason that droughts don't cause the same Dust Bowl issues in that area today (in addition to New Deal efforts focused on preventing soil erosion and educating farmers on anti-drought methods) is that the great aquifers beneath that land can now be practically tapped for irrigation because there's electrical power in the area to pump the water.