Joe Biden - A Failed Presidency - What Went Wrong?

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Slavister]

Of course you made the dumb argument. READ IT:

Your dopey argument doesn't have anything to do with the point in the OP about consumer confidence being down 24%. Stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.

Your claim was: "The Fed hiking interest rates to curb inflation had nothing to do with Consumer Confidence Index being down 24% since February 2020."

Nor did I relate the two in any way.

Try to read again what you just posted - see... nothing there about Fed hike when responding regarding consumer confidence index.

As for your cherry picked period starting Feb 2020, right before COVID hit, I was just pointing out that this was another silly comparison.

 

[Pedestrian]

I suppose my personal experience is vastly different, since I never stopped working, as my job is entirely remote, and they just told me to take a few monitors and a dock home.

Indeed, they were.


Nothing's out of context. Joe Biden stupidly dumped $2.1 Trillion into the economy causing an artificially high demand for goods and services, which in turn caused undue inflation. Sure we would have had inflation without the $2.1 Trillion money-dump, but it likely would have peaked around 5% or 6% . . . . NOT 9% as what happened with Biden's needless money-dump.

Biden's money-dump was dumb on many levels. Folks were already returning to work from the COVID lockdowns, and we were earning income again.


Agreed.

Joe Biden stupidly dumped $2.1 Trillion into the economy. When ? More repub lies as all they have is lies.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act,

was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by the 116th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020.

Are all of the right flat out delusional ?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Biden was excellent for the economy but he couldn’t overcome the covid hangover and what that did to inflation.

 

[eohrnberger]

Two critical problems:

1. Biden lacks principles, and because he does he was dragged toward the progressive wing (i.e., the stupid wing) of his party.
   
   
2. Through no fault of his own, he suffered a steady loss of cognitive function over the course of his term.

The extent to which point 2 exacerbated point 1 can certainly be debated.

Point #2 enabled the Administrative State to fill that power vacuum, and the present state of the nation is what you are going to get when the Administrative State runs the nation.

 

[eohrnberger]

What is pretty obvious is Joe was not running the country. He wasn't cognitively or physically up to it. He had to go to Rohobeth and sleep all weekend. We know his workday was only from 10-4 with a lunch and nap inbetween. His own staff admitted to that. So who was in charge?

Into that power vacuum, the Administrative State oozed and grew in power.
The present rather poor state of the nation, the 'On the wrong track' polling results, shows just how incapable The Administrative State is at running the nation.

His Chief of Staff, His Sec of State, the military was under the direction of Lloyd Austin Sec of defense. He didappeared for weeks and Biden never even knew. So who oked that huge expense? Juist more trying to buy support and listening to the wrong people. That's Joes legacy. Maybe is was his idiot liberal wife Jill. She's proven to be pretty far left herself, and pushed the student loan forgiveness illegal actions. Joe lie over and over about Hunter, the pay for play, the laptop, the classified documents. He was the worst President in history in a century for sure. The BS poll that says Joe is 14th it total biased shit from progressive idiots who possible were even involved in Joe's stupid decisions.

 

[eohrnberger]

The popular vote and the electoral vote went to Trump. Republicans held the House and won the Senate. Thats the only metric that matters.

True, I'd add that by that metric, if would have been better to have flipped more Senate and House seats to Republican.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's an interesting debate to have, since there are pros and cons. One of these cons is tyranny of the minority, which is arguably worse than tyranny of the majority and only because there will be far more unhappy people in the former than the latter.

It is an interesting debate to have.

The EC balances the voting power between densely populated urban areas and rural areas.

Eliminate the EC and the thin blue densely populated urban areas on each national coast, and a few others, would constantly and consistently dictate the presidency.
It'd be the leftists dream come true, a single party state, their party.

The left is famously claiming to be concerned about disenfranchising voters, but yet care not that eliminating the EC essentially disenfranchises the entirety of rural voters from any meaningful representation in the election of the presidency.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Whatevs. The Biden admin got a ton done.

