Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
CousinIT
CousinIT's Journal
CousinIT's Journal
October 29, 2024
Noncitizen Voting Isn't Affecting State or Federal Elections -- Here's Why
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why. . . There’s an election coming up, the outcome of which will surely impact your life. But you know you can’t vote because you’re not a citizen. Would you risk everything — your freedom, your life in the United States, your ability to be near your family — just to cast a single ballot?
Of course you wouldn’t. It’s a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. It’s also a crime under every state’s laws. In fact, under federal law, you could face up to five years in prison simply for registering to vote. It’s also a deportable offense for noncitizens to register or vote. And sure, people make bad decisions and commit crimes all the time. But this one is different: by committing the crime, you create a government record of your having committed it. In fact, it’s the creation of the government record — the registration form or the ballot cast — that is the crime. So, you’ve not only exposed yourself to prison time and deportation, you’ve put yourself on the government’s radar, and you’ve handed the government the evidence it needs to put you in prison or deport you. All so you could cast one vote. Who would do such a thing?
The answer is: just about no one. Every legitimate study ever done on the question shows that voting by noncitizens in state and federal elections is vanishingly rare. That includes the Brennan Center’s own study of 42 jurisdictions in the 2016 general election. We found that election officials in those places, who oversaw the tabulation of 23.5 million votes, referred only an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution. In other words, even suspected — not proven — noncitizen votes accounted for just 0.0001 percent of the votes cast. But you don’t have to take our word for it: the Cato Institute will also tell you, “Noncitizens don’t illegally vote in detectable numbers.”
Maybe you’re thinking that there are a bunch of noncitizens voting and getting away with it. Again, consider the fact that in order to commit these crimes you create a government record of having committed them. Indeed, anyone can look up your voter history on public voter files. And election officials conduct regular maintenance of these voter lists — in fact, they’re required to by federal law. Moreover, these are crimes that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers are instructed to look into during the naturalization process. So, if you ever try to become a citizen, you’ll be caught.
Of course you wouldn’t. It’s a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. It’s also a crime under every state’s laws. In fact, under federal law, you could face up to five years in prison simply for registering to vote. It’s also a deportable offense for noncitizens to register or vote. And sure, people make bad decisions and commit crimes all the time. But this one is different: by committing the crime, you create a government record of your having committed it. In fact, it’s the creation of the government record — the registration form or the ballot cast — that is the crime. So, you’ve not only exposed yourself to prison time and deportation, you’ve put yourself on the government’s radar, and you’ve handed the government the evidence it needs to put you in prison or deport you. All so you could cast one vote. Who would do such a thing?
The answer is: just about no one. Every legitimate study ever done on the question shows that voting by noncitizens in state and federal elections is vanishingly rare. That includes the Brennan Center’s own study of 42 jurisdictions in the 2016 general election. We found that election officials in those places, who oversaw the tabulation of 23.5 million votes, referred only an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution. In other words, even suspected — not proven — noncitizen votes accounted for just 0.0001 percent of the votes cast. But you don’t have to take our word for it: the Cato Institute will also tell you, “Noncitizens don’t illegally vote in detectable numbers.”
Maybe you’re thinking that there are a bunch of noncitizens voting and getting away with it. Again, consider the fact that in order to commit these crimes you create a government record of having committed them. Indeed, anyone can look up your voter history on public voter files. And election officials conduct regular maintenance of these voter lists — in fact, they’re required to by federal law. Moreover, these are crimes that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers are instructed to look into during the naturalization process. So, if you ever try to become a citizen, you’ll be caught.
October 26, 2024
The 'Black Insurrectionist' was actually white. The deception did not stop there.
https://apnews.com/article/black-trump-kamala-harris-tim-walz-aca31c66fe5bfef1e8827581e7919eceWASHINGTON (AP) — “Black Insurrectionist,” the anonymous social media persona behind some of the most widely circulated conspiracy theories about the 2024 election, can be traced to a man from upstate New York.
He’s also white.
With a profile photo of a Black soldier and the tagline “I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS,” the account on the platform X amassed more than 300,000 followers while posting dubious claims about Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Some were amplified by former President Donald Trump, his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance, and their Republican allies in Congress. The most salacious claims have come in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Last month, the account posted what Black Insurrectionist claimed was an affidavit from an ABC News employee, alleging Harris was given questions in advance of the network’s debate with Trump — which ABC News vigorously disputed. Trump approved, though, declaring, “I love the person.” More recently, Black Insurrectionist posted a baseless claim alleging inappropriate behavior between Walz and a student decades ago, a falsehood that U.S. intelligence officials said sprang from a Russian disinformation campaign.
