Post New

The GOP is in a totally dysfunctional shambles.

'If you want to file a motion to vacate, then file the fucking motion,' -Kevin McCarthy,

'It's a shitshow in the House. It's always a shitshow in the House. Eventually, what's going to happen is a government shutdown, [and it] will not go well for us.'

At least Lauren Boebert seems to be enjoying herself, if being a tad indiscreet while doing so. She and her co-fondler could at least have used the "hole in the bottom of the popcorn box" to disguise her manipulation of his GOP.

https://www.guide4moms.com/2023/09/collection-of-b...

Need editing option! 2nd quote courtesy of Lindsey Graham.

'It's a shitshow in the House. It's always a shitshow in the House. Eventually, what's going to happen is a government shutdown, [and it] will not go well for us.' - Lindsey Graham

I posit that the House is a mess because the nation is a mess because a LOT of people get misleading, or false, information. It's not that they are bad people, they are just misinformed. Garbage in, garbage out.

Though there are a few that can't handle societal evolution, for one reason or another (e.g. religious dogma vs gay rights). Those people aren't necessarily misinformed, but just have a different position on gay rights, women's rights, etc. And, occasionally, they ask hard questions that defy simple answers (e.g. how young should we allow transitioning, and who decides).

But mostly it is misinformation feeding hysteria, and in extreme cases, riots (like Jan 6). The House is a reflection of the people who vote.**



**And a bit of how a 2-party system works. Often only the extremes win primaries, so you end up with polar opposites in the general election, and most people are somewhere in the middle having to pick what they deem as the "least bad". A parliamentary system might have been a better choice.

I posit that the House is a mess because the nation is a mess because a LOT of people get misleading, or false, information.

Or NO information at all from left wing rags and MSM protecting Biden from the truth.

I posit that the House is a mess because the nation is a mess because a LOT of people get misleading, or false, information. It's not that they are bad people, they are just misinformed. Garbage in, garbage out.

There have always been ignorant and misinformed voters.

The reason the House is a mess is because political parties - as institutions - have been weakened to the point of near-powerlessness. It's a combination of campaign finance rules (which diverted a ton of money away from parties), the internet/social media (which enabled massive fundraising outside of parties), and House procedural changes such as the elimination of earmarks and the neutering of rank-and-file members. Someone like Matt Gaetz can tell Kevin McCarthy to **** off, because the GOP can't do anything to Matt Gaetz. They can't cut of fhis funding, they can't deprive him of campaign infrastructure, they can't block him from getting funding in his district, and they can't threaten to ice him out of the legislative process - because the political parties don't have the ability to do those things any more.

In years past, if a Speaker needed someone to take a tough vote, they could shower them with perks (a new highway in their district, materially important extra funding from the national party, clearing the deck of any primary challengers) or threaten them with consequences (the reverse of all that). No longer. Matt Gaetz doesn't need money, there's no pork being shoveled around, the GOP doesn't control whether he has trouble getting nominated, and backbenchers have been iced out of legislation since Gingrich's time.

There are pros and cons to political parties. They're the framework for backroom deal-making, quid pro quos, logrolling of legislation and the allocation of pork. There are definitely negative aspects to all those things - but they're also the lubricant that allows large coalitions (like a national party) to cohere and work with unity towards larger goals.

All reflective of "culture".

Of, by, and for the people.

Never has been more true.

I posit that the House is a mess because the nation is a mess because a LOT of people get misleading, or false, information. It's not that they are bad people, they are just misinformed. Garbage in, garbage out.

I agree. There is a large swath of people who somehow have been told - and believe - that the economy in the US is just fine and dandy. However, what the real data shows is actually very sobering:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-poverty-rate-jumped-2...

US poverty rate jumped in 2022, child poverty more than doubled: Census

ABC news tries to blame Republicans for this in the sub-header but make no mistake, this is all Biden.

The poverty rate in the United States increased last year, the first increase in 13 years, according to the Census Bureau.

In 2022, the poverty rate was 12.4%, up 4.6% from 2021, according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which looks at government programs and tax credits designed to help low-income families, according to the census.

