There are two ways to defend the support of Donald Trump for president this November:
1. Promoting another four years of improvement of the state of the nation.
2. Preventing another four years of destruction of the state of the nation.
Either presents a legitimate argument, a logical argument, a fact-based argument.
As regards point #1, Trump's record as president begged for a repeat performance in 2020, and he was denied by all manner of fraud, interference, irregularity which resulted in the election actually being stolen from him. His detractors pretend otherwise, as if his record of achievement wasn't enough. As if his manner and eccentricities drove away intelligent voters. Pseudo-sophisticates and the sanctimonious assert he was not presidential material, while those like me maintain that his record proved he indeed was, and then some.
That record included tax and regulatory policy which resulted in a thriving economy, with growth beyond what the impotent Obama said was no longer possible. We were told the weak growth rate was the new normal to which we needed to get used and that a magic wand was required to do better. (Then of course, when better came to be, this same worthless bastard dared to claim the booming economy was due to his efforts.)
It also included oil flowing like Niagara Falls to the extent that our costs were low and our exports were high. And with his support for Keystone and other pipelines, jobs were as plentiful as the oil. It also included a more reasonable cost of living for all, and inflation was low. It included more and better paying jobs to the extent that the unemployment rate for black Americans was the lowest ever since they began tracking that, and the lowest in the nation since the early 1960s, and thus liberated nearly seven million people from food stamps. He lowered drug prices for the first time in 51 years.
It included actual work toward reigning in the number of illegal invaders flowing across our borders. A wall which border agents confirmed was impeding the ability of illegals from crossing, making their jobs easier.
It included pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. The former put a huge financial hurt on Iran and mitigated their ability to finance nuke production as well as terrorist activity (whereas both Obama and now Biden choose to fund both). On that issue, Trump took out an Iranian military leader, Qassem Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi...two vermin responsible for all sorts of terrorist attacks.
It included the Abraham Accords which brought together Israel and Arab states as well as with us. In doing so, he made it clear that the Jew-hating Gazastinian/West Bankers were not necessary to advance relationships in the region, and did not have to be a veto to every such attempt. It included moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capitol in Jerusalem where it should always have been.
It included supporting ASEAN over Chinese expansionism and fighting China's aggression toward its neighbors. Even Vietnam professed its gratitude toward Trump in this regard.
This is a really short list. Trump's achievements, again, justified a second term. There's no thinking person who voted against giving him one. No thinking person would presume to assert he wouldn't continue on that path he started in his first term as there's no rational argument to suggest he wouldn't. Some wish to speak of the debt increase during his presidency. But as I provided for Craig, the debt has no only increased with every president since Nixon, it has increased in the second term of every two-term president. That is, where the debt rose for Obam's first term, it rose again during his second. And as I said, it was the same with every two-termer...Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 AND Obama. Thus, to hold it against Trump as if it mitigates all of the above good is inane.
Another criticism is the COVID "vaccines" and Trump's seeming continued support for them. This is a legit gripe, but it fails due to the fact that so much is known about its inefficiency and harmful potential that it's doubtful too many are making their jab decisions based on his support of the "vax" alone, if at all. And while detractors insist they aren't insisting on perfection in a candidate, it's these imperfections they scrape up to lament him as the GOP nominee and to rationalize withholding votes.
A far more egregious bit of nonsense is Trump's manner, his "mean tweets" and other such "stupid" things he says or does. Let's forget all the good things he does and pretend none of it counts for judging his character. Let's just focus on bullshit instead. The "character" argument fails against his record of beneficial achievements. This is serious shit here and whether he's cracking wise about some woman's looks or "hawking" a Bible, to pretend anyone should give this crap any real weight belies their claims of being sensible voters. They aren't, and the future of the nation is too important to concern one's self with crap when real destructive policies are a guarantee with another four years of Dem control of the White House.
And here's another thing which speaks to Trump's plus side: He loves America in a tangible, substantive way which manifests in his willingness to take all the shit haters are throwing his way just to ensure America is Made Great Again. The lawfare, the obstructions...none of it will stop him from doing right by us. Those who pretend he only cares about himself have to be some of the stupidest assholes in the world in the face of all that. He hasn't been enriched by public service as has most every other president and member of Congress. Yet he continues on our behalf.
It's not Trump who is Trump's worst enemy. It is those who say this kind of crap when they should be assuring folks of why he should get their support, too. But they are his worst "baggage" as they pretend anyone should be concerned about his less than perfect ways as if they matter against real issues which do.
ADDENDUM: As luck would have it, today's edition of AmericanThinker.com provided the following article which aligns well with what I've begun with this post:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/the_compelling_case_for_trump.html
54 comments:
What is wrong with Dan Trabue and Feodor? What are a few sources you would consider to be better?
John Smith,
Thank you for taking the time to visit here. You're always welcome. My "rules" are few. Mostly it's simply that I expect that no visitor should attack another visitor with name calling and unsupported accusations. I reserve that right for myself, and do not require that anyone not attack me, as this is my blog and thus I am a more acceptable target for such. I'd rather it not happen at all, but a little snark never killed anyone.
To your question, if you've spent any considerable time reading comments at Dan's, you might see that there is great concern about Dan's ability to support his opinions about Scriptural teaching, while at the same time, he is none too keen on confronting support in the other direction. One might find fault with that support, but one is obliged to say what's wrong with it in a manner more compelling than "Nyuh uh", which is pretty much the extent of any of Dan's objections to that which he finds inconvenient to his agenda.
feo spends his time in posturing as more educated while doing little more than providing bluster and insulting condescension. While he may often bring facts to the table, he isn't able to show how those facts have any relevance to the topic on the table, and certainly not to any extent which would mitigate the positions of his opponents.