The reach that the Black Insurrectionist account attained with assistance from Trump and his allies demonstrates the ease with which unverified information from dubious sources can metastasize online to shape public opinion. The speed and scale of disinformation has been an animating force in the presidential campaign, with the potential to affect the outcome in a close election.
He’s also white.
With a profile photo of a Black soldier and the tagline “I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS,” the account on the platform X amassed more than 300,000 followers while posting dubious claims about Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Some were amplified by former President Donald Trump, his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance, and their Republican allies in Congress. The most salacious claims have come in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Last month, the account posted what Black Insurrectionist claimed was an affidavit from an ABC News employee, alleging Harris was given questions in advance of the network’s debate with Trump — which ABC News vigorously disputed. Trump approved, though, declaring, “I love the person.” More recently, Black Insurrectionist posted a baseless claim alleging inappropriate behavior between Walz and a student decades ago, a falsehood that U.S. intelligence officials said sprang from a Russian disinformation campaign.
The reach that the Black Insurrectionist account attained with assistance from Trump and his allies demonstrates the ease with which unverified information from dubious sources can metastasize online to shape public opinion. The speed and scale of disinformation has been an animating force in the presidential campaign, with the potential to affect the outcome in a close election.
October 26, 2024
He compares women to pigs with gold nose rings, says they are too pampered:
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/10/maga-pastor-compared-women-pigs-gold-nose
He hates Democracy because it allows women to vote:
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/08/maga-pastor-hates-democracy-because-it
He says women should only have their voices heard through their husbands and fathers.
His position(s) are not "Christian" positions.
His positions are American Taliban (misogynist) positions.
We need an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not project thy misogyny upon God."
Famous MAGA pastor says American women are "pigs with gold nose rings," wants to overturn the 19th Amendment
https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1824156787190157393He compares women to pigs with gold nose rings, says they are too pampered:
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/10/maga-pastor-compared-women-pigs-gold-nose
He hates Democracy because it allows women to vote:
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/08/maga-pastor-hates-democracy-because-it
Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbon compared pigs and women during his October 20 Sunday sermon. The Christian nationalist pastor told his audience that that God wants women to be quiet and modest:
"Like a golden ring in the snout of a pig, so too it is with a woman who is not modest."
Webbon is a rising star in the Republican party, part of the so-called “TheoBros” movement. This group of younger men have views that are very extreme, even by MAGA standards. Many of these young men don’t believe in democracy and don’t want women to even vote.
Did I mention Webbon hates democracy? This is the future of the Republican party if people don't stop Trump now.
"Like a golden ring in the snout of a pig, so too it is with a woman who is not modest."
Webbon is a rising star in the Republican party, part of the so-called “TheoBros” movement. This group of younger men have views that are very extreme, even by MAGA standards. Many of these young men don’t believe in democracy and don’t want women to even vote.
Did I mention Webbon hates democracy? This is the future of the Republican party if people don't stop Trump now.
He says women should only have their voices heard through their husbands and fathers.
His position(s) are not "Christian" positions.
His positions are American Taliban (misogynist) positions.
We need an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not project thy misogyny upon God."
October 26, 2024
From Ari Melber (who I don't usually watch, but my hands were full of salad stuff fixing dinner, and this came on - and then I wanted to throw the salad at the damn TV)
is the matter with white men? Other men don't have these issues.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-trump-s-nightmare-for-losing-tied-race-melber-breaks-down-harris-obama-coalition-data-222731845679
The stark reality that most white men refuse to vote for a woman. Any woman.
From Ari Melber (who I don't usually watch, but my hands were full of salad stuff fixing dinner, and this came on - and then I wanted to throw the salad at the damn TV)
is the matter with white men? Other men don't have these issues.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-trump-s-nightmare-for-losing-tied-race-melber-breaks-down-harris-obama-coalition-data-222731845679
October 25, 2024
https://x.com/broadwaybabyto/status/1849229382327406736
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1849229382327406736.html
Misogyny in medicine is focusing more on what a man might WANT than what a woman NEEDS.
I NEEDED a hysterectomy and was told I wouldn’t survive pregnancy.
“Informed consent” for surgery looked like this:
“Don’t you want to be a Mom?”
