Biden's America

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

You just copied and pasted Wikipedia!  

 

You may have missed the extensive Sources cited at the bottom. That's what Wikipedia does. It also allows its findings to be challenged with appropriate sourcing. 

 

Do you really want me to go pull that same information from the original sources for you to ignore? 

 

Are you disputing the actual numbers? 

 

References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k} Blinder, Alan S.; Watson, Mark W. (April 2016). "Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration". American Economic Review. 106 (4): 1015–1045. doi:10.1257/aer.20140913. S2CID 32188412.
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} "Timing is everything". August 9, 2014 – via economist.com.
3. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} "Stocks perform better when a Democrat is in the White House". September 23, 2020 – via cnn.com.
4. ^ "Employment Situation Summary". November 6, 2020 – via bls.gov.
5. ^ "Biden's claim that Trump will be the first president with a negative jobs record". October 2, 2020 – via washingtonpost.com.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b FRED (Dec 28, 2021). "All Employees, Total Nonfarm". FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved Dec 28, 2021.
7. ^ "Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics".
8. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d "Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics".
9. ^ "Guess Which Presidents Really Oversaw Economic Booms". August 1, 2018 – via bloomberg.com.
10. ^ "Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars". U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
11. ^ "Real Gross Domestic Product". Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b Leonhardt, David (Feb 3, 2021). "Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?". New York Times.
13. ^ Long, Heather (Sep 5, 2020). "The Trump vs. Obama Economy - in 16 charts?". Washington Post.
14. ^ "Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?". October 28, 2015 – via usnews.com.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b c "Home". bls.gov.
16. ^ "FRED graph of unemployment rate measured using components". June 22, 2023 – via fred.stlouisfed.org.
17. ^ Bartels, Larry (January 15, 2015). "Can 'conservative principles' boost working-class incomes?". The Washington Post.
18. ^ McElwee, Sean (December 28, 2015). "These 5 charts prove that the economy does better under Democratic presidents". Salon.
19. ^ Funke, Daniel (July 29, 2019). ""Reagan took the deficit from $70 billion to $175 billion. Bush 41 took it to $300 billion. Clinton got it to zero. Bush 43 took it from zero to $1.2 trillion. Obama halved it to $600 billion. Trump's got it back to a trillion."". PolitiFact.
20. ^ Wichert, Bill (June 8, 2012). ""It took us four years to balance the budget. Then I gave you four surplus budgets for the first time in more than 70 years, paid $600 billion down on the national debt."". PolitiFact.
21. ^ Lawder, David (May 25, 2022). "CBO sees sharp reduction in FY 2022 deficit, but slowing economy to boost debt". Reuters.
22. ^ Santa-Clara, Pedro; Valkanov, Rossen (October 2003). "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market". The Journal of Finance. Wiley. 58 (5): 1841–1872. doi:10.1111/1540-6261.00590. JSTOR 3648176. S2CID 9684018.
23. ^ Egan, Matt (March 3, 2016). "History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats". Fox Business.
24. ^ "What a contested election means for the economy--and your wallet". November 4, 2020 – via washingtonpost.com.
25. ^ Emily Graffeo; Lu Wang (November 3, 2021). "S&P 500 Is Up 37% Since Biden's Election One Year Ago, Setting Presidential Record". Bloomberg News.
26. ^ Ke, Da (May 7, 2019). "Left Behind: Partisan Identity and Wealth Inequality" (PDF).
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b "US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions". November 23, 2020 – via nber.org.
28. ^ "The Economy Under Democratic vs. Republican Presidents". June 22, 2016 – via jec.senate.gov.
29. ^ "Tests of Significance". www.stat.yale.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-02.

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, commando said:

farm subsidies are real.   

Don't say that to a farmer!  My god, they will lose their s#!t on you.

 

I get that 100 years ago farming was brutal but not today.  

[funhusker]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

We send Ukraine mothballed weapons valued at a certain amount, it's a poor argument. 