So that's what's wrong with the two of them in a nutshell, and it extends to their political views as well. They like to posture, but they don't much care about whether or not their posturing reflects anything true.
As to a few sources, as far as blogs go, I can recommend four or five. You'll find them all on my list of "Right Ones" and you can access them there.
1. Eternity Matters
2. Rational Christian Discernment
3. The Watchman's Bagpipes
4. Winging It
5. Wintery Knight
There are others on the list which can provide insights which are more in line what I regard as Biblical truth regarding Scripture, and each brings a little something different to the table. The five above can be described in the following manner based on my review alone:
1. Due to personal issues, Neil isn't quite as active as he once was, but his take on Christian issues is sound.
2. Jesse does a lot of discussion on various Biblical issues and he's the newest of the bunch. I like his stuff a lot.
3. Glenn presents a lot of examples of false teachers and heretics as a warning against giving the wrong people too much attention. Neil does this as well.
4. Stan is like hearing a sermon as he often focuses on a single topic or issue connected to one or two verses which cover them. Explains very well the point he's making and the verses at the same time.
5. Wintery Knight (he keeps his real name hidden because exposure can bring about problems on the job) does a lot with regard to Christian apologetics, and he also touches on relationship issues from a Christian perspective. He also supplies lots of videos of debates between great Christian thinkers and critics of the faith.
I continue to have one or two blogs on the list which are no longer active, because there was good stuff there (I also hope they'll start up again). The same is true of the "Left Ones" list. Of the five I listed, there are times I disagree with what is said at them, but that's OK. One is allowed to do that when one is not a leftist inviting discussion, as you'll find routine at Dan's blog. At most of the above, there are links to other sites, not all of which are blogs, where one can find more articles and discussions on the faith. I hope this helps.
As a rule, I caution everyone against sources where pro-LGBTQ+, pro-abortion, "social justice" and rabid anti-Trump rhetoric is rampant. Those are all counter Christian and over time, if your search for truth is real, you will find this to be the case. Good luck.
Thanks for the shout-out! I’m about to start having more posts, as I’m going to post my book subchapter-by-subchapter from May to Dec. Then I’ll be done.
Re. The original post, I couldn’t agree more. I’m definitely voting for Trump, for all those reasons.
The Rational Christian site seems more technical than the others. I dont know if a simpleton like myself will find it of much use.
John Smith,
First, don't sell yourself short. Pray for understanding and if you're being respectful...as you have been so far...I've no doubt Jesse and/or other readers will be happy to help you out.
Neil,
Can't wait to start reading your book.
I'm a little crushed that I didn't get a mention.
FYI, arguing that "everybody else increased the debt, so it's OK that Trump did.", isn't quite the own you might think. I'd also point out that trump explicitly promised lower deficit/debt/balanced budget, and spectacularly missed the mark.
Don't take offense, Craig. I simply listed those I did for their more direct address of Scripture. Note I don't list myself among them and deferred to them for the reasons given.
But I will now most definitely attest to John Smith that you're someone who can aid in his study.
In other news more to the topic of the post, I wasn't suggesting an "everybody else did it" rationale to defend Trump's failure to stand apart from those who preceded him on the subject of the debt. It is AGAIN something about which I remain unhappy about his time in office. However, as is really quite true for every one term president, and especially for one like Trump whose record is otherwise very good, there's no telling what a second term might have provided in that regard as well as regards other issues, too.
In the meantime, given the rise in revenues to federal coffers resulting from his tax, energy and regulatory policies, the debt may have been higher...or perhaps not as bad given no money coming in to rationalize the spending...spending which is the purview of Congress and not the executive branch. The issue of spending is always contentious because of that fact alone.
You'll also note, I did not list spending among the many reasons he's worthy of a second term. But I will say here, that while I've no doubt he will unmistakably improve the state of the nation, I believe his impact would have been greater had he not had his second term fraudulently stolen from him in 2020. It will now be more difficult for him given how deeply in the trash Biden and the Dems have driven the nation. Trump's starting point for this term is far lower/worse than it was following the other clusterf**k, Obama. And that was bad enough!
Here are some facts Marshal Art doesn't want to deal with:
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/2024/04/republicans-are-finished.html
Hi Tim!
Didn't you read my "New Rules" post? Why did you choose to post without any way to determine who you are? Note that I published your comment anyway, but I'm not at all keen on the tone, as if I'm afraid to confront any contrary positions or "facts".
To that end...
This doc is likely ten years old, given how long it takes to get something to market. That is, a 2015 doc would likely have "data" going back at least one year prior to the release of the doc. In any case, these numbers assume no change due to crap people are suffering under the current administration. One thing which would make such an outcome possible, is no conservatives making the conservative case to those within their sphere of influence. I think that's one of the biggest problems which could cause the end of the presidency being held by a conservative.
I fully reject any who claim the title "conservative" who would write off the GOP while doing nothing to pressure the GOP to return to its conservative, Constitutional roots.
I'm considering a new rule in addition to the last rule. Any who criticize the GOP or conservatism in terms of either fading away must state what they personally are doing to prevent it. If one has no record of even sending regular emails to their state and federal representatives (the party of the rep doesn't freakin' matter in the least), then keep your Chicken Little shit to yourself. You've no standing.
"spending which is the purview of Congress and not the executive branch. The issue of spending is always contentious because of that fact alone."
I'm a bit confused here. If spending is totally within the purview of congress, and if it's impossible to reduce the deficit and debt without reducing spending, then what rational person would promise to do something beyond their ability to control? If it's practically impossible for a president to reduce/eliminate the debt without spending cuts (technically it's not, but it would require an incredibly extended period of unprecedented economic growth and at least a cap on spending), then why would a president promise something that is impossible?