“You may want BIOLOGICAL children”
/1 🧵
“What if you meet a man who wants babies?”
“What if he leaves you because you can’t bear his children?”
“Men went their OWN babies - what if you can’t do that?”
“You will feel like less of a woman.”
/2
Brought boyfriend in to try and change their minds. Them to him:
“Will you still love her if she’s BARREN?”
“Do you want kids?”
“What if you change your mind & want kids - will you LEAVE her?”
Him: “Save her life what I want doesn’t matter” (he understood the assignment) /3
The assumption through the entire process - as I got sicker and sicker - was that I should WANT to risk my life for the CHANCE to bear a child.
That if I didn’t WANT that - I would change my mind when I met the “right man” /4
Apparently the “man of my dreams” will be so spectacular and the love so all consuming that I will be all too happy to put my life on the line to give HIM babies.
Needless to say I found that incredibly offensive. I was dying. I was incredibly sick. I needed surgery. /5
This is NOT “informed consent”. This is misogynistic and patriarchal bullying.
Informed consent would have been ensuring I knew it wasn’t reversible and would mean I could never have children. Letting me know risks of complications. Risk of prolapse. Risk of early menopause /6
None of that was covered. It was ALL about men and babies.
I actually did have a severe post operative complication that I was woefully unprepared for because “informed consent” failed me.
We must do better. Women need autonomy over their body. Inform us. Work with us /7
Don’t put the needs of a man before of our own. Don’t treat us like incubators.
We are MORE than our ability to bear children. I lost my womb at 24 and I’ve never felt like less of a woman, less of a person. I’ve never regretted it.
Medicine needs to do better /end
One of the worst parts was that when I ended up having a complication - I was gaslit & ignored again. Told I didn’t know my body AGAIN. I needed my boyfriend to get them to even run tests.
Now - decades later - I’m still dealing with issues from the surgery and complication.
I can never know how different things might have been had they acted faster - but I DO know I was never able to fully trust the medical profession again.
My article on this is 👇🏼 - and I’m working on a future one about informed consent (or lack thereof) https://www.disabledginger.com/p/my-most-dangerous-er-experience-and
this was in Canada - where we have better overall access to reproductive health than our neighbours to the south. They still delayed my care for THREE years. I was in & out of hospitals, getting regular blood transfusions with zero quality of life.
Fight for bodily autonomy!
Some ppl are saying this was ok because doctors must ensure a woman understands she might change her mind & regret it.
I understand informing her - but this was medically necessary. You don’t put someone’s life at risk “just in case”. I wrote more 👇🏼
https://www.disabledginger.com/p/pregnancy-will-likely-kill-you-but
Misogyny in medicine is focusing more on what a man might WANT than what a woman NEEDS.
THIS IS IN CANADA. It's even worse in the US.https://x.com/broadwaybabyto/status/1849229382327406736
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1849229382327406736.html
Misogyny in medicine is focusing more on what a man might WANT than what a woman NEEDS.
I NEEDED a hysterectomy and was told I wouldn’t survive pregnancy.
“Informed consent” for surgery looked like this:
“Don’t you want to be a Mom?”
“You may want BIOLOGICAL children”
/1 🧵
“What if you meet a man who wants babies?”
“What if he leaves you because you can’t bear his children?”
“Men went their OWN babies - what if you can’t do that?”
“You will feel like less of a woman.”
/2
Brought boyfriend in to try and change their minds. Them to him:
“Will you still love her if she’s BARREN?”
“Do you want kids?”
“What if you change your mind & want kids - will you LEAVE her?”
Him: “Save her life what I want doesn’t matter” (he understood the assignment) /3
The assumption through the entire process - as I got sicker and sicker - was that I should WANT to risk my life for the CHANCE to bear a child.
That if I didn’t WANT that - I would change my mind when I met the “right man” /4
Apparently the “man of my dreams” will be so spectacular and the love so all consuming that I will be all too happy to put my life on the line to give HIM babies.
Needless to say I found that incredibly offensive. I was dying. I was incredibly sick. I needed surgery. /5
This is NOT “informed consent”. This is misogynistic and patriarchal bullying.
Informed consent would have been ensuring I knew it wasn’t reversible and would mean I could never have children. Letting me know risks of complications. Risk of prolapse. Risk of early menopause /6
None of that was covered. It was ALL about men and babies.
