Biden Presidency

[drayer54]

THats not the same thing. The entire state of Oklahoma already is fully represented (if you ignore Native Americans) as intended by the FFs. Splitting it up would be an overt political act.

Making DC a state isnt. There is a legitimate and wholly American Democracy argument to be made for the residents of DC not being represented at all. It just has the current implication that would benefit Dems.

Pretending that state packing isn't an overtly political act to gain Senators is blatantly dishonest.

If the left packs the courts, the right needs to pack them out the door.
If the left packs the states, the right needs to pack them even more.

“You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"- Cocaine Mitch

 

[Irish#1]

Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Just hits a little too close to home.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biden All-Female Communications Team Won't Tell Nation What's Wrong, Nation Should Already Know <a href="https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc">https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc</a></p>— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1354459236839862275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LOL

 

[NorthDakota]

I d rather just have two dirt poor states that take up liberal tax dollars than four.

Oh it'd be more than four states. We gotta break up Wyoming as well. May need to break up others as well. Simply not realistic to expect a single house rep to cover that kind of ground.

Sure they'll get a couple more senators each but really its all about making sure people in these areas have a realistic opportunity to have congressmen who can spend enough time in their area to properly represent them.

That's what we really care about. Why don't you support it? Don't you believe people should be adequately represented?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Oh it'd be more than four states. We gotta break up Wyoming as well. May need to break up others as well. Simply not realistic to expect a single house rep to cover that kind of ground.

Sure they'll get a couple more senators each but really its all about making sure people in these areas have a realistic opportunity to have congressmen who can spend enough time in their area to properly represent them.

That's what we really care about. Why don't you support it? Don't you believe people should be adequately represented?

???. They already have their Constituionally based representation. 2 senators and representatives apportioned by the census. DC doesnt have any. Want more Reps for Dakotas and Wymoing, get more people. Just like everyone else except DC. Hell they even have equal if not more power in the Senate compared to California or NY. DC doesnt have any. Those states do take up more tax dollars than they give though in any case. DC pays more in taxes than those states combined.

 

[NorthDakota]

???. They already have their Constituionally based representation.

So does DC.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

So does DC.

No they dont.

 

[Legacy]

Texas is too big. Break them up into five states with Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio with the western part of the state into two others - Amarillo and El Paso.

 

[NorthDakota]

No they dont.

Yes, they do. This isn't hard.

 

[ab2cmiller]

DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.

 

[NorthDakota]

DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.

They've always had the representation that they are constitutionally given...none. Tbh they really shouldn't even be allowed electoral votes but that it was it is at this point.

Its 1000% a ploy for extra Senate seats, like you said, the furthest anyone there needs to move is 5 miles if having the ability to vote for real congressmen is that important to them.

The part that is telling is that they don't want to join Maryland, they'd probably rather be a District than a part of the Maryland.

LAX's suggestion of trimming down the district and returning the rest to MD is the only acceptable solution outside of leaving things the way they are.

 

[Legacy]

DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.

DC's poverty rate of 16.8% is third in the nation behind Mississippi and Louisiana. Those can't move out. New Mexico is fourth at 16.6%. Their total Medicaid enrollment is 238,900.

They have no say in the disbursement of federal revenue. "Taxastion without (voting) representation" comes to mind. Race - White 46%, African American 46%. White includes Hispanic, Latino. Without those, DC white population is 37%. A minority majority area.

 

[drayer54]

I love how we're willing to add and divide states willy nilly style for power, but my idea to have a divorce and go our own ways isn't serious.

 

[PerthDomer]

Adding states has always been political. Pre civil war we didnt annex the DR and Cuba because of fears we'd have too many slave states. The reason we have 2 dakotas, wyoming and many small mountain west states is Republican legislative domination and desire to tip the scales at the electoral college and senate levels. Hawaii and Alaska were added together to assuage the parties because at the time everyone knew Hawaii would end up a hard republican state and Alaska a deep deep blue democratic state. Just goes to show partisan alignments change.

The reason DC doesn't just join maryland is maryland doesn't want them for financial reason (the poverty level makes it a money hole).

With the current coalitions the tipping point senate seat is R+6. If PR and DC were added it would be R+3. Cry me a river.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Unemployment doesn't show any noticeable Trump impact either...and I assume we don't need to discuss the fact that wage growth happens in a tight labor market, right? I'd just like to see some specific policies that directly lifted the wages of lower/middle class Americans....I have a feeling that police is "voila! 4% unemployment, the secret recipe!"



If we're going to remove 2009 and start in 2010, well then "Obama's" manufacturing numbers would look terrific:

But of course the real answer is that China's rising wages and the US falling energy prices due to fracking started encouraging manufacturers to relocate and/or expand in the US instead of Asia. There were plenty of articles in 2013/2014 about the manufacturing resurgence that industrial site selectors were noticing.