Arguing that it's someone else's fault, isn't particularly persuasive. A president once claimed that "The buck stops here." in a sign on his White House desk, too bad that's not the case currently with either candidate.
FYI, I've never denied that Trump did do some good things as president. I fully acknowledge that he did. I merely put those good things in the context of his whole term, and argue that he'd be a better president if he did more good things, less bad things, and didn't promise to do things that you claim he didn't have the ability to do anyway.
"I'm a bit confused here."
Clearly.
"If spending is totally within the purview of congress, and if it's impossible to reduce the deficit and debt without reducing spending, then what rational person would promise to do something beyond their ability to control?"
Given his promise was premised on eight years, it's presumptuous to assert he couldn't possibly have succeeded. Was he wrong to make such an incredible campaign promise? No. Not if he thought he could accomplish it. That's how big things happen. By shooting for the stars, one is more likely to get to the moon. Who knows how close he'd have gotten to that goal had he the full two term period in which he said he'd accomplish that goal. And if he only reduced the debt, would you still hold it against him that he didn't eliminate it? I think you would.
More importantly, focusing on this is no more than an attempt validate your dislike for the guy.
"...why would a president promise something that is impossible?"
You're assuming it's impossible. If it's impossible, why hold it against him that he sought to do the impossible but, in half the time he projected it being accomplished, he failed to achieve that goal? That's pretty lame.
"Arguing that it's someone else's fault, isn't particularly persuasive."
Ignoring what led to his failure to be reelected isn't particularly honest.
"FYI, I've never denied that Trump did do some good things as president."
"Not denying" doesn't make up for only focusing on "stupid stuff" of no significance, and pretending the debt increase is all on him and justifies adding it to your list of negatives.
"...he'd be a better president if he did more good things, less bad things, and didn't promise to do things that you claim he didn't have the ability to do anyway."
First, there's no president who wouldn't have been better by that metric. No president has been perfect and thus every president could have been better were they to have done more good things. You're scraping the barrel.
Secondly, I never said Trump lacks the ability to reduce or eliminate the debt, but only that the debt is not solely the result of presidential actions and thus it's not proper to blame any president for it. There's a lot which goes into why the debt increases and some reasons are beyond any president's ability to prevent it. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it couldn't have been done by Trump had he the full eight consecutive years upon which his promise was based. He made fools of many of his detractors. Unless your claim you don't require perfection is untrue, that should weigh heavily on the positive side of your pros & cons list for Trump. But you focus on negatives while giving but a token nod to any positives.
"Given his promise was premised on eight years, it's presumptuous to assert he couldn't possibly have succeeded."
1. So we start by acknowledging that his original promise was one that was completely beyond his ability to keep.
2. I'm not saying that he "couldn't possibly" have succeeded.
3. I am saying that if one looks at the first half of those theoretical 8 years, that he got off to a good start, then went downhill quickly. It's theoretically possible that he could have done a complete 180 on spending in his theoretical second term and come back to fulfill his promise. But that's moot, and all we can do is evaluate what he actually did, not what he might have done.
"And if he only reduced the debt, would you still hold it against him that he didn't eliminate it? I think you would."
I'd hold his inability to keep his promise against him, while appreciating his effort.
"More importantly, focusing on this is no more than an attempt validate your dislike for the guy."
No, it's providing a counterpoint to your overly positive contentions based on what you hope he might be able to do.
"You're assuming it's impossible. If it's impossible, why hold it against him that he sought to do the impossible but, in half the time he projected it being accomplished, he failed to achieve that goal? That's pretty lame."
I'm sorry, I'm just pointing out that by your metric (that trump has zero control of spending), that it would be impossible (or at least highly unlikely) that Trump would have been able to eliminate the debt without much higher growth than he ever saw during his first term. Sure, 10% gdp growth (with zero spending increase, which Trump didn't control, might have gotten it done. But it's not realistic.
"Ignoring what led to his failure to be reelected isn't particularly honest."
I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking for objective proof of specific instances of voter fraud that were significant enough to swing the election.
"First, there's no president who wouldn't have been better by that metric. No president has been perfect and thus every president could have been better were they to have done more good things. You're scraping the barrel."
Again, I've never once suggested that "perfect" is the expectation, I'm simply hoping for better. It's strange when someone who says that they're a conservative, and who's criticized DFL candidates for lack of character, is so willing to embrace Trump with so little expectation of anything better.
"Secondly, I never said Trump lacks the ability to reduce or eliminate the debt, but only that the debt is not solely the result of presidential actions and thus it's not proper to blame any president for it>
1. If Trump is unaware that he "lacks the ability" to eliminate the debt, but promised to do so anyway, that just means he was making bullshit campaign promises.
2. Interesting, are you saying that you don't lay responsibility for our current economic/fiscal/debt/deficit situation at the feet of Biden?
3. Saying that the debt/deficit can't be eliminated because POTUS doesn't control spending, is equivalent to acknowledging that POTUS doesn't have the ability to do what Trump promised.
Debt increases are caused by overspending, borrowing to cover the overspending, and printing money to pay for stuff. It's not that complicated. In literally every single business the ability to control costs/spending is the single biggest predictor of success. If POTUS has zero control of spending, then he has zero ability to do what Trump promised he'd do. He also said it would be easy.
"That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it couldn't have been done by Trump had he the full eight consecutive years upon which his promise was based."
Please explain how POTUS, with zero control over spending, could accomplish this feat without assuming GDP growth unheard of in the history of the country? Give an unrealistic GDP growth number, what would stop congress from increasing spending?