I actually did have a severe post operative complication that I was woefully unprepared for because “informed consent” failed me.
We must do better. Women need autonomy over their body. Inform us. Work with us /7
Don’t put the needs of a man before of our own. Don’t treat us like incubators.
We are MORE than our ability to bear children. I lost my womb at 24 and I’ve never felt like less of a woman, less of a person. I’ve never regretted it.
Medicine needs to do better /end
One of the worst parts was that when I ended up having a complication - I was gaslit & ignored again. Told I didn’t know my body AGAIN. I needed my boyfriend to get them to even run tests.
Now - decades later - I’m still dealing with issues from the surgery and complication.
I can never know how different things might have been had they acted faster - but I DO know I was never able to fully trust the medical profession again.
My article on this is 👇🏼 - and I’m working on a future one about informed consent (or lack thereof) https://www.disabledginger.com/p/my-most-dangerous-er-experience-and
this was in Canada - where we have better overall access to reproductive health than our neighbours to the south. They still delayed my care for THREE years. I was in & out of hospitals, getting regular blood transfusions with zero quality of life.
Fight for bodily autonomy!
Some ppl are saying this was ok because doctors must ensure a woman understands she might change her mind & regret it.
I understand informing her - but this was medically necessary. You don’t put someone’s life at risk “just in case”. I wrote more 👇🏼
https://www.disabledginger.com/p/pregnancy-will-likely-kill-you-but
October 25, 2024
Is It Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes His Mind. "It's the real thing. It really is."
https://archive.ph/dzBav. . .
Jan. 6 proved to be a turning point. For an American historian of 20th-century Europe, it was hard not to see in the insurrection echoes of Mussolini’s Blackshirts, who marched on Rome in 1922 and took over the capital, or of the violent riot at the French Parliament in 1934 by veterans and far-right groups who sought to disrupt the swearing in of a new left-wing government. But the analogies were less important than what Paxton regarded as a transformation of Trumpism itself. “The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it,” Paxton told me. “It just seemed to me that a new language was necessary, because a new thing was happening.”
When an editor at Newsweek reached out to Paxton, he decided to publicly declare a change of mind. In a column that appeared online on Jan. 11, 2021, Paxton wrote that the invasion of the Capitol “removes my objection to the fascist label.” Trump’s “open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line,” he went on. “The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary.”
Until then, most scholars arguing in favor of the fascism label were not specialists. Paxton was. Those who for years had been making the case that Trumpism equaled fascism took Paxton’s column as a vindication. “He probably did more with that one piece than all these other historians who’ve written numerous books since 2016, and appeared on television, and who have 300,000 Twitter followers,” says Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, an assistant professor at Wesleyan and the editor of a recent collection of essays, “Did it Happen Here?” Samuel Moyn, a historian at Yale University, said that to cite Paxton is to make “an authority claim — you can’t beat it.”
This summer I asked Paxton if, nearly four years later, he stood by his pronouncement. Cautious but forthright, he told me that he doesn’t believe using the word is politically helpful in any way, but he confirmed the diagnosis. “It’s bubbling up from below in very worrisome ways, and that’s very much like the original fascisms,” Paxton said. “It’s the real thing. It really is.”
Jan. 6 proved to be a turning point. For an American historian of 20th-century Europe, it was hard not to see in the insurrection echoes of Mussolini’s Blackshirts, who marched on Rome in 1922 and took over the capital, or of the violent riot at the French Parliament in 1934 by veterans and far-right groups who sought to disrupt the swearing in of a new left-wing government. But the analogies were less important than what Paxton regarded as a transformation of Trumpism itself. “The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it,” Paxton told me. “It just seemed to me that a new language was necessary, because a new thing was happening.”
When an editor at Newsweek reached out to Paxton, he decided to publicly declare a change of mind. In a column that appeared online on Jan. 11, 2021, Paxton wrote that the invasion of the Capitol “removes my objection to the fascist label.” Trump’s “open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line,” he went on. “The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary.”
Until then, most scholars arguing in favor of the fascism label were not specialists. Paxton was. Those who for years had been making the case that Trumpism equaled fascism took Paxton’s column as a vindication. “He probably did more with that one piece than all these other historians who’ve written numerous books since 2016, and appeared on television, and who have 300,000 Twitter followers,” says Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, an assistant professor at Wesleyan and the editor of a recent collection of essays, “Did it Happen Here?” Samuel Moyn, a historian at Yale University, said that to cite Paxton is to make “an authority claim — you can’t beat it.”
