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

Buyers remorse

Mina Park

Council Member
You elected him, enjoy.

This is normal. We also saw a big drop in approval ratings for Clinton and Obama in their first two years. The corporate media hates seeing the status quo disrupted, and those first two years for each were periods when the presidents were accomplishing big things for the American people, like gun control, family medical leave, financial regulation, affordable care, etc. The corporate media gets really grumpy about that kind of thing, just as they got upset about Biden succeeding in finally pulling us out of the bloody quagmire of Afghanistan. So the media covers Democratic presidents really negatively in that part of their administrations.

That drove Clinton's approval ratings as low as 39% in his first year -- several points lower than Biden. But, as you may know, Clinton cakewalked his way to reelection, and was the most popular outgoing president in the history of polling. So, I'm not terribly worried about this yet. I suppose maybe it could help the Republicans retake Congress, but honestly I think the bigger factor there is the economy. If, as, in 1994 and 2010, we've had big economic improvement, the Republicans will be well-situated to win elections, because newly prosperous people are less defensive of social programs and more interested in upper-class tax cuts.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member

middleview

President
Supporting Member

Mina Park

Council Member
So far, he's been doing an excellent job. For 20 long years, American presidents failed again and again to extricate us from Afghanistan. Biden got us out in well under a year. Meanwhile, he has presided over one of the best seven-month runs of job creation in our history, and two quarters of GDP growth that beat any full year of growth in over a decade. He's also presided over a strongly growing stock market and real estate market, surging US approval ratings abroad, and a net decline in COVID mortality. So far, it's been just about everything I could have hoped.
 

Bernard_Fokke

Captain Fokke
Supporting Member
This is normal. We also saw a big drop in approval ratings for Clinton and Obama in their first two years. The corporate media hates seeing the status quo disrupted, and those first two years for each were periods when the presidents were accomplishing big things for the American people, like gun control, family medical leave, financial regulation, affordable care, etc. The corporate media gets really grumpy about that kind of thing, just as they got upset about Biden succeeding in finally pulling us out of the bloody quagmire of Afghanistan. So the media covers Democratic presidents really negatively in that part of their administrations.

That drove Clinton's approval ratings as low as 39% in his first year -- several points lower than Biden. But, as you may know, Clinton cakewalked his way to reelection, and was the most popular outgoing president in the history of polling. So, I'm not terribly worried about this yet. I suppose maybe it could help the Republicans retake Congress, but honestly I think the bigger factor there is the economy. If, as, in 1994 and 2010, we've had big economic improvement, the Republicans will be well-situated to win elections, because newly prosperous people are less defensive of social programs and more interested in upper-class tax cuts.
Hello arkady.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So far, he's been doing an excellent job. For 20 long years, American presidents failed again and again to extricate us from Afghanistan. Biden got us out in well under a year. Meanwhile, he has presided over one of the best seven-month runs of job creation in our history, and two quarters of GDP growth that beat any full year of growth in over a decade. He's also presided over a strongly growing stock market and real estate market, surging US approval ratings abroad, and a net decline in COVID mortality. So far, it's been just about everything I could have hoped.
To be honest...Trump signed a surrender with the Taliban in Feb 2020 and withdrew most American troops. Hard to say Biden got us out. He did give the orders to implement the evacuation. That was hardly an overwhelming success, but wasn't a failure either.

Jobs would come back after the disastrous job losses of 2020. Job gains would have come back faster if they'd gradually ended the $300 per week bonus being paid to the unemployed. Again, could have been done better...

Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed and the interest rates that appear to be affecting real estate prices. That is good for sellers, but bad for buyers. I'm not sure if there is a surge in home building...I just have not seen those numbers.

The immigration crisis is not Biden's fault, but I'm not clear on what he intends to do about it. Mexico didn't want to continue to house the illegals we captured and handed over to them...so that was one Trump plan that didn't seem very sustainable to me...but I have yet to see any kind of progress towards a solution. It is a very complex problem and certainly not improved by Trump's wall...but it is early and Biden may find a way to make things better...just too early to say.

On the down side is Biden's spending plan. We are way too far in debt. He seems to be using Covid as an excuse to spend a lot of cash on a laundry list of democratic favorites. I just don't see that all of his agenda is a good idea at present. I'm a fiscal conservative and am against the federal government paying for things that the private citizen should buy if they want them....
 