For instance largely contibuting to the start of two wars.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It is an interesting debate to have.

The EC balances the voting power between densely populated urban areas and rural areas.

Eliminate the EC and the thin blue densely populated urban areas on each national coast, and a few others, would constantly and consistently dictate the presidency.
It'd be the leftists dream come true, a single party state, their party.

The left is famously claiming to be concerned about disenfranchising voters, but yet care not that eliminating the EC essentially disenfranchises the entirety of rural voters from any meaningful representation in the election of the presidency.

There's definitely the consideration of the urban/rural implications, and why I've been stuck on whether or not reforms should be made. I think not disenfranchising voters should be a key priority in any reform plans. The other facet to consider is the EC creates the battleground states phenomenon, and while that isn't voter disenfranchisement, it basically focuses political attention on whatever those states are to the detriment of other states.

 

[Brack]

These past four years have been rough for many Americans, and Joe Biden will not be remembered fondly - even by many of those whom voted for him. Here's a short list of the many failures by the Biden Administration:

• Prices are up nearly 20%, costing American families more than $17,000 per year.

• The labor force participation rate of 62.5% is still below the pre-COVID level of 63.3%, meaning 2.08 million fewer Americans are in the labor force when adjusted for population gains.

• Interest rates were near zero percent before President Biden, now they are over 5%.

• Consumer Confidence Index is down 24% since February 2020, underscoring Americans’ pessimism about their fiscal future..

• Biden told Americans that he is “working to bring down the price around the kitchen table” for Americans. In fact, many American families continue to struggle under the weight of high prices, spurred by over-regulation and out-of-control spending. Since January 2021, inflation has increased by 19.3%.

• Biden's $2.1 Trillion "Build Back Better" money-dump was unnecessary. At the time of the dump, the workplace shutdowns were over, and Americans were already back to work, producing goods and services, and earning money. There was no need for Biden to dump trillions of dollars into the economy.

• Biden promised to unite Americans and bring us together, the exact opposite happened. The rift between the two parties widened - - Americans haven't been this divided since 1861.

• The Boder Crisis. Biden laid the groundwork for it: "… We immediately surge to the border, all those people who are seeking asylum."

The list of failures goes on and on, but these are the ones which will define president Biden's (failed) legacy.

• The inflation increase under the Biden administration was mostly not his fault. However, I believe that the stimulus package that was signed into law by Biden in 2021 was a bit too much, and that it contributed to making inflation a bit worse. President Biden and Democrats should have compromised with moderate-leaning Republicans on the stimulus package early in his presidency.

• Interest rates near zero percent are a bit too low.

• President Biden should have been urging Congress early in his presidency to pass legislation reforming the immigration system and updating the asylum laws.

• It isn't the fault of the Biden administration in regards to the labor participation rate. The labor force participation rate has been dropping a bit over the last several years mainly due to the baby boomers retiring.

• Inflation is now mostly under control, but will likely be reignited under the incoming Trump administration mainly due to the damn tariffs that he will very likely implement.

 

[Brack]

I not one to say I told you so but....

Stolen elections have consequences.

The 2020 Presidential election wasn't stolen. The 2020 Presidential election is the most audited and investigated election in US history. Audits and investigations of the 2020 Presidential election didn't find any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.

 

[Eriech]

The 2020 Presidential election wasn't stolen. The 2020 Presidential election is the most audited and investigated election in US history. Audits and investigations of the 2020 Presidential election didn't find any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.

That is the official narrative not the truth.
Any "investigations" were limited to publicly available information with no cooperation with those responsible for at best a cluster. Now law enforcement with subpoena power will be able to do a real investigation of anomalies. Until that happens you will retain the false belief that elections were free and fair nationwide.

 

[eohrnberger]

There's definitely the consideration of the urban/rural implications, and why I've been stuck on whether or not reforms should be made. I think not disenfranchising voters should be a key priority in any reform plans. The other facet to consider is the EC creates the battleground states phenomenon, and while that isn't voter disenfranchisement, it basically focuses political attention on whatever those states are to the detriment of other states.