This summer I asked Paxton if, nearly four years later, he stood by his pronouncement. Cautious but forthright, he told me that he doesn’t believe using the word is politically helpful in any way, but he confirmed the diagnosis. “It’s bubbling up from below in very worrisome ways, and that’s very much like the original fascisms,” Paxton said. “It’s the real thing. It really is.”
October 22, 2024
All these are backdoor ways to defund Social Security. They have a double-pronged plan...
...
1. Defund Social Security - starve it of funds with tax cuts, then scream it's going "bankrupt" to set the stage for its elimination or privatization.
2. Straight-out cuts, like raising the retirement age, reducing COLAs, and direct cuts to benefits or who can receive them, i.e., making them means-tested and then calling them "welfare" again to set the stage for elimination or privatization.
If they can't get away with #2, they'll do it via #1 and other ways they can find.
Like the ACA, they've been after Social Security & Medicare since their inception -- because the billionaires whom the GOP exclusively represents (and who own them and the highest court in the land via hundreds of dark money groups funneling money to the GOP and the courts thanks to Citizens United) - don't want to pay the taxes on those programs. That's what's driving this. The goddamned billionaires like Musk, Trump and others. Greedy assholes who wish to have the IRS defunded and shut down so they pay no tax (and many of them don't anyway - same with big corporations like Bank of America, Amazon, and others).
Billionaires and corporate greed are largely ignored in the body politic and surrounding discussions—especially by the media, which billionaires and big corporations primarily own—so they're not going to talk about their dirty shenanigans in public. They point at migrants, poor people, seniors, healthcare, and the sickest among us, brown people, etc., as the issue. THEY ARE NOT THE ISSUE. Billionaires and corporate greed are the issues. And because everything and everybody is owned and controlled by the same, it never gets discussed.
October 22, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-policies-would-jeopardize-social-security-report-finds-beyond-irresponsible-says-one-expert-194828960.html
Trump's policies would jeopardize Social Security, report finds. 'Beyond irresponsible,' says one expert.
Seniors would face heftier cuts to their Social Security benefits sooner than expected if Donald Trump wins the presidential election and his campaign promises are implemented, a new analysis found.
The reserve fund for Social Security would run empty by 2031 instead of the current estimate of 2034 if Trump's tax breaks, tariffs, and mass deportations are imposed, according to a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
At that time, Social Security benefits would be cut by 30% to 31%, reaching 33% by 2035. If Social Security remains on the current trajectory, the reduction would be 23% by 2035.
"Social Security is nine years from insolvency, and neither campaign has a plan to solve it," said Marc Goldwein, a senior policy director for CRFB, a nonpartisan public policy organization. "But President Trump's plans would make it much, much worse."
The reserve fund for Social Security would run empty by 2031 instead of the current estimate of 2034 if Trump's tax breaks, tariffs, and mass deportations are imposed, according to a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
At that time, Social Security benefits would be cut by 30% to 31%, reaching 33% by 2035. If Social Security remains on the current trajectory, the reduction would be 23% by 2035.
"Social Security is nine years from insolvency, and neither campaign has a plan to solve it," said Marc Goldwein, a senior policy director for CRFB, a nonpartisan public policy organization. "But President Trump's plans would make it much, much worse."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-policies-would-jeopardize-social-security-report-finds-beyond-irresponsible-says-one-expert-194828960.html
October 19, 2024
Xitter thread from From Ben Wikler: https://x.com/benwikler/status/1847377500906930425
Unrolled: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847377500906930425.html
Has the U.S. economy, historically, been better under Republican presidents or Democratic presidents?
A Republican financial analyst decided to find out.
His name? Bart Starr, Jr. (Yes, the son of THAT Bart Starr.)
The answer may surprise you.🧵
Before Bart Starr, Jr. takes over my thread, we have 18 days left until the election. This is go time. Your donations to @WisDems will help us get out the vote all across Wisconsin. Won’t you chip in now?:
Who is Bart Starr, Jr.?
The son of legendary Packers QB Bart Starr, Bart Jr. grew up in Green Bay, WI.
He's an Alabama attorney, financial consultant, & a supporter of charities including @RawhideYouth.
A lifelong Republican, he voted for both Bushes, Dole, McCain, & Romney.
From here on, this is written by Bart Starr, Jr.