The expiration of pandemic programs, including refundable tax credits and stimulus payments, at the start of 2022, led to an increase in the SPM over the official poverty rate, the census reported.

Which of course means that the economy has NOT really recovered in a real sense for many people because if it actually did they wouldn't need the transfer payments and various tax credits to continue.

So why do some many people try to claim the economy is just awesome? We have a real problem in this country, and it starts wit the information that's being fed to the people.

The economy is not "awesome", but neither is it horrible. The truth is somewhere inbetween. It's improving. The number most are looking at is unemployment. It's back down to pre-COVID levels. Which is good. Obviously, poverty is bad.

Poverty (in terms of percent) has actually held pretty steady since the mid-60s. Which is surprising to me, but there's the chart:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-aw...

This implies the "War on Poverty" didn't do much, because poverty was already on the decline before that "War" was declared. Which also is a bit surprising. But maybe it shouldn't be that surprising. "War on <fill in the blank>" never really works out. We throw money at it, politicians spout about it, but it doesn't really change the numbers that much.

Of course, the poverty level (i.e. what we consider 'poverty') has changed over the years, and they didn't put any error bars on that chart. But it's probably "close enough".

It's back down to pre-COVID levels. Which is good. Obviously, poverty is bad.

So in other words, by one important metric Biden has managed to get us back to where things were under Trump. Does that count as an improvement?

Poverty (in terms of percent) has actually held pretty steady since the mid-60s.

Except that now it's getting worse, despite all these great "Bidenomics" that are supposedly improving things a great deal and an "Inflation Reduction Act" that did nothing of the sort.

You made a point about a misinformed public. Do you feel that the administration is being straight with the American people and that the media are reporting things accurately?

They are reporting accurately, but not completely. Unemployment is down, that is a fact. Inflation is down, also. Not the lowest it has ever been, but 3.7% is an improvement from a year or more ago. Did the Inflation Reduction Act have anything to do with that? I dunno. Depending on which outlet you use, you will get differing spins and/or emphasis. Which is why I tend to go to the raw data. It is readily available.

Based on the chart, the fluctuation in poverty is consistent with the past ~60 years. It's still not a good thing, but in terms of the trend I don't believe it is worse (or better) than it has been. Which is kinda sad. In 60 years we have made almost no difference, no matter whom had the reins of power.

(Caveat: maybe things would be worse if we hadn't been doing what we were doing for the past 60 years? I have no way of knowing that.)

US poverty rate jumped in 2022, child poverty more than doubled: Census

ABC news tries to blame Republicans for this in the sub-header but make no mistake, this is all Biden.

No, it's actually all you, in this case you are misinformed, exactly what you think other are. The first article I read on this, the third paragraph told me that during the pandemic we had a special credit for kids, and this took many of the kids out of the poverty zone. It also noted that there are two ways to measure poverty, first is income, second is taking into account related credits, etc., which is more accurate, So I'm not going to look this up for you, but please note the good source I read told me that the increase in poverty in kids, is the elimination of the credit, which got voted out since we are now endemic. Sheila took someone to task over this and I chuckled. Have we lost commonone?

<US poverty rate jumped in 2022, child poverty more than doubled: Census>

The reason is that Republicans in Congress (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to renew the expanded Child Tax Credit in President Biden's American Rescue Plan.

Child poverty is a republican choice.

How do they sleep at night?

By being willfully ignorant.

No, it's actually all you, in this case you are misinformed, exactly what you think other are. The first article I read on this, the third paragraph told me that during the pandemic we had a special credit for kids, and this took many of the kids out of the poverty zone. It also noted that there are two ways to measure poverty, first is income, second is taking into account related credits, etc., which is more accurate, So I'm not going to look this up for you, but please note the good source I read told me that the increase in poverty in kids, is the elimination of the credit, which got voted out since we are now endemic. Sheila took someone to task over this and I chuckled. Have we lost commonone?

LOL.
If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line, are you? Economics and the basics thereof don't appear to be a thing in whatever piece you're referring to.

