"The Left" isn't at fault here: it's THE RIGHT.
You know, the war-for-profit cunts you always thought were just in the Republitard party?
Nah, kid.
They're all over everything and the ack of leadership for actual working class and fair-minded people is galling.
I'm a single, no kids, pretty low-income, working class peasant. Lately i've been sort of toting things up over the last decade or two, and realizing that the Republicans, from W thru Trump, have actually been better for me financially than the Dems.
I didn't say "the economy". I said better for me as a low income person.
What's "the economy"? GDP? The Dow? Gains in GDP or the market all go to those at the top of the scale, increasing inequality.
You know what helps low-income people? Doubling the standard deduction, like Trump did in '17.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was "quiet rooms", "i like to fire people", "low income people don't pay taxes" asset stripper Mitt Romney whose idea it was to get cash out to people ASAP. And Steve Mnuchin, who got it out fast. Nancy didn't want to do it. It was the Repubs who wanted the topoff to unemployment. Was also Mittens who wanted to give essential workers a $20/hr top off.
Last August when the $600 / wk topoff ended, Repubs tried to make various deals with Pelosi, who turned them all down. They wanted to pass a skinny bill, that would have at least given people a $300 / wk topoff. This deeply stupid woman (and the Senate) rejected it because they couldn't get the full what of the bill that they wanted. And tried to gaslight the desperate unemployed that nothing was better than $300. But at least Donald Trump got us $1800 from FEMA. Sure, the Dems extended the unemployment and added a $300 topoff in January when Joe got elected. Was too late for me and a lot of other people, mine expired in early Dec.
Those D House Reps that lost their seats last November? They were the centrists begging Pelosi to pass a skinny bill for their desperate constituents.
I should add that the dumbass Pelosi is doing it again with the infrastructure bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill, but the House fucked off on vacation, and Nancy won't bring it up for a vote unless the big bill passes first.
You'd think that these idiots would have learned from the failure of Obama's stimulus bill. They watered down the construction jobs for "human infrastructure" jobs. What that got them in my state (before my time of residence here) was Scott Brown in the Senate. The D House Rep (Mike Capuano) who was running against Coakley for the seat was shaken by the rage he found in the rural heart of the state, when none of the stimulus money made it there for jobs. He famously went back to the Dems and said "you're fucked". If the Dems were smart, which they're quite obviously not, they'd get that first bill out and passed and get the jobs going.
Also from last year, what low income people saw was the House fuck off on vacation and leave us hanging. It was like, oh, they can call the House back in session to pass a post office bill, but they can't be bothered to get any relief to their desperate constituents? And yet the PO bill was presumably so we could vote for them? That didn't quite work out the way they had planned it.
Yes he was, we got a better Democrat in Warren, who actually gives a shit about the small folk and calls bullshit on the corporate Dems. Yes, we got the useless Ayanna Pressley (who worked for Clinton and Kerry, and whom i voted for) to get rid of Clinton superdelegate Capuano. Desperately hoping Pressley gets primaried soon. I say good luck with her Senatorial ambitions too, i can't see her winning a statewide race.
If you saved a significant amount of money because of the Trump tax cut, you're again in the minority. Remember when Paul Ryan celebrated the amount of money the Trump tax cut saved members of the working class? Remember what that amount was? It was a whopping $1.50 per week. And that's a man who designed the Trump cut and was trying to make it look as good as humanly possible.
I said the standard deduction, which is actually a bfd. Low income people generally don't itemize deductions. The difference on being taxed on a difference of $6500 less in income is significant. Ryan may have been including middle class working class people with families and mortgages who itemize.
He wasn't. His example was a public school secretary. Public school secretaries make $28,000 per year, on average. Lower-middle class starts at $41,000. So one of the designers of the Trump tax cut designed it so you'll save $1.50 per week. If you saved more than that - great! But that wasn't what Trump and his people intended.
FOR. WHOM.? You average in all the millions and billions hoovered up by fund managers, CEOs, Big Tech, MIC, Walmart and Amazon, you may well have a statistical case. Buy the guy SAID "From my point of view as a sub-middle class individual citizen, it looks like".
Are you dismissing his lived experience?? Denying his truth? You are literally ERASING HIM!! REEEE!! Violence!!
Oh no! American millennial SJW gibberish! This must be total kryptonite for someone like me, if I were the person you imagine me to be! Unfortunately, I'm in no way, shape or form that person. I'm not American, not a millennial and not a SJW. Nice try though.