Mina Park

Council Member
To be honest...Trump signed a surrender with the Taliban in Feb 2020 and withdrew most American troops. Hard to say Biden got us out.
Well, we weren't out, then Biden gave the order to leave. Now we're out. That counts in my book.

Jobs would come back after the disastrous job losses of 2020.
Maybe. But it's worth remembering that by December 2020, the job gains had reversed again, with 306,000 job losses.

Job gains would have come back faster if they'd gradually ended the $300 per week bonus being paid to the unemployed.
The evidence points to very little difference in job creation between places that ended enhanced unemployment early and places that didn't, so I'm not convinced that would have mattered much if at all.
Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed and the interest rates that appear to be affecting real estate prices
The Fed can lower interest rates but that doesn't automatically meaning home value surges -- as we saw in 2008-10. It takes confidence on the part of home buyers.

We are way too far in debt.
Too far for what?

He seems to be using Covid as an excuse to spend a lot of cash on a laundry list of democratic favorites
Yes. That's a good thing. We need stimulus and it's good we're spending it on long-neglected priorities, like infrastructure, rather than just more economically impotent tax cutting for our pampered oligarchs.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well, we weren't out, then Biden gave the order to leave. Now we're out. That counts in my book.

Maybe. But it's worth remembering that by December 2020, the job gains had reversed again, with 306,000 job losses.

The evidence points to very little difference in job creation between places that ended enhanced unemployment early and places that didn't, so I'm not convinced that would have mattered much if at all.

The Fed can lower interest rates but that doesn't automatically meaning home value surges -- as we saw in 2008-10. It takes confidence on the part of home buyers.

Too far for what?

Yes. That's a good thing. We need stimulus and it's good we're spending it on long-neglected priorities, like infrastructure, rather than just more economically impotent tax cutting for our pampered oligarchs.
In 1981 we owed $900 billion. We now owe something like $30 Trillion.
The interest on the debt is something like the fourth largest expenditure on the budget. That is money not available for better projects and plans.

I'm in favor of investment...not so much giveaways. Free day care for your kids? No. There is no requirement that someone prove that they have a job or are going to school that the day care offers anything but a government provided baby sitter.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
To be honest...Trump signed a surrender with the Taliban in Feb 2020 and withdrew most American troops. Hard to say Biden got us out. He did give the orders to implement the evacuation. That was hardly an overwhelming success, but wasn't a failure either.

Jobs would come back after the disastrous job losses of 2020. Job gains would have come back faster if they'd gradually ended the $300 per week bonus being paid to the unemployed. Again, could have been done better...

Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed and the interest rates that appear to be affecting real estate prices. That is good for sellers, but bad for buyers. I'm not sure if there is a surge in home building...I just have not seen those numbers.

The immigration crisis is not Biden's fault, but I'm not clear on what he intends to do about it. Mexico didn't want to continue to house the illegals we captured and handed over to them...so that was one Trump plan that didn't seem very sustainable to me...but I have yet to see any kind of progress towards a solution. It is a very complex problem and certainly not improved by Trump's wall...but it is early and Biden may find a way to make things better...just too early to say.

On the down side is Biden's spending plan. We are way too far in debt. He seems to be using Covid as an excuse to spend a lot of cash on a laundry list of democratic favorites. I just don't see that all of his agenda is a good idea at present. I'm a fiscal conservative and am against the federal government paying for things that the private citizen should buy if they want them....
White House will not call it a crisis

Biden administration won't call the border crisis a 'crisis' but will send migrants to Guantanamo (msn.com)

It's a total clusterfvck and of course racist Al Sharpton is there!
 

Mina Park

Council Member
In 1981 we owed $900 billion. We now owe something like $30 Trillion.
The interest on the debt is something like the fourth largest expenditure on the budget. That is money not available for better projects and plans.

I'm in favor of investment...not so much giveaways. Free day care for your kids? No. There is no requirement that someone prove that they have a job or are going to school that the day care offers anything but a government provided baby sitter.
I don't think a government-provided baby sitter would be such a bad thing. If we made that baby sitting time educationally enriching, it might even pay for itself, long-term. Sure, some of those using it wouldn't be working people, they'd just be lazy. But having those kids spend a little more time outside of a lazy-parent setting and in an enriching educational one would presumably be good for society, when they grow up to be more productive adults.