Secondly, double LOL at referring to what other people post and not backing your own (highly incorrect and logically flawed) arguments with your own sources. Come on, man.

The fact remains. The poverty level is up. If someone was fine before the pandemic, lost their job and had to rely on assistance and now that the assistance is expiring...because we don't have a pandemic anymore no matter how badly some democrats want us to have one...and now they're worse off than they were in 2019, that's due to a worse economic picture and NOT on the GOP.

Try again.

They are reporting accurately, but not completely. Hmm.


Unemployment is down, that is a fact. Sure about that?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rate

The U-6 number is higher than just before the pandemic (7.1 in August of 2023 vs. 6.9 of Janurary, 2020).

Inflation is down, also.

Inflation is down?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA

Consumer prices by the St. Louis Fed's measures are significantly higher. As in, 6.5x higher.

Did the Inflation Reduction Act have anything to do with that? I dunno.

No it didn't. The IRA was Biden's climate change agenda. Pumping more printed money into an inflationary environment...only creates more upward pressure on pricing. In fact, these kinds of things make the pain WORSE because instead of reining in the profligate spending to give the Fed's interest rate hikes time to work, Biden thought it better to ram this stuff through.

Is any of the above being reported? Nope.
How about the rest of what the government says and the media reports?

https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/01/biden-wage-data...
The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revised a wage growth estimate by a massive margin, showing real wages actually declined in the fourth quarter of 2022, the agency reported on Thursday.

In March, the BLS previously reported a fourth-quarter increase of 4.9% for hourly compensation in nonfarm businesses, but updated it to a decrease of 0.7% on Thursday, according to its revised Productivity and Costs report. At the same time hourly wages fell, inflation rose, leading to a 4.7% decline in 'real hourly compensation, which takes into account consumer prices,' according to the BLS.

BLS continually reports rosy numbers for the media to grab headlines with, then correct on page Z102 several months later.

Based on the chart, the fluctuation in poverty is consistent with the past ~60 years. It's still not a good thing, but in terms of the trend I don't believe it is worse (or better) than it has been. Which is kinda sad. In 60 years we have made almost no difference, no matter whom had the reins of power.


This is what the "crime isn't a problem" activists I have to deal with in Seattle do: move the goalposts to some other point in time and use it to try and make a comparison. Doesn't work. What matters in terms of talking about recoveries and where we need to be after a Black Swan event is the comparison between the entry point of the Black Swan event - 2019 - and the exit point (now).

And in that sense, poverty is up.

If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line,

Reread my post. I state that that tax credit took the kids above the poverty line(for the pandemic), then when it wasn't voted to continue the credit, they fell back below. So I'll make it clear -they were at poverty level, the credit took them out of poverty level, not continuing the credit put them back into poverty level. See, simple. Now I'm fairly sure Republicans were the person who didn't want to keep the tax credit. I'm not looking it up because I did my job of reading a good source and not FOX. Is that clear enough for you now?

<If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line>

You should tell that to the 1 in 6 American children that do not have consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. (Thanks GOP)

The highest food insecurity rate in the nation is in East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, where 40% of children struggle with hunger.
(This is comparable to child food insecurity rates in Bangladesh and Peru.)

Well at least republicans made sure those millionaires/billionaires got their tax cuts.

And most of these republicans pretend to be Christians...

You should tell that to the 1 in 6 American children that do not have consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. (Thanks GOP)
...
And most of these republicans pretend to be Christians...

They are Christians.

They have a different idea of what it means to be Christian than you're thinking of.

And most of these republicans pretend to be Christians...
***************************************************************
They are Christians.

They have a different idea of what it means to be Christian than you're thinking of.


I think this is basically a reflection of what had been called the Protestant Ethic. Achieving financial success was regarded as reflecting God's blessing and identifying you as having achieved salvation. And conversely, the poor and those with just modest means were regarded as unworthy of God's seal of approval.....unworthy of salvation. They were considered to be fatally and permanently flawed as human beings, and worthy only of scorn.

