Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 0
On the Soviet Union (which Liberals used to embrace)
******************************************************
Biden is hawkish. Mind you, Zelensky and his corrupt money grubbers get billions while people die but nevertheless, Biden is more Reagan than Carter
On Fossil Fuels
****************
Biden's Fossil Fuel numbers are much higher than Reagan
On Taxes
**********
Biden's corporate tax rate proposal is LOWER than it was under Reagan. Biden is more of a Corporatist. Big Bank Biden from Delaware.
On immigration
****************
Reagan gave amnesty to immigrants. Biden wants to keep them people OUT.
I'd say this is Reagan's 3rd term, but Biden would have to move Leftward to be Reagan.
Also, Biden's son loves guns. Don't think Ron Reagan Junior is a big gun guy.
Club 401K: Your political lives meant nothing. Go count the racist exploitative profits you had nothing to do with.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you look at a 4-quadrant political scale, all Presidents in my lifetime are in the upper right (right-authoritarian). It's just where in that quadrant they are, or to put it colloquially, "it's a matter of degree".
There have been candidates that were in different quadrants, but not many. I think Bernie was in the lower left (left-libertarian), but not by a lot compared to some historical figures like Ghandi. Or some European leaders of the past.
So, yeah...Biden isn't that different than any other POTUS we've had. To the left of some, but still in that upper right quadrant.
No. of Recommendations: 3
One problem with overly simplistic comparisons is that they don't capture the different circumstances that might demonstrate some understanding of nuance by the writer of these simplistic comparisons.
For example, corporate tax rates when Reagan took office ranged from 17% to 46%. By the time he left office, those rates were from 15% to 34% (with a small range at 39% to recapture the benefit of the lower brackets). That makes Reagan a tax cutter for corporations. The Biden proposal would RAISE corporate taxes from their current flat 21% (put in place under the previous administration) to 28%. So Reagan cut corporate taxes and Biden is proposing to raise them. I don't think that makes Biden more Reagan than Reagan.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Valid points.
But in the end, it is just plain fact that in current day, the candidate supported by the Left is way closer to Reagan on taxes than he is to Carter.
On Fossil Fuels - he is out Bushing Bush and out Trumping Trump.
On immigration - his Trump CosPlay is far to the Right of George W Bush.
As far as nuance - you are a sensible voice and as President Jed Bartlett said, it should be "more than 10 words".
So when citing job losses and stock market drops, and job gains and stock market appreciation - have the Left cite nuance that there was a global pandemic that not only caused such in America - but most countries of the world. And said pandemic dissipated, leaving tons of money in the system plus some natural economic recovery.
When nuance goes mainstream do let me know -as someone who as voted Bush, Trump, and Biden - -I'm fine with nuance but need some from the Left.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But in the end, it is just plain fact that in current day, the candidate supported by the Left is way closer to Reagan on taxes than he is to Carter.
Again, I don't agree. Just looking at the tax rate is much too simplistic for even the most basic analysis. Reagan cut corporate taxes. Biden has proposed to raise them. Without researching too much the context of the Reagan era, my guess would be that he would have liked to cut those taxes further, but had to accept the tax cut he (and those in his party) could actually get through Congress. Biden will face the same need to compromise. I'm fairly sure he's asking for a larger increase than he expects Congress to approve. That is the nature of negotiations.
As to some economic comparisons, particularly those at the end of the previous administration, I am not fond of using those because of the world situation at the time. There was a pandemic going on. Of course there were budget deficits and higher unemployment and lower economic activity during 2020. That is the nature of what happens when large parts of the world economy shut down as a necessary response to the pandemic. And 2021 would show significant improvement over the unusual 2020 numbers.
On the other hand, both of the recent administrations have had to deal with major economic issues - the pandemic and a significant bout of inflation. Comparing those two responses might be a useful exercise, particularly considering that we are going to get a repeat performance from one of them. On a strictly qualitative basis, one response sure felt disorganized and out of control. The other felt like the tools of government were being applied in a thoughtful and considered manner. Still, with hindsight (which may not be complete for the inflation response, as some responses are still continuing), I believe it's valid to say they each got some things right and some things wrong. I personally find the things that were wrong more instructive and informative.
On the pandemic, the previous administration's tendency to micromanage and failure to place some level of trust in subject matter experts were two of the worst failures, IMHO. The errors of the current administration responding to inflation are more a matter of timing and size. It might have been better to do a bit more and do it quicker. Of course, we have a lot more knowledge about how to respond to inflation than we do for a pandemic. Simplistically, we have a well-used playbook for dealing with inflation, but we barely have an outline of what to do in a pandemic (from a national public policy standpoint, anyway.)
To apply that to a President, it's also important to consider the leadership role of a President. A leader at this level (which is in many ways very similar to something like the CEO of a business) has to accomplish two roles - setting of overall strategy and acting as a figurehead.
A President or CEO (or division president or even the general contractor on a significant construction project) must delegate most items to subordinates. They simply cannot get too far into the details of everything. Their job is to set the overall direction of their organization and then monitor to make sure that direction is being followed. The CEO of, say, Kroger can't be deciding that bananas need to be 70 cents a pound today. That must be delegated to others. But he can say something like we need to raise overall prices by 4% this year. Which specific prices to raise and by how much is way too much detail for the CEO to get involved in. Instead, he might look at a division and see that prices are not going up sufficiently to meet that goal, so he'll have a chat with that division leader to find out what is going on. Or he might see that another division is ahead of that goal and contact that division head to learn what is driving that success and help spread it to other parts of the company.
Then there's the figurehead role. In a US President, that may be their most important role. A President needs to convince the whole country (not just this part or that part but a large swath of everyone) that his (or one day, her) specific proposals are the ones people should want to get behind and support. He has to do that because in many ways, he has far less power to move the organization than the CEO of a business. He has to convince others whom he can't fire (i.e. Congress) to implement his ideas. He can use personal negotiation with members of Congress, or he can appeal to the public at large and encourage them to talk to their representatives in Congress. But he has no power to do many things without the approval of Congress. Heck, he can't even pick his top leadership without the approval of Congress. Working within that system takes a negotiator, not an authoritarian. Make too many enemies in Congress, and you won't be able to accomplish much of anything.
--Peter
