Jump to content

Republican Presidents kill people and crash the market, every single time


Vish_ram
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Dr. Birx estimated that 200K Americans will die in the best case scenario.

 

So Trump called this a hoax, cut funding for CDC, shutdown pandemic response team, blocked Azar's request for $2B to get supplies, ....

 

I wonder if a Dem Prez had done the same, how will the republicans react?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just happens without fail.

 

R wage wars and kill people on both sides.

They mismanage the economy and crash the market.

 

The dems have to pickup the pieces and fix it.

 

I'd say both sides have equal number of car wrecks!  Neither is immune to stupidity.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table 5 is particularly interesting as it shows you which provides the marginal benefit (or cost) to each President. Bush (the 2nd), Trump and Reagan are the "worst offenders". Not surprising particularly with Bush, given post-911 military expenditures and bailouts during 2008 i.e. final year in office. Obama you can see benefit from a high starting position (again the bank bailouts) which were then repaid over his tenure. Trump's tax cut puts him in the red, but my guess is given the COVID spending, he will look historically the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but hasn't Trump set new ground for the level of corruption and incompentcy?

 

Yes, he has personally.  He's a complete moron...denying climate change, coronavirus...science in general!  Nepotism is at an all-time high in the White House.

 

But President's don't make all of the decisions, and he's had people smart enough, like most President's, to help navigate him through.  Just like Dubya.  That being said, just like Covid-19 is a 1 in 100 year event...Trump could be that 1 in a 100 President who really does screw things up badly.  Thus why he needs the oversight of Congress and the Senate like all Presidents.  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table 5 is particularly interesting as it shows you which provides the marginal benefit (or cost) to each President. Bush (the 2nd), Trump and Reagan are the "worst offenders". Not surprising particularly with Bush, given post-911 military expenditures and bailouts during 2008 i.e. final year in office. Obama you can see benefit from a high starting position (again the bank bailouts) which were then repaid over his tenure. Trump's tax cut puts him in the red, but my guess is given the COVID spending, he will look historically the worst.

 

Looking at it from a taxpayer standpoint it seems that a Democratic President and a Republican House are the best combination (marginal at best). But this doesn’t show “attempts” to spend more so draw from it what you want.

 

To Parsads point....they are absolutely all guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table 5 is particularly interesting as it shows you which provides the marginal benefit (or cost) to each President. Bush (the 2nd), Trump and Reagan are the "worst offenders". Not surprising particularly with Bush, given post-911 military expenditures and bailouts during 2008 i.e. final year in office. Obama you can see benefit from a high starting position (again the bank bailouts) which were then repaid over his tenure. Trump's tax cut puts him in the red, but my guess is given the COVID spending, he will look historically the worst.

 

Looking at it from a taxpayer standpoint it seems that a Democratic President and a Republican House are the best combination (marginal at best). But this doesn’t show “attempts” to spend more so draw from it what you want.

 

To Parsads point....they are absolutely all guilty.

I think you're right if you're a libertarian and want nothing done.

 

The point is they both like to spend. The republican are worse cause they're MASSIVE hypocrites about the whole thing. They just like to spend on different things. Republicans like things that go boom and tax cuts. Democrats like health care and infrastructure.

 

If you like things that go boom and tax cuts then you need a republican president and a republican congress. If you want health care and infrastructure you need a democrat president and a democrat congress. On the balance is worse with a republican president and democrat congress than with a democrat president and a republican congress. That's because if you have a democrat president the republicans in congress will go full fiscal responsibility fundamentalist and won't approve a dime. If you have a republican president and a democrat congress you'll throw them some money for pet causes and they'll roll on stuff.

 

If you want gridlock it's probably better with a democrat in the white house because they're better at government. They'll put competent people in charge. To make sure trains run on time sort of things. Whereas republicans seems to not have a care in the world about that sort of thing.

 

Writing it all down i realize how messed up it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the last 2 D & R presidents.

 

Clinton created surplus, stock market was great, no new wars

 

Obama's period was characterized by great stock market, pulling troops out of Iraq etc. American casualty count was almost nil

 

W - crash of 2008 after massive de-regulation, removal of financial checks and balances, trillion $ war with tremendous loss of lives

 

T - massive crash, uncontrolled pandemic, loss of lives (may range from 200K to up to million).