__
There exists in much of America a belief, one our Republican family accepted for decades, that GOP presidents are better for the U.S. in terms of stock market performance, economic and job growth, and fiscal discipline/deficits.
Recently we accepted a challenge from a centrist economist to determine whether our bias was correct.
It turns out we were wildly mistaken.
Someone known to most Americans said, years ago, “It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” Before we identify him, let’s see if he was correct by analyzing long term data in order to avoid the distortion effects of 1 or 2 strange years.
From 1961 through 2024 (64 years), Republicans have held the presidency for 32 years, exactly the same number as Democrats (if we include 2024 as a full year).
Image
Let’s look at the stock market performance from 1961-2024.
Assume we invested $10,000 in the stock market and allowed growth to compound only during Republican presidencies; our $10,000 would have done well, growing to approximately $105,000 during those 32 years.
If we did the exact same thing, but invested only during the 32 years of Democratic presidencies, we would have again done well… exceptionally well. Our $10,000 would have grown to approximately $570,000.
Image
This equals a difference of close to 7% PER YEAR in favor of stock market performance during Democratic administrations.
In fairness, we should point out that one horrific year—2008—landed at the end of the George W. Bush administration.
Given the fact that a 37% drop in the S&P 500 Index resulted in a harsh impact on the Republican side of the ledger, let us run a hypothetical scenario, as follows: We will add 25% to the Republican data, AND deduct 25% from the Democratic data.
After making this adjustment to “share” the impact of 2008, growth under Republican presidents would have increased to $131,000; growth under Democrats would have increased to $427,000, still a significant difference: about 4% more PER YEAR in favor of the Democratic presidents.
Image
Let’s move on from the stock market to economic and job growth.
In order to avoid upside bias from 1935-1944, as the economy recovered from the Great Depression and the buildup to WWll under FDR, we will begin our analysis in 1945.
The most important measure of economic performance is the real growth rate (nominal growth minus inflation).
Under the 40 years with GOP presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 2.4% per year.
Under the 40 years with Dem presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 3.5% per year.
Image
A difference of 1.1% per year might not sound significant, but if you compound it over the course of a 40-year working career, it compounds to 50% more total growth.
Further, these data help explain something remarkable. EVERY transition from a Democratic to a Republican administration during the past 100 years has resulted in slower job growth, while EVERY transition from a GOP to a Democratic administration has led to faster job growth.
Now let’s look at deficits and debt.
Over the past seven decades, there have been three presidents who either reduced the size of the annualized federal deficits, or turned their inherited deficit into a surplus.
First, Republican Dwight Eisenhower. From January 1953 through January 1961, the federal budget deficit dropped by well over half.
Second, Democrat Bill Clinton. When he took office in January 1993, the annual deficit was close to $250 billion. By the time he departed in January 2001, the deficit had vanished; our country, in fact, had run a healthy surplus for four consecutive years.
Third, Democrat Barack Obama. Upon entering the White House in January 2009, the deficit was running at an annual rate of about $1.4 trillion. At the end of his eight years, in January 2017, the deficit had declined to approximately $600 billion.
Each of these three presidents achieved this progress via a combination of slightly higher tax revenues, primarily from large corporations and very high income earners, along with modest and restrained growth in aggregate federal spending.
Meanwhile, under Donald Trump, annualized deficits exploded by more than 50% from 2017-2019, BEFORE Covid.
This was almost entirely due to Trump’s tax cuts for large corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals like Elon Musk.
Trump’s proposal to repeat that policy means he will seek needed tax revenues elsewhere: enormous “across the board” tariffs—20% to 60%—that will hurt the middle class and hammer those who aspire to join the middle class.
This fact, along with the risk of a trade war that would harm our farmers & other exporters, led 16 Nobel-prize-winning economists, among 100s of experts, to unanimously declare Trump’s policies will lead to much slower growth & higher sustained inflation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/16-nobel-prize-winning-economists-say-trump-policies-will-fuel-inflation-2024-06-25/
A significant tax increase—in any form—on those struggling to make ends meet has, until this year, been rejected by Republicans.
Vice President Harris, by way of contrast, appears to be following in the footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower, Clinton, and Obama by suggesting modest tax increases on those making high levels of income, while offering tax credits to young families and budding entrepreneurs.
History demonstrates that this is the path to fiscal improvement. It significantly reduces the odds of a debt-driven crisis by preventing debt from growing faster than the economy, strengthens rather than degrades the solvency of Social Security, & reduces inflationary pressure.