I wouldn't give Obama a ton of credit for fracking and China's middle income issues, just as I wouldn't heap a huge amount of praise on Trump for tariffing the hell out of industrial inputs like steal.

Fact is, Presidents' impact on the overall economy is much grayer than people who argument politics like to suggest.

You mentioned Trump and credit for the rising stock market (which was at a record high the month he took office lol) but you left out the impact of the Fed's interest rates decisions making bonds and savings accounts dreadful invests and therefor pushing investments into stocks and real estate.

Ah Buster, wouldn't be the same without ya.

1. The first thing Trump did when he took office was he lowered corporate taxes and rolled back regulations. This led to private sector growth in our economy.

2. It's accurate that a tight labor market led to low unemployment and higher wages. When more jobs are open than people available to fill them, this is a good problem to have.

3. As I said yesterday, government doesn't create jobs. Government policies make it harder or easier for businesses to operate. Based on the results from Trump's economic policies, I would argue the dumb orange man had a better formula than the community organizer's $787 billion stimulus.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You're right. Because my argument was that Trump basically had the same delta as Obama (delta means rate of change btw).

So was Obama better than all presidents before him? GW? Clinton? This is just straight up illogical.

Yeah, I agree if Cuomo and Newsome had of taken the DeSantis approach then CA/NY would have swung to the GOP. Totally sane argument LOL Big Aubrey Huff fan???

Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.

The stimulus was passed under W.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The stimulus was passed under W.

The $787B package was Obama.

https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/senate-passes-787-billion-stimulus-bill-018837

 

[TorontoGold]

Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.

Waittttt what happened during 2008 and bled into 2009??? lmao it's too easy.

"Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator." - What is this supposed to mean? Are you agreeing that it's dumb to say "Hrrr President X is best cuz market was highest" or do you actually believe that a president's economic policy success should be judged by the stock market?

No, your point was that NY/CA restricted their citizens to hurt Trump. So walk the whole class through your point here, because this going to be a hell of an explanation.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The term "China Virus" has now been officially canceled. I will now sleep well tonight.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Ah Buster, wouldn't be the same without ya.

1. The first thing Trump did when he took office was he lowered corporate taxes and rolled back regulations. This led to private sector growth in our economy.

Did we experience the same 2017? The "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" was signed in November. Ten months into office. After the economy was roaring straight through 2017.

2. It's accurate that a tight labor market led to low unemployment and higher wages.

Glad we agree on settled economics and understand why crediting Donald Trump for increased wages is ridiculous.

When more jobs are open than people available to fill them, this is a good problem to have.

And here I thought the slogan for the GOP's education plan was "make it harder for people to obtain a college education," but you've nailed a better slogan.

3. As I said yesterday, government doesn't create jobs. Government policies make it harder or easier for businesses to operate. Based on the results from Trump's economic policies, I would argue the dumb orange man had a better formula than the community organizer's $787 billion stimulus.

...every industrialized economy is one big complicated public-private partnership. Come on man this can't be news to ya.

"Government Consumption Expenditure and Gross Investment" was $3.8 TRILLION of the US GDP. "Gross Private Domestic Investment" was 3.7 TRILLION.

When government "wastes" money, it doesn't take it out behind the Capitol and lite it on fire, it pays someone to do something. Put the roof on a prison, build a tank, pave a highway, extend a pipe, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. You could argue it's not efficient, but you cannot state that government doesn't create jobs and expect to be taken seriously.

By the way "Personal Consumption Expenditure" was a whopping $14.4 TRILLION of GDP, dwarfing all government and corporate investment combined. Turns out, making life easier on the middle class is the easiest way to grow the economy.

 

[ulukinatme]

I d rather just have two dirt poor states that take up liberal tax dollars than four.

I see this thrown around a lot, certain states getting more tax dollars than they contribute. This is the United States though, and most states contribute in their own way. New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island bring in big bucks per capita, but they also produce very little agriculture. Obviously they don't have the acreage some of the bigger states have, but I would guess the weather isn't always as accommodating too with shorter favorable seasons. Roughly 20 of the top 25 ag states are red, although California leads them all. Can't live off just wine though! I'm joking obviously.

In any case, there's two sides to the coin here. I haven't seen where they outline how those federal dollars are spent, I'd be interested to see that. I'm sure much of it goes to assistance with jobless, but I wonder how much federal aid goes directly to farmers. They make very little on their sales and many have to rely on government. An NPR article said farmers received $19 billion from the government in 2019.

 

[Irish#1]

DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.