 

A President is supposed to keep Americans safe. He has singularly failed in his task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging stimulus spend following 9/11, GFC and Covid19 - I'm not sure how different the response would be whether the president is Republican or Democrat. These are well thought out prepared measures using advisory of the best minds in the country. The president's job is to market the spend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table 5 is particularly interesting as it shows you which provides the marginal benefit (or cost) to each President. Bush (the 2nd), Trump and Reagan are the "worst offenders". Not surprising particularly with Bush, given post-911 military expenditures and bailouts during 2008 i.e. final year in office. Obama you can see benefit from a high starting position (again the bank bailouts) which were then repaid over his tenure. Trump's tax cut puts him in the red, but my guess is given the COVID spending, he will look historically the worst.

 

Looking at it from a taxpayer standpoint it seems that a Democratic President and a Republican House are the best combination (marginal at best). But this doesn’t show “attempts” to spend more so draw from it what you want.

 

To Parsads point....they are absolutely all guilty.

I think you're right if you're a libertarian and want nothing done.

 

The point is they both like to spend. The republican are worse cause they're MASSIVE hypocrites about the whole thing. They just like to spend on different things. Republicans like things that go boom and tax cuts. Democrats like health care and infrastructure.

 

If you like things that go boom and tax cuts then you need a republican president and a republican congress. If you want health care and infrastructure you need a democrat president and a democrat congress. On the balance is worse with a republican president and democrat congress than with a democrat president and a republican congress. That's because if you have a democrat president the republicans in congress will go full fiscal responsibility fundamentalist and won't approve a dime. If you have a republican president and a democrat congress you'll throw them some money for pet causes and they'll roll on stuff.

 

If you want gridlock it's probably better with a democrat in the white house because they're better at government. They'll put competent people in charge. To make sure trains run on time sort of things. Whereas republicans seems to not have a care in the world about that sort of thing.

 

Writing it all down i realize how messed up it actually is.

 

I don’t want gridlock and most libertarians would agree with that. My question is why do we always need the government to be “doing” something? Have you ever went and looked at the list of laws that are signed every single year?

 

I’d prefer if the government fulfilled its function according to the constitution and left the rest up to the private market. There is also plenty of examples of big infrastructure type projects that the private market performs a better job. The development of the railroads are a great example.

 

Anyways, you’re absolutely right. The whole system (in its current state) is pretty messed up. It’s all about outing individuals against each other in class warfare and then pushing your own agenda. I’m not Republican or Democrat. I’ll vote either way and but I will say some of my “favorite politicians” have been Republicans. Most likely because they play the game and campaign under the “we’re fiscally responsible” platform the Republican Party “preaches”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging stimulus spend following 9/11, GFC and Covid19 - I'm not sure how different the response would be whether the president is Republican or Democrat. These are well thought out prepared measures using advisory of the best minds in the country. The president's job is to market the spend.

 

The patsy's job is to market the spend. But generally I agree once a crisis is at your feet, you have to deal with it. The guy in charge of the federal government will usually go with a federal solution.

 

Seeing such incompetence from the Feds these days (i.e. idiot President, corrupt Congress), the libertarian approach is attractive. But that's a knee jerk reaction - my best guess is that going down that route will eliminate more of the good that the gov't does (which doesn't get much airfare) than critics imagine. Cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potential death count is already revised to 240K.

 

Without cure, and Florida governors reckless actions, this might as well reach 1M.

 

What is shocking about this virus is that healthy/young patients without any pre-existing conditions are dying due to cytokine storm. My wife is treating CV pts and she is in a shock at the exponential increase in pt load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We get a lot of 100 year events in a relatively short timeframe. GFC was a hundred year event also and it just occurred 11 years ago. In a global deeply connected world , these type of events at bound to happen quite often, I think.

 

If you think about it, WW1, WW2 and the Great Depression were 100 year Events too and all but WW1 occurred less than 100 years ago.

 

Stuff like the Cuban missile crisis or SARS might have become 100 year events too, but didn’t, which probably was more luck and some heroism (in case of SARS) than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 year events are not 100 year events if they occur every decade.