If you really dislike that idea, though, there would be ways to do the daycare that require proving eligibility by showing evidence that a person is working, or actively interviewing, or attending classes, or getting some sort of medical treatment or something of that sort requiring the use of daycare.

As for the debt level, I think we could get it under control with two steps:

(1) Reduce military spending to less insane levels. A normal level of military spending is between 1% and 2.2% of GDP. Pretty much every other advanced nation is in that range -- the UK's at 2.2%, France 2.1%, Germany 1.4%, Canada 1.4%, Japan 1.0%, etc. Let's say we still want to have far and away the best-funded military, so we shoot just above the top of that range, and have a $480 billion budget. That would still be almost double China and Russia combined. Yet it would save us over a quarter of a trillion dollars every year.

(2) Hike taxes to more normal levels. A normal tax level as a share of GDP, for an economically developed nation, is around 35% (that's approximately the OECD average once you take the US out of the mix). Yet ours is just 24.5%. So, hike our taxes just to the level where it's normal -- roughly half-way between Japan and Germany, at 35% of GDP, and that's additional revenues of 10.5% of GDP, or $2.387 trillion.

Between those two measures, we'd shift about $2.6 trillion towards the black. That doesn't quite get us to a balanced budget, relative to the current stimulus-heavy spending, since we're on schedule for about a $3 trillion deficit this year. But pre-COVID-stimulus, the deficit was always below $1.5 trillion, even at the peak of stimulus following the 2008 meltdown, so it would be enough to throw us into surpluses most every year, with plenty of room to spare, and then we'd go back to growing out of the debt, the way we did before the Reagan/Bush/Trump upper-class tax cuts and military spending surges.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I don't think a government-provided baby sitter would be such a bad thing. If we made that baby sitting time educationally enriching, it might even pay for itself, long-term. Sure, some of those using it wouldn't be working people, they'd just be lazy. But having those kids spend a little more time outside of a lazy-parent setting and in an enriching educational one would presumably be good for society, when they grow up to be more productive adults.

If you really dislike that idea, though, there would be ways to do the daycare that require proving eligibility by showing evidence that a person is working, or actively interviewing, or attending classes, or getting some sort of medical treatment or something of that sort requiring the use of daycare.

As for the debt level, I think we could get it under control with two steps:

(1) Reduce military spending to less insane levels. A normal level of military spending is between 1% and 2.2% of GDP. Pretty much every other advanced nation is in that range -- the UK's at 2.2%, France 2.1%, Germany 1.4%, Canada 1.4%, Japan 1.0%, etc. Let's say we still want to have far and away the best-funded military, so we shoot just above the top of that range, and have a $480 billion budget. That would still be almost double China and Russia combined. Yet it would save us over a quarter of a trillion dollars every year.

(2) Hike taxes to more normal levels. A normal tax level as a share of GDP, for an economically developed nation, is around 35% (that's approximately the OECD average once you take the US out of the mix). Yet ours is just 24.5%. So, hike our taxes just to the level where it's normal -- roughly half-way between Japan and Germany, at 35% of GDP, and that's additional revenues of 10.5% of GDP, or $2.387 trillion.

Between those two measures, we'd shift about $2.6 trillion towards the black. That doesn't quite get us to a balanced budget, relative to the current stimulus-heavy spending, since we're on schedule for about a $3 trillion deficit this year. But pre-COVID-stimulus, the deficit was always below $1.5 trillion, even at the peak of stimulus following the 2008 meltdown, so it would be enough to throw us into surpluses most every year, with plenty of room to spare, and then we'd go back to growing out of the debt, the way we did before the Reagan/Bush/Trump upper-class tax cuts and military spending surges.
Joe's Tolly Bon loves your idea

The Gang Approves as well


2022 will be KARMA for progressives
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I don't think a government-provided baby sitter would be such a bad thing. If we made that baby sitting time educationally enriching, it might even pay for itself, long-term. Sure, some of those using it wouldn't be working people, they'd just be lazy. But having those kids spend a little more time outside of a lazy-parent setting and in an enriching educational one would presumably be good for society, when they grow up to be more productive adults.