Arguing that he would have "made fools" of his detractors, while acknowledging that he literally doesn't have the ability to affect spending, and without providing a realistic path to achieve this goal is simply playing "woulda, coulda".
Well, since we have absolutely zero evidence that Trump could have achieved this goal that he promised, I see no reason to treat conjecture and unfounded hope as something that needs to be refuted. I'll simply point out that had Trump actually reduced that debt at all, you might have a point. Had he not increased debt at a rate higher than anyone in recent history, you might have a point. Had he vetoed spending bills, had he cut the executive branch, had he done anything to slow spending, I might believe your hopeful guesses. But...
While you focus on "positives" (and assume that the "positives" would have continued) while giving a token nod to the negatives, if you acknowledge them at all. It kind of balances out.
Who the hell is ready for another four years of Biden?!?!?
"Who the hell is ready for another four years of Biden?!?!?"
Only abject unmitigated morons.
"It's not Trump who is Trump's worst enemy."
Which doesn't mean that Trump is not his own enemy.
No more or less than you are yours.
"Trump is his own worst enemy" means the electorate is stupid and lazy, incapable of weighing all the evidence in a manner necessary to best serve one's best interests. "I can't vote for a guy like Trump", or "I won't vote for Trump because of one single special interest of importance to me personally" are manifestations of true foolishness when the alternative is clearly and beyond any doubt to be so much worse, if one is to consider Trump as president is even bad at all.
I'm not running for president, though. With greater stakes, and greater power, comes greater responsibility and higher expectations.
"Trump is his own worst enemy." means that Trump is engaging in actions or saying things that make his quest for the presidency harder that it has to be. The reality is that single issue voters has always been just that, single issue voters. To expect them to abandon their deep convictions on that single issue so you don't call them "stupid, lazy, morons" seems quite a stretch.
But you do you, you keep trying to be winsome and persuade all the "stupid, lazy, foolish, morons" to do what you tell them to.
As I've said before. It's people like Dan that push me to vote for Trump, and it's people like you that push me to write in a POTUS vote. It's possible that attitudes like yours and Dan's just might affect the undecided in exactly the opposite way you both intend. Probably because they're "stupid, lazy, foolish, evil, morons".
This is going to be the story of the 2024 election in a nutshell: There will be much conservative tears generated by dashed expectations and we will all be practically broke (if you are not already) by the end of Biden's second term in office. You can thank his policies for all of that. We just don't have the necessary votes to win elections anymore.
"I'm not running for president, though. With greater stakes, and greater power, comes greater responsibility and higher expectations."
I have high expectations for the electorate, particular those of the allegedly conservative variety. Those expectations are not being met by those who would be "pushed" away from casting their vote for the best candidate available...that being Trump...because of rhetoric of those who see the consequences so clearly. What the fuck does it matter if I insult you over your strange focus on the insignificant? How does my opinion of such bad reasoning factor into your deciding which candidate most likely to win is the better of the two? Don't you care about your children? Don't you care about how much worse it can get under another four years of Biden?
The truth is I don't really think you're that foolish, but are somehow thinking your "threat" will abate my desperation to see my country turned around and the future for my children and grandchildren improved. That won't happen under Biden. There's no third party or write in who has the slightest chance and as such, any such votes cast, or not vote cast, is a vote for Biden and harm to my kids and grandkids. To yours, too, if you even care about them.
I don't at all want you to do you if that's what doing you is. If doing you is whining about how my rhetoric will push you to vote for Mickey Mouse because of something I say, then you're doing you is doing something moronic. Thus, I don't believe what you're implying in the least.
The fact is this is serious business. Those who think Trump's got problems worse than the problems they have with Dems in control are people who are not the least bit wise or sophisticated in their political thinking. That's the fact and the only one which matters. All else is nonsensical by comparison. His COVID stance, the spending which took place in his first term (said by more than a few was twice what it would have been without COVID), the flip-flopping on abortion he never did, the Bible/founding documents combo, none of that matters in the least compared to what we'll be forced to endure because some wish to pretend those things matter.
Cut the crap. Focus on how fucked up things became from the moment Joe Bidung was sworn in.
God help us!
Bubba,
I don't know that many conservatives/Trump supporters have especially high expectations of success. More like desperate hope given all the bullshit which has been thrown our way to interfere in yet another election. At the same time, we constantly hear of blacks and other minorities turning away from the Dems, with some even coming into the light. Will that be enough? Depends on the Dem cheating. But between now and then, no conservative should be sitting on his hands, but instead putting in extra effort to persuade just one person a piece to see that light. Biden & Co have given us so much we can use to challenge Biden supporters, Trump-haters and undecideds what's truly at stake. Each new vote coming Trump's way makes Dem cheating that much harder. And if they succeed in getting Trump convicted of any of the 90+ bullshit charges against him, that should convince even more people they need to reject the scumbag party responsible for it.
I keep hearing and reading so many express despair. While that is justified, it should trigger resolve and perseverance, not surrender. "When the times get tough..." and all.
I can't think of anyone who's expressing "despair". Disappointment, impatience, disgust, frustration, sure, but I've yet to hear despair.
Personally, I'm at the point of thinking that the next 4 years are going to be less than optimal no matter who wins, although for different reasons. But I'm hoping for a reset after that which will see some better options to choose from and some renewed vigor among conservatives.
I just realized how strange it is to be focused so singularly on Trump/Biden. I'd suggest that a Biden win, with GOP control of congress resulting in 4 years of gridlock could be a decent outcome. While a Trump win with DFL control of congress could be worse.
Maybe the best course is to focus on control of congress as the primary goal, and work toward pushing for that vote to vote Trump as well. In all honesty, I see the house and senate races as possibly being more important than president this time around. I can also see those disillusioned by Trump voting GOP down ballot because they want some sort of check on Biden.
