New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Because the problem in 2008 wasn't the same as 1920.
No, it wasn't. Market imbalances are market imbalances, regardless of what the calendar says. We'll never know because the "Keynesians" held sway. But we do know what did transpire:

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 7.30.22 AM.png

And the longer that goes on, the more it puts the lie to "it was different."
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
In 1920 the fed tightened monetary policy to control inflation....in 1921 they realized they'd overreacted and loosened money policy, but remember that Wilson was the president in 1920 and Harding came into office in March 4thm 1921 and the recession was over in July.
The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It is "grown up" to ignore your fictional version of future government policies. The founding fathers were looking at a very different circumstance than what the current world looks like.
Yet their prescription still illuminates the best way forward. Look, capitalism is certainly an imperfect way to run an economy, but it's better than all the rest. Same goes for a representative republic - it's an imperfect federal system, but way better than all the rest.

I'm not talking about "future government policies" - I'm talking about what can possibly go wrong with the policy you espouse. Who could have predicted the government pension debacle? Anyone who ignored your suggestion that "it's not a big deal now" and actually contemplated what could go wrong with it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yet their prescription still illuminates the best way forward. Look, capitalism is certainly an imperfect way to run an economy, but it's better than all the rest. Same goes for a representative republic - it's an imperfect federal system, but way better than all the rest.

I'm not talking about "future government policies" - I'm talking about what can possibly go wrong with the policy you espouse. Who could have predicted the government pension debacle? Anyone who ignored your suggestion that "it's not a big deal now" and actually contemplated what could go wrong with it.
Which has f*ck all to do with the EC vs the popular vote...talking to you is like hearding gerbils.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Which has f*ck all to do with the EC vs the popular vote...talking to you is like hearding gerbils.
And there you have it - we who think for ourselves are no good to the left because we won't be "herded" into going along with their agenda.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
And there you have it - we who think for ourselves are no good to the left because we won't be "herded" into going along with their agenda.
You call your inabilty to focus on one subject (the EC) is thinking for yourself?
Somehow you have now meandered from the popular vote to capitalism vs communism. :rolleyes:

Oh look...a bird.
 
Last edited:

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You call your inabilty to focus on one subject (the EC) is thinking for yourself?
Somehow you have now meandered from the popular vote to capitalism vs communism. :rolleyes:

Oh look...a bird.
Unlike you, I understand how all of this stuff weaves together to impact a society (indeed, including its future prospects). The economy is inextricably linked to the prevailing political philosophy. Lets face it, you don't intervene in the markets (or, as do you, advocate for intervention in the markets) because you want to "help" them. You aren't advocating for auto company bailouts because there are people who want to buy cars who can't seem to find any to buy. You admit freely that your support for the bail out of the auto companies was about keeping people from losing their jobs, a political aim which, of course, hinders the markets ability to align the supply of cars with current levels of demand. Nor do you advocate for bank bailouts because people can't find anyplace to store their excess cash. You admit freely that the reason you supported those was to keep people from losing their investments in bank stocks, a purely political objective because, in so doing, you insure that other more profitable investments will not be made.

So if these bail outs that you love are aimed at political outcomes and not made for the specific purpose of helping the markets work, why on earth would you expect them to produce a robust, sustainable economic recovery? And, of course, they did not:

Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 7.30.22 AM.png

Yet you insist the economy was completely incapable on its own of turning in a better recovery without these interventions that are implemented precisely for the purpose of distorting the markets. Which, of course, is completely absurd!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
You should try doing a little research....When did Harding become president? The depression ended shortly after he was sworn in.

He got his tax cut in 1921, but it didn't take effect until 1922. It was actually signed into law in November 1921. Harding also pushed through tarrifs...forgot that part eh? About 150 banks closed in 1920. By 1921 there were 505 that had closed. That was in Iowa alone.

Turns out that a huge part of the problem was government price supports for agriculture. Those supports ended in 1920. Add to that the farmers in Europe were beginning to recover and their products were arriving in large quantity.

http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath/great-depression-begins-1920s

Add to that the Fed tightened the money supply.

The unemployment rate went up to 11%...do you know what the unemployment rate was in 1933?