If you really dislike that idea, though, there would be ways to do the daycare that require proving eligibility by showing evidence that a person is working, or actively interviewing, or attending classes, or getting some sort of medical treatment or something of that sort requiring the use of daycare.

As for the debt level, I think we could get it under control with two steps:

(1) Reduce military spending to less insane levels. A normal level of military spending is between 1% and 2.2% of GDP. Pretty much every other advanced nation is in that range -- the UK's at 2.2%, France 2.1%, Germany 1.4%, Canada 1.4%, Japan 1.0%, etc. Let's say we still want to have far and away the best-funded military, so we shoot just above the top of that range, and have a $480 billion budget. That would still be almost double China and Russia combined. Yet it would save us over a quarter of a trillion dollars every year.

(2) Hike taxes to more normal levels. A normal tax level as a share of GDP, for an economically developed nation, is around 35% (that's approximately the OECD average once you take the US out of the mix). Yet ours is just 24.5%. So, hike our taxes just to the level where it's normal -- roughly half-way between Japan and Germany, at 35% of GDP, and that's additional revenues of 10.5% of GDP, or $2.387 trillion.

Between those two measures, we'd shift about $2.6 trillion towards the black. That doesn't quite get us to a balanced budget, relative to the current stimulus-heavy spending, since we're on schedule for about a $3 trillion deficit this year. But pre-COVID-stimulus, the deficit was always below $1.5 trillion, even at the peak of stimulus following the 2008 meltdown, so it would be enough to throw us into surpluses most every year, with plenty of room to spare, and then we'd go back to growing out of the debt, the way we did before the Reagan/Bush/Trump upper-class tax cuts and military spending surges.
sorry..I can't quite go along with spending for a bridge to an island in alaska, a federal railroad museum in Pa, or billions in other pork giveaways.

Did you know China now has the worlds largest navy? When they invade Taiwan should we ignore it?

If Putin saw a chance to invade Ukraine, not our business?
 

Mina Park

Council Member
sorry..I can't quite go along with spending for a bridge to an island in alaska, a federal railroad museum in Pa, or billions in other pork giveaways.
I'm all for rooting out the pork. Even if spending on bridges makes sense, that doesn't mean we should be building a particular low-traffic/High-cost bridge in Alaska. But I think we've been underinvesting in infrastructure for a long time, and I hope to see that change.

Did you know China now has the worlds largest navy?
Yes, I've heard that, but I don't find it alarming. Most of that isn't an ocean-going force, and what they have along those lines are mostly refitted Soviet surplus antiquities that are roughly on par with stuff we were building in the 1950's.

In school I had a project that involved reading some of the news coverage leading up to Desert Storm/Desert Shield. What struck me is how the media hyped the hell out of Iraq's supposedly formidable military.... the Republican Guard was supposed to be fierce, and there were reports on Iraq supposedly having more artillery, and various other equipment than the US. They had a gigantic force of nearly a million troops, as well, battle-hardened through the course of war with neighboring Iran.

If you looked at that, you'd have thought we were in for a hell of a fight -- that they'd be able to hold their own in a conventional battle for years, and maybe even prevail. Yet if, instead, you looked at their spending level, you'd have concluded they were a pissant little force held together with duct tape and chewing gum, that could be kicked over in a matter of weeks by two or three American divisions, with few casualties on our part.

It turns out one of those two views was correct. And that has really informed my view of these matters. Proponents of military overspend are really fond of doing things like counting Chinese dinghies in order to scare the American taxpayers into paying for yet another $13 billion aircraft carrier to fatten up the pocketbooks of military contractors. But those analyses are in bad faith. If China's navy was anywhere near as formidable as ours, then we'd be idiots to have spent what we have on ours, when they built something better for a tiny fraction of the cost.

When they invade Taiwan should we ignore it?
By we, do you mean the world community or the US? I would support a multilateral effort to repulse any Chinese aggression against Taiwan, whether through military means or economic ones.