Remember the quote earlier in this thread?
“It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”
The person who said this, many years ago, was Donald Trump.
A dispassionate review of 80 years of economic history makes clear that what Donald Trump said two decades ago was, in fact, correct.
If only the Donald Trump of today were to take a look at why.
The very policies Trump today abhors have in fact been far better for the millions of Americans who seek better growth, smaller deficits, avoidance of serious recessions, and his favorite, stock market appreciation.
These policies that have worked better in the past are today championed by Kamala Harris.
These data tell a compelling story, one even Republicans should study and embrace.
– Bart Starr, Jr.
October, 2024
Thank you, Bart Starr, Jr., for that illuminating analysis.
He’s not the only one saying it.
Here is a similar analysis from 2016 by the American Economic Review, a monthly peer-reviewed journal published by the American Economic Association. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20140913
And indeed, today, a majority of economists now predict that:
* growth would be higher under Harris than Trump
* inflation would be lower under Harris than Trump
* deficits would be lower under Harris than Trump
Image
Image
Image
It’s clear that Trump’s proposals would raise taxes on most Americans, but cut them for the ultra-wealthy.
Harris would do the opposite: she’d reduce taxes for the middle class & working families and pay for it by making the wealthy pay their fair share.
Help get the word out about how Kamala Harris will improve the economy for the middle class, while Trump will hurt it.
Share this thread.
Volunteer in this campaign:
wisdems.org/volunteer
And donate to help @WisDems.
secure.actblue.com/donate/wisdems…
Has the U.S. economy, historically, been better under Republican presidents or Democratic presidents?
Incuded graphics can be seen on the original thread or the unroll.Xitter thread from From Ben Wikler: https://x.com/benwikler/status/1847377500906930425
Unrolled: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847377500906930425.html
Has the U.S. economy, historically, been better under Republican presidents or Democratic presidents?
A Republican financial analyst decided to find out.
His name? Bart Starr, Jr. (Yes, the son of THAT Bart Starr.)
The answer may surprise you.🧵
Before Bart Starr, Jr. takes over my thread, we have 18 days left until the election. This is go time. Your donations to @WisDems will help us get out the vote all across Wisconsin. Won’t you chip in now?:
Who is Bart Starr, Jr.?
The son of legendary Packers QB Bart Starr, Bart Jr. grew up in Green Bay, WI.
He's an Alabama attorney, financial consultant, & a supporter of charities including @RawhideYouth.
A lifelong Republican, he voted for both Bushes, Dole, McCain, & Romney.
From here on, this is written by Bart Starr, Jr.
__
There exists in much of America a belief, one our Republican family accepted for decades, that GOP presidents are better for the U.S. in terms of stock market performance, economic and job growth, and fiscal discipline/deficits.
Recently we accepted a challenge from a centrist economist to determine whether our bias was correct.
It turns out we were wildly mistaken.
Someone known to most Americans said, years ago, “It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” Before we identify him, let’s see if he was correct by analyzing long term data in order to avoid the distortion effects of 1 or 2 strange years.
From 1961 through 2024 (64 years), Republicans have held the presidency for 32 years, exactly the same number as Democrats (if we include 2024 as a full year).
Image
Let’s look at the stock market performance from 1961-2024.
Assume we invested $10,000 in the stock market and allowed growth to compound only during Republican presidencies; our $10,000 would have done well, growing to approximately $105,000 during those 32 years.
If we did the exact same thing, but invested only during the 32 years of Democratic presidencies, we would have again done well… exceptionally well. Our $10,000 would have grown to approximately $570,000.
Image
This equals a difference of close to 7% PER YEAR in favor of stock market performance during Democratic administrations.
In fairness, we should point out that one horrific year—2008—landed at the end of the George W. Bush administration.
Given the fact that a 37% drop in the S&P 500 Index resulted in a harsh impact on the Republican side of the ledger, let us run a hypothetical scenario, as follows: We will add 25% to the Republican data, AND deduct 25% from the Democratic data.
After making this adjustment to “share” the impact of 2008, growth under Republican presidents would have increased to $131,000; growth under Democrats would have increased to $427,000, still a significant difference: about 4% more PER YEAR in favor of the Democratic presidents.
Image
Let’s move on from the stock market to economic and job growth.
In order to avoid upside bias from 1935-1944, as the economy recovered from the Great Depression and the buildup to WWll under FDR, we will begin our analysis in 1945.