The federal budget dropped from $18.5 billion in 1919 to $6.4 billion in 1920. Wilson was president. Harding dropped it to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.

Now, about your "signs of recovery".....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
You should try doing a little research....When did Harding become president? The depression ended shortly after he was sworn in.

He got his tax cut in 1921, but it didn't take effect until 1922. It was actually signed into law in November 1921. Harding also pushed through tarrifs...forgot that part eh? About 150 banks closed in 1920. By 1921 there were 505 that had closed. That was in Iowa alone.

Turns out that a huge part of the problem was government price supports for agriculture. Those supports ended in 1920. Add to that the farmers in Europe were beginning to recover and their products were arriving in large quantity.

http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath/great-depression-begins-1920s

Add to that the Fed tightened the money supply.

The unemployment rate went up to 11%...do you know what the unemployment rate was in 1933?

The federal budget dropped from $18.5 billion in 1919 to $6.4 billion in 1920. Wilson was president. Harding dropped it to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.

Now, about your "signs of recovery".....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Unlike you, I understand how all of this stuff weaves together to impact a society (indeed, including its future prospects).
No you don't. You certainly pretend to , but the only one you have convinced is you.
The electoral college has nothing at all to do with the choice between communism and capitalism...any more than it will help me grow hair on my head or improve the gas mileage on my car.

This is about participation in elections. Something you'd like to minimize.
 

EatTheRich

President
I've spent a lot of time working in Europe. Everyone there pays high taxes. They view it as everyone pays, everyone gets the massive socialist infrastructure. Sure, there are whacked out leftists, like the Democrats, but they are a minority over there. The Democrats are a particularly hard core virulent strain of Marxists who are in it far more for class warfare and destroying the rich than the typical Europeans are. That's why we are headed to be Chicago or Venezuela. Hate sells, and it's that Democrats are offering
The most left-wing Democrats support going back to what was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike 65 years ago.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
Nope, the states that decided the election were all the ones that had a majority of voters who wanted Donald J trump to be our president.
 

EatTheRich

President
Right. Because it's "grown up" to ignore future developments when passing government policies. The founding fathers certainly were forward looking in their efforts. And we should chuck that all in the toilet because the left assures us it will not create any problems for us down the road.

This is precisely how the leftist agenda fails. When the decision to grant generous retirement packages to municipal workers was being implemented, the "logic" was that there weren't that many of them, and they were underpaid, so it's only "fair." And then they allowed them to unionize and increase salaries, implement work rules that makes it necessary to have two workers for every one job, and then they expanded the bureaucracy which vastly increased employment, such that now every major city and most states are mired in pension "crises." But hey, when they made the decision, it made sense...
The pensions are still a fine idea. The only “crisis” stems from the refusal of the rich to pay the necessary taxes to fund them.
 

EatTheRich

President
The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
Several european countries responded in similar ways to the 2007 crisis and their economies stagnated while the U.S. pulled ahead.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
There isn't one election in this country, there are 50 elections. Adding the results of those elections together and declaring them the winner is like going to the point differential between NFL teams and declaring the largest point spread the winner.

1) Everyone knows who is winning their State and by how much. People do and don't show up to vote based on how the election in their State is doing, not on how the national election is going. So there is no logical basis to say that Hillary won some sort of fake point spread battle and that means anything. Many millions of Republicans in California, New York, Illinois, etc. have no incentive to show up for example.

2) The founders were right that small States should have some level of protection from big ones. Big ones today are mostly socialist. They are malevolent to small States. All the more reason they should have more protection

3) Every State has slightly different voting rules, machines, processes, requirements. Again, to claim you can add point spreads together and draw a conclusion is ridiculous. That California can register millions of illegal aliens and allow them to vote while other States don't doesn't make us more "democratic"

4) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic. The Feds were to just provide for a national defense and a few other things. There is no reason to have a "Democracy" for a limited function government. The States should control it. And most government should be local. Local government should be democratic
Can you prove that "illegal aliens" voted in the 2016 election? Also, did you know that aliens are beings from outer space and humans shouldn't be called aliens?
 
Top