The states which are considered battle ground states has changed over time. Per ChatGPT:

The list of "battleground states" in U.S. presidential elections has evolved over time, primarily due to shifting political, demographic, and economic factors. Battleground states, also known as "swing states" or "purple states," are those that are not reliably Democratic or Republican, meaning they could be won by either party. These states typically receive more attention from presidential candidates, who focus on campaigning there because they are often decisive in the outcome of elections.​

​

Here's a historical overview of how the list of battleground states has changed:​

​

Early 20th Century (1900-1930)​

. . .​

Mid 20th Century (1930s-1960s)​

. . .​

1970s-1980s​

. . .​

1990s-2000s​

• Post-Cold War Era: As the Cold War ended and the U.S. economy boomed in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, battleground states evolved further. Some of the traditional Democratic strongholds like California and New York remained solid, but others became more competitive.
• Key States: By the 2000 election, states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin emerged as some of the most crucial battlegrounds.
• 2000s: The election of George W. Bush was heavily influenced by close contests in states like Florida (where a contested recount decided the election) and Ohio. Other states like Nevada and New Mexico also gained importance during this period.

2010s-Present​

• 2010s Shifts: The Republican Party solidified its dominance in many parts of the South and West (e.g., Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina), while Arizona and Georgia became more competitive. At the same time, the Democratic Party gained ground in suburban areas, especially in the Sun Belt.
• Key Battlegrounds in Recent Years:
  • Florida: Continues to be one of the most closely watched states, with its large and diverse population. The state has shifted back and forth between Democratic and Republican victories.
  • Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin: These Rust Belt states that were once reliable Democratic strongholds in the mid-20th century became more important battlegrounds. In 2016, Donald Trump flipped these states to the Republican column, showing the importance of working-class voters in these areas.
  • Arizona and Georgia: These traditionally Republican states started becoming more competitive in the 2020s, as demographic shifts (increasing Latino and young populations) altered the political landscape. Both states were narrowly won by Joe Biden in 2020.
  • North Carolina: Another swing state that has been competitive in recent elections, although it has leaned Republican in the past few cycles.

Modern Trends​

• Demographic Shifts: Urbanization, changing racial demographics, and growing young and diverse populations have made traditionally red or blue states more competitive. Latino and Asian American voters in states like Nevada, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona have influenced outcomes.
• Suburban Shifts: Suburban areas, especially around large cities like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix, have increasingly leaned Democratic in recent years, contributing to the Democratic victories in battleground states.

Conclusion​

The list of battleground states has changed in response to regional shifts, demographic changes, and evolving political ideologies. Ohio and Florida have long been pivotal, while Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin gained prominence after 2016. Meanwhile, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas have become more competitive due to changing demographics. The list of battleground states will likely continue to evolve based on future electoral trends and demographic transformations.​

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I think it was more the party that caused these problems than Biden. The fact is Biden was not mentally fit to do the job. That was apparent even before he won the election to anyone who has had to deal with elderly people. You can hide it for only so long.
I believe the rich and powerful used this unfortunate situation to get everything they wanted and kick Biden under the bus for it. The rich and powerful thought they had used their media propaganda and the ruling government to destroy Trump. They were sure with a strong media push and by spending lots of money Harris would easily defeat him. Once again Trump proved how he can persevere and overcome.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The states which are considered battle ground states has changed over time. Per ChatGPT:

The list of "battleground states" in U.S. presidential elections has evolved over time, primarily due to shifting political, demographic, and economic factors. Battleground states, also known as "swing states" or "purple states," are those that are not reliably Democratic or Republican, meaning they could be won by either party. These states typically receive more attention from presidential candidates, who focus on campaigning there because they are often decisive in the outcome of elections.​

​

Here's a historical overview of how the list of battleground states has changed:​

​

Early 20th Century (1900-1930)​

. . .​

Mid 20th Century (1930s-1960s)​

. . .​

1970s-1980s​

. . .​

1990s-2000s​

• Post-Cold War Era: As the Cold War ended and the U.S. economy boomed in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, battleground states evolved further. Some of the traditional Democratic strongholds like California and New York remained solid, but others became more competitive.
• Key States: By the 2000 election, states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin emerged as some of the most crucial battlegrounds.
• 2000s: The election of George W. Bush was heavily influenced by close contests in states like Florida (where a contested recount decided the election) and Ohio. Other states like Nevada and New Mexico also gained importance during this period.