I state that that tax credit took the kids above the poverty line(for the pandemic), then when it wasn't voted to continue the credit, they fell back below. So I'll make it clear -they were at poverty level, the credit took them out of poverty level, not continuing the credit put them back into poverty level. See, simple. Now I'm fairly sure Republicans were the person who didn't want to keep the tax credit. I'm not looking it up because I did my job of reading a good source and not FOX. Is that clear enough for you now?

Lame. I cited ABC. Not Fox, not that there's anything wrong with that. I already know that the thought bubble can't be penetrated with anything other than links from sources you deem appropriate.

Sad.

You should tell that to the 1 in 6 American children that do not have consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. (Thanks GOP)


Nah, bruh. Poverty is a result of the economy, and that's on Biden and your party.
Not the GOP.

And most of these republicans pretend to be Christians...

What's hilarious is the pathology on display here.

The state is your church. Good luck with that.

I think this is basically a reflection of what had been called the Protestant Ethic

Yeah, no.
Don't you have worship services to attend down at the DMV?

<If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line

You should tell that to the 1 in 6 American children that do not have consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. (Thanks GOP)

I think what some here are insinuating is that the people who were lifted above the poverty line by the payments/credits were below the poverty line to begin with because of Biden, perhaps due to inflation. That's nonsense of course.

"....the Protestant Ethic. Achieving financial success was regarded as reflecting God's blessing and identifying you as having achieved salvation. Centurion® Card from American Express"

When a guy flashes his American Express Centurion Card to StPeter at the pearly gates, do you suppose Pete checks to see if it's paid off or maxed out?

<If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line>

If you need those Trump/GOP tax cuts stay a Billionaire, you're not really a Billionaire.

If you need those Trump/GOP tax cuts stay a Billionaire, you're not really a Billionaire.

Did someone argue this somewhere, or are we joining the chorus of "I better say something pithy to look like I'm scoring points"? Curious minds, and all that.

BTW most of Team Billionaire...votes dem these days. How's that feel?

If you need transfer payments and credits to stay above the poverty line, you're not really above the poverty line

If you need those Trump/GOP tax cuts to stay a Billionaire, you're not really a Billionaire.

This should be on T-shirts everywhere for the 2024 election.


WTH

I think this is basically a reflection of what had been called the Protestant Ethic.

Prosperity Gospel. Basically, if you're a good Christian you'll be rewarded. If not, tough noogies.

I think it was Ghandi who said "I quite like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. They aren't like your Christ." One big problem is that you can find justification for almost anything in the bible. Slaves? Check. Charity? Check. Giving your daughters to a mob? Check. (And lots more...too much to enumerate here.)

It may have been lame to cite a source you didn't use, but his analysis is at least partially correct. You give money to elevate people out of poverty. Poverty ticks down a smidge. You take that money away. It ticks up a smidge. Totally predictable.

Also, to your other point, the endpoints you choose make a big difference. You chose before-COVID to today. That is a valid basis, but comparing the peak of COVID to today also is valid. That's one reason I looked at a longer time horizon. When you do that, you see that not much has changed in 60 years. Roughly the same percent in 1965 and 2019 and today.

BTW most of Team Billionaire...votes dem these days. How's that feel?

Sorry. Incorrect.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/...

Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats. Not all families stay on the same side of the political spectrum ' 15 support candidates from both parties.

<BTW most of Team Billionaire...votes dem these days. How's that feel?>

It feels like you're wrong as usual, clueless.

It feels like you're wrong as usual, clueless.


Ha! So what else is new!

It may have been lame to cite a source you didn't use, but his analysis is at least partially correct. You give money to elevate people out of poverty. Poverty ticks down a smidge. You take that money away. It ticks up a smidge. Totally predictable.

You know what a better way to lift someone out of poverty is? Have them get a job in an expanding economy.

Also, to your other point, the endpoints you choose make a big difference. You chose before-COVID to today. That is a valid basis, but comparing the peak of COVID to today also is valid. That's one reason I looked at a longer time horizon. When you do that, you see that not much has changed in 60 years. Roughly the same percent in 1965 and 2019 and today.

