I thought Republicans cared about the economy

[SuperMatt]

When the vaccines were first approved for emergency use, and millions of people lined up, the economy started to rebound.

Then the vaccination push stalled out due to millions of Republicans refusing to get inoculated.

Now the economy is headed for the doldrums again.

If Republicans REALLY cared about the economy as they claim to, they would have been first in line for vaccines. It turns out caring about “the economy” is just an excuse for GOP politicians to continually create more tax breaks for their wealthy donors. When they have the chance to do something extremely easy to boost the economy, they refuse to.

 

[Pumbaa]

Huh. Easy to ask the elderly to sacrifice (die) for the economy. Hard to sacrifice (get vaccinated) themselves for the economy. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Yoused]

It depends on your definition of "the economy". In terms of a functional social structure, the Republicans really give not a leaping shit, unless it involves increasing the wealth gap and keeping the wrong kind of people from gaining ground. They have somehow convinced a broad swath of the country that they are better for the country than the Democrats, largely because a significant fraction of very wealthy Americans (and foreigners) are pleased to promote Republican policies if it benefits their own bottom line. And it is pretty easy to fleece the public with things like the DJIA and employment statistics, which are easy to see numbers that seem to signal positive things when they move in the preferred direction.

I personally see the market indexes as meaning largely the opposite of what we have been taught. Our socioeconomic system is unsustainable as it is, both socially and ecologically, and the Republicans seek to make it even more unsustainable. Just, stop thinking that "the Republicans care about the economy" (say that out loud until the noun and verb naturally run together to form a different meaning and you will be closer to the mark).

 

[User.45]

When the vaccines were first approved for emergency use, and millions of people lined up, the economy started to rebound.

Then the vaccination push stalled out due to millions of Republicans refusing to get inoculated.

Now the economy is headed for the doldrums again.

If Republicans REALLY cared about the economy as they claim to, they would have been first in line for vaccines. It turns out caring about “the economy” is just an excuse for GOP politicians to continually create more tax breaks for their wealthy donors. When they have the chance to do something extremely easy to boost the economy, they refuse to.

They don't care and they are not good at the economy, It's been an excuse for the past 40 years.

 

[Thomas Veil]

And this is something Democrats should use in 2022 and 2024--that Republicans, by defending their right to spread disease, are hurting American business.

Here's something interesting, too. Republicans (and some Democrats, I'm sure) thought ending jobless benefits would send people scurrying back to look for work. It hasn't turned out that way.

States that ended COVID unemployment benefits early see no boost in job growth — Axios

States that ended federal unemployment benefits earlier this summer saw August job growth at less than half the rate of states that retained the benefits, according to new data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

apple.news

States that ended federal unemployment benefits earlier this summer saw August job growth at less than half the rate of states that retained the benefits, according to new data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now I'll admit that sort of defies common sense...but these are not normal times. I can think of a number of reasons why people are staying away from jobs. Younger people may have gotten used to moving back in with mom and dad. Older people who picked up food service jobs for extra income may have said screw it, it's not worth the risk to my health and life. People in general seem to be waiting for it to become safe to go back to work (a goal that's looking increasingly distant).

I can tell you for sure that at restaurants and grocery stores near me, all the seniors I'm used to seeing there have vanished. I just don't think they want to take the risk.

Of course, some of them may be that part of the workforce that's not available anymore because they've died.

But yeah. Republicans are good for business. Woo-hoo.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Trump showed us they are obsessed with meaningless numbers, but only when said numbers are in their favor.

It’s never really about the economy.

 

[SuperMatt]

Trump showed us they are obsessed with meaningless numbers, but only when said numbers are in their favor.

It’s never really about the economy.

Republicans before the vaccine: Sacrifice Grandpa’s life to get the economy going again!

Republicans after the vaccine: Hell no I’m not gonna get the vaccine! Who cares about getting business going again?

 

[User.45]

Trump showed us they are obsessed with meaningless numbers, but only when said numbers are in their favor.

It’s never really about the economy.

The thing is, GDP has risen significantly more during Democrat presidents than Republicans. The counter argument is that Democrats get elected in recessions. The counter argument of the counter argument is that recessions consistently happen under Republican presidencies.