2010s-Present​

• 2010s Shifts: The Republican Party solidified its dominance in many parts of the South and West (e.g., Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina), while Arizona and Georgia became more competitive. At the same time, the Democratic Party gained ground in suburban areas, especially in the Sun Belt.
• Key Battlegrounds in Recent Years:
  • Florida: Continues to be one of the most closely watched states, with its large and diverse population. The state has shifted back and forth between Democratic and Republican victories.
  • Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin: These Rust Belt states that were once reliable Democratic strongholds in the mid-20th century became more important battlegrounds. In 2016, Donald Trump flipped these states to the Republican column, showing the importance of working-class voters in these areas.
  • Arizona and Georgia: These traditionally Republican states started becoming more competitive in the 2020s, as demographic shifts (increasing Latino and young populations) altered the political landscape. Both states were narrowly won by Joe Biden in 2020.
  • North Carolina: Another swing state that has been competitive in recent elections, although it has leaned Republican in the past few cycles.

Modern Trends​

• Demographic Shifts: Urbanization, changing racial demographics, and growing young and diverse populations have made traditionally red or blue states more competitive. Latino and Asian American voters in states like Nevada, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona have influenced outcomes.
• Suburban Shifts: Suburban areas, especially around large cities like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix, have increasingly leaned Democratic in recent years, contributing to the Democratic victories in battleground states.

Conclusion​

The list of battleground states has changed in response to regional shifts, demographic changes, and evolving political ideologies. Ohio and Florida have long been pivotal, while Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin gained prominence after 2016. Meanwhile, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas have become more competitive due to changing demographics. The list of battleground states will likely continue to evolve based on future electoral trends and demographic transformations.​

It will continue to change I'm sure, but by an large will still be limited to the states with substantial electoral college votes.

 

[eohrnberger]

It will continue to change I'm sure, but by an large will still be limited to the states with substantial electoral college votes.

This is true. Given that, why do so many with a left lean want to eliminate the EC then?
You'd think they'd like it and want to keep it, in that the number of electoral college votes are determined by a state's population, are they not?

 

[ElChupacabra]

This is true. Given that, why do so many with a left lean want to eliminate the EC then?

I suspect it's a mix of reactions to less favorable electoral outcomes, but also the issues it creates when there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and the EC vote. The "faithless elector" problem is another one that comes up, which also casts doubt on the the "will of the people vs. electors".

You'd think they'd like it and want to keep it, in that the number of electoral college votes are determined by a state's population, are they not?

They are, but some of the main objections are around the discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral college results. Others cite the reasons it came to be as no longer relevant. I'm on the fence about it, and mainly because I want to ensure no citizens are disenfranchised. Having a disenfranchised citizenry is unacceptable. What I've been surprised about is polling info reveals it isn't as clear cut as one would think:

 

[eohrnberger]

I suspect it's a mix of reactions to less favorable electoral outcomes, but also the issues it creates when there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and the EC vote. The "faithless elector" problem is another one that comes up, which also casts doubt on the the "will of the people vs. electors".


They are, but some of the main objections are around the discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral college results. Others cite the reasons it came to be as no longer relevant. I'm on the fence about it, and mainly because I want to ensure no citizens are disenfranchised. Having a disenfranchised citizenry is unacceptable.

What I've been surprised about is polling info reveals it isn't as clear cut as one would think:

Being more a Constitutional Textualist I'm very strongly inclined to leave the EC as it is, fulfilling it intended purpose by design.

The good part is that it appears that it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC, which makes it a rather unlikely development.

