JOE BIDEN seems to be a very UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT, but why?

[psikeyhackr]

Too old! I just voted against Trump.

 

[sKiTzo]

Q says, "Why would all the SUPERBOWL FANS BOO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN if he really WON the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...th-method-democrats-used-steal-2020-election/

Probably the same reason why he lost in Michigan after bringing back the auto industry there.

 

[The Baron]

"JOE BIDEN seems to be a very UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT, but why? - @fatuous1​

Liberal policies don't work and everything that is happening was simply predictable. Clinton and Obama had wonderful charisma and charm and with the help of the MSM they skirted on many issues. Biden is neither charismatic nor charming and lacks the eloquence of a Clinton or Obama. So even with the help of the MSM, people can't find anything in Biden to like or aspire to be.

He's a loser and people are suffering because of his ineptness.

 

[MTAtech]

"JOE BIDEN seems to be a very UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT, but why? - @fatuous1​

Liberal policies don't work and everything that is happening was simply predictable. Clinton and Obama had wonderful charisma and charm and with the help of the MSM they skirted on many issues. Biden is neither charismatic nor charming and lacks the eloquence of a Clinton or Obama. So even with the help of the MSM, people can't find anything in Biden to like or aspire to be.

He's a loser and people are suffering because of his ineptness.

First, liberal policies DO work. The most obvious is the New Deal under FDR. Prior to the New Deal, public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty. There were no social programs to speak about. As a result, wealth was concentrated in a small sliver of people at the top of the income range; people were left to die of starvation in the streets; sweat shops were unsafe; the were no child labor laws; and seniors generally lived in poverty or were forced to live with children. After the New Deal, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. It was all due to those liberal policies -- encouraging strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system.

Second, you overrate charisma. While Clinton and Obama had charisma, you neglect that Clinton's re-election in 1996 was doubted as his approval rating was 36% in 1993. Obama's was 47 percent in 2010, down from 58 percent in 2009.

Third, while Biden has a long-time speech impediment, he is quite likable and has a core decency -- a sharp contrast from his predecessor. Biden doesn't have "ineptness" as you claim. He's skilled at getting legislators together and forming consensus. Biden's primary challenge is having a 50/50 Senate with two Democratic Senators standing in the way of his agenda. Had he had the compliant House and Senate Trump had, his agenda would sail through easily.

 

[The Baron]

First, liberal policies DO work. The most obvious is the New Deal under FDR.

Not true.

Second, you overrate charisma. While Clinton and Obama had charisma, you neglect that Clinton's re-election in 1996 was doubted as his approval rating was 36% in 1993. Obama's was 47 percent in 2010, down from 58 percent in 2009.

Clinton was touted as the "Teflon President" (just as Reagan was) as nothing really stuck to him, including, his sex scandals and very real allegations of rape as the MSM gave him coverage on nearly everything.

Obama was and still remains very charismatic to this day for reasons I'll never understand. Much like Biden there is nothing he did as president that an enemy of this country wouldn't have done (with the killing of bin Laden being the only exception).

Third, while Biden has a long-time speech impediment, he is quite likable and has a core decency -- a sharp contrast from his predecessor. Biden doesn't have "ineptness" as you claim.

Not true.

 

[MTAtech]

Not true.

Clinton was touted as the "Teflon President" (just as Reagan was) as nothing really stuck to him, including, his sex scandals and very real allegations of rape as the MSM gave him coverage on nearly everything.

Obama was and still remains very charismatic to this day for reasons I'll never understand. Much like Biden there is nothing he did as president that an enemy of this country wouldn't have done (with the killing of bin Laden being the only exception).

Not true.

A link to Daniel J. Mitchell, whoever that is, stating revisionist history about the New Deal hurting the economy is laughable. The Depression that FDR inherited reduced GDP by 50% and increased unemployment to 25%. That was all reversed by the New Deal.
It's totally refuted here:
Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.

Oh, and to address, "[m]uch like Biden there is nothing he [Obama] did as president that an enemy of this country wouldn't have done," irrational arguments can't be addressed in anything but comparing it to rational argument. Obama gave millions of Americans health insurance they either couldn't afford or couldn't get due to pre-existing conditions. He also got us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Yeah, any *enemy of the country* would have done that.

You offer readers of your post nothing more than unfounded right-wing talking points that don't hold up to even the most cavalier scrutiny.