This election will likely be decided by minority voters (black and Jewish for sure), women (post Title 9), and pro-life voters, who either flip their votes or hold their noses.
Jesse Albrecht ripped Feodor a new asshole:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-bible-is-not-safe-guide_22.html
It was so good to watch, I just could not avoid sharing it with you.
"we will all be practically broke (if you are not already) by the end of Biden's second term in office. You can thank his policies for all of that. "
I keep wondering what world you all are living in. I and my family and most of my colleagues and at least most of my church friends are all much better off than we were four years ago, economically and otherwise. By all the traditional measures of economic success, the US is doing quite well. Yes, inflation is not great, but our inflation, even, is the envy of much the world.
Where is the DATA that suggests we are collectively struggling financially? I'm not seeing it.
And it's not just me and my colleagues, it's the people we work with and for... the unhoused, those with disabilities, those with mental illness complications... there's more resources for them, more opportunities. Yes, we need to pour more effort in increasing more affordable housing and we always stand ready for the GOP to join us in finding more solutions.
But again, by all the standard measures of economic health, we're doing WAY better than four years ago and better than we were five years ago, pre-covid.
If these economic indicators happened under a GOP leader, you all would be crowing about our great economic health.
Are me and mine unique in being better off than four years ago?
Dan
David Riggs,
Thanks for the heads up. I read it and it was a wonderful dressing down. It's too bad he discontinued comments (though I can well imagine why he did), because I had something to add. At Dan's I supplied a link to a source speaking to how early the Christian canon was established and it was indeed while the Apostles were still alive. Within the first one or two hundred years of Christ's ascension, the Christian community was dealing with pretty much what we have now.
Thanks again. Just one more person proving feo's not all that.
Dan,
I'm aware of the Forbes piece you posted on FB. (I believe that's where Craig said he saw it. He eventually posted the link at his blog.) I read it with great interest and wondered how much stock I should put in an "expert" from the Center for American Progress...a far left think tank which supplied the Biden administration with around 30-33 people. Hard to think there's no spin of the numbers in the dude's piece. So I went looking around and found an article from about a month prior who has provided more context than what your dude provided. I intend to address both in a future post.
As to your comment, keep in mind that you have no credibility. What's more, I wouldn't rely on your intelligence to read even your own situation properly. But if we pretend that you're being truthful, even with that noted lack in intellect, there's still the obligation to tie whatever you think is a better situation than prior to Biden to which Biden policies produced your good fortune specifically. I doubt you can. Indeed most of what you provided are things that had begun well before your moronic choice for president was illegitimately allowed to sit in the Big Chair.
The economy during Trump's time was booming prior to COVID and was already beginning to recover before his term ended. How you couldn't make a go of it during that time does indeed make you unique.
We in no way need to be pouring any resources into "affordable housing". We need an administration and a Congress which will return us to a booming economy which provides more and better paying jobs so people can afford homes on their own. The problem is that the damage of Biden's economy may not allow that to happen or to happen easily.
Stay tuned and I'll educate you yet again.
As you can see in the chart below, Trump inherited a growing GDP from Obama until his last year with the covid crash. Biden took Trump's covid crash and immediately restarted gdp growth.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188105/annual-gdp-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
As you can see in the next source, the unemployment rate under both Biden and Trump are comparable (again, except for Trump's last covid year) and wage growth is also comparable, with a slight advantage to Biden...
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/10/us-labor-market-showing-shades-of-2019
Unemployment rate in a chart...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
And this, about our significant wage growth, especially for lower income employees...
"In stark contrast to prior decades, low-wage workers experienced dramatically fast real wage growth between 2019 and 2023, but many workers continue to suffer from grossly inadequate wages and middle-wage workers face significant gaps across demographic groups."
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/
Again, by most traditional measures, our economy is doing pretty well, and it is the envy of many nations globally.
Yes, inflation has been a real problem, but inflation has been going down while income is going up, with wage growth outpacing inflation.
If this was happening under Trump, you'd be crowing about the GDP, low unemployment and high wage growth.
Another interesting thing is, if you look at such charts over our lifespan (with perhaps the Carter administration as the exception) you will see similar trends: The GOP inherits a relatively healthy economy from the preceding Democratic administration and by the ends of the GOP administrations, things are trending down. Then, the Democrat comes into office and turns things around, and the GOP once again inherits a healthier economy and repeats the cycle.
If one just looks at the data, without the emotional attachment to one's own party, it's pretty clear.
Dan
"We have heard much about the puzzle that US economic performance under President Joe Biden has been much stronger than voters perceive it to be. But the current episode is just one instance of a bigger historical puzzle: the US economy has since World War II consistently done better under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents. ..
Since World War II, Democrats have seen job creation average 1.7 % per year when in office, versus 1.0 % under the GOP. US GDP has averaged a rate of growth of 4.23 percent per annum during Democratic administrations, versus 2.36 per cent under Republicans, a remarkable difference of 1.87 percentage points."
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans
And...
"Summary: The economy performs much better during Democratic presidential administrations than during Republican ones. "
https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/
And...
"Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
Etc, etc. This is a known Thing amongst economists and policy wonks and those who read them. Note: the reality is nuanced and mixed, but the data is what it is.
Dan
I wonder, Marshal, if you can at least acknowledge what all these experts show with their data: that for 100 years, now, the US economy consistently does significantly better under Democratic administrations? Again, I'm glad to point to the reality that it's a nuanced picture - Democrat administrations have sometimes had positive pressure from a GOP congress (and vice versa) that helped, that sometimes, events played out influenced by events beyond anyone's control, etc, etc... but the bottom line remains undeniable, according to the data. But will you try to find a way to deny reality?