If Putin saw a chance to invade Ukraine, not our business?
Same answer as above. Military aggression cannot be allowed to produce gains for the nations that engage in them. However, it's worth remembering that Russia's military is about on par with the UK's, and only a little superior to Germany's and France's, based on funding levels. So Europe doesn't necessarily need the US to repulse aggression by Russia in Europe. They just need the will.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'm all for rooting out the pork. Even if spending on bridges makes sense, that doesn't mean we should be building a particular low-traffic/High-cost bridge in Alaska. But I think we've been underinvesting in infrastructure for a long time, and I hope to see that change.



Yes, I've heard that, but I don't find it alarming. Most of that isn't an ocean-going force, and what they have along those lines are mostly refitted Soviet surplus antiquities that are roughly on par with stuff we were building in the 1950's.

In school I had a project that involved reading some of the news coverage leading up to Desert Storm/Desert Shield. What struck me is how the media hyped the hell out of Iraq's supposedly formidable military.... the Republican Guard was supposed to be fierce, and there were reports on Iraq supposedly having more artillery, and various other equipment than the US. They had a gigantic force of nearly a million troops, as well, battle-hardened through the course of war with neighboring Iran.

If you looked at that, you'd have thought we were in for a hell of a fight -- that they'd be able to hold their own in a conventional battle for years, and maybe even prevail. Yet if, instead, you looked at their spending level, you'd have concluded they were a pissant little force held together with duct tape and chewing gum, that could be kicked over in a matter of weeks by two or three American divisions, with few casualties on our part.

It turns out one of those two views was correct. And that has really informed my view of these matters. Proponents of military overspend are really fond of doing things like counting Chinese dinghies in order to scare the American taxpayers into paying for yet another $13 billion aircraft carrier to fatten up the pocketbooks of military contractors. But those analyses are in bad faith. If China's navy was anywhere near as formidable as ours, then we'd be idiots to have spent what we have on ours, when they built something better for a tiny fraction of the cost.



By we, do you mean the world community or the US? I would support a multilateral effort to repulse any Chinese aggression against Taiwan, whether through military means or economic ones.



Same answer as above. Military aggression cannot be allowed to produce gains for the nations that engage in them. However, it's worth remembering that Russia's military is about on par with the UK's, and only a little superior to Germany's and France's, based on funding levels. So Europe doesn't necessarily need the US to repulse aggression by Russia in Europe. They just need the will.
The non-military vessels you refer to are what is usually called naval militia and while not armed are still available for transport and supply.

Their building program of destroyers and frigates has been huge. While you rely on estimated spending, you are aware of the fact that in the case of China the numbers are not reported by the Chinese...so it is a guess. The scary part of the deal is that they have far more missile launching platforms than we do....You know how you sink an aircraft carrier? Launch 200 missiles at once. The Iranian plan is to swarm a carrier with fast attack boats. It wouldn't be the traditional naval battle with large ships firing over the horizon...one on one.

If it came down to a fight in the Straights between mainland China and Taiwan...their whole navy would be there and we'd have a fraction of ours.

Where we are superior is in air power and we can put a fair number of carriers close enough to be a deterrent, for now. Why do you think the Chinese are creating islands in the ocean and arming them?

The reason I brought up the bridge in Alaska...what is the federal government doing building a bridge on a local road? Why is there an interstate highway on Oahu? There are pork projects all over the country...and it makes no sense at all for federal spending to exceed revenue year after year.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait we could not respond militarily until GWH Bush had run around, hat in hand, to collect financial help from other countries to fund it.
 
Last edited:

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
This seems to have replied to the wrong thing. You're talking about Israel and I'm discussing debt, deficits, taxes, and military spending.
It was replied to correct thread, Joe's Tolly Bon loves the idea of cutting military budget and all other terrorist as well as our enemy and now our allies know Joe is weak.

Are you still in Mass?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
So far, he's been doing an excellent job. For 20 long years, American presidents failed again and again to extricate us from Afghanistan. Biden got us out in well under a year. Meanwhile, he has presided over one of the best seven-month runs of job creation in our history, and two quarters of GDP growth that beat any full year of growth in over a decade. He's also presided over a strongly growing stock market and real estate market, surging US approval ratings abroad, and a net decline in COVID mortality. So far, it's been just about everything I could have hoped.
So then, like why are Americans souring on him?
 
Top