Getting back to FDR:
The Washington Post featured on Page One of its Outlook section an article by Amity Shlaes headlined “FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn’t One to Follow.” Underscoring Shlaes’s made-up claims, the Post ran the continuation of her piece under the title: “FDR’s Plan Failed to Spark Real Growth.”
...
The basic economic facts from the 1930s—according to the Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve, and other official sources—are fundamentally different from the unsupported claims put forward by Shlaes and prominent in popular myth. The monthly data for industrial production show a near three-year collapse under President Hoover, ending when FDR came to office in March 1933. Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak.

GDP, only available as annual averages, plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932, including by 13.0 percent in 1932. It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. After-tax personal income, consumer spending, real private investment and jobs all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks by late 1936.

In fact, like every decade between 1850 and 1990, the 1930s suffered two distinct downturns. The official U.S. Business Cycle Dating Committee established that the downturn that began in August 1929 ended in March 1933 with the remarkable economic expansion that started within days of FDR’s bold—if trial and error—New Deal programs. By any normal definition, the Great Depression had ended by late 1936, with all major indicators surpassing their previous peaks.

A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Even in this severe downturn, annual GDP did not fall back below its 1929 peak. And although many suffered and most economic measures did fall back below their 1929 levels, not one fell anywhere close to its March 1933 low. For example, although industrial production fell sharply in the 1937-38 recession, at its low point, in April 1938, it remained 49 percent above its level of March 1933.

When the economy again contracted sharply in late 1937 and early 1938, FDR quickly reversed course and rapid growth immediately began again. GDP soared by 10.9 percent in 1939 and industrial production soared by 23 percent.
...
Like other ideological critics of government, Shlaes sites only two economic indicators of the 1930s: the falling but persistently high unemployment rate and the length of time required for the stock market to recover after its bubble burst. Neither of these is used in any serious economic or policy analysis.
...

 

[The Baron]

A link to Daniel J. Mitchell, whoever that is, stating revisionist history about the New Deal hurting the economy is laughable. The Depression that FDR inherited reduced GDP by 50% and increased unemployment to 25%. That was all reversed by the New Deal.
It's totally refuted here:
Stop lying about Roosevelt’s record.

Oh, and to address, "[m]uch like Biden there is nothing he [Obama] did as president that an enemy of this country wouldn't have done," irrational arguments can't be addressed in anything but comparing it to rational argument. Obama gave millions of Americans health insurance they either couldn't afford or couldn't get due to pre-existing conditions. He also got us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Yeah, any *enemy of the country* would have done that.

You offer readers of your post nothing more than unfounded right-wing talking points that don't hold up to even the most cavalier scrutiny.

Getting back to FDR:
The Washington Post featured on Page One of its Outlook section an article by Amity Shlaes headlined “FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn’t One to Follow.” Underscoring Shlaes’s made-up claims, the Post ran the continuation of her piece under the title: “FDR’s Plan Failed to Spark Real Growth.”
...
The basic economic facts from the 1930s—according to the Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve, and other official sources—are fundamentally different from the unsupported claims put forward by Shlaes and prominent in popular myth. The monthly data for industrial production show a near three-year collapse under President Hoover, ending when FDR came to office in March 1933. Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak.

GDP, only available as annual averages, plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932, including by 13.0 percent in 1932. It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. After-tax personal income, consumer spending, real private investment and jobs all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks by late 1936.

In fact, like every decade between 1850 and 1990, the 1930s suffered two distinct downturns. The official U.S. Business Cycle Dating Committee established that the downturn that began in August 1929 ended in March 1933 with the remarkable economic expansion that started within days of FDR’s bold—if trial and error—New Deal programs. By any normal definition, the Great Depression had ended by late 1936, with all major indicators surpassing their previous peaks.

A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

Even in this severe downturn, annual GDP did not fall back below its 1929 peak. And although many suffered and most economic measures did fall back below their 1929 levels, not one fell anywhere close to its March 1933 low. For example, although industrial production fell sharply in the 1937-38 recession, at its low point, in April 1938, it remained 49 percent above its level of March 1933.

When the economy again contracted sharply in late 1937 and early 1938, FDR quickly reversed course and rapid growth immediately began again. GDP soared by 10.9 percent in 1939 and industrial production soared by 23 percent.
...
Like other ideological critics of government, Shlaes sites only two economic indicators of the 1930s: the falling but persistently high unemployment rate and the length of time required for the stock market to recover after its bubble burst. Neither of these is used in any serious economic or policy analysis.
...

I don't see where the article's author is mentioned, at all. What am I missing?

 

[Rogue Valley]

JOE BIDEN seems to be a very UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT, but why?

Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, and all the Trump anti-vaxxer dopes.

 

[The Baron]

JOE BIDEN seems to be a very UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT, but why?

Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, and all the Trump anti-vaxxer dopes.

Your blaming Joe's unpopularity on Republicans?

Seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[Cordelier]

There's no big secret to being a popular President... just don't do anything. The moment you start doing stuff, you only ending up pissing off more people than you please.

 

[Quag]

In reply to the thread title because you listen to right wing media

 

[Rogue Valley]

Your blaming Joe's unpopularity on Republicans?

Seems like a bit of a stretch.

Only to a diehard Trumper.

 

[MTAtech]

I don't see where the article's author is mentioned, at all. What am I missing?

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-new-deal-hurt-the-economy/

 

[The Baron]

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-new-deal-hurt-the-economy/

Thank you. That was helpful.

Now back to the issue at hand.

Yes, the New Deal hurt America. Period. That there is any question about it is still bewildering to me. But do consider:

What History Books Got Wrong About The Great Depression - Grunge

Let's look at some ways the history books, especially the older ones, weren't 100% accurate when looking back on the Great Depression.

www.grunge.com

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected

fee.org

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

www.ff.org

FDR's New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

A groundbreaking study by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian demonstrates that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s excessively pro-labor, anti-competitive New Deal actually prolonged for seven long years the severe economic pain immortalized in John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.”

www.washingtonexaminer.com

There are far more articles, etc. that examine the subject but the consensus seems clear to all but the true-believers. President Reagan was right.
"Government is not the solution to the problem: government is the problem", Inaugural Address - 1981

 

[MTAtech]

Thank you. That was helpful.

Now back to the issue at hand.

Yes, the New Deal hurt America. Period. That there is any question about it is still bewildering to me. But do consider:

What History Books Got Wrong About The Great Depression - Grunge

Let's look at some ways the history books, especially the older ones, weren't 100% accurate when looking back on the Great Depression.

www.grunge.com

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected

fee.org

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

www.ff.org

FDR's New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

A groundbreaking study by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian demonstrates that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s excessively pro-labor, anti-competitive New Deal actually prolonged for seven long years the severe economic pain immortalized in John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.”

www.washingtonexaminer.com

There are far more articles, etc. that examine the subject but the consensus seems clear to all but the true-believers. President Reagan was right.
"Government is not the solution to the problem: government is the problem", Inaugural Address - 1981

I think I, and facts, have undercut the assertion that FDR made the Depression worse. How so? GDP plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932, including by 13.0 percent in 1932. It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. It's difficult to claim that FDR made the economy go down more when his policies made the economy go up.

In any case, the progress was obvious to voters, who elected and re-elected FDR four times in landslide elections.

Faced with the progress, conservatives tried to re-write history because they can't accept that government can be a force to improve people's lives.

The assertions by Cole and Ohanian were discredited.

Cole and Ohanian base their case on a particular macroeconomic theory that has been effectively discredited. Called New Classical theory, it postulates that economic fluctuations are caused by technological factors beyond government control; if there’s a depression, it’s not because of a wave of bank failures or a crisis of confidence, but simply because technological progress slowed down. This sort of model inevitably leads Cole and Ohanian to conclude that any attempt to stabilize the economy with government policy leads to distortions that can only make things worse.

But New Classical theory, which was never plausible to begin with, was long ago debunked both empirically and theoretically as a general description of how recessions work. Recent work by economic historians has found little evidence that changes in the rate of technological progress had any significant impact during the Depression.

Instead, the Great Depression was caused by a deficiency of aggregate demand. Battered by bank failures, asset-price collapses and a general loss of confidence, businesses and consumers chose to hoard their cash rather than spend it. That lack of spending, of course, made the situation worse.

The New Deal attacked this demand gap in several ways. Most important was FDR’s 1933 abandonment of the gold standard. It’s notable that the earlier a country left the gold standard, the faster its economy began to recover: Japan did the best, gold-hoarding France did the worst. When FDR ended the gold standard -- which pegged the value of the dollar to the metal -- and declared his intention to bring prices back up to pre-Depression levels, it helped alleviate the cash shortage that was plaguing the nation. It also raised expectations of recovery and reinflation, which in turn probably helped boost confidence and speed recovery.

The New Deal also used fiscal policy to stimulate growth. FDR built infrastructure across the country, including the famous Tennessee Valley Authority; this not only helped plug the hole in aggregate demand, it provided long-term economic benefits as well. The New Deal also provided work directly through programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Economist Price Fishback, surveying the research literature, concludes that “public works and relief spending…increased consumption activity, attracted internal migration, reduced crime rates, and lowered several types of mortality.” And a large payment to veterans in 1936 stimulated some spending as well.

