Incompetence is as incompetence does ...

The United States needs badly a Lefty president. But its people are not in the least ready for him/her.

Trump is Trump and he was very obvious in his selfishness long before the election. Anybody looking at his personal history can see the rot.

But, let's not forget that the last election was at a turning point in the Great Recession that had begun in 2008. The Employment to Population Ratio looked like this: History Employment to population Ratio.

Note how from November 2007 to May 2009, the value dipped seriously. It was only in October 2009 of Obama's second administration that the E-to-p Ratio stabilized. From then on to November 2013 the E-to-p ratio was constant.at around 58.7%. It was in Obama's second administration (around November of 2013) that, finally, the economy started to improve.

So please explain why today most Americans think that it was Donald Dork who worked his magic to get the US out of a bad economic situation. Donald Dork had nothing to do with the economic turnaround - it had been already happening when he took office in January of 2016!

 

Why Justin Amash Dropped Out

~SNIP~
Third-party presidential campaigns fall into one of three categories. At one end of the spectrum, you have charismatic, well-funded, well-publicized, or issue-driven third-party campaigns that actually win over voters who would otherwise have gone to the major-party nominees. The appearance of such candidates is a sign of a rupture within one of the two parties, or of a longstanding failure of both parties to address an issue or appeal to a constituency. H. Ross Perot was the last of these; other examples would be the regional Dixiecrat campaigns of George Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948, the progressive and populist campaigns of Henry Wallace in 1948, Robert LaFollette in 1924, and James Weaver in 1892, and the campaigns of former presidents Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Millard Fillmore in 1856, and Martin Van Buren in 1848.

At the opposite end are the candidates who appeal mainly to true-believer third-party voters: longtime Libertarian Party or Socialist voters, for example. These candidacies may look as if they cost someone an election, but realistically, they are drawing voters who are never going to support the major-party nominees.

In between are candidates who find themselves recipients of a protest vote. Amash was probably going to fall in this category and decided he did not want to spend a year pursuing those votes, because they were not going to be votes about him or his ideas anyway. But Walsh and others who were harshly critical of Amash are probably overrating the extent to which it really matters who the protest candidates are.
​

This article about Amash's dropping out of the race goes over what we discussed here more succinctly than I could.

 

Like we need four more holes in the head.

That makes it the longest recession ever -- four or five times longer than any other and seven or eight times longer than most. Way to go, Obama!

 

If you can make a credible case for why the depth of the global recession, and therefore the difficulty in recovering from it, as well as the Repub's sabotage of the recovery, was Obama's doing I'll give you a gold star.

 

~ This is very possible ...

 

True. People who vote 3rd party are not expecting to win, and sometimes the candidate is even flakier and less qualified than the two-party candidates. It's a protest vote. A 3rd party vote doesn't steal votes from the either of the two candidates, as I've spent the last 10+ years explain to people. Neither is a 3rd party vote a "wasted vote", if enough people eventually protest in the most powerful way they can....at the voting booth.

 

According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions) the recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, and thus extended over eighteen months.

Obama simply inherited it from a Replicant PotUS.

You need to get your economic facts straight ...

 

Barry criticized Trump's response but failed to explain what he would have done. Meanwhile gropey Joe criticized Trump's response and then listed everything he would do which is everything Trump has already done.

Democrats are fun

 

I am quite sure it has just begun. Industrial employment still accounts for about a quarter of all jobs. Down from around half in the postwar years.

Cars are no longer solely an American-made market. As usual, the American buyer goes shopping eagerly for the lowest price/best service/product possible. The point being that it is Very Dangerous to have American industry go entirely abroad. This recent pandemic of Covid-19 is showing us why.

Were it worse, when the economy comes back, manufacturing will kick-in very quickly - but I doubt Services will do so. Amazon is obtaining already its supply of technical goodies from the Far East. Some manufacturing will remain but it is our destiny, I suggest, to go technologically "up-market" very quickly. And the Chinese have understood that need very, very well.