 

Secondly, rural America is already spent on heavily and is already subsidized by tax payers. This idea that rural America is in decline because of under investment isn't true. They already get many times the "money sent to Ukraine" every year.  But because it's been happening for decades is seen as normal. 

Agree.  The biggest threat to small towns as most Nebraskans see them (I think most Nebraskans view small towns as most Class B and below) is modern farm equipment and the reduction in small family farms.  

 

These sound like some good investments, but I don't see how it's going to cause people to start moving to rural communities in droves.  There is a reason Walmart isn't setting up shop in these towns, there isn't enough money to make it worth it.  Embrace the quiet living while you can, but times are just changing...

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Agree.  The biggest threat to small towns as most Nebraskans see them (I think most Nebraskans view small towns as most Class B and below) is modern farm equipment and the reduction in small family farms.  

 

These sound like some good investments, but I don't see how it's going to cause people to start moving to rural communities in droves.  There is a reason Walmart isn't setting up shop in these towns, there isn't enough money to make it worth it.  Embrace the quiet living while you can, but times are just changing...

Amen

[Archy1221]

20 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Are you disputing the actual numbers? 

Maybe it went over your head, but the claim of a “lengthy” post as if it were your original thoughts was quite funny when you literally just copied and pasted an entire web page to make it “lengthy”.  

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Don't say that to a farmer!  My god, they will lose their s#!t on you.

 

I get that 100 years ago farming was brutal but not today.  

Definitely an area to cut some spending. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Maybe it went over your head, but the claim of a “lengthy” post as if it were your original thoughts was quite funny when you literally just copied and pasted an entire web page to make it “lengthy”.  

 

Of course I copied and pasted someone else's findings, including the sources. That's the whole point of what we in the internet debate business call "evidence." 

 

Still leaves the only two pertinent questions unanswered:

 

Do you really want me to go pull that same information from the original sources for you to ignore? 

 

Are you disputing the actual numbers? 

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Of course I copied and pasted someone else's findings, including the sources. That's the whole point of what we in the internet debate business call "evidence." 

You could also copy and paste the link, maybe a paragraph or two to make a point instead of the entire word for word web page in order for you to say you made a long post, but we are getting into the weeds and will drop it as you are making too much of my joke.  
 

17 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Are you disputing the actual numbers? 

No, but your numbers clearly lack “nuance” and context that goes without saying I thought.  For recent examples……….

 

Bill Clinton—He resided over what most would call a pretty darn good economy, dare I say roaring at times.   And he didnt really do anything policy wise to get in the way of it so good for him.  We all agree? But we also would agree, that tech explosion was happening no matter who was President, it’s just a matter of it other policy decisions would stifle the growth any or push it overseas.
 

Ok…great.   So Clinton’s term gets tremendous credit, rightfully so, and he exited at/near the top of the tech boom in 2000.  I think we all also agree the dot com era was also a bubble that many forecast happening, it was just a matter of when.   As it so happens, it hit its peak in 2000 and Bush is elected and gets to enjoy the downfall of the tech boom.   If Bill had been elected one year later and served till the end of 2001, his record (a Democrat President record) isn’t as rosy.   And then Bush starts from a MUCH lower base and gets credit for more growth.  
 

So now let’s fast forward to 2007/2008.  Let’s say the housing market holds on for another year or so, Bush exits on high times and Obama gets into office and wham!   Housing bubble bursts and his tenure that started from  a quite high base, is pretty soon after cut drastically with large unemployment, instead of him starting at the bottom.   Quite a different story again when comparing R’s and D’s. 
 

Fast forward again to Covid 2020.  That was happening no matter who was President and unemployment wasn’t going down by Jan 2021 to baseline pre Covid no matter who got elected President.  So The Big Guy gets to ride the glory of “job creation”.   
 

So no, numbers are the numbers, but the entire story wasn’t told by just the numbers.  

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, funhusker said:

Agree.  The biggest threat to small towns as most Nebraskans see them (I think most Nebraskans view small towns as most Class B and below) is modern farm equipment and the reduction in small family farms.  