View attachment 67549221

 

[ElChupacabra]

Being more a Constitutional Textualist I'm very strongly inclined to leave the EC as it is, fulfilling it intended purpose by design.

The good part is that it appears that it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC, which makes it a rather unlikely development.

Well that's the thing, it's design was centered around very different reasons than its use case now, so the question is whether there's a way on protecting minority representation in a more effective way than what the EC was originally designed to do. My issue with Constitutional Textualism is it's way too regressive and based on this near static interpretation that narrows its ability to adapt to modern challenges.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well that's the thing, it's design was centered around very different reasons than its use case now, so the question is whether there's a way on protecting minority representation in a more effective way than what the EC was originally designed to do.

From my view its working and we should leave it alone. From my view changing it or eliminating it is only going to lead to making things worse.

My issue with Constitutional Textualism is it's way too regressive and based on this near static interpretation that narrows its ability to adapt to modern challenges.

Yes, I'm well aware of the liberals and progressives believing the Constitution needs to be revised and updated, and that they use the excuse of 'adapt to modern challenges' to justify it.

From my view the US Constitution is a set of principals on which everything else, government limitations, civil rights, individual freedoms and rights is based. Those principals are timeless and not dependent on any technological nor societal developments or evolution, and adapting to those modern challenges you mention just fine.

 

[NOLA Dude]

 

[dairyair]

There is a lot of truth in that and I will commend you for not adopting the typical democrat refrain that we have heard since the election--Its the voters that are stupid.

I am not a democrat so I would not care what the typical democrat refrain is.

I don't like either party or partisan politics.

 

[dairyair]

We are paying higher prices now than then.
This is something that is staggeringly ignorant about the left - inflation went down. But prices are still climbing, just at a slower rate. But virtually all of the necessities we buy are 40% higher and more.

Why do you think the left is ignorant about inflation?
They pay the same prices as republicans and independents do.

There isn't a time we don't pay higher prices now compared to then, after all, a goal is 2.5% inflation. That means prices in general are targeted to rise every year by 2.5% on average.

But the pandemic and the response to the pandemic distorted general rules.

 

[JoeB131]

These past four years have been rough for many Americans, and Joe Biden will not be remembered fondly - even by many of those whom voted for him. Here's a short list of the many failures by the Biden Administration:

• Prices are up nearly 20%, costing American families more than $17,000 per year.

I think after Trump gets done screwing things up, we will all miss Joe.

But let's tackle your list. Inflation. Wages also went up by a nearly corresponding amount, which was one of the driving factors in inflation. So for many people, it was a net wash.

• The labor force participation rate of 62.5% is still below the pre-COVID level of 63.3%, meaning 2.08 million fewer Americans are in the labor force when adjusted for population gains.

This is kind of a misleading number. The LPR peaked in 2011 and has been on a decline ever since with the retirement of baby boomers. It will continue to decline until the last boomer retires in 2030.

• Interest rates were near zero percent before President Biden, now they are over 5%.

Yes, they were too low for too long. They should have gone back up under Obama slowly instead of the shock therapy Biden had to do. That said, compared to 1970's interest rates, these are still relatively mild.

• Biden's $2.1 Trillion "Build Back Better" money-dump was unnecessary. At the time of the dump, the workplace shutdowns were over, and Americans were already back to work, producing goods and services, and earning money. There was no need for Biden to dump trillions of dollars into the economy.

Except that's not entirely true, either. Unemployment was still hovering around 7% when Biden got in. Not to mention "build back better included a lot of really needed infrastructure projects. (The kind Trump talked about but never delivered.)

• The Boder Crisis. Biden laid the groundwork for it: "… We immediately surge to the border, all those people who are seeking asylum."

Um, yeah. About that. Biden also deported far more people than Trump did the first time around. The fact is, foreigners have learned how to exploit the Asylum Loophole long before Biden got there, and the situation was made much worse by the fact Steven Miller and Trump dismantled a lot of the machinery to hear such cases.