Dan
Did you know that even Trump - at least once upon a time - acknowledged the reality of Democratic economic success?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/?sh=5ba2b3886786
Dan
Gas prices have more than doubled, and Biden drained the strategic reserve.
Mortgage rates have more than doubled.
Food is significantly more expensive, and projected to increase.
Rents are increasing.
Inflation is still rising.
Interest rates are still up.
The feds keep printing money and giving it away to foreign countries.
car prices are up.
But things are awesome, because Dan "feels" like they are.
Part of the problem is that the "official" numbers don't include everything.
Art, you're not 100% right on affordable housing. Rising wages alone won't help. Neither will government building apartments that cost &700,000-1,000,000 per unit. Government needs, primarily, to cut the absurd fees that it charges for new construction. It's literally impossible to build an affordable home when you spend 6 figures on fees before even digging a hole or pouring concrete. Given the glut of affordable office buildings in urban areas, maybe someone will be able to convert them profitably.
Craig, you are absolutely correct that our traditional measures of economic health don't capture everything. GDP measures wealth generation, but not how fairly that wealth is distributed or who us getting wealthy and for what reasons. I'd like more measures that assess the health of society, not just wealth generation.
But the point stands, by all the measures we've tended to use to assess our economy, things are going pretty well, as they traditionally do under Democratic administrations. According to the experts.
Craig...
"things are awesome, because Dan "feels" like they are."
It has nothing to do with how I feel. The Experts say and the data supports that things are going well. I'm just acknowledging the fact that I and most of my poor to middle class friends are doing objectively better now than four years ago.
Dan
In my immediate family, our pay is up 25% to 40% for 3/4 of us, while the other has more of a typical 4-5% raise.
We're doing financially better personally, which anecdotal evidence corresponds with the data.
It has nothing to do with feelings.
Although, I DO personally feel MUCH better when the president is not a perverted, amoral conman.
But maybe that's just me.
Dan
Real wage growth at the 10th percentile was exceptionally strong—even in the face of high inflation
Between 2019 and 2023, hourly wage growth was strongest at the bottom of the wage distribution. The 10th-percentile real hourly wage grew 12.1% over the four-year period. To be clear, these are real (inflation-adjusted) wage changes. Overall inflation grew nearly 20%, or about 4.5% annually, between 2019 and 2023. Even with this historically fast inflation, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic recession, low-end wages grew substantially faster than price growth. Nominal wages (i.e., not inflation-adjusted) rose by roughly 34% cumulatively since 2019.
Epi.org
Dan
SO, Dan spins the GDP numbers to imply that somehow there is evil wealth being counted, ignores the price data that is right there, ignores the fact that the jobs Biden "created' are merely that ones that the COVID response took away, ignores mortgage rates, and interest rates, to give credit to Biden.
Ohhhhhhhh, personal anecdotes, the very best kind of objective data.
It's just you. I guess you don't feel too bad about the rampant antisemitism among the academic left either.
Look, Dan cherry picked some data that included the Trump administration and the government response to COVID as his source, while arguing that 20% inflation over that periods somehow healthy.
I've busier lately than a normal retiree expects to be, and thus haven't found the time to properly respond to the nonsense. A few quick thoughts in the meantime:
Dan's EPI snippet, with no direct link to its source, refers to a four year period beginning in Trump's term into Biden's. Is this supposed to suggest that Biden is nonetheless in any way responsible for anything? I tried to find the article or report from which this snippet came and am not sure I've found it. It will require study, OR Dan can do what he's supposed to do and supply it himself in the spirit of supporting his claims...something only everyone who doesn't agree with him is required to do at his own blog.
In trying to find said article/report, I couldn't help notice the article headlines, as well as a few other indications of EPI leaning left. This matters is ascertaining the merits of anything Dan provides. That's not to say that a lefty source can't provide actual facts. But how those facts are spun makes a difference and I find more spin occurs at lefty sources. Agenda is more important than anything for lefties, whereas facts typically drive the more conservative sources. This might seem similar, as both sides have an agenda. The agenda of my side IS facts, or more accurately, developed as a result of facts. The emotion driven left doesn't operate quite the same way. Thus, one must be prudent and disciplined in studying the offerings of either side, with specific attention given to the lefty's desire to make their preferences made factual.
"In my immediate family, our pay is up 25% to 40% for 3/4 of us..."
How happy must the poor in Louisville be to know that this increase in Dan's pay will be coming their way. Dan has a simple living philosophy which must be maintained and as he eschews wealth building, it truly is a great day for the poor of his community!
I'm confused, though. Doesn't Dan work for a non-profit? If not, who is paying for this wage increase he now enjoys? What will that do to costs? If he is working for a non-profit, who is paying for that increase? Donors? Government (which means, me)? Did Dan increase profits to warrant his increase in pay? Please explain.
Finally, while I have data which speaks to the notion that Dem admins result in better economies, this topic is supposed to be a comparison of two specific administrations, not the history of the parties. More than any other president in my lifetime, there has never been a starker difference in economic outcomes of presidential policy. Each seems to have had a greater than normal impact on the economy, Trump's being positive and Biden's being crap. That too will be addressed when I have the time to put it all together...maybe here, maybe its own post.
I also pointed out the flaw in Dan's evidence. Although Dan likes to give Biden credit for things Trump did, that were positive, and this looks like one more example. The problem with Dan's equating of DFL administrations with prosperity is that unfortunately for him, the business cycle doesn't sync to presidential administrations. The notion that it does demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the economy works. It's easier to ignore any depth and just focus on the surface level talking points. Who cares that Biden's given us these massive price increases as long as they can cook the books to hide them, right?
