Economy Democrats have done a demonstrably superior job, during the same period, of managing the economy.

[Source]

stay reporting.

Keep crying pab.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Keep crying pab.

keep projecting.

 

[Source]

keep projecting.

That’s a good one. Did someone tell you that and now you’re trying to reuse it? I can see why you’re so easily baited.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That’s a good one. Did someone tell you that and now you’re trying to reuse it? I can see why you’re so easily baited.

cry more about it

 

[panamaican]

I think both parties suck for different reasons. If having a Dem POTUS equates to a superior economy why don't Dem policies or leadership seem to offer the same advantages at a more local level?

Highest Child Poverty Rate = Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester NY, Brownsville TX.

Highest Adult Poverty Rate = Huntington WV, Detroit, Cleveland, Tallahassee FL, Rochester NY.

Highest Homeless Rate = Fresno, NYC, LA, San Fran, DC, Atlanta. (All tied with similar metrics)

Tallahassee is the state capital of Florida. It's been Democrat controlled for decades. Rochester has been Dem controlled since before I was born. Same with Detroit, Atlanta, San Fran, and DC. Cleveland has had 2 Republicans since 1942. NYC has had 2 Republicans since 1946. LA has had 1 Repub since 1961.

How can Dems be so awesome with managing an economy yet they can't keep jobs in their cities, kids and adults from living at or below the poverty level, and people off of the streets and living in homes?

I'm referencing an article about the "Neediest Cities". - https://wallethub.com/edu/cities-with-the-highest-and-lowest-population-in-need/8795

Most murders by population also goes to Dem cities. Top ten in order are St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Memphis, Newark, and Chicago.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders

What metrics show that Dem policies, enacted for decades in cities they solely control, lead to less unemployment, increased home ownership, decreased homelessness, and less crime or any other metric that Americans would care about?

Denver used to be a really nice, beautiful city to visit or live in. Now tents litter the streets and the homeless population had doubled between 2020 and 2021. Dems have run Denver since 1963. Any excuse as to how homelessness doubled and violent crime increased by 14% under single party Dem rule?

https://www.rmpbs.org/blogs/news/study-finds-drastic-increase-in-denverarea-homelessness/
https://crime.denverpost.com/city/

You can't look at cities in isolation, they're often the product of the surrounding influential factors that the cities cannot control. You have to look at states relative to each other.

To illustrate this problem, a brief understanding of "white flight" is necessary. In the 1950s and 60s, when forced to integrate many people left cities in order to avoid integration. When they left, they took a significant portion of the tax base with them. This essentially impoverished the cities and forced them to run their infrastructure without the pre-existing tax base. Naturally, if a city is asked to perform nearly identical services without the tax base that formerly funded it, there will be a significant decline in the quality of life therein. That's not controversial or magical nor is it tied to the political affiliation of the city's mayor.

No mayor could prevent forced integration and the economic fallout that came from it. To evaluate the effectiveness of city leadership, you'd have to look at the post-white flight environment and see what happened. Improve, decline or stabilize?

In a similar fashion, cities are subject to the downward pressure from state and federal policy that they cannot control. Let's take manufacturing for example. If the Fed makes it more economically feasible to outsource manufacturing to another country, the locations of those manufacturing bases will suffer significant economic loss as manufacturers leave for overseas opportunities. Again, not magical or controversial and still not tied to the political party running the city.

No mayor can affect international trade policy and the economic fallout that comes from some of it. To evaluate that, you'd have to look at which cities were negatively affected by manufacturer flight and then evaluate what happened next - improvement, decline, or stability?

The point is that cities sit at the bottom of the hill where policy decisions made at the higher levels, federal and state, ultimately and dramatically affect the economies of the cities. So if you really want to compare political party leadership, you should look at the federal government and then the state governments. They sit high enough in the hierarchy that you can get a better sense of if they're helping or hurting the cities.

 

[IamStryker]

Great try but people know first hand that the economy is shit now and much better under Trump.

 

[Aluminati]

$15 chicken wings, $5 gas, and no end in sight to inflation.


Thanks Joe...

So the inflation happen because of the $250 billion in stimulus checks given to us and not the 2.2 trillion in tax cuts and the other $800 billion in interest free PPP loans (half of which was forgiven, unlike student loans) that Trump signed off on within two years of this crazy inflation? Got it.