 

Mandelbrot wrote about this regarding levees alongside rivers. Cities would experience 'once in a lifetime' floods, and then in the aftermath re-build the levees to deal with those flood levels. Years later the floods would return and now even higher - those previous levees again were swallowed.

 

The problem was not the height of the levees it's the fact that you've built a city right on top of a flood zone. In other words, solutions either address root causes or symptoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 year events are not 100 year events if they occur every decade.

 

Mandelbrot wrote about this regarding levees alongside rivers. Cities would experience 'once in a lifetime' floods, and then in the aftermath re-build the levees to deal with those flood levels. Years later the floods would return and now even higher - those previous levees again were swallowed.

 

The problem was not the height of the levees it's the fact that you've built a city right on top of a flood zone. In other words, solutions either address root causes or symptoms.

 

Or go one step further like NO and build below sea level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table 5 is particularly interesting as it shows you which provides the marginal benefit (or cost) to each President. Bush (the 2nd), Trump and Reagan are the "worst offenders". Not surprising particularly with Bush, given post-911 military expenditures and bailouts during 2008 i.e. final year in office. Obama you can see benefit from a high starting position (again the bank bailouts) which were then repaid over his tenure. Trump's tax cut puts him in the red, but my guess is given the COVID spending, he will look historically the worst.

 

Looking at it from a taxpayer standpoint it seems that a Democratic President and a Republican House are the best combination (marginal at best). But this doesn’t show “attempts” to spend more so draw from it what you want.

 

To Parsads point....they are absolutely all guilty.

I think you're right if you're a libertarian and want nothing done.

 

The point is they both like to spend. The republican are worse cause they're MASSIVE hypocrites about the whole thing. They just like to spend on different things. Republicans like things that go boom and tax cuts. Democrats like health care and infrastructure.

 

If you like things that go boom and tax cuts then you need a republican president and a republican congress. If you want health care and infrastructure you need a democrat president and a democrat congress. On the balance is worse with a republican president and democrat congress than with a democrat president and a republican congress. That's because if you have a democrat president the republicans in congress will go full fiscal responsibility fundamentalist and won't approve a dime. If you have a republican president and a democrat congress you'll throw them some money for pet causes and they'll roll on stuff.

 

If you want gridlock it's probably better with a democrat in the white house because they're better at government. They'll put competent people in charge. To make sure trains run on time sort of things. Whereas republicans seems to not have a care in the world about that sort of thing.

 

Writing it all down i realize how messed up it actually is.

 

Fascinating! Really nicely put.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau did nothing as well.  Everyone was late to this.  I guess t rude did find time to pump himself up a little.  Here is him calling travel bans to slow Corona virus "knee jerk reactions".  He did an about face and ended up implementing them 2 weeks later. 

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the United States is experiencing a low number of infections because it sealed its borders to travellers coming from outbreak-affected countries.

 

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Thursday that coronavirus-related travel bans on foreigners coming from China and Iran will be extended to South Korea.

 

Australian citizens and permanent residents from those countries can enter Australia, but will be required to self-isolate for two weeks.

 

Trudeau was asked today if Canada would take similar steps.

 

"We know that keeping Canadians safe needs to be done in the right way and we're going to keep doing things that actually keep Canadians safe. There is a lot of misinformation out there, there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction that isn't keeping people safe. That is having real, challenging impacts on communities, on community safety."

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid19-trudeau-coronavirus-travel-1.5486799

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austria is doing really well, an impressive amount of daily testing -- it seems a local European epicenter was actually in Austria and spread to other countries from there, so it's not like they were spared.  Germany is doing just fine. Israel seems to be OK.

 

Re. Canada, "Total tests for COVID-19 per million people", Canada is actually 50% higher than the USA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're draining the swamp again:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-independent-watchdog-for-coronavirus-funds-upending-oversight-panel-171943

 

President Donald Trump has upended the panel of federal watchdogs overseeing implementation of the $2 trillion coronavirus law, tapping a replacement for the Pentagon official who was supposed to lead the effort.

 

A panel of inspectors general had named Glenn Fine — the acting Pentagon watchdog — to lead the group charged with monitoring the coronavirus relief effort. But Trump on Monday removed Fine from his post, instead naming the EPA inspector general to serve as the temporary Pentagon watchdog in addition to his other responsibilities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...