The most important measure of economic performance is the real growth rate (nominal growth minus inflation).
Under the 40 years with GOP presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 2.4% per year.
Under the 40 years with Dem presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 3.5% per year.
Image
A difference of 1.1% per year might not sound significant, but if you compound it over the course of a 40-year working career, it compounds to 50% more total growth.
Further, these data help explain something remarkable. EVERY transition from a Democratic to a Republican administration during the past 100 years has resulted in slower job growth, while EVERY transition from a GOP to a Democratic administration has led to faster job growth.
Now let’s look at deficits and debt.
Over the past seven decades, there have been three presidents who either reduced the size of the annualized federal deficits, or turned their inherited deficit into a surplus.
First, Republican Dwight Eisenhower. From January 1953 through January 1961, the federal budget deficit dropped by well over half.
Second, Democrat Bill Clinton. When he took office in January 1993, the annual deficit was close to $250 billion. By the time he departed in January 2001, the deficit had vanished; our country, in fact, had run a healthy surplus for four consecutive years.
Third, Democrat Barack Obama. Upon entering the White House in January 2009, the deficit was running at an annual rate of about $1.4 trillion. At the end of his eight years, in January 2017, the deficit had declined to approximately $600 billion.
Each of these three presidents achieved this progress via a combination of slightly higher tax revenues, primarily from large corporations and very high income earners, along with modest and restrained growth in aggregate federal spending.
Meanwhile, under Donald Trump, annualized deficits exploded by more than 50% from 2017-2019, BEFORE Covid.
This was almost entirely due to Trump’s tax cuts for large corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals like Elon Musk.
Trump’s proposal to repeat that policy means he will seek needed tax revenues elsewhere: enormous “across the board” tariffs—20% to 60%—that will hurt the middle class and hammer those who aspire to join the middle class.
This fact, along with the risk of a trade war that would harm our farmers & other exporters, led 16 Nobel-prize-winning economists, among 100s of experts, to unanimously declare Trump’s policies will lead to much slower growth & higher sustained inflation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/16-nobel-prize-winning-economists-say-trump-policies-will-fuel-inflation-2024-06-25/
A significant tax increase—in any form—on those struggling to make ends meet has, until this year, been rejected by Republicans.
Vice President Harris, by way of contrast, appears to be following in the footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower, Clinton, and Obama by suggesting modest tax increases on those making high levels of income, while offering tax credits to young families and budding entrepreneurs.
History demonstrates that this is the path to fiscal improvement. It significantly reduces the odds of a debt-driven crisis by preventing debt from growing faster than the economy, strengthens rather than degrades the solvency of Social Security, & reduces inflationary pressure.
Remember the quote earlier in this thread?
“It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”
The person who said this, many years ago, was Donald Trump.
A dispassionate review of 80 years of economic history makes clear that what Donald Trump said two decades ago was, in fact, correct.
If only the Donald Trump of today were to take a look at why.
The very policies Trump today abhors have in fact been far better for the millions of Americans who seek better growth, smaller deficits, avoidance of serious recessions, and his favorite, stock market appreciation.
These policies that have worked better in the past are today championed by Kamala Harris.
These data tell a compelling story, one even Republicans should study and embrace.
– Bart Starr, Jr.
October, 2024
Thank you, Bart Starr, Jr., for that illuminating analysis.
He’s not the only one saying it.
Here is a similar analysis from 2016 by the American Economic Review, a monthly peer-reviewed journal published by the American Economic Association. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20140913
And indeed, today, a majority of economists now predict that:
* growth would be higher under Harris than Trump
* inflation would be lower under Harris than Trump
* deficits would be lower under Harris than Trump
Image
Image
Image
It’s clear that Trump’s proposals would raise taxes on most Americans, but cut them for the ultra-wealthy.
Harris would do the opposite: she’d reduce taxes for the middle class & working families and pay for it by making the wealthy pay their fair share.
Help get the word out about how Kamala Harris will improve the economy for the middle class, while Trump will hurt it.
Share this thread.
Volunteer in this campaign:
wisdems.org/volunteer
And donate to help @WisDems.
secure.actblue.com/donate/wisdems…
Profile Information
Name: Are You Serious?Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Least Coast
Home country: The dumb one with the guns and MAGA
Current location: Swamp
Member since: Thu Jul 23, 2009, 11:57 AM
Number of posts: 9,913