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/#:~:text=Between%202019%20and%202023%2C%20hourly,annually%2C%20between%202019%20and%202023.
Dan
Dan's equating of DFL administrations with prosperity is that unfortunately for him, the business cycle doesn't sync to presidential administrations. The notion that it does demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the economy works.
Indeed, the economy is a complex Thing with many moving parts. There are many things that happen in an economy beyond any one president's control. No one on my side of things is naive enough not to know that.
The thing is: When Obama inherits a recession as he enters the office, you all are glad to blame it on him. When TRUMP inherits an economy on the rise from Obama, you all were glad to claim it as your own. And when Trump leaves a disaster for Biden, you all are glad to blame Biden.
Traditionally, presidents have been measured by how things are going economically (and otherwise) after four years and traditionally, the measures of the GDP, employment rate, poverty rate, etc. Economists are pointing to the reality that historically, the economy starts getting worse towards the end of GOP administrations and the Democrats turn it around. Economists are saying that this isn't just chance or a delayed factor, that there's something about Democratic policies that tend to have positive effects on the economy and something about GOP policies that tend to have negative effects.
And again, economists are not merely saying SO, Yay, Democrats! or that they can point with complete confidence at any set of policies that make the difference... they note that it's a complex machine with many moving parts. But that doesn't change the reality of the trends we can see and measure.
So, by all means, IF you want to credit the briefly good economy that Trump enjoyed to Obama, go ahead. Be consistent. BUT, if you want to try to ONLY credit good economic results (GDP, etc) to the GOP and bad results to the Democrats, then you're not being consistent or, you know, rational and stuff.
Still too busy to respond to this as I would prefer, and the longer it goes, the harder it will be. But when I have a moment while allowing comments to see what's being said, I'm compelled to respond to the goofy stuff...i.e., whatever Dan posts.
"No one on my side of things is naive enough not to know that."
That's funny.
"When Obama inherits a recession as he enters the office, you all are glad to blame it on him."
Not so much "glad" as "honest".
https://www.aei.org/pethokoukis/obama-didnt-end-the-great-recession-that-bush-didnt-cause/
https://www.hudson.org/economics/obama-s-historically-bad-economy
And given who does the spending, the 110th Congress was a Dem majority in both houses. This was the last two years of the GW Bush administration. Do you remember who was part of that 110th Congress? IL Senator Barack H. Obama, who did noting to improve the economy. He inherited a recession from himself as much as from anyone else.
What's more, as these two links alone more than suggest, the economy wasn't "on the rise" when Trump took office in such a way that can be celebrated strongly or attributed to any Obama policy. Later, I'll provide evidence that Trump left the economy in really good shape for Biden to destroy.
"Traditionally, presidents have been measured by how things are going economically..."
Yeah. That's been discussed already and some detail between Craig and me at his blog. It doesn't provide anything of merit to the discussion and pointing out "reality"...as you say economists do...requires context not provided. They're NOT saying that GOP worsens the economy and they're certainly NOT saying Dems turn it around, but only that it appears to turn around during a Dem presidency. Spin is what we're trying to avoid in these discussion, not repeat it.
"And again, economists are not merely saying SO, Yay, Democrats! or that they can point with complete confidence at any set of policies that make the difference..."
Then the entire discussion is moot and unnecessary, isn't it? But aside from the fact that certain policies can and do have direct impact, this isn't a discussion about which party is better for the economy (still the GOP), but which president...Trump or Biden.
"...they note that it's a complex machine with many moving parts. But that doesn't change the reality of the trends we can see and measure."
But those moving parts are what creates the reality reflected in trends your side exploits to suggest that which isn't true.
"So, by all means, IF you want to credit the briefly good economy that Trump enjoyed to Obama, go ahead."
Why would any honest person say anything so stupidly dishonest?
"BUT, if you want to try to ONLY credit good economic results (GDP, etc) to the GOP and bad results to the Democrats, then you're not being consistent or, you know, rational and stuff."
How about pointing out how Biden (or any Democrat since JFK) has done something which resulted in an improved economic outcome? I'm good with that. In this discussion, what has Biden done which has improved the economy you think is tremendous and better than that which Trump actually left him?
"There are many things that happen in an economy beyond any one president's control."
Yet you clearly did draw a 1:1 equivalence between DFL administrations and "good" economic times. When logic would dictate that the seeds for whatever happens in one term, were sown before that term even started.
The problem is that the "great recession" ('07-'09) which was ending/ended when Obama took office, was the result of policies that started during the Clinton administration (mortgage policy), and which had mostly righted before Obama took office. The reality is that Obama inherited a recovery, and didn't significantly screw things up. While the timing favored Obama, he did absolutely nothing in terms of policy to fix the recession. As for the 2020 recession, that is totally attributable to the government response to COVID, much of which was decided at the state level, not the federal level. To act as if it is totally the fault of bad fiscal policy (given what we didn't know at the time) is simply to lie about it. The reality is that absent the government response to COVID, it is unlikely that we would have seen this recession at all. Further, as the 2020 recession was over before Biden took office, much less before any of his policies took effect, it seems more accurate to credit Trump with ending the recession.
It's good you acknowledge that the economy is complex, unfortunately you don't seem to understand the complexities. FYI, the only reason there wasn't an official "recession" during the Biden administration is that the tweaked the numbers to avoid it.
FYI, if the economy is so awesome, why is the Fed unlikely to cut rates prior to the election? Isn't that a tacit admission that inflation is still above 2% and not coming down?
Art,
Great point. Given that the makeup of congress has more to do with spending and monetary policy than the president, it seems even more simplistic to divorce a president's success from the business cycle, and to divorce things from who controls congress.