 

These sound like some good investments, but I don't see how it's going to cause people to start moving to rural communities in droves.  There is a reason Walmart isn't setting up shop in these towns, there isn't enough money to make it worth it.  Embrace the quiet living while you can, but times are just changing...

Ummm...there are lots of walmarts in class B size towns.

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You could also copy and paste the link, maybe a paragraph or two to make a point instead of the entire word for word web page in order for you to say you made a long post, but we are getting into the weeds and will drop it as you are making too much of my joke.  
 

No, but your numbers clearly lack “nuance” and context that goes without saying I thought.

 

 

 

My previous posts and the cited research both addressed the nuance, including Presidents taking blame/credit for economic indicators they didn't influence. I specifically mentioned Biden gaming the COVID numbers to his favor. I highlighted the conclusion that fiscal policy may not even be much of an influence in the larger economy. 

 

This is what I mean by you crafting your retort before actually reading the posts in questions.

 

The part where I said the GOP is kinda fulla s#!t is based on less-ambiguous research indicating that Republican administrations tend to preside over larger deficits, and that Democratic administrations -- for whatever reasons -- are not bad for the economy in the way their Republican detractors attempt to portray. 

 

You seem to think I take pride of ownership in making a long post. That's weird. I honestly thought it was easier than going through a link, knowing anyone disinterested could skip ahead. Although long and comprehensive, I thought it was a darned good summary of the issues being discussed. 

 

You know what really goes without saying? 

 

 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

This is what I mean by you crafting your retort before actually reading the posts in questions.

I read much of the wiki  page posted and no not the 7 zillion links along with it nor did you.     Therefore I didn’t dispute the numbers when you asked.   My “retort” would not have changed even if i hadn’t because I am right either way!  Which you know.  

 

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The part where I said the GOP is kinda fulla s#!t is based on less-ambiguous research indicating that Republican administrations tend to preside over larger deficits, and that Democratic administrations -- for whatever reasons -- are not bad for the economy in the way their Republican detractors attempt to portray. 

The research you posted also states that economy is better off with split government or Republican government no matter who the President.   So one might say the Dem’s are full of shot when stating they are best at governing for the economy.  Or did you not read your long post? 
 

And don’t respond kinda matter to give context to whatever numbers are presented?  

[teachercd]

22 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummm...there are lots of walmarts in class B size towns.

I am trying to think of Class B towns.

 

Scottsbluff?  Waverly? Bennington (Omaha)

 

Lexington?

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My “retort” would not have changed even if i hadn’t because I am right either way!  Which you know.  

 

 

That is so you. 

[suh_fan93]

When you can't win, cheat.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I am trying to think of Class B towns.

 

Scottsbluff?  Waverly? Bennington (Omaha)

 

Lexington?

• Bennington (9-0), 46.0000
• Waverly (9-0), 44.6667
• Omaha Skutt Catholic (8-1), 43.1111
• York (7-2), 42.8889
• Elkhorn North (8-1), 42.7778
• Plattsmouth (7-2), 41.5556
• Seward (6-3), 40.6667
• Northwest (5-4), 40.4444
• Norris (6-3), 40.0000
• Hastings (6-3), 40.0000
• Blair (5-4), 39.4444
• Scottsbluff (5-4), 38.8889
• Elkhorn High  (4-5), 38.8889
• Ralston (4-5), 37.2222
• Gross Catholic (4-5), 37.2222
• Crete (5-4), 36.7778
• Gretna East (3-6), 36.3333
• Mount Michael Benedictine (2-7), 36.1111
• Gering (2-7), 35.7778
• Beatrice (2-7), 35.7778
• Lincoln Pius X (2-7), 35.4444
• Omaha Westview (2-7), 34.3333
• Lincoln Northwest (1-8), 32.8889
• Lexington (0-9), 31.6667
• Omaha Buena Vista (0-9), 31.4444
• Lincoln Standing Bear (0-1), 30.0000

Crazy....there's even Walmarts in some C size towns.  I guess Walmart must think there's enough business there.