Spending? No, you obviously havenтАЩt read the article.
тАЬ In general, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in 1953, the economy тАФ as measured by gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation and recessions тАФ has typically performed better with a Democrat in the White House. GDP growth has been significantly higher; inflation тАФ a measure of the change in prices тАФ has been lower; and unemployment has tended to fall.тАЭ
So, to put a tiny bit of analysis to the cheerleading...given the lag time in governmental policies and actions affecting the economy, Democrats preside over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors, and Republicans over economies effected by the policies of the prior Democratic administrations, which policies, it should be noted, often result in replacing the Democrat with a Republican.
This appears to be a very simplistic number crunch (a single "crunch" at that). If you're not sure how this works, wait till the Biden admin starts floating excuses for the economy..."This is the result of the disastrous (corrupt, authoritarian, short-sighted, racist...just choose at random) policies of the TRUMP administration."
I predict that before the end of the month, multiple legacy media outlets will be reporting how "well-placed sources" have explained how the bad economic reports (Inflation, gas prices) are the result of Trumponomics or some shit.
I'm not sure you understand what you're saying here. First you say this: "Democrats preside over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors, and Republicans over economies effected by the policies of the prior Democratic administrations". But then you say that the media is going to say that the current economy is the result of Trumponomics. Which implies that the media will be wrong by saying that. But you literally just argued that the Democrats preside over over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors - which means that the media will actually be correct in saying that. So aren't you sort of arguing against yourself?
Also, that's a very reductive way of looking at it. You realize of course that sometimes a party has the presidency for 4 years, and sometimes for 8 or 12. So when the 2008 crisis happened, the Republicans immediately blamed it on something that Clinton did in 1993.
"The Left" isn't at fault here: it's THE RIGHT.
You know, the war-for-profit cunts you always thought were just in the Republitard party?
Nah, kid.
They're all over everything and the ack of leadership for actual working class and fair-minded people is galling.
I'm a single, no kids, pretty low-income, working class peasant. Lately i've been sort of toting things up over the last decade or two, and realizing that the Republicans, from W thru Trump, have actually been better for me financially than the Dems.
You seem to be in the minority. The economy performs better under Democrat presidents than under Republican ones.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787
I didn't say "the economy". I said better for me as a low income person.
What's "the economy"? GDP? The Dow? Gains in GDP or the market all go to those at the top of the scale, increasing inequality.
You know what helps low-income people? Doubling the standard deduction, like Trump did in '17.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was "quiet rooms", "i like to fire people", "low income people don't pay taxes" asset stripper Mitt Romney whose idea it was to get cash out to people ASAP. And Steve Mnuchin, who got it out fast. Nancy didn't want to do it. It was the Repubs who wanted the topoff to unemployment. Was also Mittens who wanted to give essential workers a $20/hr top off.
Last August when the $600 / wk topoff ended, Repubs tried to make various deals with Pelosi, who turned them all down. They wanted to pass a skinny bill, that would have at least given people a $300 / wk topoff. This deeply stupid woman (and the Senate) rejected it because they couldn't get the full what of the bill that they wanted. And tried to gaslight the desperate unemployed that nothing was better than $300. But at least Donald Trump got us $1800 from FEMA. Sure, the Dems extended the unemployment and added a $300 topoff in January when Joe got elected. Was too late for me and a lot of other people, mine expired in early Dec.
Those D House Reps that lost their seats last November? They were the centrists begging Pelosi to pass a skinny bill for their desperate constituents.
I should add that the dumbass Pelosi is doing it again with the infrastructure bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill, but the House fucked off on vacation, and Nancy won't bring it up for a vote unless the big bill passes first.
You'd think that these idiots would have learned from the failure of Obama's stimulus bill. They watered down the construction jobs for "human infrastructure" jobs. What that got them in my state (before my time of residence here) was Scott Brown in the Senate. The D House Rep (Mike Capuano) who was running against Coakley for the seat was shaken by the rage he found in the rural heart of the state, when none of the stimulus money made it there for jobs. He famously went back to the Dems and said "you're fucked". If the Dems were smart, which they're quite obviously not, they'd get that first bill out and passed and get the jobs going.
Also from last year, what low income people saw was the House fuck off on vacation and leave us hanging. It was like, oh, they can call the House back in session to pass a post office bill, but they can't be bothered to get any relief to their desperate constituents? And yet the PO bill was presumably so we could vote for them? That didn't quite work out the way they had planned it.