LOL........Reading through this banter on whether D.C., this is one of the first things I thought of.

 

[BilboBaggins]

I see this thrown around a lot, certain states getting more tax dollars than they contribute. This is the United States though, and most states contribute in their own way. New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island bring in big bucks per capita, but they also produce very little agriculture. Obviously they don't have the acreage some of the bigger states have, but I would guess the weather isn't always as accommodating too with shorter favorable seasons. Roughly 20 of the top 25 ag states are red, although California leads them all. Can't live off just wine though! I'm joking obviously.

In any case, there's two sides to the coin here. I haven't seen where they outline how those federal dollars are spent, I'd be interested to see that. I'm sure much of it goes to assistance with jobless, but I wonder how much federal aid goes directly to farmers. They make very little on their sales and many have to rely on government. An NPR article said farmers received $19 billion from the government in 2019.

Yeah I think they just add up all federal spending and subtract the federal taxes paid.

IMO the farmers are probably a net negative in some places as the government subsidized the bejeezus out of HFCS.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

This is a take fit for AM radio. You really do subscribe to the idea that Presidents and governors are economic dictators lolol

Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

What exactly is the stock market an indicator of when unemployment ballooned during the pandemic and the stock market experience a hiccup and then went on a tear for record highs? 2020 made it pretty damn apparent that Wall Street and Main Street are very, very disconnected.

You still haven't commented on the inflationary side effect of record low interest rates. Economists I read say they drive up asset prices, like stocks and...

Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.

...housing prices. If California governors could overturn the property tax regulations and NIMBYism that stifle development. They really have a simmering emergency on their hands as people just cannot afford to live there.

But as for the California economy as a whole, it does a lot wrong with regulatory madness, but at the end of the day it's still an economic powerhouse and did just fine in the 2010s leading up to the pandemic. Of course that GDP is also inflated by increased housing prices. Economics is complicated lol

<iframe src="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/graph-landing.php?g=wGXW&width=670&height=475" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; width:670px; height:525px;" allowTransparency="true" loading="lazy"></iframe>

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

This was the source of the image. If you read through it does appear they look at taxes collected versus payouts in various forms. Not sure if that is what you are getting at though. Good point though ulk and BB.

State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50
Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points)
Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.
Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points)
State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50
Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points)
Note: This metric reflects the proportion of state revenue that comes from the federal government in the form of intergovernmental aid in 2017.


The following metrics were included in the infographic above for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.

“Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Grants” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Other Financial Assistance” divided by “IRS Collections”

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Waittttt what happened during 2008 and bled into 2009??? lmao it's too easy.

"Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator." - What is this supposed to mean? Are you agreeing that it's dumb to say "Hrrr President X is best cuz market was highest" or do you actually believe that a president's economic policy success should be judged by the stock market?

No, your point was that NY/CA restricted their citizens to hurt Trump. So walk the whole class through your point here, because this going to be a hell of an explanation.

Obama stimulus was passed in 2009. Unemployment went up in 2010.

The stock market doesn't tell the whole story of our economy, but it is something. No, a president shouldn't be judged on that alone. But it shouldn't be completely disregarded either just because you don't like the guy.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The stimulus was passed under W.

And you're a classroom teacher? lol

 

[TorontoGold]

Obama stimulus was passed in 2009. Unemployment went up in 2010.

The stock market doesn't tell the whole story of our economy, but it is something. No, a president shouldn't be judged on that alone. But it shouldn't be completely disregarded either just because you don't like the guy.

Unless you have "alternative facts" this is wrong, https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

Didn't say it should be disregarded, just a lot more factors at play.

Dodged again - yes or no, did Gavin Newsome and Andrew Cuomo try to hurt Trump by imposing stricter restrictions than other states? If they didn't impose the restrictions do you believe that Trump would have been competitive in those states?

 

[BilboBaggins]

Unless you have "alternative facts" this is wrong, https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

Didn't say it should be disregarded, just a lot more factors at play.

Leppy and Co are literally comparing 2010 vs 2017 as an indicator of who was the better economic President. All one can do is lol and smfh.

 

[TorontoGold]

Leppy and Co are literally comparing 2010 vs 2017 as an indicator of who was the better economic President. All one can do is lol and smfh.

Never thought I'd say it, but I miss YJ, at least he made sense and gave specifics to why he thought Trump's economic policies were good. He never just read off the Hannity provided list of Trump economic policy success lmao.

Currently three lingering questions that three posters haven't answered since they made them.

Leppy - CA/NY imposed tougher restrictions so that it could hurt Trump.
Drayer - Long lines at polling stations is caused by Dems trying to vote twice - an all timer right there
RDU - Transexuals are making women unsafe in bathrooms.