 

[TheParser]

Why?

Because most people (including those who reputedly voted for him) realize that he is a nothing burger.

He is something like an aging befuddled king.

He is neither loved nor disliked.

Most people are indifferent toward him.

They know he is merely a figurehead who doesn't know what is going on.

They know that the wokers behind the throne are running everything -- right into the ground!

 

[MTAtech]

Why?

Because most people (including those who reputedly voted for him) realize that he is a nothing burger.

He is something like an aging befuddled king.

He is neither loved nor disliked.

Most people are indifferent toward him.

They know he is merely a figurehead who doesn't know what is going on.

They know that the wokers behind the throne are running everything -- right into the ground!

The above is an example of what the right wing projects what Democrats think.

 

[The Baron]

I think I, and facts, have undercut the assertion that FDR made the Depression worse. How so? GDP plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932, including by 13.0 percent in 1932. It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. It's difficult to claim that FDR made the economy go down more when his policies made the economy go up.

In any case, the progress was obvious to voters, who elected and re-elected FDR four times in landslide elections.

Faced with the progress, conservatives tried to re-write history because they can't accept that government can be a force to improve people's lives.

The assertions by Cole and Ohanian were discredited.

Cole and Ohanian base their case on a particular macroeconomic theory that has been effectively discredited. Called New Classical theory, it postulates that economic fluctuations are caused by technological factors beyond government control; if there’s a depression, it’s not because of a wave of bank failures or a crisis of confidence, but simply because technological progress slowed down. This sort of model inevitably leads Cole and Ohanian to conclude that any attempt to stabilize the economy with government policy leads to distortions that can only make things worse.

But New Classical theory, which was never plausible to begin with, was long ago debunked both empirically and theoretically as a general description of how recessions work. Recent work by economic historians has found little evidence that changes in the rate of technological progress had any significant impact during the Depression.

Instead, the Great Depression was caused by a deficiency of aggregate demand. Battered by bank failures, asset-price collapses and a general loss of confidence, businesses and consumers chose to hoard their cash rather than spend it. That lack of spending, of course, made the situation worse.

The New Deal attacked this demand gap in several ways. Most important was FDR’s 1933 abandonment of the gold standard. It’s notable that the earlier a country left the gold standard, the faster its economy began to recover: Japan did the best, gold-hoarding France did the worst. When FDR ended the gold standard -- which pegged the value of the dollar to the metal -- and declared his intention to bring prices back up to pre-Depression levels, it helped alleviate the cash shortage that was plaguing the nation. It also raised expectations of recovery and reinflation, which in turn probably helped boost confidence and speed recovery.

The New Deal also used fiscal policy to stimulate growth. FDR built infrastructure across the country, including the famous Tennessee Valley Authority; this not only helped plug the hole in aggregate demand, it provided long-term economic benefits as well. The New Deal also provided work directly through programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Economist Price Fishback, surveying the research literature, concludes that “public works and relief spending…increased consumption activity, attracted internal migration, reduced crime rates, and lowered several types of mortality.” And a large payment to veterans in 1936 stimulated some spending as well.

That FDR's policies extended the depression is well established and beyond debate. He made things worse. I've already supplied ample citations and so many more exist.

If you wish to exist i your fantasy do it without me.

 

[MTAtech]

That FDR's policies extended the depression is well established and beyond debate. He made things worse. I've already supplied ample citations and so many more exist.

If you wish to exist i your fantasy do it without me.

You are merely repeating your false assertion, that has no more weight than it had the first times you asserted it. Repeating the same thing, without adding actual information, has no additional merit.

 

[Indydave]

Because he's a swamp creature, career politician who has been wrong on almost every issue in his career. His son and quite possibly him, are guilty of influence peddling. He lied to the american votes during his basement campaign. I promise we will end fossil fuels, we will not end fossil fuels, we will end fracking, we will not end fracking. Gets in office and begins killing jobs in fossil fuel industry, 11,000 so far and it will climb as the fallout happens. He doesn't even have a single new green job ready but he sure throws around promises. His Climate Czar said those people who lost those very good paying jobs, should "learn to make better choices in the future". Oil jobs pay about twice what solar jobs average. Open borders at a time where our country is locked down, travel and working, even attending church has been curtailed, but we are admitting a planned million new illegal immigrants across the border. Most of which are not tested for Covid.

oh so he is just like everyone else in Washington.......I get it

 

[mrjurrs]

Q says, "Why would all the SUPERBOWL FANS BOO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN if he really WON the 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...th-method-democrats-used-steal-2020-election/

Because he's a politician?