тАЬInfrastructureтАЭ bill lmfao
Well, the one that they just passed actually was for what we normally think of as infrastructure. That's why they should get it passed.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-bills-38b84f0e9fcc8e68646eedf6608c4c70
Needless to say, Brown was succeeded by Elizabeth Warren. Capuano was succeeded by Ayanna Pressley - a progressive and a member of The Squad.
Yes he was, we got a better Democrat in Warren, who actually gives a shit about the small folk and calls bullshit on the corporate Dems. Yes, we got the useless Ayanna Pressley (who worked for Clinton and Kerry, and whom i voted for) to get rid of Clinton superdelegate Capuano. Desperately hoping Pressley gets primaried soon. I say good luck with her Senatorial ambitions too, i can't see her winning a statewide race.
Now that's interesting.
There was a website at the time something like "track stimulus projects in your state".
We got a badly needed traffic light. And the local university got grants.
If you saved a significant amount of money because of the Trump tax cut, you're again in the minority. Remember when Paul Ryan celebrated the amount of money the Trump tax cut saved members of the working class? Remember what that amount was? It was a whopping $1.50 per week. And that's a man who designed the Trump cut and was trying to make it look as good as humanly possible.
I said the standard deduction, which is actually a bfd. Low income people generally don't itemize deductions. The difference on being taxed on a difference of $6500 less in income is significant. Ryan may have been including middle class working class people with families and mortgages who itemize.
He wasn't. His example was a public school secretary. Public school secretaries make $28,000 per year, on average. Lower-middle class starts at $41,000. So one of the designers of the Trump tax cut designed it so you'll save $1.50 per week. If you saved more than that - great! But that wasn't what Trump and his people intended.
I make less than $28,000. Yes, i saved more than $1.50 / wk. If it wasn't what they intended, i don't care. It's the result.
FOR. WHOM.? You average in all the millions and billions hoovered up by fund managers, CEOs, Big Tech, MIC, Walmart and Amazon, you may well have a statistical case. Buy the guy SAID "From my point of view as a sub-middle class individual citizen, it looks like".
Are you dismissing his lived experience?? Denying his truth? You are literally ERASING HIM!! REEEE!! Violence!!
*i'm a girl*
Oh no! American millennial SJW gibberish! This must be total kryptonite for someone like me, if I were the person you imagine me to be! Unfortunately, I'm in no way, shape or form that person. I'm not American, not a millennial and not a SJW. Nice try though.
A measure that is simply a sum of spending is larger under the spending party than under the non-spending party?
How shocking!
Spending? No, you obviously havenтАЩt read the article.
тАЬ In general, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in 1953, the economy тАФ as measured by gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation and recessions тАФ has typically performed better with a Democrat in the White House. GDP growth has been significantly higher; inflation тАФ a measure of the change in prices тАФ has been lower; and unemployment has tended to fall.тАЭ
So, to put a tiny bit of analysis to the cheerleading...given the lag time in governmental policies and actions affecting the economy, Democrats preside over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors, and Republicans over economies effected by the policies of the prior Democratic administrations, which policies, it should be noted, often result in replacing the Democrat with a Republican.
This appears to be a very simplistic number crunch (a single "crunch" at that). If you're not sure how this works, wait till the Biden admin starts floating excuses for the economy..."This is the result of the disastrous (corrupt, authoritarian, short-sighted, racist...just choose at random) policies of the TRUMP administration."
I predict that before the end of the month, multiple legacy media outlets will be reporting how "well-placed sources" have explained how the bad economic reports (Inflation, gas prices) are the result of Trumponomics or some shit.
I'm not sure you understand what you're saying here. First you say this: "Democrats preside over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors, and Republicans over economies effected by the policies of the prior Democratic administrations". But then you say that the media is going to say that the current economy is the result of Trumponomics. Which implies that the media will be wrong by saying that. But you literally just argued that the Democrats preside over over economies that were influenced by their Republican predecessors - which means that the media will actually be correct in saying that. So aren't you sort of arguing against yourself?
Also, that's a very reductive way of looking at it. You realize of course that sometimes a party has the presidency for 4 years, and sometimes for 8 or 12. So when the 2008 crisis happened, the Republicans immediately blamed it on something that Clinton did in 1993.