Americans were not prepared for the Great Recession. Neither were they the cause of it. Bush's Replicants and their effing-wars did the most damage. And Donald Dork has (1) increased the DoD-budget yet again and (2) lowered upper-income taxation - both to obtain the funding for his reelection.

The last of the Obama years were the two in which FINALLY American enterprise started creating jobs once again. Our Employment-to-population Ratio first dived-dangerously then stagnated, this from Obama's first year up to his 6th-in-office. (2008 to end of 2013. See here.

And Americans still think that their jobs will be coming back after Covid-19 is gone? I kinda-sorta doubt that hope. A for-profit business manager is tied hand-and-foot to his source of products/services whilst they are producing income. But should Demand suddenly diminish, then the opportunity opens WIDELY for highly competitive services to both enter and win markets. It is in services that this would happen and southeast Asia will be back in no-time with their cheap versions of originally Chinese manufacture.

I suggest that is exactly what could/will happen in both Europe and the US.

Post-secondary Education, for me, consists of: Vocational, Associates, Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate. If a kid wants to drive trucks or manipulate a bulldozer, then let him learn free/gratis/for nothing! If she wants to work in hospitals, then her education should be at no cost (and in state-run hospitals)!

Whatever level they think they want to attain should be open to them. They WILL find their level, then marry, have kids, divorce (or not), etc., etc., etc. - but all that at a Much Higher level of income!

Well put, Madam, the notion was well put - but why are we (as a people) not listening to the message?

Huh? Why ... ?

 

Sorry that's what she and I and others have been saying for two months now. Meanwhile Cuomo and someone in new jersey decide elder care facilities would be the perfect place to stash recovering Carona virus patients. Apparently because they were all gonna die anyway ...

 

Not a shred if evidence to support that view. Oh and we are paying hospitals to over report covid deaths right now.

 

Well, I was agreeing with your first three paragraphs, and several others, in some of your assessment of the current situation. But we disagree still on solutions to education (who should pay for it) and where to place blame (partisan).

Trump is actually the first anti-war president we have had in decades. He also understands that the country which has the best military defense in the world is least likely to be attacked. We were severely behind other countries in space defenses (satellites, etc.) and much of our military equipment was outdated and obsolete. Spending has been to secure the nation from attack through modernization. Spending has not be "for war", but to "prevent war". Ideology is to stop intrusive medaling in the affairs of other sovereign nations, particularly in the Middle East, to remove their justified response and desire to counterattack.

 

Money and power corrupt. Absolute money and absolute power corrupt absolutely.

The rich don't only get a "kick" out of manipulating politics. They make a lotta-muney doing it, with the right PotUS who thinks/acts like them. So, they give him money to run.

Take the money out of politics and the likely outcome is that we will consider politicians differently. They will have to be far more concerned about their image, because their means (of "political public-imaging") are greatly reduced.

They might even have to think and express their thoughts clearly! Wow! What a colossal change might engender .. !

 

Who paid more to win buy the presidency? 2016 indicates that big money, while still ubiquitous in politics, is not the main driver in political outcomes. Hillary brought in the biggest haul from donors, yet was almost invisible compared to Trump.

Money and politics go hand-in-hand. People can give money to anyone they choose. Changing campaign finance laws will do little to change the habits of wealthy elites influencing politics and media. They may find less visible forms of trading things of value for political promises by the candidate's party. Essentially, there would be less transparency and drive the campaign finance market underground through more backrooms deals.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-clintons-final-campaign-spending-revealed

"FEC report shows Donald Trump laid out $94m in last push for White House while Hillary Clinton spent $132m and cemented herself as biggest fundraiser."

"Over the course of the primary and general elections the Trump campaign raised about $340m including $66m out of his own pocket. The Clinton campaign, which maintained a longer and more concerted fundraising focus, brought in about $581m."

 

You need to get your statements straight. I replied to your statement that, "the last election was at a turning point in the Great Recession that had begun in 2008...." In case you missed it the last election was 2016.

 

Oh, really? Hillary was invisible?