Dan wants to live in a fantasy world where 30+% higher grocery prices, gas prices 3x more than when Biden took office, high interests rates, and the rest are all things to feel happy about.
I just did some quick research and the economic cycle clearly moves up and down with almost zero correlation with presidential administrations. Unemployment, GDP, seem unrelated to administration. The only two dips correlate with the 2008 mortgage crash (driven by Clinton initiatives), and COVID. Neither of those things seems like it could rightly be laid at the feet of the administration at the time they happened.
"I just did some quick research and the economic cycle clearly moves up and down with almost zero..."
No. You literally didn't do any "research." You did some light reading to find people saying things that tickled your ears.
Economists, scholars, researchers spend years doing research. Don't confuse your quick light reading for research.
Just to be clear.
Dan
Just to be clear, Dan...you who is unjustifiably condescending...no one who says "I've done some research" must mean months of delving into any and every available source to get info. You say it now to disparage someone who's found that which conflicts with the headline skimming you did to pretend you found something unassailable. I did a bit of research to find what "research" means. From American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles.
2. An act or period of such study.
3. Diligent inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles; laborious or continued search after truth.
Nothing in the definition suggests a requirement of "years doing research". You've proven finding "people saying things that tickles your ears" is your MO...your SOP for producing "evidence" to support your positions. It's laughable the likes of you would dare disparage anything which "burns" your ears (because it's true) simply because it conflicts with your favored agenda.
Just to be clear, you're full of shit.
For someone who gets all pissed off when people tell him what he thinks, Dan sure does a lit of what he whines about.
Yes, I did do the research and most of the economic indicators trended up without correlation to presidential administrations. With the exception of a couple of dips, one of which was 2008 which was from previous administration policies, and one was 2020 because of the response to COVID.
But I appreciate the vast amount of proof you offer. Anonymous "economists, scholars, and researchers" can't be beaten. Hell, how about you check out the expert advising Biden on economics a Jared Bernstein, I can see why you'd trust someone like him.
Dan hasn't been clear in years. Lying for the Truth, vagueness and obfuscation for clarity, always demanding of others what he won't do himself. Dan is just pulling shit out of thin air, and wants to try to intimidate rather than prove his case. If nothing else, it's laughable to pretend like economic indicators line up by presidential administration dates. As 2008 demonstrates, actions taken much earlier finally came to a head in another administration.
Of course the corollary to Dan's argument is that historically Dems have gotten us into more wars, so there's that.
That Jared Bernstein does sound like a buffoon, which makes him perfect for the Buffoon-In-Chief's administration, since I haven't heard a prominent member of his administration who doesn't sound buffoonish every time they open their mouths. That criteria would make Dan perfect for Biden's admin, too.
Anyway, I've decided to simply list a number of links which all contradict what Dan's leftist spin-meisters assert about how "great" things are. Before I do, I just want to say one thing about wages. There's been unnecessary increases due to unjust labor strikes as well as legislatively impose minimum wage increases. Some of this may have forced others to raise wages to be competitive. To then boast that one has been the cause is really a straight up lie. When the economy is booming, there's no need to force pay increases as competition increases along with the booming economy. Employers will then be better able to afford increasing wages to keep current employees or attract more of them. Labor strikes and imposed minimum wage increases are artificial and not indicative of an improving economy. On the contrary, that sort of increase before the fact results in negative outcomes in the form of cost increases passed on to consumers.
The list of links is in the following comment and begins with those which are counters to Dan's regarding "Bidenomics"...a term they ejected in order to con the people whose opinion of it was justly poor. Then, there will be a few referring to the "Dems do better" argument Dan tries to make.
https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/27/the-lasting-damage-of-bidenomics/
https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-inflation-hits-poor-americans-hardest
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/584190-irs-data-prove-trump-tax-cuts-benefited-middle-working-class-americans-most/
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americans-grim-views-decent-us-economy-are-perfectly-understandable#
https://mises.org/mises-wire/bidenomics-boom-awaits-inevitable-bust
https://mises.org/podcasts/good-money-tho-bishop/propaganda-bidenomics
https://mises.org/podcasts/mises-u-2021/murphy-explains-bidenomics
https://mises.org/mises-wire/misery-index-shows-bidenomics-failing
https://mises.org/mises-wire/truth-about-bidenomics-more-debt-more-inflation
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/look_at_the_data_trumps_trade_agenda_would_increase_middle_class_income.html
(This last one I need to study more deeply, since...well...tariffs. Not a fan in general, though it suggests the intent is to offset that which I like less.)
What follows begins with a report from two guys which gets a mention is several others, including Dan's links, but with less detail. It goes farther than the argument that presidents don't have much to do with economics, but argues even which party is in control of Congress has little to do with it as well. Strange. I don't think that means that there's no difference between GOP economic policy versus Dem econ policy or that one is not better than the other (Hint: GOP's is better), but that there are other factors against which economic policy can't often protect. These two dudes say that what they present accounts for a bit over half of the gap between the party in the White House, which means there's even less difference between the two. More than anything, it suggests it's not so very wise to focus too much on this disparity.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/us-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents-why
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-does-economy-do-better-under-democratic-presidents-republican-ones-patrick-brennan/
https://www.aei.org/economics/political-economy/are-democratic-presidents-really-better-for-the-economy-than-republican-ones/
The other thing with wage increases, especially minimum wage increases, is that they bring unintended consequences of increased prices and actually don't help as much as people think they do. They also set up an inequitable wage structure where inexperienced new hires are paid more than longtime, experienced, employees. Which results in having to increase wages for more people, which results in higher prices, etc.
Post a Comment