 

[DoctorNick]

So the inflation happen because of the $250 billion in stimulus checks given to us and not the 2.2 trillion in tax cuts and the other $800 billion in interest free PPP loans (half of which was forgiven, unlike student loans) that Trump signed off on within two years of this crazy inflation? Got it.

You'd be better off explaining this to a 7 year old than most of the trumplings on here. They love helping out those poor, massive corporations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So the inflation happen because of the $250 billion in stimulus checks given to us and not the 2.2 trillion in tax cuts and the other $800 billion in interest free PPP loans (half of which was forgiven, unlike student loans) that Trump signed off on within two years of this crazy inflation? Got it.

Attributing it to Trump kind of has the same problem that attributing it to Biden does--it's mostly an international issue. Specific actions taken by U.S. policymakers can explain the variance between the U.S. and other countries, but that's off an already-high baseline. I think it is true that the U.S. had a very strong fiscal-policy response (under Trump first and then moreso under Biden, plus the previous cuts--though note that the cost estimate for the cuts is over 10 years), which has contributed to both our extremely strong growth (even relative to other countries) and our somewhat high inflation relative to other countries, but it's also true that we'd have high inflation either way. That sort of gets to the general issue here. The range of outcomes we see as a result of (realistic) policy choices is way smaller than the actual observed range of outcomes.

 

[Topguntrophey]

Most Americans won't dig deep to find a truth beyond a headline, let alone disagree with the fake tag lines that either party say they are compared to what they do.

 

[ferrisjso]

Okay I think I understand but how is that treason? I mean I’m with you that the whole deficit thing isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But I think I’m missing the link with treason.

Harming the country and it's citizens for a fake reason. The deficit is an excuse not to do things rather than "kick rocks". Basically convincing people that the govt is unable to do it's job due to a limiation that isn't there.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Harming the country and it's citizens for a fake reason. The deficit is an excuse not to do things rather than "kick rocks". Basically convincing people that the govt is unable to do it's job due to a limiation that isn't there.

Deficits actually exist, though, and do provide constraints on what can be done. Magic isn't real.

 

[gluehuffer1776]

$15 chicken wings, $5 gas, and no end in sight to inflation.


Thanks Joe...

small price to pay for defeating putler

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

I care about what's going on now. Not what Grover Cleveland did in 1886.

 

[bobgeese]

Yeah really funny that I don’t know EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED IN US HISTORY lol

This is just another lame attempt to point something to Biden because you guys are obsessed with him. You’re just like that other poster, you keep posting these cryptic comments and if someone doesn’t understand you can afterwards say “whahah you’re so dumb that you didn’t know”

What does “inviting someone to be a competitor even mean” lol

What part of Biden, an influential democrat, rolling out the red carpet for China (our biggest competitor economically), which had a devastating impact on our economy over the last 3 decades, was too hard for you to understand how it relates to the topic?

 

[bobgeese]

you back bro?

Short migration season. Went and pooped on some Canadians.

Good times.

 

[Rod1]

What part of Biden, an influential democrat, rolling out the red carpet for China (our biggest competitor economically), which had a devastating impact on our economy over the last 3 decades, was too hard for you to understand how it relates to the topic?

Trump killed the TPP that was the US largest deal to choke out China and make US legislation the dominant worldwide standard for trade.

 

[ElKarlo]

But why? He linked to a piece, summarized it, and asked for feedback. It doesn't seem that most people here even know how to evaluate a claim in good faith. It's just "hey, maybe if we're mean enough to people who don't blindly advance our party's narrative, we don't have to think." That kind of thing might work in social settings (people might just decide to let you get your way because they don't think it's worth it to deal with you), but in places where no one knows or cares about you as an individual, it just looks sad.

Oh jack. You try so hard. Yes the is is simply being mean to people.

 

[ElKarlo]

Trump killed the TPP that was the US largest deal to choke out China and make US legislation the dominant worldwide standard for trade.

You think that would have been the result? I really doubt that would have happened. What would have happened would have been a repeat of china joining the WTO and the NAFTA results for the USA. Why believe the neoliberal talking points when they have been wrong about everything, every single time?

 

[bobgeese]

Trump killed the TPP that was the US largest deal to choke out China and make US legislation the dominant worldwide standard for trade.

Absolutely nothing would "choke out China", they had already developed too far and we became too reliant on them.

As much as I dislike her, contrast Joe's actions, with that of pre 2008'ish Nancy Pelosi. If we had her approach to China, perhaps out middle class wouldn't have been sold to Beijing.