Then how did she win the Popular-Vote (by more than 2 percentage points!) that was overturned by the Electoral College?

You haven't got your facts straight ...

 

By whom?

There is NO foreign military challenge for which the US is in perilous danger. None.

Not even the Chinese who are showing their "true grit" in the matter for what its worth.

It is far, far more important that the BigMoney be spent on Healthcare and Post-secondary Education. In different ways, both are life-span threatening if not improved greatly. For less money spent on costly doctors, we could have a better Healthcare System - because they would have far less Education Debt to be repaid.

Once again, we could be graduating doctors at far lower cost from State Institutions of Higher Education. In that manner, their fees would be lower and patients would not need to be charged horrendously for a visit.

See here: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

.

 

By the time a country is in perilous danger it is too late to restore and build up its military. Say good-bye.

 

She was invisible in the states which mattered for winning electoral votes. She won the popular vote primarily due to California and New York, which is why differences in the popular vote going forward are likely to continue to be incongruent with the electoral vote for the foreseeable future. Bad strategy. Biden and company are aiming to "do better". We'll see in November if they do.

 

Future wars are more likely to be fought with information technology and satellites, though we still have a need for ground weapons to prevent a less-likely foreign invasion. We were sorely lacking in space and computer-technology defense, thus the need for the new Star Wars branch of the military. That costs some money. The best offense relies on a solid defense, which hopefully we don't need to use, but inevitably will.

Doctors earn a high wage regardless of the cost of college because their skills and expertise are in high demand and short supply. Government healthcare increases demand and worsens supply. There is no incentive for more people to go into the grueling and demanding field of medicine if it pays less.

 

Education debt is not why doctors are costly. Supply of the expertise and ability vs the demand determines the price of doctors. The extent doctors have to charge more than they otherwise do is predominately due to the high cost of liability insurance. It is not uncommon for pediatricians and obstetrician to spend about a third of their gross income on insurance premiums. And by the way this is one of the bigger factors why many nation run health services seem less costly; It is very hard to sue a doctor in Britain so they have no need for liability insurance, and they wouldn't sue the doctor anyway; they would sue the government.

Could you describe in real terms exactly how your state run institutions of higher education are going to be less costly to graduate doctors? Are they going to pay professors and administrators less? Will they have bare bones infrastructure like smaller classrooms (not classes), more rickety living quarters, less laboratories and lab equipment? Will they cut the effort on costly medical specialization training, or maybe just shorten the entire curriculum? Will they graduate less professional and competent doctors thereby driving down the demand since very few demand medical treatment from less capable doctors? How are your state run institutions of higher education different from the current state run institutions of higher education? Yours sound like castles in the sky.

 

Bollocks! What you know about Supply&Demand would fit a thimble.

Healthcare is a public-service in all developed countries (and for good reason) except one. The US. And why?

Because there is no such thing as a Supply&Demand mechanism for setting the price of medical services. The doctors DICTATE their pricing and try to justify it by "how much it costs to get a medical degree" that "takes them years to pay-off".

When are the American people going to open-their-eyes and SEE what a rip-off BigMedecine is in the US ... !

 

Man, talk about the kettle calling the chrome wheel black! Your first sentence claims I know little about supply and demand; then your third sentence readily discloses you do not have one iota of a clue. What pseudo economics class taught you that supply and demand works for everything except medical services? Are you sure it wasn't a progressive poli-sci class? Ever hear of anyone negotiating with a doctor over his price? It would seem not. Anyone ever let you in on the fact that a doctor gets what insurance companies negotiate to pay or what Medicare states flat out what they will pay? Prolly not.

Health care is a public service in many countries because good politicians know that health care is the first big step to control; and I bet you thought it was to provide good health care.

 

What would Barry have done? First he would put on his Martha's Vineyard mom jeans and ride his bike to the podium. Then he would spend twenty minutes saying "let me be clear" and "this is not who we are".

Obama would have done exactly the same things Trump has done because the "experts" would have told him the very same things.

 

Blah, blah, blah ...