Comparing the 1960's in poverty to now is a bit of a stretch, especially when one is trying to decide if the current guy in office is doing the job or not.

Poster 1: It feels like you're wrong as usual, clueless.

Ahhh, personal insults. The epitome of debate skillz.


Poster 2: Ha! So what else is new!

And here's the high-five of the personal insult. When you can't engage in the scrum, of course you can always sit on the bench. Somebody has to fetch the water for the players in the game.

Would someone pass the popcorn please?

Comparing the 1960's in poverty to now is a bit of a stretch, especially when one is trying to decide if the current guy in office is doing the job or not.

I was saying that he is doing no worse than anyone else, given the trend. But if I pick the peak of COVID, then he's doing a great job. As I said, you can pick the dates that best reinforce your bias (or my bias). You remember statistics and data reporting, don't you? Your bin size in a histogram can make a difference in how the data appears. A scatterplot often needs to have an R2 line. Etc.

Either way, typically an anomalous event will be excluded from the data. Take U6:

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_u_6_unemployment....

That big spike is COVID. Before Biden, during Trump. Do we include that in the data? I see the argument either way.

Or I could pick any point prior to the spike, and compare it to April of this year. Then I would have to conclude that Bidenomics works because that is the lowest point in five years.

And, as you know, that is just a single number that doesn't reflect everything else that is going on. COVID itself, the reactions to COVID, government interventions, cessation of government interventions, etc. Expanding to 10 years, if you look, except for the COVID spike, U6 has been relatively steady at ~7%. No matter who was in office.

And the economy has been expanding. 187K new jobs the past 12 months, and 271K the prior 12 months. But, of course, the loss of jobs during COVID likely makes that apparent expansion inevitable (i.e. after COVID, things open up again, people get rehired, etc.).

It's not a simple one variable problem.

Lame. I cited ABC. Not Fox, not that there's anything wrong with that. I already know that the thought bubble can't be penetrated with anything other than links from sources you deem appropriate.

Sad.

I went back and looked. It was a fluke. When I opened your link the video up front played FOX news for the exact same thing. I even returned and it did the same thing. So I thought you were referencing FOX via ABC. I go back there and it's not there. Everything I said is correct and you shouldn't need it explained.

Prosperity Gospel. Basically, if you're a good Christian you'll be rewarded. If not, tough noogies.

It goes back further than that. The Puritans believed that if you broke your arm, God broke your arm. That if you were prosperous and wealthy, God smiled on you. That if you were poor and not doing well, God disfavored you. They would evidently slit the nose or cut an ear as punishment. the Congregationalists are the remainders of that church.

This isn't complicated folks:

The Republicans in Congress (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to renew the expanded Child Tax Credit in President Biden's American Rescue Plan, causing the child poverty rate to more than double.

Just a year ago, child poverty hit a historic low of 5.2%. The latest figures put it at 12.4%.

Child poverty is a republican choice. End of story.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/12/1198923453/child-po...

Everything I said is correct and you shouldn't need it explained.

Except that now you at least admit you were mistaken about the Fox video, not that there's anything wrong with sourcing from Fox.

After all. It's economic data showing that poverty is up under Joe Biden.

After all. It's economic data showing that poverty is up under Joe Biden.
------------------------
Incorrect. Poverty is up under Republicans taking away credits and giving tax breaks to billionaires.

You were due an explanation on FOX. Still chagrined that happened. My bad.

Incorrect. Poverty is up under Republicans taking away credits and giving tax breaks to billionaires.

Nope. The economy is worse than it was in 2019.

Nope. The economy is worse than it was in 2019.

And it's better than in 2020. Remember, Biden wasn't inaugurated until 2021...so that would be on Trump's watch.

It very much depends on what comparison point you choose. Better to look at trends, and the events surrounding them, rather than pick a semi-arbitrary date that reinforces your position.

And it's better than in 2020.

Very low bar given that the country was locked down back then.

Better to look at trends, and the events surrounding them, rather than pick a semi-arbitrary date that reinforces your position.

I agree. That's why pre-pandemic and right now are excellent comparison points. And the trend there is not good.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.