 

[SuperMatt]

The thing is, GDP has risen significantly more during Democrat presidents than Republicans. The counter argument is that Democrats get elected in recessions. The counter argument of the counter argument is that recessions consistently happen under Republican presidencies.

With Trump and Bush, they started out with tax cuts early in their terms, with no need for stimulus at the time. Then, when they needed that kind of stimulus in the bad times, they already wasted it. These tax cuts were also supposed to magically “pay for themselves” but they did no such thing. And don’t forget that they never raised taxes to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nope, they just ran up the debt.

The truth is, when you cut taxes on the very wealthy, they don’t actually reinvest that money into the economy. They siphon it offshore to protect it, or in the case of corporations, use it for stock buybacks. The tax cuts that might have a chance to “pay for themselves” would be for people that need to spend most of their monthly income to get by. That extra money would probably get spent right away, boosting the economy.

The Bush and Trump tax cuts massively increased the deficit and the national debt. But the Republicans keep playing the same tune, because their mega-rich donors demand it.

 

[GermanSuplex]

The Bush and Trump tax cuts massively increased the deficit and the national debt. But the Republicans keep playing the same tune, because their mega-rich donors demand it.

That, and their voters continually vote for such behavior because culture war wins (which they always lose eventually) are more important. It seems to be a sacrifice they’re willing to make.

 

[Yoused]

The thing is, GDP has risen significantly more during Democrat presidents than Republicans. The counter argument is that Democrats get elected in recessions. The counter argument of the counter argument is that recessions consistently happen under Republican presidencies.

Statistics seem to reflect that the voters generally choose this guy when the perceived trajectory of the economy is positive and that other guy when it is negative. Jimmy Carter was not President during a recession, per se, but the economic situation looked pretty unappealing for a lot of people. The economic situation in '04 looked somewhat shaky, but the the CEO of Diebold Slection Solutions promised to deliver Ohio to W, which was sufficient to tip the EC (and there were some apparent discrepancies between exit polls and reported totals).

Democrats are not elected more than Republicans during times of economic trouble, there is just more of a tendency to switch parties. Which highlights a major downside to a two-party system.

 

[User.45]

Statistics seem to reflect that the voters generally choose this guy when the perceived trajectory of the economy is positive and that other guy when it is negative. Jimmy Carter was not President during a recession, per se, but the economic situation looked pretty unappealing for a lot of people. The economic situation in '04 looked somewhat shaky, but the the CEO of Diebold Slection Solutions promised to deliver Ohio to W, which was sufficient to tip the EC (and there were some apparent discrepancies between exit polls and reported totals).

Democrats are not elected more than Republicans during times of economic trouble, there is just more of a tendency to switch parties. Which highlights a major downside to a two-party system.

I'm not sure if I'm following you. No matter how I look at the numbers, GDP-adjusted debt seems to be consistently better under DEM presidencies, again contrary what the GOP wants to sell us under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

Economic Record: President Carter

Analysis of the economic performance of Jimmy Carter, including GDP, jobs, the stock market, income, debt, and performance relative to other countries

politicsthatwork.com

At the end of the day, the only consistency of single-term presidents is a drop in median household income.

 

[Yoused]

I'm not sure if I'm following you. No matter how I look at the numbers, GDP-adjusted debt seems to be consistently better under DEM presidencies

The key phrase in my assertion is not the literal statistics but "the perceived trajectory of the economy". Which is to say, how the voters feel about the economy and where it is headed, not necessarily what is actually happening.

 

[User.45]

The key phrase in my assertion is not the literal statistics but "the perceived trajectory of the economy". Which is to say, how the voters feel about the economy and where it is headed, not necessarily what is actually happening.

We agree on that for sure. It's time for us to systematically dismantle these perceptions.

Democrats are not elected more than Republicans during times of economic trouble, there is just more of a tendency to switch parties. Which highlights a major downside to a two-party system.

I was confused about this part.

 

[lizkat]

Was a time when GOP beer drinkers might have thrown a hissy fit over Russian cans enclosing their brews. There are still 9 American aluminum smelters but apparently Rusal beat us to the punch with a greener way to wrap metal around a can of Bud.